{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-2:some-reasons-why",
  "slug": "some-reasons-why",
  "title": "Some Reasons Why",
  "subtitle": "Why religion makes enemies, why inspiration is a fiction, and why the morality of the heathen exceeded that of the prophets.",
  "excerpt": "Eleven reasons against the orthodox case — religion as enemy-maker, inspiration as confidence trick, and the moral superiority of pagan philosophers over the Jewish prophets.",
  "year": 1881,
  "volume": 2,
  "category": "Lecture",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/some-reasons-why/",
  "wordCount": 10884,
  "body": "RELIGION makes enemies instead of friends. That one word, \"religion,\"\ncovers all the horizon of memory with visions of war, of outrage, of\npersecution, of tyranny, and death. That one word brings to the mind\nevery instrument with which man has tortured man. In that one word are\nall the fagots and flames and dungeons of the past, and in that word is\nthe infinite and eternal hell of the future.\n\nIn the name of universal benevolence Christians have hated their\nfellow-men. Although they have been preaching universal love, the\nChristian nations are the warlike nations of the world. The most\ndestructive weapons of war have been invented by Christians. The\nmusket, the revolver, the rifled canon, the bombshell, the torpedo, the\nexplosive bullet, have been invented by Christian brains.\n\nAbove all other arts, the Christian world has placed the art of war.\n\nA Christian nation has never had the slightest respect for the rights of\nbarbarians; neither has any Christian sect any respect for the rights\nof other sects. Anciently, the sects discussed with fire and sword, and\neven now, something happens almost every day to show that the old spirit\nthat was in the Inquisition still slumbers in the Christian breast.\n\nWhoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds other people in\ncontempt.\n\nWhenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God, there is\nin that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the modesty born of\nthe imperfections of human nature; he has the arrogance of theological\ncertainty and the tyranny born of ignorant assurance. Believing himself\nto be the slave of God, he imitates his master, and of all tyrants, the\nworst is a slave in power.\n\nWhen a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing\nto be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure\neternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides\nthe whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers,\ninto God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified\nand people who will be damned.\n\nA Christian nation can make no compromise with one not Christian; it\nwill either compel that nation to accept its doctrine, or it will wage\nwar. If Christ, in fact, said \"I came not to bring peace but a sword,\"\nit is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally\nfulfilled.\n\nII. Duties to God.\n\nRELIGION is supposed to consist in a discharge of the duties we owe to\nGod. In other words, we are taught that God is exceedingly anxious that\nwe should believe a certain thing. For my part, I do not believe that\nthere is any infinite being to whom we owe anything. The reason I say\nthis is, we can not owe any duty to any being who requires nothing—to\nany being that we cannot possibly help, to any being whose happiness we\ncannot increase. If God is infinite, we cannot make him happier than\nhe is. If God is infinite, we can neither give, nor can he receive,\nanything. Anything that we do or fail to do, cannot, in the slightest\ndegree, affect an infinite God; consequently, no relations can exist\nbetween the finite and the Infinite, if by relations is meant mutual\nduties and obligations.\n\nSome tell us that it is the desire of God that we should worship him.\nWhat for? Why does he desire worship? Others tell us that we should\nsacrifice something to him. What for? Is he in want? Can we assist him?\nIs he unhappy? Is he in trouble? Does he need human sympathy? We cannot\nassist the Infinite, but we can assist our fellow-men. We can feed the\nhungry and clothe the naked, and enlighten the ignorant, and we can\nhelp, in some degree at least, toward covering this world with the\nmantle of joy.\n\nI do not believe there is any being in this universe who gives rain\nfor praise, who gives sunshine for prayer, or who blesses a man simply\nbecause he kneels.\n\nThe Infinite cannot receive praise or worship.\n\nThe Infinite can neither hear nor answer prayer.\n\nAn Infinite personality is an infinite impossibility.\n\nIII. Inspiration.\n\nWE are told that we have in our possession the inspired will of God. What\nis meant by the word \"inspired\" is not exactly known; but whatever else\nit may mean, certainly it means that the \"inspired\" must be the true. If\nit is true, there is, in fact, no need of its being inspired—the truth\nwill take care of itself.\n\nThe church is forced to say that the Bible differs from all other books;\nit is forced to say that it contains the actual will of God. Let us then\nsee what inspiration really is. A man looks at the sea, and the sea\nsays something to him. It makes an impression upon his mind. It awakens\nmemory, and this impression depends upon the man's experience—upon\nhis intellectual capacity. Another looks upon the same sea. He has a\ndifferent brain; he has had a different experience. The sea may speak\nto him of joy, to the other of grief and tears. The sea cannot tell the\nsame thing to any two human beings, because no two human beings have had\nthe same experience.\n\nA year ago, while the cars were going from Boston to Gloucester, we\npassed through Manchester. As the cars stopped, a lady sitting opposite,\nspeaking to her husband, looking out of the window and catching, for the\nfirst time, a view of the sea, cried out, \"Is it not beautiful!\" and the\nhusband replied, \"I'll bet you could dig clams right here!\"\n\nAnother, standing upon the shore, listening to what the great Greek\ntragedian called \"the multitudinous laughter of the sea,\" may say: Every\ndrop has visited all the shores of the earth; every one has been frozen\nin the vast and icy North; every one has fallen in snow, has been\nwhirled by storms around mountain peaks; every one has been kissed to\nvapor by the sun; every one has worn the seven-hued garment of light;\nevery one has fallen in pleasant rain, gurgled from springs and laughed\nin brooks while lovers wooed upon the banks, and every one has rushed\nwith mighty rivers back to the sea's embrace. Everything in nature tells\na different story to all eyes that see and to all ears that hear.