Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


OPEN LETTER TO THEOLOGY STUDENTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
 
As a teacher/priest you will be encouraging people to believe the Bible is authored by and inspired by God. That is unfair for they will not know the whole story - of how the book shows no sign of genuine or unique divine influence. Man's handprints are all over it. The Church uses a Greek mistranslation of the Old Testament and lies that it is the Bible. The prophecies allegedly about Jesus are like Nostradamus's vague prophecies. They seem convincing if you find an event to fit them but this is not letting the prophecies speak for themselves but imposing the meaning you want to impose on them.
 
The Bible claims to be verbally inspired in several places. Here is the main text. As scripture is entirely inspired it follows that the words are inspired.
 
2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.  New American Standard Bible (NASB) - literally it says that all scripture is breathed out by God. Breathing out is a metaphor for verbal inspiration.
 
The Bible claims that every word in it is a word from God.
 
So the Bible states that all of scripture is breathed out by God and enough for the average person to please God.  
 
Not a single word of the Bible states that Adam and Eve are symbolic. The notion that they were intended as mythical ignores the fact that believers in the past had stranger ideas than we have now that they regarded as literally true. The DNA evidence is conclusive - there was no Adam and Eve and no sin in the Garden of Eden that forced God to consider sending his son to save us from the results of that sin. Many religious scholars tell lies to cover up the errors in the Bible. The papacy is clear that Adam and Eve are real and is thus a fundamentalist institution.
 
God blackmailed Israel under threat of terrible punishment to obey his "word" and kill people, such as those believers who started to adore pagan gods, who committed adultery or homosexuality, by stoning them to death. Jesus never repudiated any of that. He might have changed the law of God in the Bible or updated it but he didn't say it was wrong. He even claimed the law was divinely inspired and that anybody who declares any of its commands absurd would be punished. Read the Sermon on the Mount. If Catholics are to be believed, Jesus is the God who made those laws and who made the blood run in Israel. The New Testament is said to favour mercy over such "justice". But even if it does it still regards it as justice. Mercy is not a repudiation of the executions but only means the criminals are being forgiven. It is not true that the executions were based on Torah civil law - the Torah claims to be a religious law not civil law. The worship of Jesus is the worship of a fanatic.
 
You would not give any other allegedly inspired revelation that lacks brutality the same status as the Bible. No you give it to the brutal Bible. How can you protest against perjury when you have people acclaiming the Bible the word of God during Mass? Should you not be worried that people revere the Bible because of some kind of conditioning or are they hypocrites?
 
The rationalisers in the Church argue, "The Bible may err but it contains the core truths." But why then not regard a book with less errors as the word of God as long as it teaches the core truths? And in fact Pius XII and tradition make it clear that the inerrancy of the Bible is a core truth! Such core truths as love your neighbour as yourself are disputed among philosophers so it is it really a core truth? And what about the fact that the majority of philosophers and scientists do not regard the Christian God as plausible?
 
How can you pore over the Bible looking for texts that supposedly prove Peter was the first Pope, when you ignore the message of Genesis 22 that revelations from God are to be obeyed without question even if it involves sacrificing your only son who God promised to make a great nation of? Genesis 22 is great inspiration for a mentally ill person who thinks he is getting revelations from the Lord. And Genesis 22 is praised in Hebrews 11. Genesis 22 has God lying to Abraham that he must murder Isaac as a sacrifice and Abraham is praised for trusting God despite the lie and praised for being willing to murder for God. Hebrews praises this as an example of faith which it defines in 11:1 as a conviction that God is right always, meaning we must never object even if what he commands seems evil or if he pretends he wants us to do something. Faith is a perception of unseen and spiritual things as facts.
 
You do not dispute facts but embrace them so there is no room for Christians arguing, "We only believe that we are right so in case we are wrong we will keep Church and state separate and avoid forcing our rules on others." In fact, if you disobey the Church you obey some other authority. No religion can have genuine respect for the autonomy of the state. The Bible evidence that Peter was head of the Church is non-existent. If he was the rock then he was only to be the Church's biggest support not necessarily its head. These lies about the papacy being of divine institution have caused much bloodshed and bigotry. Even if Peter were the head it would not follow that he was a Pope. There is a lot more to being Pope than just being leader of the Church - the claim that the office is essential to the Church, the claim that the pope is infallible, that there is no salvation to those who deny papal authority, and so on.
 
The Church claims the right to tell science that its discoveries do not refute its doctrines. It is not up to a faith system to tell a system that is based on evidence and self-correction that it cannot contradict it. Scientifically speaking, a pope has no right to say that science and religion can avoid contradicting each other when he is not a scientist. Yet the pope tells that very lie.
 
While there is controversy if the Bible teaches that it alone is the word of God, it certainly does claim to give the essential doctrines.
 
Not a word of the Bible teaches the major and fundamental Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine become the RISEN body of Christ. Indeed Jesus said the bread was his body which will be given up on the cross. The Church lies that the words of consecration are literal for it does not really take them literally itself.
 
I would advise you to read Protestant scholars who say the Bible does teach salvation by grace alone without good works and who have answers to James who seems to say that faith and works justify. Protestantism teaches that faith is a sign that you are saved by grace and faith is not like something you have to do to be saved. You believe and do good because you are saved. Such a horrible doctrine implies that if you go to Hell it is because God wants you there. Do you really want to worship a Jesus and follow scripture mongers and apostles who were the precursors of the Protestant perversion?