Agnosticism (part 1 of 4): The Concept of Agnosticism
|
 
Description: A brief analysis of the concept of agnosticism.
By Laurence B. Brown, MD
Published on 15 Oct 2007 - Last modified on 22 Feb 2009
Viewed: 6052 (daily average: 8) - Rating: 4 out of 5 - Rated by: 4
Printed: 407 - Emailed: 3 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> Evidence Islam is Truth
> The Existence of God
|
|
“We cannot swing up a rope that is
attached to our own belt.”
--William Ernest Hocking
_001.jpg) The issue of Agnosticism is of integral importance to any theological
discussion, because agnosticism complacently coexists with the broad spectrum
of religions, rather than assuming a separate or opposing theological
position. Thomas Henry Huxley, the originator of the term in the year 1869 CE,
clearly stated,
“Agnosticism is not a creed but a
method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single
principle...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of
intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other
considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
The word itself, as Huxley appears to have intended it,
does not define a set of religious beliefs, but rather demands a rational
approach to all knowledge, including that claimed of religion. The word
‘Agnosticism,’ however, has since become one of the most misapplied terms in
metaphysics, having enjoyed a diversity of applications.
At varying times this term has been applied to a variety
of individuals or subgroups, differing greatly in degrees of piety and
sincerity of religious purpose. On one extreme there are the sincere seekers
who have not yet encountered substantiated truth in the religions of their
exposure. Most often, however, the religiously unmotivated utilize the term to
excuse personal disinterest, attempting thereby to legitimize escapism from the
responsibility of serious investigation into religious evidences.
The modern definition of ‘Agnostic,’ as found in the Oxford
Dictionary of Current English, is not strictly faithful to Huxley’s
explanation of the term; however, it does represent the most common modern
understanding and usage of the word, which is that an Agnostic is a “person who
believes that the existence of God is not provable.”
By this definition, the Agnostic view of God can be variously applied to such
hypothetical entities as gravity, entropy, absolute zero, black holes, mental
telepathy, headaches, hunger, the sex drive, and the human soul – entities
which cannot be seen with the eye or held with the hand, but which nonetheless
appear to be real and evident. Clearly, not being able to see or hold some
specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence. The religious argue
that the existence of God is one such reality, whereas the Agnostic defends the
right to such belief, just so long as proof is not claimed.
As an aside, the philosophy that nothing can be proven absolutely
appears to take origin from Pyrrho of Elis, a Greek court philosopher to
Alexander the Great, commonly acknowledged to be the ‘father of skepticism.’
Although a certain degree of skepticism is healthy, protective even, the
extreme position adopted by Pyrrho of Elis is somewhat problematic. Why?
Because the confirmed Pyrrhonist logically stimulates the skeptic of skepticism
(i.e. the normally thinking person) to question, “You claim that nothing can be
known with certainty…how, then, can you be so sure?” The enemies of logic can
create a great deal of confusion by such compilation of paradox and
philosophical compost. One great danger is to seduce an abandonment of logic,
in favor of decision by desire. Another danger is to allow immersion in
intellectual contortionism to stifle common sense.
Humanity should recognize that if common sense prevails,
stubborn detractors begin to look a tad daft when the apple has fallen on their
heads a few too many times. After a point, those with the common sense to
accept vanishingly small confidence intervals (or ‘P’ values, as they are known
in the field of statistical analysis) begin to hope for bigger, higher, and
harder apples to either convince the academically defiant Pyrrhonists or simply remove them from the equation.
So, by common sense (and common experience), most people
accept whatever theories appear most reasonable, whether proven in an absolute
sense or not. Hence most people accept the theories of gravity, entropy,
absolute zero, black holes, the hunger drive, an author’s headache and a reader’s
eyestrain -- and well they should. These things make sense. In the opinion of
those of religion, all mankind should also accept the existence of God and of
the human spirit, for the overwhelming evidence witnessed in the many miracles
of creation support the reality of The Creator to the point where the
confidence level approaches infinity and the ‘P’ value diminishes to something
smaller and more elusive than the last digit of Pi.
With regard to T. H. Huxley’s invention of the term
‘agnostic,’ he was quoted a having explained,
“Every variety of philosophical and
theological opinion was represented there (the Metaphysical Society), and
expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were –ists
of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the
man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some
of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after
leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his
normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I
conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic.’”