\n\nOnce in my life, and once only, I heard Horace Greeley deliver a\nlecture. I think its title was, \"Across the Continent.\" At last he\nreached the mammoth trees of California, and I thought \"Here is an\nopportunity for the old man to indulge his fancy. Here are trees that\nhave outlived a thousand human governments. There are limbs above his\nhead older than the pyramids. While man was emerging from barbarism\nto something like civilization, these trees were growing. Older than\nhistory, every one appeared to be a memory, a witness, and a prophecy.\nThe same wind that filled the sails of the Argonauts had swayed these\ntrees.\" But these trees said nothing of this kind to Mr. Greeley. Upon\nthese subjects not a word was told to him. Instead, he took his pencil,\nand after figuring awhile, remarked: \"One of these trees, sawed into\ninch-boards, would make more than three hundred thousand feet of\nlumber.\"\n\nI was once riding on the cars in Illinois. There had been a violent\nthunder-storm. The rain had ceased, the sun was going down. The\ngreat clouds had floated toward the west, and there they assumed most\nwonderful architectural shapes. There were temples and palaces domed\nand turreted, and they were touched with silver, with amethyst and gold.\nThey looked like the homes of the Titans, or the palaces of the gods.\nA man was sitting near me. I touched him and said, \"Did you ever see\nanything so beautiful!\" He looked out. He saw nothing of the cloud,\nnothing of the sun, nothing of the color; he saw only the country and\nreplied, \"Yes, it is beautiful; I always did like rolling land.\" On\nanother occasion I was riding in a stage. There had been a snow, and\nafter the snow a sleet, and all the trees were bent, and all the boughs\nwere arched. Every fence, every log cabin had been transfigured, touched\nwith a glory almost beyond this world. The great fields were a pure and\nperfect white; the forests, drooping beneath their load of gems, made\nwonderful caves, from which one almost expected to see troops of fairies\ncome. The whole world looked like a bride, jewelled from head to foot.\nA German on the back seat, hearing our talk, and our exclamations of\nwonder leaned forward, looked out of the stage window and said: \"Yes, it\nlooks like a clean table cloth!\"\n\nSo, when we look upon a flower, a painting, a statue, a star, or a\nviolet, the more we know, the more we have experienced, the more we\nhave thought, the more we remember, the more the statue, the star,\nthe painting, the violet has to tell. Nature says to me all that I am\ncapable of understanding—gives all that I can receive.\n\nAs with star, or flower, or sea, so with a book. A man reads\nShakespeare. What does he get from him? All that he has the mind to\nunderstand. He gets his little cup full. Let another read him who knows\nnothing of the drama, nothing of the impersonations of passion, and what\ndoes he get? Almost nothing. Shakespeare has a different story for each\nreader. He is a world in which each recognizes his acquaintances—he may\nknow a few, he may know all.\n\nThe impression that nature makes upon the mind, the stories told by sea\nand star and flower, must be the natural food of thought. Leaving out\nfor the moment the impression gained from ancestors, the hereditary\nfears and drifts and trends—the natural food of thought must be the\nimpression made upon the brain by coming in contact through the medium\nof the five senses with what we call the outward world. The brain is\nnatural. Its food is natural. The result, thought, must be natural. The\nsupernatural can be constructed with no material except the natural. Of\nthe supernatural we can have no conception. Thought may be deformed, and\nthe thought of one may be strange to, and denominated as unnatural\nby, another; but it cannot be supernatural. It may be weak, it may be\ninsane, but it is not supernatural. Above the natural man cannot rise,\neven with the aid of fancy's wings. There can can be deformed ideas,\nas there are deformed persons. There can be religions monstrous and\nmisshapen, but they must be naturally produced. Some people have ideas\nabout what they are pleased to call the supernatural; but what they\ncall the supernatural is simply the deformed. The world is to each man\naccording to each man. It takes the world as it really is and that man\nto make that man's world, and that man's world cannot exist without that\nman.\n\nYou may ask, and what of all this? I reply, as with everything in\nnature, so with the Bible. It has a different story for each reader. Is\nthen the Bible a different book to every human being who reads it? It\nis. Can God then, through the Bible, make the same revelation to two\npersons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who reads it is the man who\ninspires. Inspiration is in the man, as well as in the book. God should\nhave inspired readers as well as writers.\n\nYou may reply: \"God knew that his book would be understood differently\nby each one, and that he really intended that it should be understood as\nit is understood by each.\" If this is so, then my understanding of the\nBible is the real revelation to me. If this is so, I have no right to\ntake the understanding of another. I must take the revelation made to me\nthrough my understanding, and by that revelation I must stand. Suppose\nthen, that I do read this Bible honestly, fairly, and when I get through\nI am compelled to say, \"The book is not true.\" If this is the honest\nresult, then you are compelled to say, either that God has made no\nrevelation to me, or that the revelation that it is not true, is the\nrevelation made to me, and by which I am bound. If the book and my brain\nare both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the\nbook and the brain do not agree? Either God should have written a book\nto fit my brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book.\n\nThe inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of him who\nreads. There was a time when its geology, its astronomy, its natural\nhistory, were inspired. That time has passed. There was a time when\nits morality satisfied the men who ruled mankind. That time has passed.