The New Communism—Without Religion or God

Bob Avakian in all his talks and writings continues to promote the new communism as the emancipator of humanity. Without religion or God, Avakian attempts to persuade the masses to put their faith in the scientific method and dialectical materialism for their salvation, not in the hereafter but in the here and now.

In his book entitled, Away with All Gods! Avakian argues that God, as revealed in the Bible, doesn’t exist because how can a loving, all powerful god allow tragedies and suffering to afflict mankind? Avakian also states that if such a god existed, “it would be a cruel, vicious, sick, twisted, and truly monstrous god”1 [emphasis added] that no “sane and decent”2 person would want to follow or worship. This is the age-old argument that every atheist and agnostic has used to attack God and the People of the Book.

On the other hand, Christians of all denominations have struggled with the problem of how to reconcile the fact that God seems to allow human suffering while at the same time professing to love His creation. Apologetics, as a branch of theology, has attempted to reconcile these two apparent mutually exclusive aspects of God’s character. However, what most pundits fail to factor into the equation is the holiness of God. It’s not surprising since we, as the Church, have largely fallen away from realizing God’s holiness because we are too caught up by the world system; we are more of the world than we are in the world.

Even so, Avakian is clever enough to use an obscure incident from the Old Testament book of 2 Samuel 24 to convince his readers of how monstrous God really is.3 Avakian was obviously aware that most people, including Christians, wouldn’t be familiar with the particular verses in 2 Samuel which would make it easier for him to catch his readers off guard. The incident that Avakian is pointing out is where David was incited to conduct a census because of God’s anger against Israel in order to force God’s hand. The back reference for 2 Samuel 24 is in Exodus.

The LORD also spoke to Moses, saying,

When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. (Exod. 30:11-12, NASB)

Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD.

The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. (Exod. 30:14-15)

David was fully aware that if he conducted the census without collecting the required ransom or contribution from the people as God commanded in Exodus, God would be forced to send a plague as a judgement upon Israel.

In 1966, John Lennon made the following remark concerning the Beatles, “We’re more popular than Jesus…” Lennon wasn’t being idealistic when he made that remark, he was basing it more on dialectical materialism. However, in today’s political climate, Hitler has replaced Jesus in popularity. In this respect, Avakian was ahead of the curve because in his book published in 2008, he wasted no time accusing Christian fundamentalists as being Christian fascists and associating them with Hitler.4

It’s interesting that whenever a left-wing extremist accuses someone or something as being fascist, they always bring up Hitler, not Mussolini—the father of fascism. I wonder why that is? Could it be that it would be embarrassing if people knew that Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy, among others were fascist sympathizers,5 and that Columbia University’s Casa Italiana was once controlled by Mussolini supporters?6 Fascism is statism, and communism is emancipation. Fascist economic systems are corporatist, but in communist society, there are no classes in that the proletariat owns everything which really means no one owns anything.

Avakian makes a valid point when he accuses hypocritical fundamentalist Christian fascists of insisting that people obey the Ten Commandments while otherwise ignoring other aspects of the Mosaic Law. Avakian labels this tendency as “Salad Bar”7 Christianity. Rightly so, since not only are the Ten Commandments still in effect, but the entire Law as given in the Old Testament of the Bible is still in effect—forever.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29) [emphasis added]

Jesus Himself affirms the Law, as given in the Old Testament, is still in effect.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matt. 5:17-18)

As a “Salad Bar” Christian myself, I usually pass on the salad and go straight for the strong meat. (Heb. 5:12 GenevaBible)

Avakian deviates from his tactic of misinterpreting obscure Scripture verses such as 2 Samuel to attack God and Christianity directly using Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific method. Avakian repeats all the typical progressive talking points used to defend evolution such as, “evolution has for some time been a settled question.”8 Evolution is a settled question like the Big Bang theory is a settled question. Like it or not, organic evolution like the Big Bang theory are examples of historical science, not operational science.9

