The union of classical agnosticism and traditional Christianity has produced a more contemporary "middle of road Christianity." This book presents numerous facts about history and theology in an easy to understand manner. It also re-introduces us to the badly misunderstood theology of agnosticism and introduces us to Contemporary Agnosticism. Presented are Jesus' teachings after intense historical and scientific analysis.

Contemporary agnostics consider Jesus a great visionary and wandering sage but no more the son of God than any of us. With that in mind, the reader is urged to appreciate various contemporary religious principles, not because they'll go to a mythical hell if they don't, but because of its positive effect on the individual and society.

Christian history and theology are candidly scrutinized providing the reader with a tremendous amount of reference material.
 

ONLINE BOOK LENGTH: 65 (or so) pages (single space, 8 1/2 X 11)
 

Copyright 1995 & 1997 Aaron Caldwell. (No portion of this book can be used for profit without the written permission of the author..Thank you.)

Aaron Caldwell
Church of Contemporary Agnosticism
P.O. Box 8642
Spokane, WA 99203
e-mail: caldwellaaron@hotmail.com
 

PROLOGUE.......................................................................................................5

1) CHRISTIAN HISTORY & DOCTRINE OF THE UNIVERSE..................7

2) CLASSICAL AGNOSTICISM (History & Definition of)...............................13

3) CONTEMPORARY AGNOSTIC PRINCIPLES............................................18

4) ANTHROPOMORPHISM & THE FEAR OF GOD.......................................22

5) LITTLE KNOWN BIBLICAL DEMANDS......................................................25

6) PARABLES FROM THE HISTORICAL JESUS..............................................33

7) PRAYER & THE AGNOSTIC BELIEVER.......................................................43

8) LIFE AFTER DEATH..........................................................................................47

9) JESUS & THE APOCALYPSE............................................................................52

10) OTHER NOTABLE PEOPLE RELATED TO AGNOSTICISM................not online

APPENDIX 1: The Inquisitions......................................................................................not online

APPENDIX 2: Persecution of Witches.......................................................................not online

APPENDIX 3: Drawings of Christianity's More Than 60 Crosses.............................not online

APPENDIX 4: Major World Religions.....................................................................not online

GLOSSARY.........................................................................................................not online
 

Copyright 1995 & 1998 by Aaron Caldwell
No part of this book may be used for profit without the expressed written permission from the author, thank you.

We live in a new age of Christianity. Old religious barriers have crumbled, leaving in their wake a higher degree of religious tolerance. Christian fundamentalists get much publicity in this day and age but unlike their ancestors for the previous 1,500 years, they are unable to imprison and/or execute people who believe in doctrines unlike their own.

Heresy, blasphemy and apostasy (becoming a Christian then changing your mind) were charges for which MILLIONS were punished. American believers of religious tolerance can patriotically hold their heads up high knowing our Constitution got the ball rolling. Imagine the shock of the world hearing of a western country which actually guaranteed religious freedom. Unheard of. Ridiculous.

While the original, or "classical" agnostics, dared to suggest the Bible was open to interpretation, they didn't have the advantage of discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library (a collection of ancient western religious texts concerning Jesus.) However, recently, scientists and many Biblical scholars, became more willing to take an objective view of Christian history, helping us to better understand what is unproven legend and substantiated claim. For instance, did you know that the legend of the great flood originated with the ancient Sumerians (3250 - 1720 B. C.) It was part of their important Epic of Gilgamesh, written around 2000 B. C. in which a few people survived in a watertight ark. They finally landed on a mountain and gave thanks to their gods for sparing their lives. The universal flood story was passed on for centuries in the Near Eastern region where the Sumerians and later the Hebrews lived. 1

A more objective analysis of Christian history also explained why Jesus' birthday is celebrated on December 25th. Through the third century A.D. another "imported" religion was more popular in Rome than Christianity. It was Mithraism, Christianity's "sister religion," (see appendix 4, "World religions.") The birthday of Mithraism's main God, the sun God Mithra, was for years before the birth of Christ, celebrated on the 25th of December. During that week, Rome held great festivals honoring the arrival of the winter solstice. This celebration was known as "Saturnalia." Saturn, at the time, was the Roman God of agriculture. When the days started getting longer instead of shorter (which occurs at the winter solstice,) legend has it that ancient farmers were so relieved, they celebrated heartily. Often, slaves in Rome were temporarily released to have a good time. Presents were exchanged and there was a lot of drinking. 2

Early Christians probably didn't t know when Jesus' birthday was. They may have felt "when something works, don't fix it" and began also celebrating Jesus' birthday on the 25th of December.

Much dealing with Christianity has changed in the last 1900 years, but much hasn't. On one extreme, Christianity continues to have the fundamentalist or "classical" perspective, on the other extreme, atheism. Believers in the "classical" Christian perspective assert that Christian truth was revealed to the masses via a revelation from God through Jesus Christ. It was, and is, communicated to man via scripture and the authority of the church. As the contemporary agnostic will readily admit that mankind didn't create itself, the obvious then is that "something else" must have. For lack of a more specific term, that "something else" can be called God. While the contemporary agnostic (also known as the agnostic believer) and most classical agnostics believe in the existence of God, both assert that mankind knows little if anything of what God really is and wants. The original agnostics demanded (as contemporary agnostics do) proof before believing in religious assertions. This demand for proof limited the number of prevailing religious doctrines they could accept. This was an obvious threat to theism (people who believe in everything or almost everything their culture's holy scripture claim.) The church responded by purposely associating agnosticism with atheism, taking the attitude of "if you're not with us you're against us."

No matter what the theist may say, agnostic believers (AB for short) are not atheists. Throughout history, the prevailing religious forces have regularly changed the definition of atheism in an attempt to create a new definition. Their definition would read, "someone who doesn't believe in our definition of what God is and wants." The fact is, the AB sees a great deal of evidence pointing to the existence of God and certainly no proof that God doesn't exist. The Romans executed well over 100,000 Christians on charges directly related to "atheism." (The 20 million Soviets killed and the 6 million Jews killed during the WW II time period dwarfs that 100,000 figure but remember during the early Christian's day there were a great deal fewer people on the planet.) Most people think the Romans killed so many Christians because the Christians didn't worship the Roman gods and the Romans considered that blasphemy against the Roman state. While that in itself is true, the persecution instead was due to the mistaken Roman belief that if all people in the Roman Empire didn't worship and acknowledge the Roman gods, the Roman gods would bring Rome misfortune. This is why Christian persecutions often increased during times of trouble in the empire. Put another way, though the Romans considered Christians atheists, what they feared most was the wrath of their gods for allowing these "atheists" in their midst.

No matter how many falsehoods the theist has spread about agnosticism, it has survived quite well over the decades and is a theology to be reckoned with. An international poll of most western countries taken in the early 90's, asked people their religion. 17% wrote agnostic. 3 How many millions of acknowledged agnostics are there in the US alone? No one knows for sure. In addition, how many more Americans lean towards agnosticism and don't realize it? Millions more probably.

This book has been written to give a better understanding of both the agnostic and contemporary agnostic theologies. The theistic religion most discussed is Christianity. This is not because Christianity is better than other religions but because (1) agnosticism was developed in response to orthodox Christianity, (2) the theology of agnosticism is most prevalent in Christian dominated cultures and (3) because Jesus was not only a great teacher but the religious visionary western civilization is most familiar with.

Reference information on Christianity will be provided to help us better understand how and why contemporary agnosticism and its grandfather, agnosticism, developed. We'll gain a better understanding of contemporary agnostic principles by discussing this theology's position on key religious doctrines such as the fear of God, the apocalypse, life after death and prayer. To aid in this process, the reader is encouraged to take advantage of the glossary and several appendixes in the back.

This publication will use the power of knowledge and history to explore theology. Facts generally are presented from the standpoint of science and history rather than from the standpoint of faith. This book won't spend a great deal of time with drawn out essays. Instead, one point will be clarified concisely so the reader can move on to another. In this publication, the "Jesus of faith," which for so many centuries was unquestioned, will give way to the more likely "Jesus of history." We'll utilize a perspective of Jesus that has been intensely scrutinized by scientific and historically oriented research methods. In doing so, we hope to provide a better understanding of what this wondrous sage and visionary had to offer mankind.

This more scrutinized perspective of the life and teachings of Jesus began emerging in 1906 when Nobel Prize winner Albert Schweitzer (also known as a great doctor and humanitarian) wrote "Quest Of The Historical Jesus." Research on the subject of a historically more accurate Jesus has dramatically increased in the last 30 years. As well as being called "the Jesus of history," this perspective is also referred to as "the historically more accurate Jesus," and "the historical Jesus." More than 100 biblical scholars, researchers and professor participated in this scientific research. Almost all of these scholars have P. h Ds. or the theological equivalent. What they found was a better understanding of the founding prophet of Christianity and what this man of great wisdom said.

We look forward to offering a refreshing approach to the religion which today is the most practiced in the world.
 

Chapter Two

People often approach the history of Christianity as they do driving. They learn it once then assume they always know it. There's much about this religion which people either never knew or have forgotten. With that in mind, let's briefly recap the chronicle of Jesus, the early Christians and the Bible.

In 63 B.C., Roman General Pompey conquered Palestine.

After this bloody conquest, frustrated Hebrew priests began prophesying that a great spiritual leader would arise to liberate the battle weary Jewish people. Many declared themselves to be the messiah and began prophesying at markets and on street corners. Many "false Christs" sprang up. Some developed a following, most did not.

Jesus started his ministry after visiting, and being baptized by, the popular John the Baptist. John prophesied that Jesus was the messiah.

Jesus' ministry was successful, primarily on the strength of his reputation for doing miracles.

Against the advice of his disciples, Jesus went to Jerusalem and, tragically, was crucified outside the city. A few days later, probably in Galilee, his disciples and others, claimed Jesus had risen from the dead and urged them to continue spreading his word.

The first several generations of Christians were largely driven on by their fanatical certainty of an impending "Judgment Day." They needed to spread the word to as many people as possible and as fast as possible. This burning desire provided much needed drive. Jewish authorities proved uninterested in them and often hostile, so they began increasingly spreading the word to non-Jewish people in the surrounding provinces and beyond.

The first post-Jesus Christian leader was St. Peter, which is one reason why the pope is said to have "St. Peter's chair." Around 44 AD, it appears James, probably a relative of Jesus, became leader. 1 These very early Christians were called "Jewish Christians" and still wholeheartedly considered themselves Jewish. That, however, was about to change. In 66 AD, the Jews revolted against Roman occupation. Though Jewish leaders asked for their aid in the revolt, the "Jewish Christians" refused and fled Jerusalem. The Jewish priests felt betrayed and became more hostile towards the new "Jewish Christians." The Jewish revolt was brutally crushed by 70 AD, but a serious rift had been created between the two religions.