According to the above, individuals who identify with
the label of ‘Agnostic’ should recognize that the term is a modern invention
which arose from one individual’s identity crisis in a circle of
metaphysicians. The one who coined this term identifies himself as a man
without a label, analogous to a fox without a tail -- both of which imply the
self-perception of a certain degree of personal inadequacy. What part of this
man’s pride did he leave behind in the jaws of a spring-loaded religious
enigma? Fairly obviously, Huxley, like many prominent metaphysicians and
theologians throughout history, was unable to find a doctrinal pigeonhole to
suit his concept of God.
Regardless of the above considerations, even if a person
were to argue that Huxley did nothing more than attach a label to a previously
un-named but ancient theology, the two word question “So what?” jumps the
synapses of consciousness once again. Labeling a theology does not imply
validation or, more importantly, value. If there were value to the concept, a
person would suspect that it would have been voiced earlier -- like 1800 years
earlier and in the teachings of a prophet like Jesus. Yet the prophets, Christ
Jesus included, seemed to have a very different message, the point of which was
the reward of faith in the absence of absolute proof, despite the
inability to view the reality of God with one’s own eyes.
Copyright © 2007
Dr. Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
Dr.
Brown is the author of The Eighth Scroll, described by North Carolina State Senator
Larry Shaw as, "Indiana Jones
meets The Da Vinci Code. The Eighth Scroll is
a breath-holding, white-knuckled, can't-put-down thriller that
challenges Western views of humanity, history and religion. Bar none,
the best book in its class!" Dr. Brown is also the author of three
scholastic books of comparative religion, MisGod'ed, God'ed, and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam).
His books and articles can be found on his websites, www.EighthScroll.com
and www.LevelTruth.com, and are
available for purchase through amazon.com.
|
Agnosticism (part 2 of 4): Discussion on Huxley’s Statement
|
Description: This article discusses the statement of Huxley on agnosticism.
By Laurence B. Brown, MD
Published on 22 Oct 2007 - Last modified on 22 Feb 2009
Viewed: 4417 (daily average: 6) - Rating: 3 out of 5 - Rated by: 2
Printed: 349 - Emailed: 1 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> Evidence Islam is Truth
> The Existence of God
|
|
“According to Huxley, the word was
designed as antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of early church history, and was intended
to be opposed not simply to theism and Christianity, but also to atheism and
pantheism. He meant the word to cover with a mantle of respectability not so
much ignorance about God but the strong conviction that the problem of His
existence is insoluble.”
The tail-less fox searching for a “mantle of
respectability?” So it would seem, but who could blame him? It was a
difficult and confusing time -- given the setting, many intellectuals must have
been pretty frustrated and imagined themselves to be short not just a tail, but
both hindquarters as well. In a time and place where, as Huxley describes, the
choice, in a practical sense, was Christianity or nothing, anybody who pondered
the theological difficulties would have been forced to reconsider the oath of
membership to any of the exclusive Christian clubs. Invention of the label of
‘Agnosticism’ was no doubt born of the frustration of having had to deal with
those whose doctrines could easily be discredited by men and women of
intellect, but in a theological void where an acceptable alternative was not
yet presented to the English-speaking world. What could a person who believed
in God, but who did not believe in the religions of his or her exposure do?
Escape was the only alternative, and that, so it appears, is exactly what
Huxley did. Huxley coined a term which encapsulated an ages-old concept which
afforded all who claimed allegiance an escape route from the overheated,
overcrowded room of religious discussion, and into the private den of personal
convictions.
Yet, although the term afforded a popular relief valve
for those who evaded the pressure of serious religious discussion in the time
of Huxley, the question arises, “Does the term have value in the present day?”
The truth of the concept remains, but the question is not whether there is
truth in the concept, but whether there is value in the truth. A rock has
truth, but what is its value? Very little, under normal circumstances.
So on one hand, the ‘So what?’ factor remains.
Encapsulating the ages-old concept of the non-provable issue of God sounds so
neat and practical, but does the concept of non-provability change anybody’s
belief in God? A person can embrace any of the myriad belief/disbelief systems
while at the same time admitting that the truth of God cannot be proven. Yet
such an admission does not change the depth of conviction each person holds in
his or her heart and mind.
And most people know this.