\nThere was a time when the tyrant regarded its laws as good; when the\nmaster believed in its liberty; when strength gloried in its passages;\nbut these laws never satisfied the oppressed, they were never quoted by\nthe slave.\n\nWe have a sacred book, an inspired Bible, and I am told that this book\nwas written by the same being who made every star, and who peopled\ninfinite space with infinite worlds. I am also told that God created\nman, and that man is totally depraved. It has always seemed to me that\nan infinite being has no right to make imperfect things. I may be\nmistaken; but this is the only planet I have ever been on; I live in\nwhat might be called one of the rural districts of this universe,\nconsequently I may be mistaken; I simply give the best and largest\nthought I have.\n\nIV. God's Experiment with the Jews\n\nTHE Bible tells us that men became so bad that God destroyed them all\nwith the exception of eight persons; that afterwards he chose Abraham\nand some of his kindred, a wandering tribe, for the purpose of seeing\nwhether or no they could be civilized. He had no time to waste with all\nthe world. The Egyptians at that time, a vast and splendid nation,\nhaving a system of laws and free schools, believing in the marriage of\nthe one man to the one woman; believing, too, in the rights of woman—a\nnation that had courts of justice and understood the philosophy of\ndamages—these people had received no revelation from God,—they were\nleft to grope in Nature's night. He had no time to civilize India,\nwherein had grown a civilization that fills the world with wonder\nstill—a people with a language as perfect as ours, a people who had\nproduced philosophers, scientists, poets. He had no time to waste on\nthem; but he took a few, the tribe of Abraham. He established a perfect\ndespotism—with no schools, with no philosophy, with no art, with no\nmusic—nothing but the sacrifices of dumb beasts—nothing but the abject\nworship of a slave. Not a word upon geology, upon astronomy; nothing,\neven, upon the science of medicine. Thus God spent hours and hours with\nMoses upon the top of Sinai, giving directions for ascertaining the\npresence of leprosy and for preventing its spread, but it never occurred\nto Jehovah to tell Moses how it could be cured. He told them a few\nthings about what they might eat—prohibiting among other things\nfour-footed birds, and one thing upon the subject of cooking. From the\nthunders and lightnings of Sinai he proclaimed this vast and wonderful\nfact: \"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.\" He took these\npeople, according to our sacred Scriptures, under his immediate care,\nand for the purpose of controlling them he wrought wonderful miracles in\ntheir sight.\n\nIs it not a little curious that no priest of one religion has ever been\nable to astonish a priest of another religion by telling a miracle? Our\nmissionaries tell the Hindoos the miracles of the Bible, and the Hindoo\npriests, without the movement of a muscle, hear them and then recite\ntheirs, and theirs do not astonish our missionaries in the least! Is it\nnot a little curious that the priests of one religion never believe the\npriests of another? Is it not a little strange that the believers\nin sacred books regard all except their own as having been made by\nhypocrites and fools?\n\nI heard the other day a story. A gentleman was telling some wonderful\nthings and the listeners, with one exception, were saying, as he\nproceeded with his tale, \"Is it possible?\" \"Did you ever hear anything\nso wonderful?\" and when he had concluded, there was a kind of chorus\nof \"Is it possible?\" and \"Can it be?\" One man, however, sat perfectly\nquiet, utterly unmoved. Another listener said to him \"Did you hear\nthat?\" and he replied \"Yes.\" \"Well,\" said the other, \"You did not\nmanifest much astonishment.\" \"Oh, no,\" was the answer, \"I am a liar\nmyself.\"\n\nI am told by the sacred Scriptures that, as a matter of fact, God, even\nwith the help of miracles, failed to civilize the Jews, and this shows\nof how little real benefit, after all, it is, to have a ruler much above\nthe people, or to simply excite the wonder of mankind. Infinite wisdom,\nif the account be true, could not civilize a single tribe. Laws made by\nJehovah himself were not obeyed, and every effort of Jehovah failed.\nIt is claimed that God made known his law and inspired men to write\nand teach his will, and yet, it was found utterly impossible to reform\nmankind.\n\nV. Civilized Countries\n\nIN all civilized countries, it is now passionately asserted that slavery\nis a crime; that a war of conquest is murder; that polygamy enslaves\nwoman, degrades man and destroys home; that nothing is more infamous\nthan the slaughter of decrepit men, of helpless mothers, and of\nprattling babes; that captured maidens should not be given to their\ncaptors; that wives should not be stoned to death for differing with\ntheir husbands on the subject of religion. We know that there was\na time, in the history of most nations, when all these crimes were\nregarded as divine institutions. Nations entertaining this view now are\nregarded as savage, and, with the exception of the South Sea Islanders,\nFeejees, a few tribes in Central Africa, and some citizens of Delaware,\nno human beings are found degraded enough to agree upon these subjects\nwith Jehovah.\n\nThe only evidence we can have that a nation has ceased to be savage, is\nthat it has abandoned these doctrines of savagery.\n\nTo every one except a theologian, it is easy to account for these\nmistakes and crimes by saying that civilization is a painful growth;\nthat the moral perceptions are cultivated through ages of tyranny, of\ncrime, and of heroism; that it requires centuries for man to put out the\neyes of self and hold in lofty and in equal poise the golden scales\nof Justice. Conscience is born of suffering. Mercy is the child of\nthe imagination. Man advances as he becomes acquainted with his\nsurroundings, with the mutual obligations of life, and learns to take\nadvantage of the forces of nature.