The fleeing Jewish Christians were now in several places, and, unlike before, in mostly gentile areas. Their numbers were growing fast. They began being called just "Christian" instead of "Jewish Christian."

A good deal of this phenomenal Christian growth was due to the efforts of a man named Saul. We know him as St. Paul. Initially he hated Christians, torturing and probably killing several. 2 But after having a dream or vision, he traveled a great deal, preaching the Christian word. Several of his letters to new, fledgling Christian churches are included in the New Testament.

St. Peter took his following to Rome and became the first Bishop of Rome. He held services where the Vatican is now.

Very difficult times lay ahead for early Christians. Many Christians and Jews wouldn't worship both their God and the gods of Rome. Rome considered this treasonous and atheistic. That changed in 312 A.D. when Roman Emperor Constantine had a dream or vision that if he rode with the sign of a cross into a coming battle, he would win. He did and won. Constantine then decreed tolerance for Christianity. (Please note that there are at least 64 Christian crosses. These are displayed in appendix 4. The cross Constantine wore into battle didn't look anything like the cross as we know it. It was "Constantine's Cross," also shown in appendix 4. Also remember that Christianity didn't become the Roman empire's official religion until late in that century. Constantine in 312 only decreed "tolerance" for it. Constantine himself didn't get baptized until on his deathbed. In those days, and for by far the history of Christianity, you simply weren't Christian {except in special cases} unless you were baptized.)

We skip past the rigid Middle and Dark Ages, stopping at 1382. Few people could read enough to understand a book. Books and education were for the clergy and rich. Western Bibles were mostly in Greek or Latin, both being languages the common man knew little or nothing of. Though it may be hard to image, unlike today, Bibles were rarely ever read by Christians. They listened to the priest who told them what God wanted and that was that. An event in 1382 would change all this.

In that year, Englishman John Wycliffe and his followers, translated the first Bible into the English language. A revised version came out in 1388. Suddenly the scriptures were available to millions because Englishmen could read English, but not the church's official languages, Latin or Greek. New preachers sprang up and the Catholic Church, still firmly in command, became quite agitated. Archbishop Arundel (leader of Catholic England,) in 1412 , spoke of Wycliffe in this way: "that wretched and pestilent fellow of damnable memory...the very herald and child of anti-Christ, who crowned his wickedness by translating the scriptures into the mother tongue."4 A church council in the early 15th century decreed "no one shall in the future translate on his own authority any text of holy scriptures into the English tongue--nor shall any man read this kind of book, booklet or treaties, now recently composed in the time of the said John Wycliffe or later, or any that shall be composed in future, in whole or part, publicly or secretly, under penalty of the greater excommunication." (Back then, excommunication was considered a far greater penalty than it is now.) 4

The first Bible to be printed by the revolutionary movable type printing press was the Gutenburg Bible. Q surviving Gutenburg Bible can be worth a million dollars. But the printing of these historical masterpieces left Mr. Gutenberg bankrupt. He died destitute. 5

In 1611, the most influential English Bible came out, "The King James Version," from which most of the versions we have today originate. Bible readers might be interested to know that the wording in a Bible reflects the language of when it was translated into English, not when the New Testament originally was compiled, roughly 1800 years ago. For instance, Exodus 34:17 from the King James Version reads "Thou shalt make thee no molten Gods." This literally is how most English people, particularly the more academically inclined, spoke in the late 1500s and very early 1600's when the King James Version was written.
 

After Alexander the Great's conquest of the Eastern Mediterranean in 332 B.C., Greek became the dominate scholarly language of the Holy Lands. There exists no scientifically verifiable information as to what Jesus said during his lifetime. Thus, it's thought the first accounts of Jesus' life and teachings were oral. Since Greek was the area's "official" written language, the first written language of the New Testament, once compiled was Greek. Because Jesus was born a Hebrew and lived in the land of the Hebrews, the languages he and his followers spoke would have been Hebrew and/or its related language, Aramaic. Thus, Jesus had a Hebrew/Aramaic name at birth. That name is Yehoshua, or Yeshu for short. One rendering of Yehoshua is Joshua. The Greek translation of Yehoshua (Joshua) is Jesus. 6 It's doubtful Jesus was ever called "Jesus" while alive. This is primarily because his followers were Hebrew and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not Greek. Years later, when Greek writers were writing and compiling the New Testament, they translated his Hebrew name of Yehoshua into the Greek name Jesus. 7 It's probable that Jesus was also never called "Christ" while alive. Since he was Hebrew, and lived primarily in Hebrew lands, he most likely was called "Hammasiah" (Hebrew) or "Mesima" (Aramaic) by his followers. "Ho Christos" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word mashiakh. It means "an anointed one." Over the years, "Ho Christos" was shortened to "Christ." The word "Bible" is the English translation of the Latin word for "books," "biblia." Thus, the term "Bible" wasn't a popular word until well after the 14th century when the Latin Bible was translated into English.

Archaeologists have discovered 20 partial or complete very early Christian gospels, though many are Gnostic (see glossary) in origin. The most significant of these new discoveries may be the Gospel of Thomas which was written before either of the four familiar gospels in the Bible. Nobody is sure why the four familiar gospels were chosen and how. In fact, three or more of these 20 recently discovered gospels or remnants of gospels, are thought to be written before the four gospels in the Bible. 8

Perhaps you've heard the assertion that Luke was a doctor who traveled with St. Paul. Another claim is that Mark was a secretary of St. Peter. Confusing matters though is that there is no scientifically verifiable evidence for these legends. It appears much more likely that they're literally lore which was handed down from earlier Christian generations. In fact, there is great question as to whether the texts were written entirely by individuals. Collections of priests and worshipers probably wrote most or all of the gospels. 9

The Epistles are the oldest part of the New Testament and 1 Thessalonians is its oldest book dating back to around 49 A.D. The earliest of the four traditional gospels is Mark. It was written between 65 and 70 A.D. This gospel apparently originated in Rome where the writer or writers were urging on the terribly persecuted Christians. Roman emperor and first class psychopath, Nero, had blamed the Christians for Rome's gigantic fire of 64 A.D. Terrible persecutions of Christians resulted.

Around 85-95 A.D., the Gospel of Luke appeared, probably to convince authority that Christianity was the new Judaism and should be treated better. The Gospel of Matthew was written around 90 A.D. Its primary function was to provide a compilation of Jesus' work. The Gospel of John was written around l00-110 A.D. and is intended to deny the interpretation of Jesus work by the "heretical" Gnostics and others. 10

The first "heretics" in Christian history actually speeded up the compilation of the New Testament. This "alternative approach" Christianity was preached by the Gnostics (not related to the agnostics.)

There were Jewish Gnostics and Christian Gnostics. The branch of Christianity which survives and prospers today, though, was primarily concerned with it's fast growing competition, the Christian Gnostics. (Around the middle of the 2nd century, roughly 25 to 35% of all Christians were Gnostic.) 11 These followers of Christ felt that everything on earth is evil and the only salvation for man is for his soul to reach heaven. As part of its extreme fatalism, procreation, marriage and birth were abhorred. Orthodox Gnostics even felt being female was a curse as females physically brought us low life humans into this dark, miserable world. They were quite anti-Semitic and had a difficult time using the Jewish Bible (the Christian Old Testament) so one of their leaders, Marcion, in 140 A.D., collected a number of very early Christian writings, making changes in the text where he saw fit, put them together and formed a smaller "New Testament. (They were the first to use the term "New Testament.") 12 This Gnostic competition, and the enormous growth both branches of Christianity were experiencing, gave the non-Gnostic Christians incentive to speed up work on their own New Testament.

A great number of discrepancies between New Testament manuscripts have been found. One Biblical scholar in 1707 estimated there were around 30,000. 13 Generally the discrepancies are very minor. One which may not be deals with Mark 6:3. This verse describes Jesus as "the carpenter, son of Mary." However, Origen (died 254 A.D.,) one of the best Biblical scholars of his time, claims he never saw a manuscript which read "carpenter" but saw instead Jesus was "the son of a carpenter." 14 (Most modern day Bible scholars think that due largely to where Jesus lived much of his early adult life, he did what around half the people did in that area which was working in stone quarries and/or being a stone mason. Few Biblical scholar still think he was a carpenter.) Another deals with the inspirational parables of the adulteress brought to Jesus for punishment (John 8:1-11.) It doesn't appear in any early texts Biblical scholars are aware of. It does have the character of Jesus so its addition to the New Testament is well accepted. 15

By 180 A.D., the New Testament was mostly written and compiled. At present, the Bible has been at least partially translated into more than 1,200 languages. A count taken in 1977 found 36 English versions of the Bible and 1399 non-English versions. 16
 

Now that we have reviewed its history, let's continue by briefly summarizing classical Christian doctrines about God and the universe.

1. God has always existed and always will. He has absolute knowledge of the past, present, and the future--and lives in a place called heaven where he rules the universe. In heaven are many angels and the souls of good people that God has allowed to enter its gates.

2. Many years in the past, God created an angel named Lucifer. Lucifer was blessed with great beauty. His job was to guard God's throne. Lucifer was the second most powerful force in the entire universe.

3. Lucifer, however, had higher ambitions than just being the second most powerful force in the universe. Motivated by greed and a big ego, Lucifer decided to reject the laws of God and try a coup in heaven. He gathered a number of angels as supporters and they tried to overthrow God but were unsuccessful. God threw Lucifer out of heaven, along with the other angels who supported him.

4. God decided to punish Lucifer and the fallen angels, so he created a lake of eternal fire to torment them and anyone else who, in the future, might choose to rebel. We know this "lake of fire" as "hell." Lucifer, (whose name then changed to Satan,) and the other "misguided" angels will get cast into hell on the great Judgment Day, which has yet to come.

5. God created man and placed him in the Garden of Eden. God created much animal and plant life for the garden. God gave the first two people he created, Adam and Eve, everything they could possibly want in life. God gave Adam and Eve free choice to serve him or to reject him as their Lord. God made it clear he would continue to provide for them as long as the first couple followed his laws. To test Adam and Eve and their offspring, should they bear children, God created within the Garden of Eden a tree from which he commanded them not to eat. God told them that if they eat the fruit from that special tree, they would die, both spiritually and physically.

6. Satan found out about this. He wanted man to sin. He wanted man to rebel against God as he did. Satan, in the form of a snake, approached Eve and told her that the tree which God had declared off-limits bore the Garden's best fruit. At first Eve refused to listen to Satan but later tried the fruit anyway. Eve also talked Adam into eating the apple. They now had sinned against the word of God. God knew this had happened. He came to the Garden and in a rage threw them out. As continued punishment, he gave to women terrible pain during childbirth. As punishment to man, he said that man must work all the days of his life.

