Customer Reviews

God The Invisible King

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Wells evaluated the philosophical systems and traced their confusion back to lack of agreed definitions of words - in his book The First and Last Things. The sequel being a similar analysis of religions, was titled God The Invisible King.

Here Wells defines his position as a strong believer in one God and proceeds to evaluate the dogmas of the Christian Churches. He describes the notion of Trinity as an Alexandrian contamination three centuries after Jesus from the Nile, declared into creed in council of Nicea, and made fundament of all Churches of Christianity since then. Well calls the bluff of mysteries of the Triune or trinity, attributing an anti-religion motive to the institution that has been instilling this dogma into children. He describes his own childhood experience and how he was driven away from the Creater by the dogma.

It should be read together with Thomas Paine for a complete perspective of scriptures, institutions and effects on which the religion in the West is based.

It is a pity that the other two boks of Wells which make a series with this one are not included among books offered here. I thought they were missing even among books out of print. These are, as said above, First and Last Things and The Open Conspiracy.

Wells is going to make a spectacular come back in one of these days, to take most established institutions by surprize, as very graphically and prophetically described in When the Sleeper Awakes! Also an immortal book.

Have fun.

I REALLY REALLY wanted to like this book. Throughout the entire first half I was planning to give it 4 stars because it greatly inspired me. In the second half Wells' weak arguments dropped it to 3 stars. By the end the book was such a confusing mess that I dropped it to 2 stars. Finally I bumped it up to 3 again just because it is a good historical resource into Wells' thinking. Honestly I say it's 2 1/2, but I'm having a really hard time giving an H.G. Wells book fewer than 3 stars.

Everybody knows that H.G. Wells was an atheist. At least that is a common conception, but in this book Wells' vehemently denies it and spends the entire book laying out his form of neo-theism. I was confused by this and did a little online research. According to the H.G. Wells Society of America, Wells was an atheist but went through a religious phase due to the emotional trama of World War I. Supposedly he rejected those religious ideas later in life; I will have to read my copy of Wells' "Experiment in Autobiography" to get a better understanding of his religious views. In any event, "God the Invisible King" was written in that religious phase contemporary to the First World War.

The purpose of this book is to lay out H.G. Wells' religous beliefs and those of "modern religion". He explicity claims on the first page that he is not a Christian. Although to us it seems like he is trying to promote a new future movement, to Wells himself this modern religion was already happening in his day and was the direction that religion would continue to go. (He might have been right except that the reactionary fundamentalist Christian movement changed modern religion into something quite different.) First Wells lays out the difference between the Creator God and the Christ God. The Creator God is that power behind the universe which is distant from man and can be seen in God the Father of the Christian Trinity. The Christ God is the personal aspect of God which is in people's hearts and whom people relate to. Wells claims to be decidedly agnostic towards the Creator God, whom he calls the "Veiled Being" and says is both unknowable and irrelevent. He does however literally believe in the Christ God. In making this distinction Wells actively denounces Trinitarian theology, and after this distinction is made all references to God mean specifically the Christ God as opposed to the Creator God.

What is Wells' God like? He did not create the universe. He is not omnicient, omnipotent, or omniprecent. He doesn't know everything or have all power. He doesn't work miracles or answer prayers (although Wells contradicts himself on this point later in the book). He doesn't judge or condemn us. But according to Wells this God is definitely a person. He is a personal God whom we can know, but we don't really pray to him or worship him in any direct way. Mostly he is there giving us courage, feeling our pain with us, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us, and we are supposed to serve him with everything we do. Wells says that it is impossible to prove God, but we can experience him directly.

I must admit that in the first half of the book Wells says it much more compellingly than I do. In fact for the first half I was inspired by this God and thought that I as an atheist could almost believe in a God like this. It seems like kind of an amorphous feel-good God that doesn't really exist out there but is a very real and important part of our psyche. But Wells doesn't want us thinking like that because he constantly reminds us that God is a real external person.

Unfortunately the inspiration and though-provoking aspect of this book wears off halfway through when Wells makes half-hearted attempts to prove the existence of his God. Wells makes the same old agruments that would later be made by C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity", but Lewis did it much better. For example Wells tried to prove the existence of God through the existance of human morality. Lewis at least tried to prove the existence of objective morality (and failed), but Wells did not even try. He simply "proved" that objective morality exists because it is obvious to common sense. Therefore God exists. A thin argument indeed.

