HOW DO YOU COINCIDE your philosophy of life and man with the seeming conflicts with religions as preached today?  Like everything you think, write, speak, and print, I presume you have well-thought-out opinions and conclusions.  With logic and reason you use on all subjects, and your keen method of reducing issues to analyses and facing facts, I assume you wouldn’t mind jarring us out of our smug self-complacency of being self-satisfied with what-was-good-for-dad-is-good-enough-for-us.  Open up and tell us what you think and why you think them as you do.
    So, here ’tis:
    “This is the inside story of a man who at one time was bordering on being an infidel, agnostic, and atheist.  The Bible was and still is a book of words the same as any other.  Who wrote those words?  Who knows?  There is no authentic record.  It is a series of stories, parables, gossiped down through ages long before they were first printed.  We are told that Guttenberg invented movable type although script writing was in use before his day.  Recently, a simple one-sentence radio message was related around the world through ten minds.  It returned so garbled it was not recognizable.  How, then, about so many stories centuries old, passing through thousands of minds?
    “‘God’ is a name given to the life-giving universal principle.  It is, according to the Book, both good and bad.  Stories recited are constructive and destructive.  These stories are full of contradictions.  Our study of The Book made us distrust its reliability when confronted with facts as we know them.  We were in doubt.  We had questions for which we found no answers.  That there was a Universal Intelligence was true, but it did not exist as The Book told the stories.  It was not a He or Him.  There were no places such as heaven or hell.  The Book was not ‘the Word of God’ because Universal Intelligence does not speak words, language.  If Universal Intelligence did speak words, was it English, Greek, Latin, German, French, Chinese, or what have you — all of which are in use now, some of which were not in use then, all of which are spoken of today as ‘the word of God.’
    “Each time The Book was revised or translated, meanings changed.  The Book today is not The Book of 100, 200, 300, or 400 years ago, much less 2,000 years ago.  If it is not, then ‘the word of God’ is revised and distorted in translations.  So, what is one to ‘believe’ or ‘have faith’ in?  That we cannot ‘believe’ and ‘have faith’ in that which is not sustained by logic, reason, and facts, is apparent.
    “Mingled into the Baconian controversy is the statement that Francis Bacon (who undoubtedly wrote the Shakespeare sonnets and plays) was also the person who wrote the King James I version of The Book.  He was a man of superior education, ahead of his times, with a broader outlook than the majority.  His vision was clear; but does any reconstructed version of The Book make it ring true to previous editions?
    “Preachers quote one passage to sustain another — book against book — the Old Testament against The New and vice versa.  After all, they are works written by somebody, we do not know who or when.
    “That there are good stories as well as filthy stories between its pages, is also true.  Which to follow?  We must use our reason and logic.
    “There is no authentic or reliable information that Jesus Christ left any writings in regards to His teachings, His doctrines, or any instructions on the way of life He advocated.
    “All we have is a Book which purports to be His historical life, together with what it is said are His sayings, teachings, and healings as declared by Disciples, written for our information many years later by the faithful who have neither seen Him nor heard directly any of the instructions or teachings it is reported He said.
    This is much like it is in Jerusalem.  Go there and ‘it is said’ that here a certain thing took place.  ‘This is said to be the place’ where this or that occurred.  There is no certainty to anything.
    “How well did the disciples and other faithful ones who followed later, who learned through gossip after it passed through hundreds of minds, understand Him; and how well were they able to pass along teachings in their original interpretations?  If those instructions remained unfathomable in their minds through lack of understanding, how much of the original interpretation of the doctrine was lost to them and their followers, becoming worse as time passed on?
    “The Disciples were not educated; their lives were such that intricate explanations were not understood, and their concept of life was extremely limited, together with their inability to express in writing the very intricate phases of His doctrines.  Neither did they have a language rich enough to express properly in speech or writing what was disclosed to them.  Passing it along by word of mouth — through how much time we don’t know — did not help it any, especially against such odds and physical obstructions as they had to deal with in their times.