7. Because of Adam and Eve's sin (known as "Original Sin,") all of humanity was condemned. In his continued rage, God promised to punish all future humans by sending them to the lake of fire (hell) after death even if they had been good all their lives. Mankind was powerless to do anything but accept its terrible fate.

8. Thousands of years later, God decided to take pity on his human creation. He sent his only son, Jesus Christ, to give man a second chance to get into heaven. God impregnated Jesus' mother Mary in a manner which kept her virginity intact. God said that the blood Jesus shed on the cross would be enough for mankind to atone for its sins and thus be allowed in heaven after which individual souls would regain their original sinless status.

9. However, God said that for people to take advantage of this unusual and special outpouring of love by their Creator, they must personally request it by accepting Jesus and his teachings. This includes asking God to forgive them for their own sins and their ancestor's sins (Adam and Eve's "Original Sin" and any sins their direct ancestors made for the last three or four generations.) After individuals do that, God will pardon them, thus making it possible for the converted to go to heaven after death and stay for eternity.

10. Those who reject the Son of God as their Savior, those who belong to most other religions, those who didn't know of this option for salvation and those who don't take any position one way or the other, will not be pardoned for the "Original Sin," their past family's sins and their own sins and thus will be cast in the lake of fire, tormented forever. (This position would centuries later be amended to include the Hebrew Patriarchs of the Old Testament, babies that died before baptism and the handicapped.)
 

Deserving special attention is paragraph 7 in which God in his fury sent almost everybody to hell from the time of Adam and Eve to the time of Jesus' ministry. Thus, if you use the Biblical time frame to determine the number of years mankind has existed (around 6,000), all humans went to hell, no matter what, for around 4,000 years. (Again this position would be amended centuries later to include around 1 or 2% of mankind's population.) This includes all the ancient Greeks,

It is important to remember that during the time period that the New Testament was being written and compiled, in Rome, the Greek and Roman gods, as well as Mithra were much more popular than Jesus.

ATTIS: A Mesopotamian (Phrygian) god. His mother, the goddess Ishtar, bore him after only swallowing an almond or pomegranate seed. Later, when the Roman and Greeks absorbed him into their religions, Attis' mother became Aphrodite (called Venus by the Roman priests.) Aphrodite maintained her virginity by giving birth to him through her side.

BUDDHA: Tradition has it that Buddha, born in 563 BC., came from a virgin birth.

DANAE: Zeus (called Jupiter by the Roman priests) turns himself into a "shower of gold" to impregnate Danae.

HERA: Wife of Zeus, gave virgin birth to Typhon (a monster who fought the gods.) She also gave virgin birth to the more politically correct Greek god of fire and craft making, Hephaestus.

IO: Zeus turns himself into a cloud and had sex with IO (from which she became pregnant.)

MARS: The very important Roman god of war. The Romans believed that his mother, the Roman goddess Juno, conceived him after being impregnated by a flower.

MITHRA: See Appendix four for more information on Mithraism, "Christianity's sister religion." Mithra had a virgin birth of a sort, he was said to be born from the "rock of a cave" while shepherds and many Magi looked on. (Remember Mithraism was already fairly popular in Rome before Jesus was even born.)

RA (RE): The Egyptian sun god. He made himself pregnant (asexually) then gave birth to air and moisture.

TARCHETIUS' MAIDSERVANT: As part of Roman religion, Tarchetius, King of the Albans, sees an apparition of a phallus rise out of the fireplace and stay there several days. Roman priests told him a virgin must have sex with the apparition. A maidservant or slave is forced to, and bore twins.

TIAMAT: One of Babylonian religion's first two gods. She gave virgin birth to many gods of the Mesopotamia.

It may be interesting to note that the word "virgin" in both Hebrew (almah) and Greek (parthenos) means a mature young woman and not necessarily a woman who has never had intercourse. Where it is written in Isaiah 7:14, "behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," (the Old Testament parable which asserts that the coming Messiah will be of virgin birth,) literally it does not specify that the "virgin" mother would in fact never previously had had intercourse. It might be prophesizing that a younger woman would be the mother rather than a middle aged woman.

While much of this doctrine on God and the universe originated with the Old Testament and Judaism, a great deal of it originated during the post-Jesus early years of Christianity. This perspective of Jesus' assertions are that of the more mythical, scientifically shunned "Jesus of faith." As we touched on in the prologue, contemporary agnosticism incorporates a significantly different perspective of the prophet of Christianity, the more probable and realistic "Jesus of history." It's important to remember though that the doctrine of God and universe just presented were infallible and unquestioned for the great majority of Christianity's history. Many readers would be at least shocked to find out how many people were persecuted and killed because of our past's religious zeal. Throughout the years though some very brave people disagreed and began believing in other faiths and theologies. Let's now get to know one of those theologies better...Agnosticism.
 

Chapter Two

Now that we better understand classical Christianity, let's investigate classical agnosticism.

If you think you lean towards agnosticism, you're in pretty notable company. People who have publicly declared themselves agnostic include:
Charles Darwin
Andrew Carnegie
W.C. Fields
Bertrand Russell
Clarence Darrow

A number of history's famous people can be considered agnostic. Many however lived prior to the word and concept's official introduction. Sadly though, for those who lived in the agnostic-rich Victorian age of England, to be labeled anything but a classical Christian could be very bad for their reputations.

Agnosticism comes from one of the earliest of all Greek philosophies, skepticism.

Skepticism states that due to the limitation of human knowledge, or limitations in collecting and analyzing knowledge, all declarations of certainty should be in question. Democritus (460-370 B.C.) is usually considered the first "official" skeptic of Western Civilization. The Sophists (5th and 4th century B.C.; see glossary) were the first established group of Skeptics. Later, Plato's Academy turned skepticism into an official school position. The Greek philosopher, Pyrrho (365-275 B.C.,) later developed ancient history's best school of skepticism. He held a more extreme position claiming that reality can't be fully understood and that delaying judgment on all knowledge was the best position. Arcesilaus (315-241 B.C.,) also Greek, insisted that only probable knowledge is obtainable. Sextus Empiricus, a Roman, wrote a famous set of "rules" for putting off judgment. Sextus' works remain man's largest source of ancient literature about skepticism. The publication of his long lost works started in 1569. They have influenced philosophy ever since.

There were no voices related to agnosticism during the "Christian Centuries" (roughly 500 A.D. to 1300 A.D.,) although that's not the case during and after the Renaissance. Later, during what many call the Modern Philosophical Era, Pierre Bayle, David Hume and Immanuel Kant led the way.

The positions of the earliest skeptic's are usually considered too extreme. What's the point of researching something when you can't have confidence in the answer---ever?

Before the great leaders of classical agnosticism were even born, Immanuel Kant was busy becoming one of history's most acclaimed philosophers. He taught philosophy, logic, metaphysics (back then, the term "Metaphysics" meant the study of philosophy and religion from a more academic perspective. After modern science left its adolescence, the study of metaphysics became more oriented to the occult.) and science at the University of Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia.) His book "Critique of Practical Reason" (1781) is often considered the most influential philosophical work in modern history. l So controversial was his work that after a later book, the country he lived in, Prussia, banned him from publishing anything concerning religion.

Among other things, Kant felt that the existence of God can't be proven or denied by the use of reason. He wrote that reason is limited to experience or possible experience and God exceeds all possible experience. Kant had faith in God's existence mostly because he couldn't explain the existence of life any other way.

So there you have it, the stage has been set for a new theology. But it needed a spark. It got that spark in 1858.

The Bampton lectures were a British Christian institution since 1780. Christian theists lectured there quite unmemorably until a respected, ranking Church official, Henry Mansel, took the podium. He would, for many Sundays, explain his work "The Limits Of Religious Thought." The lectures were a smashing success. Intellectuals and laymen piled into the church to listen to some really new and exciting stuff.

Mansel asserted that science and the philosophy of Positivism (see glossary) should not conflict with Holy Scripture. Mansel, as to be expected of a ranking church official, felt very strongly in favor of the sanctity of Biblical scripture. He then gave his novel defense for the Church's position.

As man is subject to limitations and has a mind that's molded by experience, man's capacity for knowledge is limited. God and the transcendent (the unexplainable) are not within man's limits of experience and thus are unknowable. Because of this, scientists had no business criticizing infallible Christian doctrines. These doctrines after all were developed by something (God) which is beyond the limits of human knowledge.

Back in the 1850's, modern science was in its adolescence. There was no serious demand for scientists as a trade and it generally wasn't what you told your parents you wanted to be when you grew up! Most lay people weren't entirely sure what a scientist did and often viewed these "scientists" with suspicion. Back then, scientists were usually from the upper class. Often that was because only they could afford the experiments. It's in this time period that being a middle-class scientist began becoming more acceptable. The agnostics were in the forefront of the fight, helping to lead the way for science to become as respected as it is today.

Mansel, quite inadvertently, had presented the public with a religious perspective which would spur on science and begin the agnostic faith. Much to his and the church's dismay, his speeches began a major English drive to obtain knowledge and question the status quo of the universe. Since a respected member of the church originated this concept, fears that the God-fearing Victorian masses would reject it as heretical, were lessened. If you're a strictly Biblically oriented classical Christian, frankly you have every reason to be mad at Mansel, but if you believe in the validity of science, he's a little known hero.

The English biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895,) attended and enthusiastically recommended Mansel's lectures to others. He would later coin the term "Agnosticism" and become one of its founding fathers. At the time though, the other founding father of agnosticism, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903,) was accumulating ideas for his first book.

A former railroad engineer, freelance journalist and editor, the introverted Spencer set about writing his own scientific analysis of life or in his words, a "system of knowledge." He called this extensive "system of knowledge," "Synthetic Philosophy." The first sections of the book were released in 1860 (it would come out in several installments between 1860 and 1862.) The first volume of this compilation was entitled "First Principles." Despite suffering from many nervous health disorders including serious insomnia, this compilation of work called "System of Synthetic Philosophy" would earn him a place on the growing list of Victorian era intellectuals.

Agnosticism was now well past its embryonic stage.

Even before Mansel's revelations and "First Principles," Spencer had written in a letter "that the existence of a Deity (see glossary) can neither be proved nor disapproved." 2 Not surprising then is that "First Principles" is the first publication to discuss the theology later be called Agnosticism. Victorian intellectuals would generally consider "First Principles" to be the agnostic Bible.

Before continuing, it's important to describe the intellectual environment of 1860 Victorian England. The intellectual and scientific world was on fire as never before. Something revolutionary had just happened, something that would change the world. A year earlier, Charles Darwin had published his phenomenal book, "The Origin Of The Species."