This book started as really good and went to mediocre, but after 2/3 in it just gets bad. I had to skip a lot of pages to find major points in the argument and to find anything that made sense. Here Wells transforms his God from a feel-good entity that lives inside of us to a militant ruler. He says that people need to change their perspective so they do everything (especially work) for the glory of God. If we all do our jobs to God's glory, then we will enter a socialist paradise ruled by God himself - the Invisible King. But God never comes down from heaven to rule earth in physical form. No, God is our dear amorphous leader who rules through humanity's combined actions (or something like that). It is a call for an end of governments and the rise of a theocracy ruled by God with no priests and no church. (But of course God never comes down physically, and as wells said earlier in the book, God never sits on a throne.) God forbids the wealthy from giving their belongings to the poor, but he also forbids them from enjoying their wealth and being greedy. All wealth and all labor somehow work together through the glory of God to create a human paradise. The problem is the Wells seems like a communist in one sentence and like an Ayn Rand objectivist in the next sentence. It would probably take a lengthy book for a modern scholar to sort out Wells' economic and political ideas.

I really wanted to like this book. I found it inspiring at first, but ultimately it fell flat on its face. I was struggling with the rating, but after writing this review I have decided that this book sucks and gets 2 stars. When Ayn Rand and Karl Marx join forces to create a churchless theocracy run by nobody, then I think it's time for H.G. Wells to go back to writing science fiction.

This is an excellent book. H.G. Wells was a deeply spiritual man just not in any traditional sense. His views on religion are very unique and intriguing. I would have thought him to be an atheist, but obviously he was not. His comments on the subject bring that to light, and interestingly he dubs atheism as a religion.
He calls the Council of Nicaea the most disastrous of all religious gatherings and expresses a lot of disagreement with current Christian dogma, particularly the cruel and arrogant portions of it. I definitely agree with him on that.

I think Christians' insistence that their way is the only right one and you will be tortured in hell forever if you don't agree cannot possibly be true and is inconsistent with the actions of a loving god. Wells also talks about the popular belief that people are born into sin along with a lot of other spiritual topics, on which he has many interesting points to make.

What I liked the most about this book was Wells belief that organized religion is unnecessary to spiritual growth and, in fact, harmful. I strongly agree with him on that. I was also very interested to read his thoughts on this subject. This is the only book like this that he has ever written, and his beliefs surprised me.

I was surprised to see that H.G. Wells had written a spiritual work. I'd always identified him with Martians invading earth. I firmly believe that his ideas are on the right path. Intermediaries are certainly not necessary for those seeking the divine. We are all one and the issues we squabble about are so petty. It is especially sad that the greatest arguments are over spirituality. Wells clearly seeks unity in these matters, and I strongly agree with his objective. This is a valuable book with great insights.

The January 24, 2011 issue of The New Yorker had a cartoon that expressed the feelings of most people. One character said to another: "I'm in the market for an easier religion." Readers of H. G. Wells' God the Invisible King (1866-1946, written in 1917), which is not a novel, but expresses his views of God and religion, may think that he reflects this attitude. Actually the reverse is true. He writes that people must learn to act, not passively wait for divine aid. Some readers may disagree with his views, but they should find them thought-provoking.

Wells states that he is not a Christian and his ideas are not Christian. He says that he believes in a "personal and intimate God." He rejects the widely held dogmas, especially the "disastrous" idea of a trinity. There is "no revelation, no authoritative teaching, no mystery." Ideas such as a virgin birth and resurrection and sin are untrue. These dogmas prevent people from thinking about the truth, make them passive, and discourage them from living a proper fulfilling life.

The word "God," he writes, could mean God as nature or God as helper. The first, he says, is the God of Spinoza and the second the God of the human heart. Wells believes that if a person accepts the first understanding there is no problem, but he prefers the second. When people petition God for help, the same God that helps everyone, no matter what the person's religion. God is not a being attached to a particular religion. All people are, metaphorically speaking, God's children. God is not found in a building, but in the heart.