\n\nThe believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to say, that\nthere was a time when slavery was right, when women could sell their\nbabes, when polygamy was the highest form of virtue, when wars of\nextermination were waged with the sword of mercy, when religious\ntoleration was a crime, and when death was the just penalty for having\nexpressed an honest thought. He is compelled to insist that Jehovah is\nas bad now as he was then; that he is as good now as he was then. Once,\nall the crimes that I have mentioned were commanded by God; now they are\nprohibited. Once, God was in favor of them all; now the Devil is their\ndefender. In other words, the Devil entertains the same opinion to-day\nthat God held four thousand years ago. The Devil is as good now as\nJehovah was then, and God was as bad then as the Devil is now. Other\nnations besides the Jews had similar laws and ideas—believed in and\npracticed the same crimes, and yet, it is not claimed that they received\na revelation. They had no knowledge of the true God, and yet they\npracticed the same crimes, of their own motion, that the Jews did by\ncommand of Jehovah. From this it would seem that man can do wrong\nwithout a special revelation.\n\nThe passages upholding slavery, polygamy, war and religious persecution\nare certainly not evidences of the inspiration of that book. Suppose\nnothing had been in the Old Testament upholding these crimes, would\nthe modern Christian suspect that it was not inspired on that account?\nSuppose nothing had been in the Old Testament except laws in favor of\nthese crimes, would it still be insisted that it was inspired? If the\nDevil had inspired a book, will some Christian tell us in what respect,\non the subjects of slavery, polygamy, war and liberty, it would have\ndiffered from some parts of the Old Testament? Suppose we knew\nthat after inspired men had finished the Bible the Devil had gotten\npossession of it and had written a few passages, what part would\nChristians now pick out as being probably his work? Which of the\nfollowing passages would be selected as having been written by the\nDevil: \"Love thy neighbor as thyself,\" or \"Kill all the males among the\nlittle ones, and kill every woman, but all the women children keep alive\nfor yourselves\"?\n\nIs there a believer in the Bible who does not now wish that God, amid\nthe thunders and lightnings of Sinai, had said to Moses that man should\nnot own his fellow-man; that women should not sell their babes; that all\nmen should be allowed to think and investigate for themselves, and that\nthe sword never should be unsheathed to shed innocent blood? Is there\na believer who would not be delighted to find that every one of the\ninfamous passages are interpolations, and that the skirts of God were\nnever reddened by the blood of maiden, wife, or babe? Is there an honest\nman who does not regret that God commanded a husband to stone his wife\nfor suggesting the worship of some other God? Surely we do not need\nan inspired book to teach us that slavery is right, that polygamy is\nvirtue, and that intellectual liberty is a crime.\n\nVI. A Comparison of Books\n\nLET us compare the gems of Jehovah with Pagan paste. It may be that\nthe best way to illustrate what I have said, is to compare the supposed\nteachings of Jehovah with those of persons who never wrote an inspired\nline. In all ages of which any record has been preserved, men have given\ntheir ideas of justice, charity, liberty, love and law. If the Bible is\nthe work of God, it should contain the sublimest truths, it should excel\nthe works of man, it should contain the loftiest definitions of justice,\nthe best conceptions of human liberty, the clearest outlines of duty,\nthe tenderest and noblest thoughts. Upon every page should be found the\nluminous evidence of its divine origin. It should contain grander and\nmore wonderful things than man has written.\n\nIt may be said that it is unfair to call attention to bad things in the\nBible. To this it may be replied that a divine being ought not to put\nbad things in his book. If the Bible now upholds what we call crimes,\nit will not do to say that it is not verbally inspired. If the words are\nnot inspired, what is? It may be said, that the thoughts are inspired.\nThis would include only thoughts expressed without words. If ideas are\ninspired, they must be expressed by inspired words—that is to say, by\nan inspired arrangement of words. If a sculptor were inspired of God to\nmake a statue, we would not say that the marble was inspired, but\nthe statue—that is to say, the relation of part to part, the married\nharmony of form and function. The language, the words, take the place of\nthe marble, and it is the arrangement of the words that Christians claim\nto be inspired. If there is an uninspired word, or a word in the wrong\nplace, until that word is known a doubt is cast on every word the book\ncontains.\n\nIf it was worth God's while to make a revelation at all, it was\ncertainly worth his while to see that it was correctly made—that it was\nabsolutely preserved.\n\nWhy should God allow an inspired book to be interpolated? If it was\nworth while to inspire men to write it, it was worth while to\ninspire men to preserve it; and why should he allow another person to\ninterpolate in it that which was not inspired? He certainly would not\nhave allowed the man he inspired to write contrary to the inspiration.\nHe should have preserved his revelation. Neither will it do to say that\nGod adapted his revelation to the prejudices of man. It was necessary\nfor him to adapt his revelation to the capacity of man, but certainly\nGod would not confirm a barbarian in his prejudices. He would not\nfortify a heathen in his crimes....\n\nIf a revelation is of any importance, it is to eradicate prejudice.\nThey tell us now that the Jews were so ignorant, so bad, that God was\ncompelled to justify their crimes, in order to have any influence\nwith them. They say that if he had declared slavery and polygamy to be\ncrimes, the Jews would have refused to receive the Ten Commandments.\nThey tell us that God did the best he could; that his real intention was\nto lead them along slowly, so that in a few hundred years they would be\ninduced to admit that larceny and murder and polygamy and slavery were\nnot virtues. I suppose if we now wished to break a cannibal of the bad\nhabit of devouring missionaries, we would first induce him to cook\nthem in a certain way, saying: \"To eat cooked missionary is one step\nin advance of eating your missionary raw. After a few years, a little\nmutton could be cooked with missionary, and year after year the amount\nof mutton could be increased and the amount of missionary decreased,\nuntil in the fullness of time the dish could be entirely mutton, and\nafter that the missionaries would be absolutely safe.