In his book, Away with All Gods! Avakian bases a significant portion of his objections to the Bible by presenting the viewpoints of Bart D. Ehrman, Chairman of the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.10 Avakian is quick to point out Ehrman’s authoritative credentials since Ehrman is himself a former evangelical fundamentalist.11

Ehrman zeroes in on many accusations and criticisms of the Bible but I’ve decided not to address each of those criticisms and accusations individually, but instead, I’ve provided excerpts from Tom V. Taylor’s class handouts from a Bible history course I took at Biblical Theological Seminary in 1991. The following excerpts provide answers, either directly or in some cases indirectly, for many of the questions people have concerning our English Bible.

None of the original manuscripts survive and if they did men would worship them instead of the Lord. We feel the Lord has been pleased to give us very good copies…it is a technical study, but very good copies.

The work of translation is hard work because no two languages have identical vocabularies…and few even have identical alphabets…In addition many languages did not have some of the word ideas that are in the Bible (like redemption) and translators had to assess what speech idiom in a language would make this meaningful to the people of that place.

(Note: we do not change the Bible we change the translation of it…the rendering of it…to meet new concepts and societies.)

That is the beauty of the Bible. God gave us a book of truth that retains its character and meaning for life in spite of the many translations…these helping to make the biblical message relevant and meaningful from age to age.

The Word of God is the inscripturated message, not the individual translation. We may apply the term to any translation in a general sense because it contains the inscripturated message but if someone says well…’Did God actually write these words?’ the answer is ‘No, these are the words into which the God breathed message has been put by men for the people of their language and culture.’ They should be careful, of course, but they were not working under inspiration (technical inspiration of 2 Timothy 3:16) and are simply doing the best they can to serve God and His people.

It is also true that some heretics have translated the Bible and changed its basic thrust at some points to support their teachings. Naturally we are not going to endorse any such works but it is surprising that even in some of these books the inscripturated message of salvation and grace can still be seen.

The bottom line is that only the original manuscripts were “inspired” or God breathed. But what about “inerrancy,” i.e., nothing contrary to fact and “infallibility,” i.e., incapable of teaching error. If there are any errors in a Bible translation, they are due to “translation or an insufficient current body of knowledge,”12 as Taylor’s class handouts have implied. And according to the Ligonier Ministries’ website, “We can have inerrancy without infallibility, but we cannot have infallibility without inerrancy.”13

Practically speaking, whether or not our current Bible translations are infallible or incapable of teaching error, is dependent on whether or not the translators were working from an agenda. That is, if the translators were faithful to the best available manuscripts then the results of their efforts would be infallible but still not technically inerrant, again, as Taylor seems to imply from his class handouts. Nevertheless, “through the process of textual criticism, we can recover the original wording of the manuscripts with a high degree of certainty.”14

Slavery was abolished in the United States on December 18, 1865, but if you listen to Avakian you would think that slavery is still being practiced in America and that God, the Bible, and Christianity are responsible. Contrary to the nonsense that Avakian is peddling, nowhere in the Bible is slavery encouraged or promoted. The Bible references slavery because the practice was widespread during the times in which the books of the Bible were written. As a matter of fact, the Bible gives strict guidance on how masters were to treat their slaves and how slaves where to behave towards their masters. Slaves were not without rights in the Scripture as revealed in the following verses: Exod. 21:2, 21:20, 21:27, 23:12; Deut. 23:15-16; and Prov. 30:10.

In Matt. 8:9, Jesus heals the centurion’s servant or slave.