Wells defines God as "boundless love," a "friend," "courage," and "salvation from the purposelessness of life." God "works in men and through men." He does not intervene in this world to help people. He neither rewards nor punishes. People do these things to themselves. Prayers do not help. God lacks the powers and knowledge attributed to him.

Wells states that God "is as real as a bayonet thrust or an embrace," he is the king, we must do what he wants us to do. Yet, he also says that he is not the God of old, but the God of youth. "He looks toward the future," he loves us "in the sense of" wanting us to achieve the best. God's "nature is the nature of thought and will." These statements suggest that God is a human invention; God is that which is in humans that causes them to strive to better themselves and the world. Obeying God means striving to better ourselves and the world.

Thus, for example, the current behavior of lawyers and judges is outdated, incompatible with "what God wants," with the human goal. The lawyer shouldn't seek to present only his client's view in a dispute and hide facts that support his adversary. He should only take cases that he considers just and seek the truth, justice, and the common good. So, too, judges should not decide cases based on conformity to technical rules, but truth, justice, and the good of society.

Thus, Wells sees the idea of God as a challenge to humans to be all that they can be and to improve society to become the best it can become.

This is what it says it is: a public domain text with navigation that allows the user to easily navigate the entire book, providing forward, backward and cross links to every section of the book. Most public domain texts (and far too many new texts) are just plain texts rendered into the Kindle format. This text was carefully constructed to fit the structure of this book.

I have the answer to the question 'why would God put people in hell if he is loving?' Suppose you knocked on the door of the most expensive home in the country and told the owners,"I'm moving in with you." What do you think they would say? Of course they would say no! And you wouldn't expect them to welcome you. You don't have any relationship with them. So you, who question God's fairness, live your entire life having nothing to do with Him, even denying Jesus is the Son of God; you then come knocking on God's door at your death and say, "Excuse me, I'm moving in with You!" Why would you think that you have a right to move into His house? Why should He let you in? You never asked Him to be you Father, as He has offered Himself to you during your life on Earth. As a matter of fact, you denied His Son as your Lord and Savior, who He told you was the only way into heaven. Therefore, there is no relationship that exists between you and Him. He is not your Father, only your Creator. You say," But He knows me, and He is supposed to be a loving God!" He knows you exist, but He doesn't know you personally. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said, " And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me ye that work iniquity". How terrible would that be to hear that from His lips? The fact that He gives us a choice to be in relationship with Him proves He is a loving God. It is up to us to choose whether we do so or not. If a stranger came to you and said that he was moving into your home, would I be justified in calling you "mean" for not allowing him access? Would I be justified in saying that you were "unloving"? No, because their moving in with you is not based on the question of whether you are "loving" or not, but it is based on your "relationship" with them. So it is with us. If we do not have a relationship that exists with Jesus, then we are not in His family, and we have no right to enter His home. Now tell me, who here is the inconsiderate and unreasonable one? I don't know if you are ready for this or not, but Jesus actually said in John 8:44"For you are the children of your father the Devil... He says this because His message did not find a place in the people's hearts. In other words, either God is your Father, or the devil is your father. I know that is strong language, but most don't realize that we all have a spiritual father, and there are only two choices. If we have'nt made Jesus our Lord, then we have a father whether we know it or not. If you think that is foolish, then you have a right to disagree with Jesus, but it won't change the facts. I know many assume we are all "the children of God". That is a misnomer. In addition to John 8:44 above, John 1:12 says, "But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God". Again, when speaking to the Father, Jesus said in John 17:9, "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. According to Galatians 3:26, our faith or belief in who Jesus is makes us children of God. It says, " For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 1:5 states, "His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to Himself through Jesus Christ. For us to show up at heaven's gates and expect to just move in without a relationship would be as foolish as expecting to live in that expensive home. Our lack of knowledge is no excuse. It is just as if we were speeding and told the policeman, "I didn't see the sign!" Well, I reread the book and I am thinking to myself "Why would a god be finite?" I mean, for crying out loud it is a GOD. His god sounds like a human. A real god would be infinite like the christian God. And lots of other things in his book make me laugh. I do not recommend this to you.

I enjoy reading opinions that oppose mine. Makes me test my faith in a positive way. However, I was unable to get all the way through this book. I just couldn't stomach the ridiculousness of the author's views. Usually an opinion is based on "something". I can't say that there was much logic used here. So...don't waste your time.