\"\n\nIf there is anything of value, it is liberty—liberty of body, liberty\nof mind. The liberty of body is the reward of labor. Intellectual\nliberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of the mind, and without\nit, the world is a prison, the universe a dungeon.\n\nIf the Bible is really inspired, Jehovah commanded the Jewish people to\nbuy the children of the strangers that sojourned among them, and ordered\nthat the children thus bought should be an inheritance for the children\nof the Jews, and that they should be bondmen and bondwomen forever. Yet\nEpictetus, a man to whom no revelation was ever made, a man whose soul\nfollowed only the light of nature, and who had never heard of the Jewish\nGod, was great enough to say: \"Will you not remember that your servants\nare by nature your brothers, the children of God? In saying that you\nhave bought them, you look down on the earth, and into the pit, on the\nwretched law of men long since dead, but you see not the laws of the\ngods.\"\n\nWe find that Jehovah, speaking to his chosen people, assured them that\ntheir bondmen and their bondmaids must be \"of the heathen that were\nround about them.\" \"Of them,\" said Jehovah, \"shall ye buy bondmen\nand bondmaids.\" And yet Cicero, a pagan, Cicero, who had never been\nenlightened by reading the Old Testament, had the moral grandeur to\ndeclare: \"They who say that we should love our fellow-citizens but not\nforeigners, destroy the universal brotherhood of mankind, with which\nbenevolence and justice would perish forever.\"\n\nIf the Bible is inspired, Jehovah, God of all worlds, actually said:\n\"And if a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under\nhis hand, he shall be sorely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue\na day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.\" And yet\nZeno, founder of the Stoics, centuries before Christ was born, insisted\nthat no man could be the owner of another, and that the title was bad,\nwhether the slave had become so by conquest or by purchase.\n\nJehovah ordered a Jewish general to make war, and gave, among others,\nthis command: \"When the Lord thy God shall drive them before thee, thou\nshalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant\nwith them, nor show mercy unto them.\" And yet Epictetus, whom we have\nalready quoted, gave this marvelous rule for the guidance of human\nconduct: \"Live with thy inferiors as thou wouldst have thy superiors\nlive with thee.\"\n\nIs it possible, after all, that a being of infinite goodness and wisdom\nsaid: \"I will heap mischief upon them; I will send mine arrows upon\nthem; they shall be burned with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,\nand with bitter destruction. I will send the tooth of beasts upon them,\nwith the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror\nwithin, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling\nalso, with the man of gray hairs\" while Seneca, an uninspired Roman,\nsaid: \"The wise man will not pardon any crime that ought to be\npunished, but he will accomplish, in a nobler way, all that is sought\nin pardoning. He will spare some and watch over some, because of their\nyouth, and others on account of their ignorance. His clemency will not\nfall short of justice, but will fulfill it perfectly.\"\n\nCan we believe that God ever said to any one: \"Let his children be\nfatherless and his wife a widow; let his children be continually\nvagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate\nplaces; let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the stranger\nspoil his labor; let there be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let\nthere be any to favor his fatherless children.\" If he ever said these\nwords, surely he had never heard this line, this strain of music from\nthe Hindu: \"Sweet is the lute to those who have not heard the prattle of\ntheir own children.\"\n\nJehovah, \"from the clouds and darkness of Sinai,\" said to the Jews:\n\"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.... Though shalt not bow down\nthyself to them nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous\nGod, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the\nthird and fourth generation of them that hate me.\" Contrast this with\nthe words put by the Hindu in the mouth of Brahma: \"I am the same to all\nmankind. They who honestly serve other gods involuntarily worship me.\nI am he who partakest of all worship, and I am the reward of all\nworshipers.\"\n\nCompare these passages; the first a dungeon where crawl the things begot\nof jealous slime; the other, great as the domed firmament inlaid with\nsuns. Is it possible that the real God ever said:\n\n\"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I, the\nLord, have deceived that prophet; and I will stretch out my hand upon\nhim and will destroy him from the midst of my people.\" Compare that\npassage with one from a Pagan.\n\n\"It is better to keep silence for the remainder of your life than to\nspeak falsely.\"\n\nCan we believe that a being of infinite mercy gave this command:\n\n\"Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to\ngate, throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man\nhis companion, and every man his neighbor; consecrate yourselves to-day\nto the Lord, even every man upon his son and upon his brother, that he\nmay bestow a blessing upon you this day.\"\n\nSurely, that God was not animated by so great and magnanimous a spirit\nas was Antoninus, a Roman emperor, who declared that, \"he had rather\nkeep a single Roman citizen alive than slay a thousand enemies.\"\n\nCompare the laws given to the children of Israel, as it is claimed by\nthe Creator of us all, with the following from Marcus Aurelius:\n\n\"I have formed the ideal of a state, in which there is the same law\nfor all, and equal rights, and equal liberty of speech established; an\nempire where nothing is honored so much as the freedom of the citizen.\"\n\nIn the Avesta I find this: \"I belong to five: to those who think good,\nto those who speak good, to those who do good, to those who hear, and to\nthose who are pure.