If the divine master plan is perfection, maybe next I'll give Judas a try

[vovat]

I mentioned earlier how bethje had ordered some free items from Family Radio, a Christian radio station on the far right side of the dial (and, in many ways, of the political spectrum as well). I've actually read one of the books, Wheat and Tares, which was written by the radio station's owner and president, Harold Camping. This guy hosts the Open Forum call-in show on the station, and apparently received a fair amount of flak when he predicted the world would end in 1994. Now he's giving the year of Christ's return as 2011, but being somewhat more careful to admit he could be wrong. Considering his age, there's a good chance he won't have to answer for himself if the end DOESN'T come then, though. Anyway, on his show, he's always telling people who try to argue with him that they need to back up what they're saying with Bible quotes. When someone DOES supply a Bible quote that seems to contradict Camping's teachings, he tells them that they're not looking at the whole Bible.


It seems to me that even the people who claim they take the entire Bible literally aren't being entirely accurate in this claim. Even the most ardent fundamentalists seem to think that some parts of the Bible are to be taken figuratively. There's a good deal of disagreement on which parts are which, though. Camping's contention is that the entire Bible has both literal AND spiritual meanings. This means he holds with the typical fundamentalist viewpoints: Adam and Eve were historical figures, Noah's Flood literally covered the entire world, evolution is a crock, people should never get divorced under any circumstances whatsoever, homosexuality is a really terrible sin akin to murder and theft, etc. Yet, at the same time, "the whole Bible and every part of the Bible is teaching something about Christ and His wonderful plan of salvation." The reference to Jesus' speaking in parables in Matthew 13 applies not only to the earthly Jesus, but to the Word of God in general. When people ask Camping about the meanings of various passages, it's quite common for him to say things like, "David was a picture of Christ," or "the Garden of Eden was a picture of salvation." To me, this begs the question as to why, if everything in the Bible is essentially pointing to the same thing, it has to be so long. But I suppose that's just me being difficult. :P Honestly, I've found that one of the most interesting things about the Bible, when viewed as literature, is that it isn't at all uniform in structure, and contains an occasionally jumbled mixture of history, mythology, law, prophecy, philosophy, and lousy erotic poetry. To see it as a unified work with a single message actually weakens it in this respect. To be fair, though, this is a view of the Bible from outside, not the Christian religion from inside. I don't expect everyone to agree with this.

Getting back to Camping, another phrase he utters quite often is "compare scripture with scripture." I'm sure he's not the only one to do this, but he takes it to extremes. At least once, he said something about letting the Bible be its own dictionary. If a word is used in one Bible verse, it has to be cross-referenced when all the other times that word is used in the Bible, apparently regardless of context. Luke 20:20-21 ("And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is night. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.") must be referencing Psalm 25:2 ("As mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the LORD is round about His people from henceforth even for ever.")

Another one of Camping's frequently repeated points is that the Bible is complete, and God isn't giving any more direct messages to people. To this end, he cites Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." He mentions people like Ellen G. White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, as having added to the Bible. On the other hand, he insists that his own teachings are from the Bible, but the true meanings of certain passages had been hidden until quite recently.

The prime example of this hidden knowledge is that, according to Camping, Christians should no longer go to church. Needless to say, this has bothered plenty of other Christians. Camping says that the Holy Spirit is no longer present in the "local congregations," and that Satan is now ruling there. Not only is no one being saved in the churches, but "the most grievous sinners" are "those within the churches who are convinced they need not obey the command to come out of the church." An actual sentence from Wheat and Tares: "Surely, if any and every sin is terrible, then by this statement, God is saying that the sin of not leaving the church at the end of the church age is super, super terrible!" From what I've gathered from Internet searches, many people are convinced that his condemnation of the churches is based on disagreements with his own church, and a desire to promote his own radio station (which IS still saving people, apparently).

Above all, if we learn nothing else from Wheat and Tares, it's that Satan "does not come appearing as a wicked person, as he does, for example, in the non-church world of the drug culture, the red light district of a city, and in the wicked hearts of heathen people who know nothing about the Gospel."


Another one of the items I received was a booklet entitled Leading Little Ones to God, which was written not by Camping, but by Marian M. Schoolland.


Here is an actual passage from the booklet:

"Are you happy when Mother is cross with you? No! But you are happy when Mother is pleased with you. And so we are happy when God is pleased with us. That is why we should obey His law.

"And there is another reason. If we do not obey, He will punish us. He must punish us, because that is right."

Yes, all of those italics were in the original.

Even putting the ridiculous writing style aside, isn't this presenting a rather dualistic world view? In Family Radio's form of Christianity, you're either going to Heaven, or you're going to Hell for all eternity. There's no middle ground, no Purgatory, no temporary sojourn in Hell until your sins are paid for.

I obviously have no authority to declare whether they're right or wrong about the divine plan in this respect. But looking at it from an earthly point of view, aren't rewards usually only given out for particularly good behavior, and punishments only meted out for fairly major wrongs? Most things a person does in his or her day-to-day life are basically neutral, and not deserving of reward or punishment.

Some other tasty tidbits from the booklet:

"Everybody belongs to God, because He made all people."

By that logic, shouldn't, say, my car belong to the good people at Ford who put it together?

"It is naughty to be cross."

So anger has never accomplished anything good in the world? Isn't anger sometimes a necessary component of social change?

"Mother or Father punishes you to make you good. Punishment helps us to stop doing naughty things, doesn't it? So punishment is good for us. Punishment is good for grown-ups, too. Punishment helps us to learn how to be pleasing to God."

So, in conclusion, no one should ever be angry, and every single thing people do is worthy of reward or punishment. There's no middle ground, and this behaviorist approach works on everyone. Did I get this right?


And, on a completely unrelated note, happy birthday to John Linnell of They Might Be Giants.

Comments

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

So the author equates Mother with God, acknowledging that Mother can be cross and thereby acknowledging that God can be too. She then continues by stating, "It is naughty to be cross" and that being naughty (wich includes being cross) deserves punishment. So, she has effectively state that God deserves to be punished because God can be cross with us. -_-;

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Good point. I guess this is a case of authority figures being presented as above the law. And we know how well that went over with King Charles I of England...