It's difficult for us today to fully grasp how controversial it was back then. Everybody was talking about it and the church was blasting it. Darwinism would ignite revolutions in science and philosophy which are still being felt today. (It might be interesting to note that the two founding fathers of classical agnosticism, Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer, were also among Darwinism's most vocal and ardent supporters.) Darwin himself declared himself to be agnostic but was not active promoting the faith. 3 Charles Darwin even sent his colleague and good friend Thomas Huxley, a pre-publication copy of his "The Origin Of The Species" for Huxley to edit. Never before did science have a theory and so much evidence with which to argue against an accepted doctrine of the church (Creationism.)

But back to Herbert Spencer. His work introduced to the world a concept which classical agnosticism would become famous for, that God is "The Unknowable." In fact, the first section of "First Principles" was named "The Unknowable."

Spencer's conception of God was not anthropomorphic (making God out to have a human personality.) Instead he considered anthropomorphism to be underestimating God. He also had great respect for God, referring to God as "Infinite and Eternal Energy" or "Absolute." He considered God to be an impersonal, obscure, and impossible to understand entity.

Said Spencer: "To say that we cannot know the Absolute {God}, is, by implication, to affirm that there is an absolute. In the very denial of our power to learn what the Absolute is, there lies hidden the assumption that it is." 4

Spencer also said: "It is above all things needful that the people should be impressed with the truth that the philosophy (later to be named Agnosticism} offered to them does not necessitate a divorce from their inherited conceptions concerning religion and mortality, but merely a purification and exaltation of them." 5

As the Victorian years progressed, science became freer to explain the world from its standpoint. It also became less interested in the supernatural. After science began to better answer many questions which were previously relegated only to the church, religion's explanations of physics lost a good deal of credibility. Religion instead began concentrating more and more on what it thought God was and wanted. This remains true today.

Spencer was not the only scientist fighting for survival in those dark early years. Another scientist/philosopher would be fighting on the side of science even harder than Spencer. And, as fate would have it, he was the other founding father of Agnosticism.

Even though Spencer was the first to publish and publicly argue agnostic principles, he is less remembered than the other founder of Agnosticism, Thomas H. Huxley.

Like his very close friend and associate Charles Darwin, Huxley was a biologist. Both went on long voyages during which they studied biology. Like Darwin, Huxley studied, analyzed and categorized life forms during his journey. They met and began sharing ideas in 1851. Though Huxley didn't initially believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, he quickly changed his mind and became Darwin's most ardent and vocal supporter. No matter what else would have happened in Huxley's life, his chance meeting with Darwin, and the actions he took because of it, would have made him famous. But Thomas Huxley would also help develop a theology still appreciated today, Agnosticism.

Huxley says that by age 15 he no longer supported theism (something quite unusual in those days for someone his age.) By 1850, he had developed what would be the basis of his agnostic beliefs. "Thanks to Hamilton and Mill," he said, "the fundamental principles of what is now understood as Agnosticism were clearly fixed in my mind when, in 1850 returned to England with a well-studied copy of Mill's "Logic." 6 Kant and Hume would become more and more important to him as he developed his theology.

Huxley based his theology on Kant's claim that man's intelligence is subject to limitations. His position was that any claim of having certain knowledge of God, (or in his words, "The Divine Governor") or what God wanted, should not be taken seriously until scientific proof of that claim was available. As the origin of scripture is so vague, he rejected it as evidence.

The Christian theological world took this as an insult because (1) they were being questioned and (2) they were (and still are) sure they had the right answers. (It should be noted that that while a very large number, if not the majority of scientists today, tend to be more atheistic or agnostic in their theological outlook, back in Huxley and Spencer's time, most scientists were much more classically Christian in their outlook.)

Though classical agnostics and theists were not, shall we say, best of friends, Huxley was sincere in searching for a religion which met the requirements of science. He, like other classical agnostics, accused the theists of not exploring and examining the physical world seriously enough. To him, science could act as a purifier of religion, helping it discard outdated concepts and assertions. However, the church, already reeling from this "evolution thing" was not about to accept any more dissent. Huxley put it this way:

"If the religion of the present differs from that of the past. it is because the theology of the present has become more scientific than that of the past; because it has not only renounced idols of wood and idols of stone, but begins to see the necessity of breaking in pieces the idols built up of books and traditions and fine-spun ecclesiastical cobwebs." 7

Even if Huxley had never been associated with agnosticism, he still would have angered the church tremendously for being the world's most vocal evolutionist, more so even than Darwin. One might describe Huxley as Darwin's "press secretary." If you believe in evolution, other than Darwin, the person most responsible for its success, is Huxley. He's also considered to have been one of the most distinguished scientists in British history. He tried to promote the acceptance of science in any way he could. He also got great exposure, being regularly featured at lectures and in magazines.

At one of the many forums he attended concerning religion and evolution, Huxley sat through an anti-evolution speech by the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce. At the end of the speech, Mr. Wilberforce asked Huxley sarcastically whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he was descended from a monkey. The listeners waited in suspense as Huxley rose to make his rebuttal:

"A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel ashamed in recalling, it would rather be a man--a man of restless and versatile intellect who, not content with a success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric." 8

It was speculated that Huxley thought of the term "Agnosticism" from Acts 17:23 in the New Testament in which St. Paul says: "As I walk around looking at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, To a God Unknown. " In Greek, which was the language of the original New Testament, this translates to "agnostic theo."

Huxley denied that this verse is how he got the idea for the name.

"Agnostic' came into my mind as a fit antithesis to gnostic-the gnostics being those ancient heretics who professed to know most about those things of which I am quite sure I know nothing." 9

In the eyes of Victorian scholars, Spencer's doctrine of "the unknowable" bonded well with Huxley's views. They also had a close personal friendship until-late in their lives. Spencer publicly accepted the name of Agnosticism for the bulk of his religious views. There are indications that in their later years, each had some disagreements as to specifics of the other's form of agnosticism.

Of the two, Huxley was most saddened by losing the comfort of blind theism (believing entirely and without question all of what one's culture's holy scriptures say.) While Huxley felt that the classical Christian concept of God was "incorrect," he still maintained that it "is nearer the truth than the creed of some agnostics who conceive of no unifying principle in the world." 10

It was true back then and remains true today. After careful analysis of their theological beliefs, a number of people who thought they were and/or presently are, agnostics were and/or presently are actually atheists and visa versa. In addition, if a number of past and present theists were to more carefully scrutinize their religious stands, they would discover (or have discovered) they at least lean toward agnosticism. In many cases, people throughout their lives considered themselves to be in one category, then years or even months later changed their views to another. If you're wondering whether you're oriented toward agnosticism or atheism, remember the key difference between the two. Agnostics generally believe in the existence of God, atheists don't.

While most agnostics kept a low profile, the famous agnostics met regularly. Often this was for unrelated, usually scientifically oriented functions. In the late 1800's, an agnostic "temple" was formed, though not all the notable agnostics attended it. In 1864, agnostics Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall (Tyndall is described in chapter 9, "Other Notable People Related to Agnosticism,") started the "X-Club." It was an informal group of people interested primarily in sharing information related to science. It grew to be one of the most powerful scientific influences in the world. They would meet once a month for 20 years between October and June.

The Metaphysical Society, founded in 1869, was highly regarded even by the church. This highly prestigious organization met nine times a year and important religious and philosophical questions were addressed from all points of view. Said Huxley, in retrospect "Every variety of Philosophical and Theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness." 11 It was there that Huxley felt it necessary to name his faith, since when it came time to discuss his theological view, he had no name for it.

Many historians claim there was (and still is) too much denial of spiritual knowledge in classical agnosticism, knowledge that theists say they have. People by nature, prefer faiths and philosophies which can give immediate answers. The original agnostics felt mankind just plain won't ever know what that phenomenal force, God, wants and is. Also, much to the chagrin of churches and other faith based groups, they demanded proof of any concept related to spirituality and religion, before advocating it.

If it's your opinion that God must exist since we didn't create the universe; if you feel the Bible, or any other work physically written by human beings, are not to be blindly considered the expressed, undeniable doctrine of the incredible power that created us, then you are, most likely, agnostic or at least lean towards agnosticism. At the same time, if (1) you think the much more likely "Jesus of history" versus the "Jesus of faith," the Jesus researched and analyzed from a more scientific and historical perspective, can provide inspiration, and (2) you feel there are Christian and other religion's messages which have proven themselves to be worthy of support, we hope you'll read on and better acquaint yourself with Contemporary Agnosticism.
 

Chapter Three

Why does a sweet, pretty young girl die the miserable death of leukemia? Why were you or perhaps someone you know, one of the 40,000 people who are injured each year in skiing accidents? l Why did the brush fire spare somebody's house who had fire insurance but not the person who didn't?

When you pray for something and it doesn't work out, are you supposed to feel rejected? Perhaps you pronounced the words wrong?

The conquistador, Cortez conquered millions of Aztecs with less than 600 men. They infected the Aztecs with the disease smallpox and literally more than a million Aztecs died from it within a year. Cortez thought that was a sure sign God was on his side. Could the real God really be so violent that he would kill so many humans and then have them stripped of their treasures? (Admittedly the Aztecs were a blood-thirsty people, but the fatalities sanctioned by the church over the centuries were much bloodier than those of the Aztecs. See the appendixes 1 and 2, "Witches" and "The Inquisitions.")

A football player thanks God for the touchdown he just made with the sign of the cross. Why does he think God made it possible for him to make a touchdown but not the hundreds of other football players playing at the same time everywhere else? Was it his turn? Did God happen to notice him that day?

There are those wealthy folks who say "God has blessed me with wealth." Well why did he or she get "blessed with wealth" and not the other billions of people in the world?

Take for instance the celebrated case of "The Angel of Belsen." In 1944, while imprisoned in the Bergen-Belsen Nazi concentration camp, Luba Tryszynska was somehow able to save the lives of 44 children. This is a wonderful accomplishment in an extremely brutal environment. She later said "I always wondered why God let me live, why I was saved...It was to love these children." That's sweet but why didn't God save the other 6 million people executed in Nazi concentration camps? 2

How about when a roof collapses killing five people but not the sixth. The sixth may say "God was protecting me" or "an angel was protecting me." Well why didn't God or the angel mind that the other five people were killed and maybe died painfully? The theist might say that "God is taking these mangled, dead people to heaven. We should be happy for them." Well, what about their possibly jobless, and now single spouses who must now raise their kids alone? What if they had little or no life insurance? Why is God making their lives so difficult? Indeed if God is taking the mangled, dead people to heaven for a blissful eternity then shouldn't we think the one person who lived was the unluckiest of the bunch?

What do you say to your children when they wonder why a van load of people going to a church picnic died in a fiery crash. What do the police say to the spouses and children of the deceased? The theist often consoles the grieving with the timeless, though highly ambiguous statement, "God works in mysterious ways." Of course that doesn't tell you why the tragedy occurred but it's consoling to think there could be a reason.