\"\n\n\"Which is the one prayer which in greatness, goodness, and beauty is\nworth all that is between heaven and earth and between this earth and\nthe stars? And he replied: To renounce all evil thoughts and words and\nworks.\"\n\nVii\n\nIT is claimed by the Christian world that one of the great reasons for\ngiving an inspired book to the Jews was, that through them the world\nmight learn that there is but one God. This piece of information has\nbeen supposed to be of infinite value. As a matter of fact, long before\nMoses was born, the Egyptians believed and taught that there was but\none God—that is to say, that above all intelligences there was the one\nSupreme. They were guilty, too, of the same inconsistencies of modern\nChristians. They taught the doctrine of the Trinity—God the Father, God\nthe Mother, and God the Son. God was frequently represented as father,\nmother and babe. They also taught that the soul had a divine origin;\nthat after death it was to be judged according to the deeds done in the\nbody; that those who had done well passed into perpetual joy, and those\nwho had done evil into endless pain. In this they agreed with the most\napproved divine of the nineteenth century. Women were the equals of\nmen, and Egypt was often governed by queens. In this, her government\nwas vastly better than the one established by God. The laws were\nadministered by courts much like ours. In Egypt there was a system of\nschools that gave the son of poverty a chance of advancement, and\nthe highest offices were open to the successful scholar. The Egyptian\nmarried one wife. The wife was called \"the lady of the house.\" The women\nwere not secluded. The people were not divided into castes. There was\nnothing to prevent the rise of able and intelligent Egyptians. But like\nthe Jehovah of the Jews, they made slaves of the captives of war.\n\nThe ancient Persians believed in one God; and women helped to found the\nParsee religion. Nothing can exceed some of the maxims of Zoroaster. The\nHindoos taught that above all, and over all, was one eternal Supreme.\nThey had a code of laws. They understood the philosophy of evidence and\nof damages. They knew better than to teach the doctrine of an eye for an\neye, and a tooth for a tooth.\n\nThey knew that when one man maimed another, it was not to the interest\nof society to have that man maimed, thus burdening the people with two\ncripples, but that it was better to make the man who maimed the other\nwork to support him. In India, upon the death of a father, the daughters\nreceived twice as much from the estate as the sons.\n\nThe Romans built temples to Truth, Faith, Valor, Concord, Modesty, and\nCharity, in which they offered sacrifices to the highest conceptions of\nhuman excellence. Women had rights; they presided in the temple; they\nofficiated in holy offices; they guarded the sacred fires upon which the\nsafety of Rome depended; and when Christ came, the grandest figure in\nthe known world was the Roman mother.\n\nIt will not do to say that some rude statue was made by an inspired\nsculptor, and that the Apollo of Belvidere, Venus de Milo, and the\nGladiator were made by unaided men; that the daubs of the early ages\nwere painted by divine assistance, while the Raphaels, the Angelos, and\nthe Rembrandts did what they did without the help of heaven. It will not\ndo to say, that the first hut was built by God, and the last palace by\ndegraded man; that the hoarse songs of the savage tribes were made by\nthe Deity, but that Hamlet and Lear were written by man; that the pipes\nof Pan were invented in heaven, and all other musical instruments on the\nearth.\n\nIf the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a\nman among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his\nown teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a\nbeater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would\nhave killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his\nsword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and\nwould have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of\nreligion.\n\nVIII. The New Testament.\n\nNE great objection to the Old Testament is the cruelty said to have been\ncommanded by God. All these cruelties ceased with death. The vengeance\nof Jehovah stopped at the tomb. He never threatened to punish the dead;\nand there is not one word, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last\ncurse of Malachi, containing the slightest intimation that God will take\nhis revenge in another world. It was reserved for the New Testament\nto make known the doctrine of eternal pain. The teacher of universal\nbenevolence rent the veil between time and eternity, and fixed the\nhorrified gaze of man upon the lurid gulf of hell. Within the breast of\nnon-resistance coiled the worm that never dies. Compared with this,\nthe doctrine of slavery, the wars of extermination, the curses, the\npunishments of the Old Testament were all merciful and just.\n\nThere is no time to speak of the conflicting statements in the various\nbooks composing the New Testament—no time to give the history of the\nmanuscripts, the errors in translation, the interpolations made by the\nfathers and by their successors, the priests, and only time to speak of\na few objections, including some absurdities and some contradictions.\n\nWhere several witnesses testify to the same transaction, no matter how\nhonest they may be, they will disagree upon minor matters, and such\ntestimony is generally considered as evidence that the witnesses\nhave not conspired among themselves. The differences in statement are\naccounted for from the facts that all do not see alike, and that all\nhave not equally good memories; but when we claim that the witnesses are\ninspired, we must admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what\noccurred, and consequently there should be no disagreement, even in the\nminutest detail. The accounts should not only be substantially, but they\nshould be actually, the same. The differences and contradictions can be\naccounted for by the weaknesses of human nature, but these weaknesses\ncannot be predicated of divine wisdom.