Few devotees believe they can support their religion or
the existence of God with absolute and irrefutable proof. Growing challenges
by increasingly intelligent and well-informed laity have placed an impossible
burden of proof on the clergy of the Judaic and Christian faiths, in specific.
Questions and challenges, which in previous ages would have brought charges of
heresy as a practical measure for the suppression of sedition are now
commonplace, and deserving of answers. The fact that Church responses to such
queries defy logic and human experience has resulted in clergy often having no
other resort than to reverse the challenge upon the questioner, in the form of
asserting, “It’s a mystery of God, you just have to have faith.” The
questioner may respond, “but I do have faith – I have faith that God can reveal
a religion which would answer all my questions,” only to be counseled further,
“Well, in that case, you just have to have more faith.” In other
words, a person has to stop asking questions and be satisfied with the party
line. Even when it doesn’t make sense, and even when the foundational
scriptures teach otherwise.
Hence, over the past few centuries the hierarchy of the
many Judeo-Christian sects have been driven back on their heels by God-given
logic to a teetering, bowed-back, arm-spinning posture of Gnostic ideology,
which in the early (i.e. the period of those who knew best) history of
Christianity was regarded as a no-holds barred, no doubt about it,
‘gather-the-firewood-and-plant-the-stake’ heretical sect. The scenario is
bizarre; it is like saying, “Sure, that oven was last year’s model. The
prototypes didn’t work. In fact they exploded and everyone who used one burned
to death, but we’re bringing it back anyway because we need the money. But we
promise you, if you believe -- I mean really believe -- then we promise you’ll
be OK. And if it does explode in your face, don’t blame us. You
just didn’t believe enough.” The sad thing is, lots of people are not only
buying it, they’re setting one aside for each of their kids.
The overall scheme of things is one in which clergy
considered Christian faith to be founded upon knowledge up until the educated
laity came to know better. For many centuries laity were not allowed to own
Bibles, with the punishment of possession in more than a few cases having been
death. Only with suppression of this law, manufacture of paper in Europe (14th century), invention of the printing press (mid-15th century), and
translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages (16th
century) did Bibles become readily available and readable by the common
literate man. Hence, for the first time, laity became able to read the Bible
(where available – publication and distribution remained limited for many
decades) and present rational challenges to established doctrines based upon
personal analysis of the foundational scriptures. When such challenges
defeated the arguments of the Church apologists, most Christian sects did an
amazing thing -- they disavowed the nearly 2,000 year-old claim that doctrine
should be based upon knowledge, and instituted instead the concept of salvation
through spiritual guidance and justification by faith. Particular emphasis was
placed on the alleged virtue of blind, unthinking (and hence unquestioning)
commitment.
The modern ‘spiritual’ defenses which sprung from the
new church orientation mimic the heretical ‘mystic exclusivity’ of the ancient
Gnostics, all echoing familiar sentiments such as, “You just don’t understand,
you don’t have the Holy Spirit inside you like I do,” or “You just need to follow
your guiding light -- mine is leveled, laser-straight and Xenon bright, but
yours is flickering and dim” or “Jesus doesn’t live inside you as he does
inside me.” No doubt such assertions appeal to each speaker’s ‘aren’t I
special’ personal ego inventory, but if someone insists on belief in
spiritually exclusive pathways, then no doubt others will insist on a
discussion of the difference between delusion and reality. T.H. Huxley, no
doubt, would have been happy to chair the debate.
The problem is that claiming mystical exclusivity as the
key to guidance and/or salvation is to claim that God has arbitrarily abandoned
the ‘un-saved’ of creation -- hardly a God-like scenario. Does it not make
infinitely more sense for God to have given all of humankind equal chance to
recognize the truth of His teachings? Then those who submit to His evidences
would deserve reward, while those who deny would be blameworthy for failing to
give acknowledgement, credit, and worship where due.
But unfortunately, the nature of delusion is that the
ones who are deluded rarely are capable of recognizing the errors of their
misunderstanding; the nature of the Gnostics is similar in that they typically
are too enamored with their self-satisfying, self-serving philosophy to realize
the falsehood of their foundation. And indeed, it is hard to believe the
waiter has spat in the soup when the restaurant is rated five-star, the service
refined, the presentation impeccable. Appearance and taste may be so good as
to defy reality. But it is the patron who regards the bearer of truth as an
inconvenient kill-joy rather than as a sincere benefactor who is going to wear
the sicknesses of the server home.
|
Agnosticism (part 3 of 4): A Fruit of False Religions
|
Description: How the concept of agnosticism was formed due to the lack of logical defense of modern day Judaism and Christianity.