And then there’s the story of the runaway slave Onesimus who was ministering to Paul in prison and whom Paul sent back to his master with a letter. In the letter, Paul writes:

For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,

no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. (Philem. 1:15-17 NASB)

Jesus makes frequent use of the master/slave relationship in many of His parables as an analogy for the type of relationship He desires between Himself and His followers. (Matt. 24-25)

Since Avakian has irrefutably discredited God, the Bible, and Christianity, there is no reason to debate unchangeable human nature since it doesn’t exist according to Avakian.15 He further asserts that all the conflicts, tragedies, and injustices that have occurred in human history are all a result of the “system.”16 If you remove the spiritual dimension from human beings, then humans are no more than cogs in the machine. Okay, so were John Mauchly and Presper Eckert, the actual inventors of the world’s first digital electronic computer, cogs in the machine? Or how about William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Houser Brattain, the inventors of the transistor, were they just cogs in a machine? I could go on but you see my point. The capitalist system, which communists hate so much, is responsible for bringing about all the major innovations that the world now takes for granted. Would these innovations been possible under a system that promotes a “do as you’re told” work ethic?

Avakian, along with all other good communists, would like you to believe that God, the Bible, and Christians are all against science. Well, I doubt that Avakian is familiar with Donald E. Knuth, computer scientist, mathematician, and professor emeritus at Stanford University who is most famous for his The Art of Computer Programming multi-volume book series. In addition to his computer science and mathematics writings, Knuth is also a student and teacher of the Scriptures. He has written a book, 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated that is the result of his unique Bible study approach which he describes as “stratified sampling.”17 By using this mathematical principle, Knuth believed that “A large body of information can be comprehended reasonably well by studying more or less random portions of the data.”18

As a result, Knuth ‘randomly’ decided on Chapter 3, verse 16 from each book of the Bible given that John 3:16 is so well known and because he felt it would be easier for his class to remember.19 After allowing for books that don’t have 16 verses in Chapter 3 and for books that don’t even have a Chapter 3, Knuth arrived at 59 instances of the 3:16 rule.20 In addition, Knuth decided to provide his own translation for each of the selected verses even though he isn’t a Greek or Hebrew scholar.21 Considering the translations, commentary, and calligraphy, I think the results were impressive, particularly John 3:16 as follows (minus the calligraphic flourish):

Yes, God loved the world so much that He gave His only child, so that all people with faith in Him can escape destruction and live forever.22


©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.

  1. Bob Avakian, Away with All Gods!, (Insight Press, Chicago, 2008), 6. 

  2. Ibid., 6. 

  3. Ibid., 4-5. 

  4. Ibid., 16. 

  5. Gerard Sczepura, “American Fascism,” Theological Ruminations (blog), August 21, 2017,

  6. Ibid. 

  7. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 32. 

  8. Ibid., 44. 

  9. “’Evolution Is a Fact.’ Argument 1,” Answers In Genesis, October 17, 2017,

  10. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 61. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. “Inerrancy vs Infallibility: A Theological Primer,” We Talk of Holy Things, accessed April 02, 2020,

  13. “Infallibility and Inerrancy,” Ligonier Ministries, accessed April 02, 2020,

  14. Ibid. 

  15. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 226. 

  16. Ibid. 

  17. Donald E. Knuth, 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated, (Madison, Wisconsin, A-R Editions, Inc., 1991), 3. 

  18. Ibid. 

  19. Ibid., 5. 

  20. Ibid., 7. 

  21. Ibid., 8. 

  22. Ibid., 171. 

Study Method

In this posting, I’ll discuss the method I use for studying the Bible including some ground rules. First of all, I take a holistic approach to studying the Bible; that is, I look at the Bible as a single document, from Genesis to Revelation. As I see it, God’s revelation, as given in the Bible, is both iterative and incremental—you can’t discard any verse, book, or section without altering the message. As a result, we can safely make the presumption that the Bible isn’t going to contradict itself. That being the case, when confronted with an apparent contradiction, we need to take the verse or verses in question and try to square it or them with what the rest of the Bible has to say. This method requires one to do some heavy lifting.

Now that we’ve established an approach, let’s take a look at some ground rules. First, we need to settle on which translation to use. So, unless one is proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek a translation will be needed. There are three types of translations: word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase.

