“Time for Truth”

Today I finished reading Nick Bunick’s book Time for Truth that I recently found on the New Book Shelf at the local public library.

I never heard about Nick Bunick. He was the subject of the best-selling book “The Messagers” published in 1997.  

Time for Truth is definitely an interesting and mind-opening book. It will make you think of the Catholic Church and Christianity in a new or different way.

The author talks about several wrongdoings by the early Christian leaders, mostly to control the lives of their followers by instilling fear and guilt in them and to maintain their power and control:

  • Distort the teachings of Jesus and turn words of love into words of fear
  • Create the concept of original sins
  • Invent hell, Satan and sinners
  • Make believe that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus
  • Make believe that we are responsible for the death of Jesus and place the burden of guilt on God’ children, for we are all sinners
  • Remove writings about reincarnation from the Bible
  • Remove the important roles women played in the early church
  • Only men could hold positions of leadership and they must remain single and celibate

I am not in the position to judge the truthfulness of “Time for Truth.” But it certainly gave me something to think about and made me think things a little differently.

5 Responses to “Time for Truth”

  1. thomas s says:

    typical post-modern response. we can’t know the truth about anything: we can’t know the difference between something that is intellectually sound/true and something that is false/shallow. it’s all relative. it’s your opinion vs. mine, etc. and libraries must pander to the lowest common denominator (is that too harsh?). different strokes for different folks and all that good post-modern stuff. and no, i don’t pretend to be God. he alone knows all truth. but it doesn’t follow that we can’t make valid judgements about what is good and bad within the context of the world in which we live. and, i think that i have some very good reasons to know what, objectively, is good scholarship and what is bad. sorry if i was a bit harsh but what is called the dumbing down of our society is one of my pet peeves.

  2. Avatar of Qin Tang Qin Tang says:

    Thanks for taking the time to comment and express your opinions.

    As I said, I am not in the position to make any judgment. I know nothing or very little. I’ll let God judge what is trash/stupid and what is truth/intellectual. If someone could say for sure which is which, then he would be the almighty and all knowing God.

    As for the materials in the public libraries, someone’s trash is another person’s treasure, and vice versa. If the libraries are not doing their jobs well by providing needed services to their customers, they wouldn’t be as needed as they are today.

    By the way, I understand original sin is singular, not plural. It was just a typo.

  3. thomas s says:

    my thanks to CJ for his/her supportive comments. but perhaps i should expand on my previous remarks, giving some reasons for my characterization of the book in question as trash. first, the book sounds as if it does little more than parrot a conspiritorial line that has been around for quite some time, a kind of “grassy knoll” piece that few, if any, self-respecting scholars (probably even agnostics or atheists) would find worthwhile. second, and consistent with point number one, is that the book appears to be little more than a re-hash of a lot of politically correct nonsense that is floating around these days. as CJ points out, one has to dig deep to understand the development of Christianity (or any religion for that matter), never to be content with superficial, ideologically charged speculation (and distortion). as to the local library: the librarians are, of course, free to stock their shelves with any materials that they wish, including perhaps even something as outrageously stupid (and dangerous) as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. but from their freedom to do so, it does not follow that they SHOULD do so. for my part, i expect libraries to uphold certain intellectual standards, stocking their shelves with something better than fluffy, rah, rah books and/or what i think, as in the instance at issue, can be accurately described as the works of crackpots. and, by the way, orginal sin is singular, not plural.

  4. CJ says:

    I largely agree with Thomas, although where I live there are a few very good books at our public library. You state yourself that you are “…not in the position to judge the truthfulness of ‘Time for Truth’ “. Now that your curiousity has been peaked, you owe it to yourself to read up a little more on the development of the early Christian Church and the development of traditions, disciplines, dogma and doctrine. I think you will be quite surprised, and then you may be in a better position to determine what is “the Truth”.

    And for the record, concepts like original sin, heaven and hell, and the disciplines of remaining celibate/unmarried/male-only are hardly unique to Christianity, or even to the Judeo-Christian ethos. From your brief description, I wouldn’t put too much weight on a lot of what Mr. Bunick says.

  5. thomas s says:

    this book is intellectual trash, assuming that one can even properly call it intellectual, perhaps just trash would be better. intellectual trash is really an oxymoron. besides, the ideas involved have been around for quite awhile, so certainly no claim to originality either. what should suprise me is that any self-respecting library would bother to put something so intellectually light weight on its shelves. but no surprise, really : i have persued the shelves of the “local public library” and have found them to be dominated by “fluff”. perhaps it’s time for the library to invest in some really serious, intellectually respectable material.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>