\n\nAnd here let me ask: Why should there have been more than one correct\naccount of what really happened? Why were four gospels necessary? It\nseems to me that one inspired gospel, containing all that happened, was\nenough. Copies of the one correct one could have been furnished to any\nextent. According to Doctor Davidson, Irenaeus argues that the gospels\nwere four in number, because there are four universal winds, four\ncorners of the globe. Others have said, because there are four seasons;\nand these gentlemen might have added, because a donkey has four legs.\nFor my part, I cannot even conceive of a reason for more than one\ngospel.\n\nAccording to one of these gospels, and according to the prevalent\nChristian belief, the Christian religion rests upon the doctrine of the\natonement. If this doctrine is without foundation, the fabric falls; and\nit is without foundation, for it is repugnant to justice and mercy.\nThe church tells us that the first man committed a crime for which all\nothers are responsible. This absurdity was the father and mother of\nanother—that a man can be rewarded for the good action of another. We\nare told that God made a law, with the penalty of eternal death. All\nmen, they tell us, have broken this law. The law had to be vindicated.\nThis could be done by damning everybody, but through what is known as\nthe atonement the salvation of a few was made possible. They insist that\nthe law demands the extreme penalty, that justice calls for its victim,\nthat mercy ceases to plead, and that God by allowing the innocent to\nsuffer in the place of the guilty settled satisfactory with the law. To\ncarry out this scheme God was born as a babe, grew in stature, increased\nin knowledge, and at the age of thirty-three years having lived a life\nfilled with kindness, having practiced every virtue, he was sacrificed\nas an atonement for man. It is claimed that he took our place, bore our\nsins, our guilt, and in this way satisfied the justice of God.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation there was no remission of sin except\nthrough the shedding of blood. When a man sinned he must bring to the\npriest a lamb, a bullock, a goat, or a pair of turtle-doves.\n\nThe priest would lay his hand upon the animal and the sin of the man\nwould be transferred to the beast. Then the animal would be killed in\nplace of the sinner, and the blood thus shed would be sprinkled upon\nthe altar. In this way Jehovah was satisfied. The greater the crime, the\ngreater the sacrifice. There was a ratio between the value of the animal\nand the enormity of the sin.\n\nThe most minute directions were given as to the killing of\nthese animals. Every priest became a butcher, every synagogue a\nslaughter-house. Nothing could be more utterly shocking to a refined\nsoul, nothing better calculated to harden the heart, than the continual\nshedding of innocent blood. This terrible system culminated in the\nsacrifice of Christ. His blood took the place of all other. It is not\nnecessary to shed any more. The law at last is satisfied, satiated,\nsurfeited.\n\nThe idea that God wants blood is at the bottom of the atonement, and\nrests upon the most fearful savagery; and yet the Mosaic dispensation\nwas better adapted to prevent the commission of sin than the Christian\nsystem. Under that dispensation, if you committed a sin, you had\nto bring a sacrifice—dove, sheep, or bullock, now, when a sin is\ncommitted, the Christian says, \"Charge it,\" \"Put it on the slate, If\nI don't pay it the Savior will.\" In this way, rascality is sold on a\ncredit, and the credit system of religion breeds extravagance in sin.\nThe Mosaic dispensation was based upon far better business principles.\nThe debt had to be paid, and by the man who owed it. We are told that\nthe sinner is in debt to God, and that the obligation is discharged by\nthe Savior. The best that can be said of such a transaction is that the\ndebt is transferred, not paid. As a matter of fact, the sinner is in\ndebt to the person he has injured. If you injure a man, it is not enough\nto get the forgiveness of God—you must get the man's forgiveness, you\nmust get your own. If a man puts his hand in the fire and God forgives\nhim, his hand will smart just as badly. You must reap what you sow. No\nGod can give you wheat when you sow tares, and no Devil can give you\ntares when you sow wheat. We must remember that in nature there are\nneither rewards nor punishments—there are consequences. The life and\ndeath of Christ do not constitute an atonement. They are worth the\nexample, the moral force, the heroism of benevolence, and in so far as\nthe life of Christ produces emulation in the direction of goodness, it\nhas been of value to mankind.\n\nTo make innocence suffer is the greatest sin, and it may be the only\nsin. How, then, is it possible to make the consequences of sin an\natonement for sin, when the consequences of sin are to be borne by one\nwho has not sinned, and the one who has sinned is to reap the reward of\nvirtue? No honorable man should be willing that another should suffer\nfor him. No good law can accept the sufferings of innocence as an\natonement for the guilty; and besides, if there was no atonement until\nthe crucifixion of Christ, what became of the countless millions who\ndied before that time? We must remember that the Jews did not kill\nanimals for the Gentiles. Jehovah hated foreigners. There was no way\nprovided for the forgiveness of a heathen. What has become of the\nmillions who have died since, without having heard of the atonement?\nWhat becomes of those who hear and do not believe? Can there be a law\nthat demands that the guilty be rewarded. And yet, to reward the guilty\nis far nearer justice than to punish the innocent. If the doctrine of\nthe atonement is true, there would have been no heaven had no atonement\nbeen made.\n\nIf Judas had understood the Christian system, if he knew that Christ\nmust be betrayed, and that God was depending on him to betray him, and\nthat without the betrayal no human soul could be saved, what should\nJudas have done?\n\nJehovah took special charge of the Jewish people. He did this for the\npurpose of civilizing them. If he had succeeded in civilizing them,\nhe would have made the damnation of the entire human race a certainty;\nbecause if the Jews had been a civilized people when Christ appeared—a\npeople who had not been hardened by the laws of Jehovah—they would not\nhave crucified Christ, and as a consequence, the world would have been\nlost. If the Jews had believed in religious freedom, in the rights of\nthought and speech, if the Christian religion is true, not a human soul\never could have been saved. If, when Christ was on his way to Calvary,\nsome brave soul had rescued him from the pious mob, he would not only\nhave been damned for his pains, but would have rendered impossible the\nsalvation of any human being.