Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon

Philosopher Daniel Dennett writes in a book titled Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, a tiny parasite called the Lancet Fluke has captured the brain of an ant, and forced it to climb the tallest blade of grass. The ant gains  nothing from this, but the Fluke profits by using the ant to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or cow to reproduce itself. The cow eats the grass, and the Fluke produces another generation.  Of course the ant has no reproductive machinery, and perhaps that is the reason the Fluke can use it so easily. Perhaps there is a kind of “ecstasy of the cells” in the ant when they discover they have a driven purpose of reproduction, even if not their own. Other parasites infect fish and mice for similar reasons. Dennett writes:

 “Does anything like this ever happen to human beings?….We often find human beings setting aside their personal interests, their health,  their chances to have children and  devoting their entire lives to furthering the interests of an idea that has lodged in their brains.”
 Dennett proposes a connection and writes:
 “The word of God is a seed, and the sower of the seed is Christ. These seeds take roots in individual human beings, it seems, and get those human beings to spread them, far and wide (and in return the human hosts gets eternal life…)”.
 Certainly this eternal life cannot be proven, so there is no actual biological profit as far as anyone can tell. But something is definitely reproduced, and it grows and changes in time.
 In spite of the fact there is no proof for such sacrifice, millions of people will sacrifice their lives for an idea with no guarantee of any kind of personal reward. There is a kind of ecstasy associated with this kind of faith, and the individual will quite willingly sacrifice himself along with millions of others, even if that individual is not certain s/he will receive a reward for doing so.
 Are we acting out of free will in such situations? If the ant could have a concept of free will, would it not conclude that it was freely acting as it climbed the tallest and juiciest blade of grass? Is it possible that the ant might feel a kid of joyous celebratory effect as it waited to be eaten?
 Eric Hoffer and Erich Fromm have written that the individual joins a mass movement because it allows him/her to escape a miserable, lonely existence.  It is, as Fromm wrote, “escape from freedom”.
 Humans desire to transcend, and they can’t transcend if they’re not part of something more wonderful than themselves. Nazi Germany shows us that individuals, even decent individuals, can lower themselves to the most horrible atrocities simply because their countrymen are also doing it.
 Christianity takes it for granted that the word must be spread, as does Islam. This who do not accept and repent are fodder forever burning hell. The drive becomes so powerful that, as Jesus said, those who kill you will think they’re doing God a service.
 The atheist will look at the idea of christianity and scoff, as well he should, because christians gain a proselytizing zeal that often borders on fanaticism, again, similar to Islam.
 Christians do not see it as an infection of a parasitized brain, but rather a duty, a God-given prime directive to make others like themselves. They consciously accept the “parasite” without question. Even worse, they will argue that their “mission” is righteous and holy and is of God.
 
 At this point, I have to go back to the old standby scriptures, Matthew 24:23, Romans 8:7, and Isaiah 55:8. If the natural mind is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to God, and if God’s thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways, then it stands to reason that our desire to convert the masses to “one way” cannot be a drive that is Biblical approved, and is the reason Jesus told us not to believe any of them. It is as much a disease of parasites as the Lancet Fluke that captures the ant’s  brain. The only difference is that humans breed the disease within themselves from their own desires to transcend.
 “From whence come wars and fighting’s among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have no, ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain…(James 4:1-2)”.
 The “self” disease, however, is not something we can simply  correct by developing laws that are righteous, because the most stringent and enforced laws are themselves subject to corruption. The disease is within ourselves, but we are a collection of uncounted parasites that inhabit our  bodies and use our bodies for their own reproduction as surely as the Lancet Fluke uses the ant’s brain. We are a culmination of all those germs and bacteria that accumulated to create “me” and “you”. There is no separation from this drive. It is innate and basic to everything we do.
 And all that is subject to genes, whose main purpose is to replicate themselves from generation to generation while seeking to minimize and control change. So, the “lusts that war in our members” are drives that come from the combined needs of billions of microorganisms that use our  bodies to reproduce themselves. At the conscious level, we seek to extend communities of those like ourselves, to extend our own reproductive success statistically, with genes selecting those most like themselves, as E.O. Wilson pointed out in his  concept of sociobiology. Given n o perceived kinship, we tend o act selfishly, to preserve our own interests at the costs of others. Given a kindred family, we see it more successful to our own genes by preserving those genes most like our own. It should be no surprise, then, that we seek to “convert” others to “brothers in  Christ” or in Islam, and eliminate them if they do not believe.
  Christianity and Islam are purely biological processes that parasitize our brains and use us to control environments so that the genes replicate with as little change as possible, and the idea of heaven as the reward of the “saved” allows for total sacrifice of self for the good of heaven, even if it destroys the world in the process.
-Ralph Haulk