    “We who are connected with A Little Bit O’ Heaven and The Wishing Buddha hear varied remarks regarding the religion of their builder.  Some see the crucifix in La Petite Chappelle and see, up on the waterfalls, the 14th century statue of St. John from a Spanish church in Pomplano, Spain, with two fingers upraised giving the apostolic blessing, and think he’s Catholic.  Others see Masonic plaques and believe him a Mason.  Others see the many Buddhistic pieces and think him a Buddhist consorting with ‘heathens.’  Newspapers, pamphlets, and sermons have been preached and issued for and against what men think B.J. thinks.  That you come, look, see, and admire that which you could not see any other way at any other place, should be sufficient, but rarely is.  The builder of these creations has temporarily reached the conclusion that there is no greater religion, under any name, than that of the Eternal Universal Intelligence, the Internal Innate Intelligence and the Brotherhood of Man.  He aims to live that life in a seven-day-a-week-Sunday.  If that constitutes being right or wrong, with religion, then so be it.  We make this explanation to satisfy the curious and set at ease the minds of the many who come to A Little Bit O’ Heaven, see, and then think what they sometimes think without justifiable right to think it, without first knowing what B.J. thinks before they discuss him over the coffee cups, tea cups, or finger bowls.
    “We are told to believe literally or be eternally damned.  Believe what?  The Book or what the preacher preaches?  If The Book, then we can read it ourselves without a preacher.  If a preacher, which one?  Which sect, creed, or denomination of the 248 in the United States alone?  If one, who is to say which one is right, which 247 wrong?  They, or ourselves?  Each claims to have the only key to the gate to let us in.
    “Preachers quote one paragraph, then purport or try to prove it by quoting another paragraph somewhere else in The Book, when all of them are words and more words with no proof of the source of any of them.
    “We would like to know that the books were written by men whose names are attached.  But how is one to know?  There is no record.
    “Several years ago, a negro committee called at our home soliciting funds to build a new church.  We asked what was wrong with the old one.  They said the new congregation did not ‘believe’ what the old congregation did.  We asked what this new congregation believed.  They said, ‘We believe in being washed in the blood of the lamb.’  Said we, ‘Do you mean you are going to have a bath tub, get some lambs, slit their throats, fill the tub with red blood, and then wash them in it?’  They, of course, denied this.  They then said, ‘They must be washed whiter than the snow.’  We asked, in all innocence, ‘How can you wash black people in the red blood of the lamb and make them whiter than snow?’  They denied this also.  It illustrates how preachers prattle idle chatter, words without sensible meaning, until it is disgusting to a mind that uses logic and reason.
    “Assuming that there was a character known as The Christ, and that he once lived, preached, and converted people to a better way of life, then he was a lowly man, common, plain, simple, without ostentation, who went out on the highways and byways and talked a simple form for a more sincere life.  If He is the example we should follow, why the necessity for expensive churches, costly raiment, marble altars to impress the unsophisticated with the sophistication of religion?  Your answer is: the people need idols to focalize their intention.  Have we educated them to that viewpoint?  If so, is it right or wrong?  Could we as well educate them to logic, reason, and facts?
    “What a contrast between the simplicity we are told of the life of Christ, and the costly extravagance of the usual church of today, to get over the same message!  What would the Christ think, say, or do, today, if He were to return and see what has been thought, said, and done in His name?  Would he drive the money-changers out of the temple?
 Methinks, if such would occur, He would be ostracized, ridiculed, and scourged as in days of old.
    “There is nothing wrong with the Christ or the principles of Christianity or one who tries to live the spirit thereof, but there certainly is much to be desired and corrected in too much churchianity being forced on people in and under the guise of being Christianity.
    “We are told it is advisable that we go to a certain edifice especially builded for that purpose to receive the administrations of religion; that a special day be set aside for that purpose of communion; that we listen to the expostulations and explosions of a certain preacher to expound his interpretations, to get religion.  Why is one place the only place; one day the only day; one man of one sect, creed, or denomination the only one?  Why do we need any?
    “Religions set up the necessity for at least one intermediary between man and God — a third personality to think and act for one — to have God contact man and see that his appeals for help and prayers are answered.  It appears that only this third personality can ‘save’ him.  This might be Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Mohammet, etc.  To make it more complicated, there is set up an intermediary between the ‘savior’ and man — the preacher or priest.