Popular word-for-word translations:

  • New American Standard Bible (NASB)
  • Revised Standard Version (RSV)
  • King James Version (KJV)

Popular thought-for-thought translations:

  • New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
  • New International Version (NIV)
  • New Living Translation (NLT)

Popular paraphrase translation:

  • The Living Bible (TLB)

Does it seem strange that I’ve only listed one paraphrase? Well, based on a little research, I concluded that The Living Bible is the only clear paraphrase, if one defines paraphrase as not being translated from the original languages. Since The Living Bible translator, Kenneth Taylor, used the American Standard Bible (ASV) for his paraphrase, it fits our definition. Some websites list the Good News Bible (Today’s English Version) and The Message as paraphrases but they don’t fit our definition. Remember, a paraphrase represents a second level of abstraction. The first level of abstraction is the translation from the original languages. In addition, the Good News Bible is not doctrinally sound,1 rendering it an unreliable translation for serious Bible study.

I imagine there are a lot of folks out there who would immediately say that the King James Version is the best and only version to use. It just so happens that the first Bible I ever purchased was a King James Version. It was a Zondervan Red Letter Edition, containing maps and illustrations, which I picked up in 1973 and still have today.  Along with the features just mentioned, the Bible’s front matter contains a title page which declares: “Authorized King James Bible” which sounds very official. But who authorized it? As it turns out, there is no record of anyone officially authorizing it;2 and by no means should anyone consider it to be divinely authorized.3

It’s ironic that many churches in the United States still hang on to the KJV even though King James himself “was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings and in the right of his bishops to run the Scottish Church”4 which flies in the face of the separation of church from control by the state as established in the U.S. Constitution. According to 1 Samuel 8:1-18, when Israel demanded a king, God considered their request as a rejection of His kingship over them. God also predicted that the king would become abusive and impose heavy demands on them. Unfortunately, kings and presidents are sometimes hard to distinguish.

The King James Only movement, and many churches and other religious organizations take the stance that a future one-world government will be headquartered in Rome or more specifically, the Vatican. Again, The Epistle Dedicatory in the front matter of my KJV, contains some anti-Catholic language that seems to provide some encouragement for their position:

So that if, one the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness…

Many King James only adherents claim that the language used in the KJV is somehow more reverent and respectful than the language used in modern translations. What is overlooked is the fact that the 1611 KJV was written in the common or vulgar language of its day.5 It only sounds reverent to us today because the only time we hear this type of language is in church settings; hence the acquired association.

As a final note, the KJV is no longer the most accurate translation6 and it has been revised many times since 1611.

In past years I’ve used the New International Version and the New King James Version but now I’ve settled on the New American Standard Bible (1995 Update). I use QuickVerse and Biblesoft PC Study Bible software in addition to a number of other references. QuickVerse provides a nice feature in that you can double-click on a word and the corresponding Strong’s Number appears along with the Hebrew or Greek word, translation, root, definition and list of English words and number of times used. Knuth relied heavily on Strong’s Numbers for the translations he provided in his 3:16 book.7

Finally, I interpret the Bible literally unless the context dictates otherwise. For example, in John 10:9 Jesus says: “I am the door;” which is a figure of speech. No one, I hope, would think that Jesus is a literal door like the wooden ones you may have in your home. This verse would have to be interpreted figuratively. Other verses may not be as obvious.

Although I have some Study Bibles in my library, I do not recommend their use. When one wants to study the Bible, one should focus on what the Bible says, not necessarily on what any given commentator has said. Besides, there is a tendency on the reader’s part to hold the commentators’ notes to the same authority as Scripture.

In closing, I’ve recently acquired a Jewish Bible or Tanakh for my studies. Since Christianity is of Jewish origin, I thought it a good idea to read the Scriptures from a Jewish perspective. I have The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version.

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.

  1. “Good News Bible (Today’s English Version),” Michael D. Marlowe, accessed August 25, 2013,

  2. Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 35. 