Does Satan cause our pain and suffering or does fate and our own decisions? So often you hear that all evil comes from Satan and good comes from God. Perhaps we should be asking how, from the theist's standpoint, Satan picks and chooses who he's going to torment. Still, we are told God can help people overcome Satan's work so let's stick with addressing God.

Somebody's house was destroyed in a fire but the occupant was saved. The occupant might say "I'm alive because God was watching over me." Well, why wasn't the house saved too or the 35,000 people in America who get injured or die each year from fires? 3

We are told that "we create our own pain by not following God's laws." Well, what about all the millions of God-fearing people who still suffer serious calamities?

I was told in a conversation with a theist that Jeffrey Dahmer, the cannibalistic Milwaukee serial killer, was killed in prison by God for his sins. Well why did God wait so long to kill him? Couldn't God have killed Dahmer before he murdered and partially ate 16 people? And why aren't other serial killers around the world killed that way? Many escape the death penalty and live their days out at the taxpayer's expense. If they're executed, usually they're executed in a manner much less painful than the way in which they killed their victims. After all, isn't dying a painless or near painless death one of the greatest of all blessings?

And if God controls the weather, what does he have against weekends?

What is the formula for being saved from harm? What are God's guidelines for such aid? Does God have a quota? Does God only notice certain things at certain times or is it that unexplainable condition called fate?

Perhaps the mysterious nature of fate is the underlying reason mankind so enthusiastically embraces spiritual endeavors.

Since contemporary agnosticism (CA for short, again that's another title for being an agnostic believer) is also a form of spirituality, and the focus of this book, let's discuss it more in depth.

Let's begin by reviewing the dictionary definitions of the three major theological inclinations. One of these theologies says "there is no such power that is called God." This is the view of the atheist. Another view is "there is an almighty power who we understand adequately and whose power should be unquestioned and completely satisfied." This is the view of the theist, also referred to in this book as the classical Christian, the Christian fundamentalist and the Christian theist. Another inclination is classical agnosticism which states "we cannot tell if there is a God and if there is, not enough information exists to have knowledge of its nature or workings." The agnostic believer's view is often a combination of classical agnosticism and classical religion, particularly Christianity. Both the classical and contemporary agnostic denies there is any proof that God demands man to pay homage to him through religion. However, unlike what is usually the case with the classical agnostic, the contemporary agnostic is often more willing to utilize various religious principles, not because they'll go to a mythical hell if they don't but because it can better their lives. When contemporary agnosticism is briefly described, it can be put this way:

1) God must exist since man didn't create itself and the universe. Unfortunately, man's conception of God is very ambiguous. The AB has tremendous respect for the extreme phenomena which is capable of creating the universe. But, until mankind has at least some scientifically verifiable specifics as to this phenomena, it's difficult to blindly believe in a several thousand year old conception of God which is almost certainly antiquated.

2) Mankind has proven that science aids mankind more in understanding the specifics of the universe than religion. Thus the Theory of Evolution is endorsed over Creationism.

3) The agnostic believer, also known as the Contemporary Agnostic, the Modern Agnostic (though earlier agnostics were sometimes called this) and the Christian Agnostic; doesn't feel there is a God who watches over each individual. However, as it can give one much comfort and hope, prayer is often advised during difficult times. If a prayer is "answered," the agnostic would suspect it to be the result of luck or fate and/or that person acting in an advantageous manner.

4) Faiths and religions exist to be of service to man, not the other way around. Their benefits are free and available to anybody who may wish to take advantage of them. The agnostics usually feel how you actually act is more important than whether you financially support a church.

5) Since it can be a great way to socialize, the AB is able to enjoy many religious activities, whether they believe in its divine authenticity or not. Holidays for instance, exist for all mankind to enjoy. After all, why should agnostic believers be left out of the festivities just because they approach religion from a more realistic and scientific perspective?

6) Any type of true agnostic can't believe in a religiously defined afterlife due to its overwhelming lack of evidence. That includes concepts such as reincarnation as well as heaven and hell. Heaven and hell are believed to be here on earth depending on what you and fate make of your life. Again because of its overwhelming lack of evidence, any true agnostic can't maintain that there's such a thing as a "soul" which regenerates after death and/or travels to another part of the universe. When you die you rot. Also don't forget that for the majority of the history of reincarnation people didn't usually reincarnate as another person but instead as another species, even a plant. The concept of people reincarnating as other people is a recent (and probably predicable) development in reincarnation's history. (Perhaps it's only human that someone, particularly someone with a bigger ego, was eventually going to say something like "no way pal, you might come back as an ant but not a cool guy like me, I'm coming back as a human.")

7) As Charles Darwin and his supporters were most of the famous original classical agnostics, agnosticism and the brutally attacked theory of evolution, were very close partners. Back then, the early agnostic faced a population which was overwhelmingly creationist. In their fight for the theory of evolution, they placed themselves against the creationists by taking the opposing extreme position, namely that "man can't know what God is and wants." The agnostic believer on the other hand most often feels "man presently doesn't know what God is and wants." It's many AB's belief that, assuming our existence isn't ended prematurely such as with a nuclear and biological war, we will know what God is sometime in the distant future.

The word God can have varied meanings. If you asked someone a question and he or she answered "God only knows," from the agnostic believer's (and others) standpoint, it would be like saying "the future only knows," or "fate only knows." The word "God" here can be a synonym for the word "fate." As the AB's conception of God is not anthropomorphic, there isn't any proof that the real God would be offended, or even would know. For instance, the theist might say "God made the Koala bear." The AB would be more likely to say "nature made the Koala bear." It should be noted that the AB wouldn't be denying that God made the Koala bear. It would seem logical that whatever created the universe could at least indirectly have had a hand in the creation of the Koala bear, but at the moment, there's no proof of it. Millions would insist that God created the Koala bear because... "well, it just makes sense." But to the agnostic that does not qualify as proof.

For that same reason, the true agnostic can't believe in the theological description of a guardian angel. If you think you have a guardian angel, you do, but it's in your mind. Still, believing that you have a guardian angel could strengthen you emotionally. If that's the situation (as it can be in particular with young children,) perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage that person's belief in the guardian angel. After all, mankind created religion to better mankind. Why should the agnostic believer be relegated to being the depressed cynic, locked out of a proven form of comfort?

The theist may ask "What do you agnostics think God is and what do you think God wants?" First off, when we don't have scientifically verifiable evidence to support it, unlike faith based groups we don't claim to have a theological answer. Religions have theories about what God is and wants but before first proving the validity of their religious assertions, they convince their followers to swallow the theories lock, stock and barrel. The agnostic (and others) just can't blindly believe. There is simply no proof that God is involved enough in our everyday lives to have given countless oral and written messages to the literally thousands of people who had a hand in writing and or compiling our present day Bibles. As mentioned earlier, that was during roughly a 1700 year period! 4 There also is to be no proof that God is watching each individual, taking notes and personally directing their lives. Admittedly, nobody has any proof that God isn't personally directing our lives, but the fact is there's no proof (other than that of faith) that God is. Put another way, agnostics of all types don't share with the theist the compulsion to worship and fear something which man knows nothing of substance about.

Admittedly, we all must have faith concerning quite a bit in life. You have faith that the oncoming driver won't fall asleep at the wheel and turn his car into yours. You have faith that you won't drop dead tomorrow, that the roof of your house won't fall on you, etc. But there are ways of strengthening your faith in something through knowledge. Watch for erratic behavior by the oncoming car. Stay in shape and get regular check ups to help avoid health problems. Don't go under a dilapidated roof.

The AB also must incorporate a certain amount of faith into his beliefs. The fact of the matter is that there are no scientifically verifiable records as to what Jesus actually said. It's probable that there never will be. We get our parables from the more historically and scientifically scrutinized Jesus, still we can't be 100% sure of their validity. However, in science's estimation, it's a more accurate account of the saying of this great sage. (Most of those parables are presented in Chapter 6.) It's important to understand, however, that the Christian and other religious principles the AB advocate, are advocated because these principles, such as the golden rule, have over the years proven themselves to be beneficial to mankind. These principles aren't being advocated just because they're what "the historic Jesus" preached.

The theist may tell you that the agnostic believer supports the religious principles they like best. In response to that, it's suggested they read chapter 5 which uses quotes from the Bible to show how the Christian theist is suppose to act. It's quickly obvious that today's classical Christians don't live according to a good deal of the Bible, out of necessity. Don't forget that having a mortgage is highly blasphemous, as is lending or borrowing any money or material thing with interest. If the Bible is to be taken seriously, people in the banking and financial industries are among those sure to go to hell and those who buy things on credit better watch out! (See Usury chapter.)

If all it took to have a happy, largely hassle-free life was to become a God-fearing theist, then everybody would do it. You'd be crazy not to. The fact is, theists have the same kind of problems in their daily lives as everybody else.
 

Chapter Four

ANTHROPOMORPHISM: The assumption that God has the same types, or many of the same types of emotional, physical and mental characteristics as a human being.

Often people instinctively say they believe in God. Most would think they're out of line to say no. Why? Perhaps it's because of (1) the fear of God or gods that man has been subjected to since prehistoric times and (2) being brought up by parents and/or other authority figures who install the religious doctrines into their children; (3) our continued fear of the unknown and what we can't manipulate. Perhaps you're familiar with that squeezing sensation in the chest many get when someone makes fun of God. One man said that sensation occurred because that's the location of the soul. Scientific analysis however, reveals the existence of millions of nerve endings in the chest area which are stimulated by the brain.

Examples of this anthropomorphic fear of God is the following:

A man at a Christian men's group meeting saying that God took the life of he and his wife's 19 month old baby "to bring him and his wife closer to God." 1 Doesn't that make God out to be ego manic as well as a cold-blooded killer?

In Bellingham, Washington, in April of 1995, six people died in a house fire. Five were very religious Russian refugees. Just afterwards, when speaking of the tragedy, the Pastor of one Russian-speaking Christian church told the press "maybe God wants to teach us something, that we must be more polite or loving to each other." 2

Geez people, how could one think that a force which has the unbelievable power to create the universe, is going to try and get his point across in a manner that would have impressed the Huns? As another example, a minister and his wife were burned over more than 70% of their bodies in a futile effort to save their 4 trapped children from their burning van. Afterwards, the minister said "We understand that trials come. If our faith is not tested, then it is empty." 3 Did God have to burn to death their four little children and disfigure him and his wife to test the minister's faith? Once again, the conception of a so often brutal, anthropomorphic God insists on being accepted without question. Perhaps Julius Caesar was right when he said "Men willingly believe what they wish." 4

From a purely marketing standpoint, imposing the fear of a great force can be an excellent way to be a successful organization. If religious followers fear going against theological doctrines, then they're liable to be more cooperative and generous to the organization's needs. Most religious doctrines, as well as assumptions by the individual, give the follower the impression that the more money and service to the church he or she gives, the more endearing he or she is to God.