By Laurence B. Brown, MD
Published on 29 Oct 2007 - Last modified on 22 Feb 2009
Viewed: 5090 (daily average: 7) - Rating: 3 out of 5 - Rated by: 2
Printed: 357 - Emailed: 1 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> Evidence Islam is Truth
> The Existence of God
|
|
So why the contemporary return to
heresy-slash-Gnosticism, with the official sanction of so many religious
institutions? Well, it is understandable. Since no logical defense of modern
day Judaism or Christianity withstands the pressure of present day scriptural
analysis, this ‘mystical exclusivity’ is a last ditch defense of a rapidly
crumbling doctrinal status quo. Significant attrition has occurred in numerous
Judeo-Christian sects already. The remaining faithful are largely forced into
‘believing agnosticism,’ holding personal faith in the existence of God and a
specific doctrine as the approach to Him, while at the same time recognizing
that such beliefs cannot be objectively proven.
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Sir
William Hamilton’s Philosophy of the Unconditioned (1829), and Herbert
Spencer’s Principles (1862) laid the cellulose foundation of the
concept, and T.H. Huxley packaged and popularized it.
So, does the concept of Agnosticism have value?
Returning to the rock, which only has value to those in need of one,
Agnosticism has practicality for those who feel the need of a theological
defense system. Those who are satisfied with such theology end religious
discussions by deflecting the threat of rational argument off the shield of
Agnostic defenses. To all others, it is just a rock. It doesn’t change
anything, it doesn’t do anything. It just sits there like the impotent and
self-evident lump it is, occupying metaphysical space.
Examination of the Islamic religion fosters an
interesting thought, in this regard. The teachings of Islam were not available
in the English language until Andre du Ryer’s French translation of the meaning
of the Holy Quran was rendered into English by Alexander Ross in 1649 CE. This
first translation into the English language being notably of hostile intent and
filled with inaccuracies, it fell hugely shy of inviting objective analysis of
the Islamic religion. As the translator stated in his address ‘to the
Christian Reader,’
“There being so many sects and
heresies banded together against the truth (by which the author refers to
Christianity), finding that of Mahomet wanting to the muster, I thought
good to bring it to their colours, that so viewing thine enemies in their full
body, thou maist the better prepare to encounter, and I hope overcome
them….Thou shalt find it of so rude, and incongruous a composure, so farced
with contradictions, blasphemies, obscene speeches, and ridiculous fables…Such
as it is, I present to thee, having taken the pains only to translate it out of
French, not doubting, though it hath been a poyson (poison), that hath infected
a very great, but most unsound part of the universe, it may prove an antidote,
to confirme in thee the health of Christianity”
The translator’s prejudice clearly evident, a person
should hardly be surprised to find the translation fraught with error, and
inclined to exert little positive impact on Western consciousness. George Sale,
having been unimpressed, picked up the torch and attempted a new translation of
meaning, criticizing Ross as follows:
“The English version is no other
than a translation of Du Ryer’s, and that a very bad one; for Alexander Ross,
who did it, being utterly unacquainted with the Arabic, and no great master of
the French, has added a number of fresh mistakes of his own to those of Du
Ryer; not to mention the meanness of his language, which would make a better
book ridiculous.”
Not until George Sale’s translation of meaning into the
English language in 1734 did the Western world begin to receive teachings of
the Holy Quran in an accurate, though all the same ill-intentioned, exposure.
George Sale’s perspective is evident in the first few
pages of his address to the reader, with such statements as,
“They must have a mean opinion of
the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any
danger from so manifest a forgery….But whatever use an impartial version of the
Koran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive
those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have
entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us
effectually to expose the imposture…”
and,
“The Protestants alone are able to
attack the Koran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved
the glory of its overthrow.”
The translation of Reverend J. M. Rodwell, first
published in 1861, coincided with the nineteenth century rise of oriental
studies in the scientific meaning of the term. And it was during this period
of dawning Islamic consciousness in Western Europe that Huxley presented his
proposal of Agnosticism.
Many Muslims might wonder, had Huxley lived in the
present ‘information’ age of ease of travel, broad cosmopolitan exposure to
people, cultures and religions, complete with accurate and objective
information on the Islamic religion, would his choice have been any different?