    “If ‘God’ is everywhere (and who is to say to the contrary), and if ‘The Kingdom of God Is Within You,’ then no third or fourth person is necessary.  Any person has the God-contact as evidenced by the fact that he is living.  If there be a necessity for man to contact God, then every person could contact God direct.  The vital issue is: can man contact God or does God contact man?  If there be a necessity for man to contact God, then he can be at home, in the woods, out fishing, on the street, in his office, and Universal Intelligence contacts him from within himself.  In this fundamental, we reverse the preconceived idea of the fundamentals of all religions.
    “If a third or fourth intermediary be necessary, which one is it to be?  If majorities have greater inside information, if majorities prove superiority of approach, or the correct one to follow, any or all other major religions have more followers than Christ.
    “The preacher, regardless of what he believes and preaches, interprets The Book as he believes, and then passes it on to his listeners.  Why hasn’t any other person the same right?  Does his having gone to a seminary or college give him the exclusive right to interpret printed words for all to read; or does that give him exclusive right to think his way the only right way?
    “All peoples — be they aborigines, savages, natives, or civilized people as we like to think ourselves — have recognized a great universal source of life greater than ourselves, be that universal understanding as large as ours or as small as we think theirs is.  Some worship sex, others the sun, others the Great Spirit, etc.  Each has his symbols which personify his savior for his select group, be it Christ with the cross and crucifix, phallic worshippers with the phallus and yoni, etc.
    “‘As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.’  ‘Give your heart to Jesus,’ ‘Open your heart,’ and other thoughts of like kind are scriptural and are repeated from the pulpit constantly.  In the days such thoughts had their origin, it was ‘believed’ the heart was the seat of life.  Today, we know the heart is a series of muscles and valves to pump a blood fluid.  Isn’t it time we corrected wrong ancient symbolisms so we appeal to the reason and logic of people?  And where should this begin but with preachers, regardless of what The Book says?  Why perpetuate something all know is a wrong premise?  To correct it would make for confidence in language and thinking and bring scriptures in line with logic, reason, and facts.
    “There is a gulf between theorist and realist, sophist and scientist.  The theorist lives with his monumental emotional beliefs and faiths.  He takes it for granted The Book is.  No questions asked or answers requested.  The realist lives within defines and confines of logic, reason, and fact.  He asks questions and wants answers based on knowledge, proof.  Who wrote The Book?  When?  How do you know?  The two types can never agree.
    “We have listened to thousands of prayers, from all denominations.  Boiled down, they are one of two things and are often both: a thanks for something we have done, or a plea for something we want.
    “The moment Sunday comes, the man becomes a preacher or the preacher ceases to be a man.  He puts on his ‘Sunday-go-to-meeting’ clothes.  His face becomes grave, his voice takes on a funeral sepulchral tone, he rants and raves, shouts and yells.  Would there be any objection if he were to talk common sense, as a man to men, as a man to women?
    “Why must we, as Christians, who think we are right and have the only open sesame to heaven, think we must transpose other religions to our country, and transport our religious beliefs to others?  We think we are right.  So do they.  We believe in the democratic way of life.  Why not, then, let them believe what they please.
    “After all, all any of us have are ‘beliefs and faiths,’ and any or all of any of us may be right or wrong because none of us know.  None have been to heaven or hell and returned to prove our beliefs or faiths; neither has anybody talked to God to know what the Universal Intelligence knows.  Does the Hindu, Mohammedan, Buddhist come here and try to force his religion on us?
    “In ancient days, a male king was the ruler of his people.  In setting up a religion, the people of those days thought in terms of like kind.  They created a God as a male being and called Him King.  Being considered a greater spiritual king than any earthly king, they called Him King of Kings.  And they speak of this Savior as ‘the only begotten Son.’  What about the rest of us males?  We were ‘begotten.’  If this Savior was ‘the only,’ then who caused the rest of us to come into being?  Did we ‘grow up’ like Topsy, or were we made like Adam and Eve?  Why do ministers use words and more words that are senseless, idiotic, which misdirect thoughts of people?
    “In ancient days, the king lived in a castle surrounded by walls to keep out riff-raff and rabble, and let in the select few.  In setting up a religion, the people of those days created heaven as a city containing a castle surrounded by walls to keep out the unsaved and let in the saved.