 

Was God Really A UFO? A Shocking Possibility!

by

Ralph Haulk


ufo
Herbert Armstrong. Alien To Humanity

After I left the old WCG in 1974, my neighbor talked me into joining the marines, which was interesting, because I did gain access to a lot of writings and publications in California (land of fruits and nuts) than I would have in the foothills of Appalachia.

I ran across a book written by Brad Steiger titled “Mysteries of Time And Space”, and found it quite entertaining, especially the part about UFOs and “cosmic ‘Big Brothers’.

they-live

I have since misplaced the book but Steiger makes a most interesting point. There is no better way, wrote Steiger, of taking over this world than by seeding a crossbred race to operate from within our own species. These “special children” may be totally unaware of any special identity, but are being quietly shepherded by their cosmic “Big Brothers” in a process that will take many generations of mental and spiritual evolution. After that time, wrote Steiger, they may receive a signal which only they will understand, taking over special places in world government.

Most members of the old WCG and offshoots are aware that heaven is not the reward of the “saved” but are taught right off that God is indeed selecting a few who will qualify for places as kings/priests in “The World Tomorrow.”

 

As for “seeding a crossbred race”, my mind instantly went to genesis 21:1-2: “And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.”

 

What did Abraham contribute to Isaac’s birth? Not even sperm, apparently, since Sarah couldn’t get pregnant anyway. While kicking around among the UFO literature of the day, I found a book written by Art Gatti, titled “UFO Encounters of the Fourth Kind”, which dealt with sexual liaisons between women and UFOnauts of that time.Gatti writes: “Cyrus H. Gordon’s scholarly  Before The Bible (Collins, London:1962) points out that, where Genesis points out that the Lord “visited” Sarah, the Bible uses the word paqad,which is the verb meaning a man visiting his wife to have intercourse with her.””And the lord did unto Sarah….”

 

Let’s re-examine the promise made to Abraham and put it in terms  more consistent with the above:

 

“You, Abraham, if you accept my promise, will have a son. This son will be the first of other children to be born under exactly the same conditions, the same circumstances. They will be foreknown, as Isaac is, they will be predestined, as Isaac is, and they will be called and developed by over time, specially selected to take over positions of world government when I decide”.

 

 Once the deal was made, Abraham only had to trust that Yahweh would keep his promise. Abraham only needed to believe. Isaac would be born, and other children would be born as Yahweh selected, over time, under exactly the same promise and the same terms, as Isaac.

 

This is absolutely brilliant in its simplicity. It allows people to believe whatever they wish, to put any interpretation on God they choose. It allows freedom of choice to any degree the human mind is capable, but it keeps Yahweh quietly in charge of a process that is NOT dependent on the understanding of the world’s population. It could be carried out simply and quietly while humans fought and killed over who had the most peaceful religion.

 

Think about Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. Unless a man be  born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. The word “again” comes from the Greek “anothen” and means “from above”, not “again”. The word “annagennao” means literally “again born”, as used in 1 Peter 1:3, “…hath begotten us again unto a lively hope…”.

 

I would propose that Peter refers to a group that is “born from above”, and at a later time,“born again”, that is, made aware of their special place. The evidence for this comes abundantly from the verses above it.”Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit…”

 

The word “spirit” plays an important part in both Jesus and Paul’s teachings. These ‘special children are “ready to be revealed in the last time”(verse 5).