Still, the theistic assumption is that by worshipping a single anthropomorphist God, only good will prevail. Taking into consideration that the majority of the world's population believes in a single anthropomorphist God, let's look at some statistics.

Roughly 4.5 million children worldwide starve to death every year. That means 12,250 children die from starvation every day! (That is a 1994 figure.) 5

Almost 76,000 babies and toddlers up to 4 years old were injured or killed in American auto accidents in 1994 alone. 6

Roughly 547,000 Americans die of cancer annually (1995 figures.) That's almost 1,500 a day. 7

Worldwide, about 1/2 million children go blind each year. 8

One in 8 American women developed breast cancer in 1994. That's up from one in twenty in 1960. 9

Worldwide, 3 million deaths annually are due to cigarette smoking. 10

Roughly 750 million people worldwide go hungry every day. 11

Between 1914 and 1921, influenza killed 25,000,000 people world wide. 12

In 1992 alone, 925,079 people died from heart disease in America. 13

How is it possible that the anthropomorphist God would allow these and the countless other calamities of history to occur? Based on the above information, many would question how concerned for the plight of man the classically defined God is. Obviously he wasn't in a hurry to create us. Life forms were on this planet for more than 3 billion years before man even appeared! Dinosaurs kept man from existing for over 200 million years!

In addition, astronomers tell us our sun is a second generation star. Our sun developed in clouds of solar dust and debris which came into existence after other stars super novaed, some of which astronomers presume had solar systems. This means our sun and our planet came into existence billions of years after the-universe came into existence. 14

If man is suppose to be the "curator and protector" of all other of God's creatures, as religious doctrine states, why did God take so long to create man? Hundreds of millions of animals, insects, plants etc lived and became extinct before man even evolved. Of course, the theist denies that the universe has been in existence this long. Many also are not surprised at the apparent indifference of God to man's plight as religion often reminds us how evil man is. If you believe in the legend of Noah's flood, one can only wonder how many millions of innocent plants and animals, not to mention how many human beings, the classical God allegedly killed in that great flood... purposely!

As long as the complaint department is open, here's another one. Why does God allow pathological organisms such as viruses, to be, and to have been, so successful? If our current form of Homo Sapiens has been around for 100,000 years or so, as scientists tell us, why didn't the anthropomorphic God give man antibiotics thousands of years before penicillin in 1928? As 51 to 110 billion people have lived (and are living) on our planet (51 being a Christian fundamentalist estimate and 110 being the high end of a secular estimate,) this act of kindness would have saved literally billions of lives. 15

If God made machines to make life easier for man, why did God make us Homo Sapiens wait almost l00,000 years to have the machine age?

Perhaps there is so much pain and suffering because the anthropomorphic God is very busy and is not giving earth as much attention as we'd prefer. Perhaps he created man and lost interest in his creation many years ago. Perhaps he's a real rough and tough macho type and believes mankind's on its own and should sink or swim. Perhaps it's none of the above.

As human beings, we must always strive to know the truth and must endeavor to avoid errors in that quest. Unfortunately, not everybody agrees on what the "truth" is. The insistence that "if you're not with us, you must be against us" is as old as religion itself. It's called heresy. The Freethinkers, the Utilitarians, the Arians, the Cathars, the Lutherans, the Deists, the Positivists, the Existentialists, the Empiricists, the Gnostics, the Humanists, the Modernists, the Materialists, the Nihilists, the Pelagianists, the Secularists, the Freemasons, the Jansenists, the Hussites, and the Flagellates, are some from that group. (See glossary for the definition of each.)

All have been persecuted and a staggering number have been killed.

Unlike what is so often the case with the theist, the agnostic believer doesn't consider God so hostile. Most view God as a tremendous source of goodwill, always there to offer encouragement. You can always count on God being on your side, no matter what the odds. In times of trouble, God is anxious to offer consolation. The fact is, if you feel good about this perspective of God, it could have positive influences on your life, and who's to say this is not what God truly is like? As nobody has any proof as to what God is and is like, why can't man consider God to be truly all-benevolent and all-merciful, certainly an entity there is never any reason to fear. As so many different religions (literally hundreds) were created by man for the benefit of man, why not consider God to have a more affable character. Even though God isn't manipulating our lives, we can still manipulate our lives by being inspired by what we imagine God to be.

It also seems many have forgotten (or never knew) what a compassionate visionary Jesus was. Fearing God was a foreign concept to the Jesus of history. Jesus was a gentle and loving person. In many Biblical scholars' opinion, had Jesus known that the brutal concepts of "Original Sin" and the "Apocalypse" were to become cornerstones of his religion, it would have greatly concerned him. The fact is, Biblical scholars primarily credit the influence of John the Baptist as well as St. Peter and St. Paul for installing such brutal and bloody doctrines into Christianity.

Perhaps anthropomorphism and the fear of God reflects our fear of the unknown and what we can't control. If that's true, then perhaps these are concepts followers at least subconsciously demand from their religions. And, if that's true, then where is religion heading now that science is explaining life like never before? Will science become our religion? Interestingly enough, there's already a word coined for science as a religion, it's "Scientism." (See Appendix: 4, "World's Major Religions.") There already exist roughly 3 million acknowledged followers of Scientism. Perhaps you too are a "Scientist."
 

Chapter Five

As contemporary agnosticism subscribes to the Jesus of history, rather than the Jesus of faith, theists often assert that agnostic believers believe only in the parts of the Bible they want to. In a sense, this is true. However, the same is without a doubt true of the Christian theist. Listed in this chapter are a number of Biblical parables to argue this point.

All the quotations presented in this chapter are taken straight from the Bible. The Bible used most often in this section is "The New American Bible," translated and compiled by the Catholic Biblical Association of America. If the Bible you have presents the verses differently, it's because your Bible is based on one or more of the Bible's many different translations. But as clergymen tell us, all Bibles say the same thing differently.

As you're reading, don't forget, from the classical Christian standpoint, one must obey all the directives laid forth in the Bible. To say "Well, the demands made in the Bible are metaphors and need only be a reference" makes one a wishy-washy Christian or even a nonbeliever. Remember, in the New Testament, it's written:

For those who lived or live their life according to scripture, the Bible has promised an easy, plentiful, harmonious life on earth.

It would seem quite open to debate whether more endeavors of the Christian theist are successful than any other group of people. If they do experience such a phenomenal amount of success why are so many Christian leaders and businessmen unable to pay their bills? Why do they have as much trauma in their lives as anybody else? In any case, for the record, let's clarify the Bible's position on other aspects of life.
 
 

SLAVERY

"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them." (Titus 2:9)

"Slaves, obey your human masters with the reverence, the awe, and the sincerity you owe to Christ. Do not render service for appearance only and to please men, but do God's will with your whole heart as slaves of Christ. Give your service willingly, doing it for the Lord rather than men." (Ephesians 6:5-7)

"Students are not above their teachers, nor slaves above their masters." (Matthew 10:24)

"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men but in all sincerity and out of reverence for the Lord." (Colossians 3:22)

"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect; otherwise the name of God and the church's teaching suffer abuse." (Timothy 6:1)

"What does Scripture say on the point? "Cast out slave girl and son together; for the slave girl's son shall never be an heir on equal terms with the son of the born free." (Galatians 4:30)

"You household slaves, obey your masters with all deference, not only the good and reasonable ones but even those who are harsh." (1 Peter 2:18)

"Slaves are never better than their masters;" (John 13:16)

"Food, correction and work for the slave; and for a wicked slave, punishment in the stocks. Make a slave work for his rest; let his hands be idle and he will seek to be free." (Sirach 33:26-27)

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels (property} and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves..." (Leviticus 25:44-46)

"A slave whom a priest acquires by purchase or who is born in his house may eat of his food." (Leviticus 22:11)

"When you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he shall be given his freedom without cost. If he comes into service alone, he shall leave alone; if he comes with a wife, his wife shall leave with him. But if his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone. If, however, the slave declares, I am devoted to my master and my wife and children; I will not go free, his master shall bring him to God and there, at the door or doorpost, he shall pierce his ear with an awl, thus keeping him as his slave forever." (Exodus 21:2-6)
 

"When a man strikes his male or female slave in the eye and destroys the use of the eye, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the eye. If he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)

"Throughout the ages, every male among you, when he is eight days old, shall be circumcised, including houseborn slaves and those acquired with money from any foreigner who is not your blood. Yes, both the houseborn slaves and those acquired with money must be circumcised. Thus my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting pact." (Genesis 17:12-13)

"You shall make merry before the Lord, your God, with your sons and daughters, your male and female slaves, as well as with the Levites {an aid to a priest} who belongs your community but has no share of his own heritage." (Deuteronomy 12:12)

"Just as a slave that is constantly under scrutiny will not be without welts, so one who swears continually by the holy name will not remain free from sin." (Sirach 23:10)
 

Above are a few of the times slavery is discussed in the Bible. The author counted at least 105 matter-of-fact references to it. Sadly, the casual Biblical acceptance of slavery is one of the reasons it was so tolerated in western society. In all fairness to the church, their representatives would often seek better treatment for the enslaved. Unfortunately, the Bible itself was often the last word on the matter.
 
 

WITCHES

"A man or woman who acts as a medium or fortune teller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." (Leviticus 20:27)
 

See Appendix 2, "Persecution Of Witches" for more reference information on witches.
 
 

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

"...A woman must learn in silence and be completely submissive. I do not permit a woman to act as a teacher, or in any way to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was created first, Eve afterward; moreover it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman. It was she who was led astray and fell into sin." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

"Man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

"According to the rule observed in all the assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. They may not speak. Rather, as the law states, submissiveness is indicated for them. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgrace when a woman speaks in the assembly." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

"You married women must obey your husbands..." (1 Peter 3:1)

"You who are wives, be submissive to your husbands. This is your duty in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18)

To the woman he {God} said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Genesis 3:16)
 

WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF A WOMAN GETS IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIGHT

FASHION AND CROSS DRESSING

KEEPING FEMALE CAPTIVES OF BATTLE

"Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man. " (Numbers 31:14-5, 17-18)
 
 

If a conquering warrior saw a captive female he liked, the Bible tells what needs to be done for him to take her as his wife:
 

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare {cut} her nails and lay aside her captive s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife." (Deuteronomy 21:10-13)
 

PUNISHMENTS FOR MURDER & OTHER CRIMES

"Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death; whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal. A life for a life! Anyone who inflicts an injury on his neighbor shall receive the same in return. Limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth! The same injury that a man gives another shall be inflicted on him in return." (Leviticus 24:17-20)

"Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
 

HOMOSEXUALITY

ADULTERY

"You have heard the commandment, 'you shall not commit adultery,' What I say to you is: anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his thoughts. If your right eye is your trouble, gouge it out and throw it away! Better to lose part of your body than to have it all cast into Gehenna {hell}." (Matthew 5:27-29)

(Concerning divorced and adultery): "What I say to you is: everyone who divorces his wife--lewd conduct is a separate case--forces her to commit adultery. The man who marries a divorced woman likewise commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32)
 

DIVORCEES MARRYING EACH OTHER

PREMARITAL SEX

"When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, {engaged} and lies with her, he shall pay her marriage price and marry her. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay him the customary marriage price for virgins." (Exodus 22:15-16)

"If a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, comes to dislike her, and makes monstrous charges against her by saying, 'I married this woman, but when I first had relations with her I did not find her a virgin, the father and mother of the girl shall take the evidence of her virginity and bring it to the elders at the city gate {the bloody wedding night bed sheets}. Then these city elders shall take the man and chastise him, besides fining him 100 silver shekels, which they shall give to the girl's father...she shall remain his wife, and he may not divorced her as long as he lives."