  3. Ibid., 36. 

  4. “James VI and I (r. 1567-1625),” The Official Website of the British Monarchy,

  5. Lewis, The English Bible, 40. 

  6. Ibid. 

  7. Donald E. Knuth, Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About, (Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001), 59-60. 


As stated in my “About Me” page, I’m a professional software tester. Software testers by nature don’t like gray areas; gray areas are where bugs live. We, as testers, tend to see things only in black and white. It either works or it doesn’t; it fulfills requirements or it doesn’t. Gray areas only exist because there is insufficient information preventing us from seeing the complete picture.

Christianity has been around for some two thousand years but we still struggle to see the complete picture—this is by design. God hasn’t revealed all the pieces of the puzzle; but He has given us enough information to see the big picture. Many of the details remain hidden and probably will be forever. However, He has given us enough detail so that we don’t get lost in a sea of contradiction and error. The only way to stay on course is to follow the spec; the spec in this case is the Bible and in order to stay on course you need to understand what it says.

But what does the Bible really say? Obviously, it’s not a simple answer since according to various postings on the Web, and if it’s on the Web it must be true, there are some 40,000 different Christian denominations who all interpret the spec in different ways. So then, which denominational teachings should you follow, or should you follow any?

It’s no secret that denominations exist because of doctrinal differences and they continue to exist because of tradition. You know the saying: “We’ve always done it that way.” If you factor out the doctrinal differences, what should be left is biblical truth in its lowest common denominator. The Bible refers to this simplicity as being the milk of the Word, whereas, the deep things of God are referred to as the meat of the Word. Congregations fed mostly milk get lazy and can easily get caught up in the ways of the world. Whereas, congregations fed the deep things of God develop a firm biblical belief system and are less likely to be tossed to and fro on those seas of contradiction and error.

So how does one get to the meat? Well, first you have to be willing to go beyond the simple gospel message. You need to take the initiative and go further. I believe it’s unwise to rely on your pastor, Sunday school teacher, televangelist, or anyone else to do it for you. God will enable you to understand, but first you have to be engaged. Can you see the parallel between many contemporary Christians and the doctors of the Law whom Jesus once criticized for not knowing what was in the Law?

It is my intention to use this blog as a forum for those who would rather have the meat not just the milk; and where the deep things of God can be studied and discussed. That is not to say this will be a platform for proposing a new gospel—far be it, but many things posted here may sound new to a lot of believers. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised to find many non-Christians reading and commenting on this blog. In fact, I welcome readers of all religious persuasions.

For those IT professionals out there, you may or may not be aware that Donald Knuth, Professor Emeritus of the Art of Computer Programming at Stanford University, has written two books on Christian theology: 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated and Things A Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. In his book 3:16, he provided his own Bible translations for the 59 verses he examined. He did this without knowing any Greek or Hebrew! How did he do it? I’ll discuss this subject in an upcoming post. My point here is that, while Knuth wasn’t the first, a precedent has been established for scientists, including mathematicians and computer scientists, to venture out of their areas of expertise in order to dabble in theology. While I’m not in the same league as Knuth or the others, I believe my views on theology are interesting also.

Since the following core doctrinal areas are essential for anyone interested in establishing their own biblical belief system, I plan to cover these areas in depth.

  • Sin and The Fall
  • Salvation
  • Free will
  • Godhead or Trinity
  • God’s Image
  • God and the gods
  • Heaven and Hell
  • The Tribulation and Rapture
  • The Antichrist

All posts will be listed under the Theology and/or Politics categories. At present, my posting routine is indeterminate. However, I’ll try to post as frequently as my schedule allows.

So, I trust that by now you have some idea of where I’m coming from. If so, then enough with the introduction; let’s get on with the ruminations!

Gerard Sczepura
Yalaha, Florida
August 22, 2013

©2013-2024 Gerard Sczepura. All rights reserved.