    “In ancient days, the walls had gates with a gate-keeper.  In setting up a religion, the people of those days had a St. Peter who opened and closed the gates according to what your religious rating was.  These gates of heaven had to be finer, better, and more costly than any earthly gates, so we had pearly gates.  Whether they were made of pearls or had pearls imbedded in them, or had mother-of-pearl shells, we do not know.
    “In ancient days, the earthly king had a throne on which he sat, to which the mass of slaves, subjects, and followers could look up to him.  Even today, preachers exhort about ‘the great white throne.’  Why must it be ‘white’?  Why must there be a ‘throne’ at all?  Of what is the ‘throne’ made — wood, marble, gold?  He being greater than they, he sat above them.  This custom prevails in Siam where anybody less than royalty must crawl on their hands and knees and keep away at least twenty feet from contact.  Being prostrate, they must look up to royalty.  In setting up a religion, these ancient peoples put God on a throne, too.  Subjects now get down on their knees to prostrate themselves before Him.
    “In ancient times, ambrosia was a rare food, difficult to get, costly to have, fit only for kings because of its exclusiveness.  In setting up a religion, these ancients followed suit and thought of ambrosia as the food fit for the few who entered heaven.
    “In ancient times, without knowledge of astronomy or clouds above, the ancients set up the belief that up there somewhere was a beautiful abode of some kind.  In setting up a religion, we carried over their superstitions of a heaven in the sky.  Today, we have a conflict between the carrying over of superstitions mixed with our scientific knowledge of astronomy and what aeroplanes reveal to us miles high.  No such heaven as the ancients believed has been found, yet we teach and preach it as though it were a reality.
    “In ancient times, the people could conceive of no greater punishment for evil doing than torture by fire.  So they carried over that idea into religions and set up a hell of eternal fire and brimstone torture — unless, perchance, we were saved by somebody who said something over us, who has some mysterious inside method of keeping us from going there.  Heaven was patterned after man’s happiness on earth; and hell was patterned after man’s inhumanities to man on earth with its punishments and tortures.
    “In ancient times, heaven and hell were pictured as actual places; heaven, with angels with wings floating around on clouds, with white flowing robes, playing harps, etc.; hell, as down below with eternal fire with Satan or the devil with a fork holding human beings, heads down in a pit of everlasting fire.  Heaven and hell were places of eternal futures from here on in until the end of time, providing you had been good or bad while living on earth.
    “In ancient times, gold was the most precious metal, scarce, and he who had a little of it was rich in resources.  To follow the pattern, religion paved the streets of heaven with gold; for, up there, there was plenty of everything that was rich.
    “Man has set religions after the patterns of men.  God has been brought down to the level of man’s ideas.  Peculiarly, all religions are intended to raise man to the superior level of God.  God has been made man-like, whereas man should be God-like.
    “There are contradictions in all this.  Man may set up a heaven for the righteous and a hell for evil-doers, but a man may live a life of crime, be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to hang by the neck until dead, dead, dead.  If he confesses his sins, adopts religion, even though it be at his last hour, he can he jerked to Jesus and be saved from hell and sent to heaven instead.  This puts a premium on crime and adds no premium for honesty and the holier-than-thou people.  There must be something wrong with churchianity when this is possible.
    “In the Mohammedan faith there are no women in Nirvana.  If a Mohammedan kills an infidel Christian, he can cut off one million years waiting to get to the Mohammedan heaven; and, although there are no women permitted, he can enjoy the ecstasies of sex joy every second of eternity with a different woman, while there.  Where is the Mohammedan who wants to change his faith to Christianity when it does not offer him as much?
    “In Borneo, one woman may religiously have four husbands.  In Mohammedan countries, one man may religiously have four wives and as many concubines as he can support.  In Christian countries, one man religiously is confined to one woman.  Who is right or wrong?
    “Bali is Mohammedan.  On our ship was a Christian minister and his wife from Kansas City.  One Bali Mohammedan told the Christian wife he had four wives.  Telling us about it later on board ship, this woman said she ‘told him a thing or two about the evils of having four wives.  I quoted Scriptures to prove it, too.’  We asked her what he said.  ‘He didn’t dare say anything or I would have given him a piece of my mind.’  Knowing the Mohammedan mind, he was too courteous to a visitor to his shores to try to convince her she was wrong.  Was what she did right or wrong?