It is an interesting thought. What would a man have done who, as previously
quoted, stated, “I protest that if some great Power would agree to make me
always think what is true and do what is right, on condition of being turned
into a sort of clock and wound up every morning before I got out of bed, I should
instantly close with the offer.” To such a
man, the comprehensive canon of Islam may have been not only appealing, but
welcome.
This section began with the assertion that Agnosticism
coexists with most religions of established doctrine. Doctrinal adherents can
be divided into functional sub-categories on this basis. For example, the
Theistic (Orthodox) Christians who conceive the reality of God to be provable,
the Gnostic Christians who conceive knowledge of the truth of God to be
reserved for the spiritual elite, and the Agnostic Christians, who maintain
faith while admitting inability to prove the reality of God. The
distinguishing difference between these various subgroups exists not in the
presence, but in attempts at justification, of faith.
Similarly, most religions can be sub-divided by the
manner in which individual adherents attempt to justify faith within the
confines of doctrine. At the end of the day, however, these divisions are of
academic interest only, for the how or why of belief does not alter the
presence of belief any more than the how or why of God alters His existence.
Copyright © 2007
Dr. Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
Dr.
Brown is the author of The Eighth Scroll, described by North Carolina State Senator
Larry Shaw as, "Indiana Jones
meets The Da Vinci Code. The Eighth Scroll is
a breath-holding, white-knuckled, can't-put-down thriller that
challenges Western views of humanity, history and religion. Bar none,
the best book in its class!" Dr. Brown is also the author of three
scholastic books of comparative religion, MisGod'ed, God'ed, and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam).
His books and articles can be found on his websites, www.EighthScroll.com
and www.LevelTruth.com, and are
available for purchase through amazon.com.
|
Agnosticism (part 4 of 4): Settling for Less
|
Description: How a lack of any untainted religions has led people to settle for half truths, or, half lies.
By Laurence B. Brown, MD
Published on 12 Nov 2007 - Last modified on 22 Feb 2009
Viewed: 4515 (daily average: 6) - Rating: none yet - Rated by: 0
Printed: 347 - Emailed: 1 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles
> Evidence Islam is Truth
> The Existence of God
|
|
To return to Francis Bacon, he once opined, “They are
ill discoverers that think there is no land, when they can see nothing but
sea.”
Believers would offer advice to Atheists and Agnostics alike that God exists,
whether seen or not, whether desired or not, whether considered proven or not.
Argument to the contrary is just a distraction from a reality which will unfold
as undeniable truth on a future day of joy for some, deep regret and horror for
others.
A great many people need not await the Day of Judgement
to entertain such a conclusion, for all people faced with insurmountable trials
find themselves drawn to belief, for when faced with desperate circumstances,
Who else do people instinctively call upon other than God? Although few make
good on the promises of fidelity made at such moments of desperate appeal, the
evidence of the oath remains long after the promises to God are cast aside to
lie neglected in the gutters of the memory.
Can anybody help the insincere? Very likely not. The
concept of recognizing God and living in satisfaction of His commandments only
when, and for as long as, it suits one’s purpose, demonstrates an unwillingness
to submit on God’s terms. Take, for example, St. Augustine’s pathetic prayer,
“Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo. (Give me chastity
and continency—but not yet!)” Here’s the
prayer of a ‘Saint?’ who on one hand was praying to God, and on the
other hand wasn’t ready to leave the houses of prostitution, to the compromise
of his sexual incontinency. Compare this with the exemplary lives of the
disciples of Jesus, who are reported to have deserted infinitely more honorable
pursuits when called to follow Christ Jesus. These men left their worldly
priorities, such as their livelihood of fishing and their obligation of burying
the dead, when the truth came to them, without delay to a time of greater
personal convenience. The religious might be inclined to comment, “Wow! Those
are my kind of guys!” The more important understanding, however, is that those
appear to be God’s ‘kind of guys.’
Of course, that was then and this is now. In the
present age prophets walk on water, heal lepers, and bid mankind to follow only
in the imaginations of those with a view to history. All the same, a lot of
people still seek the truth of God and, once recognized, will follow
immediately, regardless of the sacrifice required. But first, they must know
the truth with certainty.