 

Jesus tells Nicodemus there is a birth of the flesh, and a birth of the spirit. It is assumed by Christianity that we are “born again” upon acceptance of Christ, and baptism, but that is not exactly what Jesus said.  Nicodemus was well aware of a “special birth” and assumed that all Israelites were literally born to inherit God’s kingdom. The idea that a person must be “born again” or “born from above” was a surprise to him. Can a man re-enter his mother’s womb?

 

The old WCG quoted John 3:8 a lot, but notice what it says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound therof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the spirit“.

 

John 1:13 also gives an interesting statement on this: “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.

 

So far, we see an account almost exactly like that proposed by Steiger, above. We see in John 6:37:  “All that the father giveth me shall come to me…”

 

John 6:44: “No man can come to me except the father which hath sent me draw him…”.  This indicates that Yahweh, the actual father of these children, whoever they are, will call them to Jesus by special appointment, not freewill choice. The word “draw” there, comes from the Greek which means, more or less, against one’s intentions. In other words, while they’re looking in one direction, they will be drawn in a direction they do not anticipate. The Greek is “helkos” and is also used in similar fashion in Acts 16:19, drawn against their will, or against the principles of nature.Paul goes into greater detail on the birth of “flesh” and “spirit” in Romans 9:8: “That is, they which are the children of the flesh(Israel) are not the children of God. But the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

 

What promise? Verse 9: “For this is the word of promise, ‘At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son’.”

 

In verse 11: Paul takes it even further: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” Then Paul goes into great pains, in Romans 9:16-22, to show that there simply exists no decision procedure, no “algorithm”, no process of human will by which we may show ourselves any closer to God than anyone else. Verse 16: “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy“.

 

Paul has gone to great pains to show that it is simply impossible for humans, of their own will, to qualify for this position. There is Romans 8:7, Romans 8:29-30, and Romans 9:8-22.

 

But then, you go into Galatians 3:29, which is even more obvious: “And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

 

Galatians 4:28: “Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise“.

 

Who are they, assuming they ACTUALLY EXIST? I have no idea, nor does anyone else. There is simply no process by which we can define or recognize them, since they are completely dependent on a deal controlled by Yahweh, made with Abraham.

 

Two different births, one of flesh (Israel), and one of “spirit” or promise. The word “spirit’ and “promise’ are used interchangeably in Galatians 4:29 “But as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now”.

The allegory that Paul uses was the birth of Isaac, of a free-woman, and Ishmael, who was born of a  bond maid.  The “bond” was then referred to Sinai, the law given to Israel, which places people into bondage to law.  Isaac was born of promise, a deal made with  Abraham which came 430 years before Sinai, so it stands in full intent apart from the law (Galatians 3:17).

 

Yahweh, therefore, had two basic plans in mind.  By giving the law to Israel, he actually created a system that would lead to division, confusion, and discord, but he quietly maintained a promise between himself and Abraham that was not dependent in any way on the will, intent, or decisions of humans as individuals, religions, or governments.

 

 This is far simpler, more brilliant in its simplicity, and can be fully implemented according to a system that is not dependent in any way on human will.

 

If it’s true, there is no need to worry about human authorities, religions, or governments. If it is NOT true, there is STILL no need to worry about  human religions or governments in terms of “God” since you are automatically free of them.

 

The only  correct choice to make in terms of religion, therefore, is given in Matthew 24:23. Don’t believe any of them. The only correct choice you can make, religious or atheist, is to be free from human ideologies and superstitions.

 

 

 

Why Do We Need To Believe?

I recently saw a show on PBS titled “Prohibition”. I’ve always had some interest in this era of history, with the crime and violence resulting from the attempt of the people to do “good”. What I did not know was that Prohibitionists helped usher in the Sixteenth Amendment, allowing the federal government to directly tax people, and avoid tax dependence on alcohol sales. I also did not realize that Prohibitionists encouraged hatred of Germans in WW1 so that German breweries such as Pabst and Schlitz could be demonized as evil on two fronts, being part of the German enemy, and producing alcohol that weakened the resolve and courage of “true” Americans.

Continue reading “Why Do We Need To Believe?”