    “Each major religion (Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Mohammedan) was born to meet the necessities of that period of time, type of people involved, and environmental conditions of the geographical countries.  Tropical countries have conditions to meet which are not true in temperate zones, etc.
    “A classic example is Hitler in Germany during World War II.  Hitler set himself up as the apostolic leader of his people.  He substituted himself for God.  Germany was a Christian nation previous to Hitler’s day.  The Christian faith proclaimed marriage between one man and one woman.  Children were illegitimate and a sin was committed otherwise.
 The first World War decimated millions of men.  Women predominated.  There was a scarcity of men to carry on the nation’s need.  There was a necessity for males.  There was a geographical necessity to populate the country with children.  Ergo, drop necessity of marriage, proclaim necessity of commingling of sexes and establish it as a religious factor.  Hitler so ordered, and it became legitimate in German life to cohabit without marriage, and have children without aid of the church.  Could Hitler have controlled the issue, he would have ordered only boys.
    “Borneo met the necessity religiously when there were four men to each woman.  Mohammet met the same issue, reversed, when there were four women to each man.  In India, where poverty, pestilence, disease, famine, and sex run rampant, the Hindu faith gave birth to thousands of castes of classifications to separate lower groups from higher ones, each hoping to dominate.  Buddhism is one thing in India; quite another in China; and still quite different in Japan where it takes on all major aspects of phallic worship.  Each had geographical problems to meet, so changes took place.
    “Even in the U.S. — a supposedly Christian country — time proves we have modified, amended, abridged, enlarged, restricted, and liberated our concepts, beliefs, and faiths of the Christian Book to suit our times, geography, and environment.  One group does not believe in music in church; another makes much of it; another construes dancing a sin; others encourage it in church parlors.  One condemns card playing as sinful; others have no objection.  Some churches abhor smoking; others see no harm in it.  Gambling is a crime in the eyes of some churches; others hold bingo parties regularly.  One keeps all day Sunday for worship; others permit golf, baseball, prize fights, picnics, movies Sunday afternoons and evenings.  Gautama Buddha said ‘Everything in moderation.’  Each builds and reshapes to meet caprices and idiosyncrasies of groups of adherents until today we have 248 schisms in the United States alone; yet all call themselves Christians the same as split groups in the Orient call themselves Buddhists.  It is such transitions in human thinking that bring about geographical differences in religions.  If one wanted to be a Christian and he had no religion but was seeking one, which group should he join and ‘believe’ was right?  The Orient says to the Occident — ‘until you know what is right and wrong, why should your many groups come to our country to tell us; because, after all, we are as good or as bad as you are.’
    “In the beginning of this story, Herb, you asked how we reconciled the conflict between our philosophy of man and religions as taught and believed in.  We have given a few reasons upon which we based our logic, reason, and the facts as they exist in our mind.  We have spoken frankly.  We do not ask any other to accept or reject these opinions.  They have a right to theirs, so do we also have a right to ours.  In the beginning, while here, or after we are gone, what was, is, or will be, will be what is regardless of what we think, right or wrong.
    “As a fundamental for the concept of modern religions we concede ‘God’ as a great good, all wise, omnipotent, omniscient, Universal Intelligence of all living things including man.  We could not admit it as a He being.  This Universal Intelligence lightens our burdens, trials, troubles, and tribulations.  All this could and would be a truism and reality if we mortals would let the Universal Intelligence run the universe and help men in its own way, time, and place.  As human mortals, we pray, plead, beg, advise, and try to run ‘God’ in everything and everybody as we want.
    “Listen to radio Sunday from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon; tune all stations; what do you get?  Conflict, contradictions, a babel of voices.  How many ears has this He God?  Multiply one city by millions; one country by hundreds; dozens of churches in one city by hundreds of thousands; one preacher in each church by an endless number everywhere — to how many can one pair of ears listen?
    “Many countries, many languages, many conflicting pleas and prayers — if you were God, how would you understand without confusion?  Is God an international linguist?  We are told The Book is ‘the word of God.’  Does God answer hundreds of languages in one language?  If so, which one is ‘the word of God’?