So what’s the problem? Simply this: information has
never been so readily available, and yet (on the surface at least) never so
confusing and religiously obstructive. Most people have been raised with the
intellectual tools to root out and identify the inconsistencies and fallacies
of the religions predominant within their exposure. Sincere seekers log a
certain depth of experience in discrediting various faiths, a few of which are
truly twitty cults, but the majority of which are sects claiming to be based
upon some version of the Old or New Testaments, but in fact diverging from the
balanced and fundamental teachings found therein. After a while, one sect
begins to look very much like the others, many times with only shallow
doctrinal differences, and almost always with the same questionable
foundation. Most such sects have evolved to a modern conglomerate of truths,
half-truths (or in other words, half-lies) and solid unadulterated deception.
The problem is, mixing truth with falsehood is like mixing beauty with ugliness
-- it doesn’t work. Any one particular religion is either entirely truthful or
to some degree impure. And since God doesn’t error -- not even once -- if
people can’t trust one element of that which is presented as revelation, how
can they know which teachings can be trusted? Furthermore, many of the
religious have difficulty conceiving that God would leave humankind to hang the
hereafter on an impure understanding of Him.
The problem screams in the doctrine-stuffed ears of man
that a person cannot mix truth with falsehood and continue to consider the
blend to originate from God any more than a person can mix loveliness and
ugliness and continue to win beauty pageants. Place a single, hairy,
multilobulated mole (not a beauty mark, but a true ugly mark)
smack dab in the middle of any picture of facial perfection and what does a
person get? Pure, unadulterated ‘Angelic’ beauty? On the contrary, the end
result is the all too human reality of beauty marred.
Place the tiniest of falsehoods in a religion, which is
reported to be from a perfect and flawless God, and what is the result? A lot
of sincere people walking, for one. But for those who wish to hang on to the
canon of a flawed belief system, apologists assume the role of religious
cosmetic surgeons. These apologists may succeed in smoothing the uneven
surface of scripture by way of doctrinal dermabrasion, but anybody with depth
of insight recognizes that the foundational genetics remain faulty.
Consequently, while some see straight through the lame attempts at excusing the
absurd, many follow anyway.
Amongst those who do choose to embrace a faith, many
arrive at their choice by throwing up their hands in frustration and chosing
whatever religion suits best or, at the very minimum, offends least. Some file
a telepathic communiqué with God to the effect that they are doing the best
they can, others rest comfortably on insecure conclusions. Many become
Agnostic with regard to all doctrinal faiths, pursuing an internal, personal
faith for lack of exposure to a doctrinal belief which is pure and consistently
Godly.
Refusal to compromise belief in a perfect and infallible
God for a ‘settle for’ religion possessing shaky foundation and demonstrable
doctrinal weaknesses is understandable – respectable even. After generations
of distracting family traditions, centuries of confounding cultural misdirection,
and a lifetime of prejudiced propaganda, many Westerners have become
spiritually immobilized. On one hand the concept of a pristine, pure religion
devoid of adulteration, corruption and, in short, the grimy and fallible hand
of religion-engineering man is much sought after, but elusive to Western
consciousness. On the other hand, many see too clearly the inconsistencies of
any present day religion founded on that with which the West is most
familiar—namely the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Some may remain trapped
within the narrow confine defined by the horn-tips of this dilemma. Others
look deeply into Biblical scriptures and recognize that as the Old Testament
predicted the coming of John the Baptist, Christ Jesus and one remaining
prophet, so did Christ Jesus predict a prophet to follow himself—one who would
bring a message of truth to make all things clear.
Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and a variety of other
Christian sects claim to fulfill this prophecy with the founder of their flavor
of belief. Many others are skeptical and still searching. It is for the
latter that this book has been written.
Copyright © 2007
Dr. Laurence B. Brown; used by permission.
Dr.
Brown is the author of The Eighth Scroll, described by North Carolina State Senator
Larry Shaw as, "Indiana Jones
meets The Da Vinci Code. The Eighth Scroll is
a breath-holding, white-knuckled, can't-put-down thriller that
challenges Western views of humanity, history and religion. Bar none,
the best book in its class!" Dr. Brown is also the author of three
scholastic books of comparative religion, MisGod'ed, God'ed, and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam).
His books and articles can be found on his websites, www.EighthScroll.com
and www.LevelTruth.com, and are
available for purchase through amazon.com.
|
|