"But if this charge is true, the evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father's house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy 24:13-15, 18-21)

"If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed {engaged}, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father 50 silver shekels and take her as his wife. Because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorced her as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 24:28-29)
 

In ancient times, one way a man took a wife for marriage was to physically carry her off. If he had sex with her, forcibly or otherwise, they would then often be required to marry (in fact that is largely where the term "the best man comes from...the "best man" would be the guy who helped the hopeful groom to carry off the lady.) In 451 A.D., roughly a generation before the city of Rome would fall, the Catholic Council at Chalcedon made kidnapping girls for marriage a crime against the church. In Rome, parents traditionally chose their children's spouses. Sons were allowed to refuse a marriage but not daughters. This declaration also allowed young women to refuse a marriage.
 

BEING A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER AND HAVING PREMARITAL SEX

RESTRICTIONS ON FOOD YOU'RE ALLOWED TO EAT

(This makes eating lobster, shrimp, crab, mussels, scallop, oysters, clams, squid, etc a crime against religion.)

MARRIAGE TO "UNBELIEVERS", OTHER RACES & RELIGIONS

"Must it also be heard of you that you have done this same very great evil, betraying our God by marrying foreign women?" (Nehemiah 13:27)

CLOTHING COMPOSITION

This would also make it a sin to wear clothing made of both say cotton and polyester.

GENETIC ENGINEERING

The roughly three hundred new species of domestic dogs that us humans have genetically engineered over the years, and the much stronger and more bountiful grains genetic engineering has given us, according to scripture, would be going against God's will. (As an example of canine genetic engineering, the Doberman Pincher is a cross between a Greyhound and a Rottweiler.)

HAIR LENGTH AND APPEARANCE

TATTOOS

LENDING OR BORROWING MONEY WITH INTEREST

SEX DURING A WOMAN'S MENSTRUAL PERIOD

IN CONCLUSION

When discussing Biblical demands, it's important to remember that the Bible reflects the prevailing Judeo-Christian traditions, laws and doctrines of when it was written, roughly between l600 and 3200 years ago. One can say that Biblical laws were written for a very different time period. So much has changed since then, but not the demands of the Bible. Many say that the doctrine of adherence to the Bible in essence tries to pull many aspects of society back to the much less developed age of when it was written and compiled. If the Bible was written today, chances are many of the controversial parables presented in this chapter, would have been toned down or even not included. In addition, certain more controversial topics of our day and age, such as abortion, would be included.

Also, one should take into consideration how many Biblical parables exist, around 32,000! It has been said that almost anything can be approved or disapproved of by referring to Biblical quotes. As Shakespeare wrote, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. 2

There have been many changes to Biblical text throughout history. Biblical scholars tell us that parables were not part of the Bible until at least the 3rd century. This is known because surviving works of the Bible written prior to that time, aren't broken into parables. As to be expected of such an ancient and popular text, the wording of the Bible often changes from one translation or interpretation, to another. One example is how often more recent versions of the Bible substitute the words "manservant" and "maidservant" for what the original books of the Bible called "slave." Of course many current versions of the Bible remain true to the original authors and still use the word "slave" instead of the more "politically correct" manservant and maidservant.

Time will only tell to what extent Biblical texts and interpretations will change as theism scrambles to keep up with a rapidly changing western society.
 

Chapter Seven

Prayer is an attempt to communicate with a force much greater than our own. It is assumed that this force might be willing to do as our prayers request. One assumption is that a prayer is more likely answered if a submissive pose is demonstrated. Thus the kneeling, bowing of the head, hands clasped together and head aimed at the sky.

In the interest of being able to pray in the most efficient manner possible, let's analyze prayer more objectively. When a person prays, does it open a special channel to forces which make what he or she wants more likely to occur? Scriptures state that if you pray sincerely, what you pray for will come true.

Perhaps this is one reason numerous athletic teams pray just before starting a game, yet they don't win nearly as often as they pray. Why is this? Could it be that not enough people in the room prayed sincerely? If so, perhaps weeding out those prayer "slackers" should become a major priority, even before acquiring better players. If everybody in the room had prayed sincerely, could the communication channel to God itself be damaged? Perhaps their prayers were shuffled around in a "prayer bureaucracy" only to get to where they had to go too late to be acted on. Perhaps the other team prayed harder or has a system which allows it to pray more effectively.

In the words of the immortal Abraham Lincoln:

Concerning why prayers are not regularly answered, the theist may say "God knows better what is good for us than we do." Thus, even though you and/or a mass of people were praying for something with all your heart, your prayer wasn't answered because God decided it was a bad idea. This is particularly disheartening when, for example, you all were praying a levee wouldn't break but it does and most of your town is destroyed. Perhaps the theist would say that the prayer didn't have the desired result because "God is testing your faith in Him." If that's the case, why is God testing your faith in such a serious manner, especially since your house was also destroyed or damaged in the flood. These are the types of questions the agnostic believer can't help but ask while the theist usually dares not.

Something happened in 1346 A.D. which would change western civilization forever.

The then very prosperous Italian city-state of Genoa occupied the fortress of Kaffa on the Crimean Sea. They began seeing many Mongols (of Mongol Horde fame) in the area get very sick and generally die. The symptoms included a terrible fever, swellings in the groin and armpits, hallucinations, and death within a week.

The Mongols possessed the world's most devastating armies. They were among the very fiercest of fighters that ever lived. In fact, in the later 1200's, during Kublai Khan's reign, they possessed the largest empire in physical size that any people has ever had in the history of mankind! At this particular sea port however, they were under attack from the most vicious killer man has ever seen. Naturally, they blamed it on the westerners, the Genoese. The Genoese fort was attacked and as part of the siege, the Mongols catapulted their dead into the fort. Soon the Genoans started getting sick. Many in terror escaped their fort, got into boats and sailed toward the capital of Eastern Christianity, Constantinople. The disease they brought with them would become the worst epidemic in the recorded history of mankind. The year was 1347 A.D., the disease, the Black Death.

After infecting Constantinople in a matter of weeks, the Genoans and others sailed north and west, towards Europe. They reached the Italian city of Messina in October of 1347. The Black Death had officially arrived in Europe.

The poet William Langland wrote "God is deaf now-a-days and deigneth not to hear us, and prayers have no power the Plague to stay." 1

In a matter of weeks, a third of the town had died. As people fled Messina, they carried the disease with them. A brave Archbishop led a parade of surviving Messinians in intense and frequent prayer but it didn't help. The Archbishop himself died of the plague very soon afterwards.

This type of scene, tragically, would occur throughout Europe (and much of the non-Christian world. In fact the Black Death killed more people in Asia than it did in Europe) As science and medicine was largely based on scripture and certain surviving discoveries of the ancient Greeks, an easily mystified Europe was almost defenseless. The church had for centuries made autopsies an act of blasphemy, so investigating the disease was further hampered. The disease spread with a rapidity unparalleled in recorded history. When Paris was hit hardest, its death toll was eight thousand people a day. 2 In this time of extreme crisis, man turned to prayer as the best hope for survival. Whole towns turned out for frequent and regular prayers and worship. Many felt it was the end of the world. Churches were filled with people begging God to hear their prayers. Unfortunately, this crowding together was the worse thing they could have done. Because of how contagious it was gathering together like that actually spread the disease faster. Also, very troubling to the faithful was that the clergy were dying just as fast as anybody else.

For political purposes in 1309, the Pope and the Vatican moved from Rome to the French city of Avignon. It would be the papal capital for seventy years. Much to the shock of Europe (and the church,) when the plague reached the then holy city of Avignon, it struck with a particularly surprising intensity. Two thousand people died within the first several days. In 1 1/2 months, more than half the inhabitants of the holiest of cities were dead. Almost 25% of the Papal staff would die from the disease including seven Cardinals. 3 It was certainly not unusual for half or more of a city to perish of the plague in a time period of 1 1/2 months, but still not the norm. Why the holy city was so decimated, particularly with such important members of the clergy praying and why holy men didn't have more resistance to the plague than others, would baffle many. (Pathologists suspect the holy city had such a high death rate because so many sick, infected people went there in hopes of being cured by the powerful religious forces there.) The papacy greatly intensified its praying and the Pope, Clement VI, reluctantly broke new ground and allowed autopsies. 4

The Pope stayed extremely secluded on doctor's orders, very often literally surrounded by fires. He didn't get the plague. He would later die of Venereal Disease. 5

"The Black Death," was primarily the Bubonic Plague. Its primary carrier was the flea. During this unbelievable ravaging of mankind, no one would ever figure that out. The primitive doctors of the day were virtually useless. The religious authorities prescribed prayer and confession. This didn't work too well. Europe's population in 1347 was an estimated 80 million. In roughly three years, an estimated 25 million died. Worldwide, by 1351, an estimated 75 million out of an estimated total world population at the time of 500 million, died. France began 1347 with a population of 20 million. By 1350, 6 million had died. The plague had already killed tens of thousands in the centuries prior to this and would return to haunt man many more times, though not killing as many. In England, it would reappear four more times in the 1300's and would reappear eight more times in the 15th century. Paris had 22 separate outbreaks of plague before it largely disappeared from Europe around 1720. As the plague killed clergymen with the same zeal as anybody else, there were those who questioned the validity of their religions. How potent was their religion if it couldn't stem the advance of the plague? Also why were their priests so susceptible to infection? This religious doubt occurred with Islam as well. 6

As the epidemic was going on, and after it finally abated, the church demanded stricter adherence to their doctrines, claiming God created the plague to purge mankind of its sins. However, the most popular scientific theory for the abatement of "The Black Death" is that the flea-carrying black rat was largely destroyed by and replaced by the larger brown rat. The brown rat also carried the flea but tended to live more outdoors and away from people.