    “With millions of prayers and pleas bombarding ‘Our Heavenly Father’s’ ears simultaneously, in hundreds of foreign tongues, each begging for something different — reason should convince us how useless such is.  Realizing this, certain groups print prayers by the million, distribute them to the faithful, having one common plea on the theory that the more there is the more attention God will give to us, and thus distract God from the other fellow.  We keep this up week after week, on the theory that there is a volume potential in repetition.  If we shout it long enough, strong enough, God will hear us and ignore the simple, single fellow who whispers.
    “During the world war each nation prayed to the same God for victory ‘over Thine enemies.’  How did God decide which to favor?  Abraham Lincoln said, ‘It isn’t a question of whether we were on God’s side, but whether God was on our side.’
    “Modern religions approach the solution of human problems thinking we must contact and intimidate and subsidize God; pour out our wants getting God to see us as we see ourselves.  Wishfully thinking, we hope He will listen to each and give us what we want.  The reverse seems true.  Let God contact us, without interference, and we profit.  Universal Intelligence will then flow down to us and Innate will flow within us and all will come to us that we deserve and have earned the natural and normal right to have.  Anything that is artificially forced from outside in, or from below up, has no permanent merit.  Everything that naturally flows from above down, from within out, has permanent constructive life-giving and sustaining qualities.
    “When we were young, we desired to be one of the many, swim with the crowd.  To this end, we felt we had to adopt Christianity as did everybody else, and adapt it to our life as they did.  To this end, we attended the Episcopal church, sang in the choir, etc.  We don’t remember now how we came to pick this particular church.  Without intending, we found a conflict developing between what preachers told us we had to do to be saved, and what The Book itself said.  The more we listened to more preachers, and the more we studied The Book, the greater became the gulf.  Preachers said The Book said one had to ‘have faith and believe’ in its every word literally, or one would be eternally lost in hell.  We could not believe that a Universal Intelligence was that cruel and we could not have faith that The Book meant such.  Doubts increased and multiplied.  We secured an extensive library of ‘authorities,’ pro and con.  We got Ingersoll, Brann, etc.  More we read the ‘con’ books, greater became the gulf.  We were coming out of this conflict an infidel, agnostic, and atheist — not that either side alone did it, but that the conflict between was forcing that conclusion.  Millions of Christians couldn’t be wrong.  We couldn’t be one of the few right.  What to do?  We didn’t want to add fuel to the fires of protest and antagonism smoldering within us.
    “We decided to call on Bishop Morrison of the Episcopal Cathedral in our city.  He was a broad, liberal, constructive thinker.  We presented our problem.  He said, ‘My son, what you are going through is what every preacher has had to face.  I agree with your premise.  There is a conflict between what preachers preach and what The Book tells.  We cannot follow The Book or preachers literally.  Each is trying to teach a better way to live.  The Book gives a positive series of lessons if we interpret its language ourselves.  Preachers give us a negative series of fears for the future, but we must interpret the spirit of what they say rather than the literal dramatizations they picture.’  We asked the Bishop for an example.  He said: ‘The Book says, “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.”  This does not mean that a man who goes around slaying people with a sword is going to cut his own throat with that sword.  If you interpret it yourself it should mean that one who thinks, speaks, and acts destructive thoughts injures himself.  Study The Book in that manner and you will find it is the best public relations human interest book ever printed.’  From there on, we clarified our thinking and acting in that manner and along those lines.  He was right.  We have since figured everything with logic, reason, and common sense.  That was what he did and what he advised us to do.  For this and these reasons, we cannot adhere to any sect, creed, or denomination.  We belong to no church.  We live our religion as we figure it to be.  We live our lives the best our thinking facts have established.  We are no longer an infidel, agnostic, or atheist, but we place our interpretations on what to us is knowledge regarding the great Universal Intelligence and the internal Innate and where the little education we possess fits into the great scheme of things.
    “The good way of life is simple, not complex.  Be natural.  Let the big fellow within shine through and dominate the little fellow without.  If this occurs, life will be lived at its fullest; you will do the dictates of your better self; your conscience will not worry you; and at night you will go to rest realizing you lived the best you know how.  More than that, no mortal man can ask or expect be done.
    “There being a superior intelligence, let it contact you, direct you, and all will be as right as the shortcomings of matter permit.”