As religious activities such as prayer and absolution were primarily what people fell back on to combat the plague, it could be considered the single most disastrous page of religious history. If religions were able to deliver man from the plagues without such extreme devastation, its doctrines would be unquestionable. One might postulate that most atheists and agnostics would gladly become theists if religion had protected the masses from the disease.

It's actual occurrences such as just described which leads the agnostic believer to question whether prayer is a "hotline" to God and whether God personally listens to people, granting their requests. If prayer worked so well, virtually everybody would do it, and be doing it for hours. They would be fools not to. There would be scientifically developed and tested "prayer methods" as well as a financially lucrative "prayer assistance" industry.

Never-the-less, any time you're confronted with desperation, helplessness, depression, etc., it's your right to take yourself out of such a state. And here is where prayer can be of proven service to mankind.

Obviously there are a number of ways to address a traumatic or insecure time. One way is a way which has been a source of hope and comfort for thousands of years, prayer. Other people get comfort and hope from prayer, why shouldn't you! The comfort it offers is free. And if it makes you feel better and doesn't harm others, why shouldn't you do it?

If your life is currently running smoothly, it may be difficult for you to relate to this, but everybody's time of crisis comes sooner or later. At these times, one of your priorities in life should be to regain your normal composure.

As we've said before, man developed so many different religions and deities to help explain and control the unknown, as well as to offer comfort and hope. Chances are good it could work for you. You can analyze later how prayer could possibly work? Right now you need the support that praying can offer.

The suggested use of prayer during difficult times is one way that contemporary agnosticism differ from classical agnosticism. Dr. George G. Strem in his book, "AGNOSTICISM IS ALSO FAITH," writes "People may take the Agnostic to task, telling him: 'Why do you want to deprive people of the hope that turning to their Father in Heaven offers? Are those who no longer pray happier for it?' No, they are not, though it is not proven that life without prayer is necessarily an unhappy one. Generations are growing up all over the world who have never prayed, never been exposed to prayer or have ceased to pray. They have, as far as is known, no more than the usual number of frustrations. The absence of prayer is not necessarily a contributing factor." 7

So what do you say to the theist who asks "if you don't believe in our version of God and abide by our rules, why do you pray at all?" Perhaps this could be offered as an explanation.

As no scientifically verifiable proof exists that the curiously violent and vindictive God of the theist is what God really is like, the probability is left open that the real God is a source of unwavering benevolence for anybody and everybody. Why not look at God as not being vindictive. After all, most believers in UFO's feel that these "aliens" wouldn't subjugate us humans because "they're too developed to want to conquer us." If that's the case, wouldn't God be even more developed than the "aliens?"

So when you think of God, think of a force that is always there for you, is always your friend, is always on your side. God always wants it to work out for you and always has time to hear your prayers.

What if you're in the midst of a group saying grace or praying for something? Assuming what they're praying for isn't revolting, what's the harm in politely going along with it. Perhaps it can be considered another form of socializing.

Jesus has words of wisdom concerning prayer:

When you're in need of the faith that prayer can offer, don't hesitate to use it. Maybe you'll turn to prayer after exhausting other ways of being comforted. Depending on how bad a crisis you're in, you may ask God to forgive you for ever having believed in something other than classical theism. Go right ahead. Don't feel bad about it. We'll see you again when things get better.
 

Chapter Eight

True agnostics can't believe in a theological afterlife due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.

Many claim humans are spiritual beings living a physical life. Individuals are urged to make impressing their God or gods, their leading priority. If he or she does, God is expected to forgive the individual for all his or her sins and the sins of their ancestors etc. It would then be possible for that person to go to heaven after death. Life on earth is for only a comparatively few years, but eternity is forever we're reminded. This belief is fundamental to other religions including Islam, Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

The agnostic believers the author is familiar with completely disagrees with this theory. One, it's never been even slightly proven from a scientific perspective; two, it's too anthropomorphic; three, there exists the confusion of so many different religious heaven and hell scenarios (literally hundreds) most of which insist their concept is right and everybody else's theory is wrong; and four, it once again makes God out to be an egomaniac.

Here's still another perspective from which to dispute theological afterlife. Our sun is a G2V star on a universal astronomical star measuring guide called the MK classifications. This graph plots the age and size of the stars in the universe. There is a particular star size and age in which astronomers feel the development of life, as we know it, is most likely. Our sun fits into that grouping, as do hundreds of billions of other stars. Our sun is a second generation star, literally made from the remnants of supernova explosions. The universe itself is nine to 15 billion years older than mankind. Our sun is five billion years old. It developed at least four to 11 billion years after the creation of the universe. (Remember our sun was not created in the "Big Bang" but billions of years later.) To make a long story short, there have been, as well as currently are, hundreds of billions of stars which are in the same probable life-supporting grouping as our sun. Thus, in theory, there probably existed for billions of years before our star was even born, solar systems capable of supporting life. Why then, if we live in only one of the hundreds of billions of solar systems capable of supporting life (according to present calculations) do we humans think we are so special as to have access to the ultimate paradise of heaven, when chances are good somewhere in this absolutely gigantic universe, other intelligent life forms have had as many as billions of years head start over us? As these other life forms would be so much more developed than we are, what would they get, if we, at a lesser state of development, already get the ultimate paradise?

Simply from the standpoint of logistics, running heaven would be a nightmare. As mentioned earlier, estimates place the number of people who have lived (and are living) on this planet to be between 51 and 110 billion (51 being a Christian fundamentalist estimate and 110 being the high end of a secular estimate.) Thus there could be as many as 104 billion souls in heaven from our planet alone! 1 Of course there are many theologians who claim that if there are and/or were other intelligent life forms in the universe, Jesus would have gone to and prophesied on their planets there as well. 2 These extra-galactic intelligent life forms would be subject to the same religious doctrines as us and thus would also go to heaven if they were righteous. If this is true, hopefully those in charge of heaven are planning ahead because in the future, (if not already,) there could be hundreds of trillions of souls in heaven.

Still, many people say "If there's no theological after life, what's the point of living?" To answer that, let's once again look at the quote about religion which appears in a more complete form on page 17.

"...it appeals especially to our human self-esteem. If Christianity is true, mankind are not pitiful worms as they seem to be; they are of interest to the Creator of the universe, who takes the trouble to be pleased with them when they behave well and displeased when they behave badly. This is a great compliment."

The good news is that it's a great world out there. There exists so much to enjoy if one's expectations are reasonable.

We must stop belittling ourselves. We're quite capable of making it on our own. We don't need an anthropomorphic God or fairy tale heaven which no matter what they've done, virtually everybody thinks they're getting into. We should abandon the image that many classical religions have of man, the evil low life that's lucky to exist at all. Man is good. Pat yourself on the back. Our greatest achievements have yet to come.

As proof of life after death, there are those who claim to have died and returned to the "living." Some said they looked down upon themselves from the ceiling. Many reported seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel, or the face of the Pope.

To those who believe in such near death experiences, offered below is a possible explanation. Ever have a dream that seemed so realistic that, for the first 1 to 5 seconds after waking, you utterly believed you were whatever you were dreaming about? For instance, you dream you were rich and in your dream you enjoyed your wealth immensely. When you woke, you looked forward to your freer financial lifestyle. After a matter of seconds, you fully wake up and realize it was a dream, even though it seemed so real when you first awoke. Perhaps the subconscious is doing the same type of activity in a "near-death" experience. Even though a person is unconscious, their brain is still active. It could create an equally realistic "near death experience" type dream during a time of extreme bodily trauma.

Don't forget pilot trainees, if they become unconscious while being spun around in a G-force simulator, often see the same type or even exact same visions as people who had "near-death" experiences. 3

It might be interesting to note the existence of professional "dream guiders" as well as books describing how to dream what you want to dream. Some spend time before going to sleep looking at a picture or drawing of what they want to dream about. This activity lies in the category of "Dream Incubation."

If one argues against the theological after life scenario, what about a person's "soul?" Once again we're confronted with that agnostic dilemma demanding proof before belief. There is no proof of any sort that anything leaves the body after the trauma of death and heads to another world. The "soul," in its Christian theological form, is part of the story of Eternal Salvation. Literally, if you're going to heaven or hell, you need some thing people can relate to which is transported to either place. This makes the soul necessary from the standpoint of practicality. Logically if the AB should reject the theological concept of a "soul," he or she should also reject the concept of reincarnation. Incidentally, and this may be of interest to those who consider themselves theistic Christians but also believe in reincarnation, Christian doctrines steadfastly denies the possibility of reincarnation. According to its doctrine when your body dies you either go to heaven or hell, that's it. Mixing and matching religions is strictly prohibited. (Christian doctrine for several early centuries however did consider reincarnation as a possibility but that was amended out.)

It's possible that one day science will discover proof that people release some sort of "energy" at or after their death. Until then, the assumption is that when you die, you rot, all of you.

Some people when hearing this more somber approach to the concept of a religious afterlife will say "what's the matter don't you think human beings are special?" Well of course but not in a Saturday morning cartoon kind of way. Can't we consider mankind to be special and still take a more realistic, down to earth approach to theology?

Another gripe agnostics can have is with the concept of "soul mates." For one thing, there is no evidence that such a thing exists. With a current world population of 5.75 billion, how is it possible for a person in Chicago to meet his or her "soul mate" who, if the law of averages and the Peter Principle are to be believed, is most likely living halfway around the world. At the very least, it's doubtful one's "soul mate" is living in the same country you are, much less the same city. From the agnostic standpoint, it's another case of people's imagination running away with them. Those who claim to have married a "soul mate" have, it's just that it's in their heads. Perhaps they've been married for many years and have gone through a great deal as a couple. Perhaps believing in "soul mates" makes their marriage seem especially a good idea.

There's the added agnostic concern that so many religions and religious branches claim that their followers are the only ones going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. Promising heaven for a particular activity can create a very motivated force. This is particularly true when promised to fallen soldiers. Among others, this was promised to the Vikings, the Christian Crusaders, the Japanese during W.W.II and Islam's fighters. The Islamic soldiers who captured the eastern capital of Christianity, Constantinople, knew "a special place in paradise awaited the first attacking Islamic soldier who steps into Constantinople.'' 3 Europe's first empire was built by the Celts. Their warriors also fought believing in a similar doctrine. 4

Still, the theists may look at you solemnly and say "but what if you're wrong? Are you willing to take that chance?" This sobers up many folks who aren't quite sure of their beliefs. Unfortunately, most aren't familiar enough with history to know that religious doctrines generally are copied from other religions and/or mythologies (this is especially true with Christianity.) For instance, the concepts of Guardian Angels, The Virgin Birth, The Resurrection, heaven and hell, baptism, communion, the story of adoring Magi, the prophet performing miracles are among "Christian" doctrines already prevalent in competing religions in the Roman empire before the birth of Christ and/or at least prevalent in compet