\n\nThe Christian world has been trying for nearly two thousand years to\nexplain the atonement, and every effort has ended in an admission that\nit cannot be understood, and a declaration that it must be believed. Has\nthe promise and hope of forgiveness ever prevented the commission of\na sin? Can men be made better by being taught that sin gives happiness\nhere; that to live a virtuous life is to bear a cross; that men can\nrepent between the last sin and the last breath; and that repentance\nwashes every stain of the soul away? Is it good to teach that the\nserpent of regret will not hiss in the ear of memory; that the saved\nwill not even pity the victims of their crimes; and that sins forgiven\ncease to affect the unhappy wretches sinned against?\n\nAnother objection is, that a certain belief is necessary to save the\nsoul. This doctrine, I admit, is taught in the gospel according to John,\nand in many of the epistles; I deny that it is taught in Matthew, Mark,\nor Luke. It is, however, asserted by the church that to believe is the\nonly safe way. To this, I reply: Belief is not a voluntary thing. A man\nbelieves or disbelieves in spite of himself. They tell us that to\nbelieve is the safe way; but I say, the safe way is to be honest.\nNothing can be safer than that. No man in the hour of death ever\nregretted having been honest. No man when the shadows of the last day\nwere gathering about the pillow of death, ever regretted that he had\ngiven to his fellow-man his honest thought. No man, in the presence of\neternity, ever wished that he had been a hypocrite. No man ever then\nregretted that he did not throw away his reason. It certainly cannot be\nnecessary to throw away your reason to save your soul, because after\nthat, your soul is not worth saving. The soul has a right to defend\nitself. My brain is my castle; and when I waive the right to defend it,\nI become an intellectual serf and slave.\n\nI do not admit that a man by doing me an injury can place me under\nobligations to do him a service. To render benefits for injuries is\nto ignore all distinctions between actions. He who treats friends and\nenemies alike has neither love nor justice. The idea of non-resistance\nnever occurred to a man with power to defend himself. The mother of this\ndoctrine was weakness. To allow a crime to be committed, even against\nyourself, when you can prevent it, is next to committing the crime\nyourself. The church has preached the doctrine of non-resistance, and\nunder that banner has shed the blood of millions. In the folds of\nher sacred vestments have gleamed for centuries the daggers of\nassassination. With her cunning hands she wove the purple for hypocrisy\nand placed the crown upon the brow of crime. For more than a thousand\nyears larceny held the scales of justice, hypocrisy wore the mitre and\ntiara, while beggars scorned the royal sons of toil, and ignorant fear\ndenounced the liberty of thought.\n\nXI. Christ's Mission.\n\nHE came, they tell us, to make a revelation, and what did he reveal?\n\"Love thy neighbor as thyself\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Love\nGod with all thy heart\"? That was in the Old Testament. \"Return good for\nevil\"? That was said by Buddha, seven hundred years before Christ was\nborn. \"Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you\"? That\nwas the doctrine of Lao-tsze. Did he come to give a rule of action?\nZoroaster had done this long before: \"Whenever thou art in doubt as to\nwhether an action is good or bad, abstain from it.\" Did he come to tell\nus of another world? The immortality of the soul had been taught by the\nHindoos, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before he was\nborn. What argument did he make in favor of immortality? What facts\ndid he furnish? What star of hope did he put above the darkness of\nthis world? Did he come simply to tell us that we should not revenge\nourselves upon our enemies? Long before, Socrates had said: \"One who\nis injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be\nright to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to\ndo evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him.\" And Cicero\nhad said: \"Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry\nwith our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing\nis so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as\nclemency and readiness to forgive.\" Is there anything in the literature\nof the world more nearly perfect than this thought?\n\nWas it from Christ the world learned the first lesson of forbearance,\nwhen centuries and centuries before, Chrishna had said, \"If a man strike\nthee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him\nagain?\" Is it possible that the son of God threatened to say to a vast\nmajority, of his children, \"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting\nfire prepared for the devil and his angels,\" while the Buddhist was\ngreat and tender enough to say:\n\n\"Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation; never\nenter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live\nand strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout\nall worlds. Never will I leave this world of sin and sorrow and struggle\nuntil all are delivered. Until then, I will remain and suffer where I\nam?\"\n\nIs there anything in the New Testament as beautiful as this, from a\nSufi?—\"Better one moment of silent contemplation and inward love than\nseventy thousand years of outward worship.\"\n\nIs there anything comparable to this?—\"Whoever carelessly treads on\na worm that crawls on the earth, that heartless one is darkly alienate\nfrom God.\"\n\nIs there anything in the New Testament more beautiful than the story of\nthe Sufi?\n\nFor seven years a Sufi practised every virtue, and then he mounted the\nthree steps that lead to the doors of Paradise. He knocked and a voice\nsaid: \"Who is there?\" The Sufi replied: \"Thy servant, O God.\" But the\ndoors remained closed.\n\nYet seven other years the Sufi engaged in every good work. He comforted\nthe sorrowing and divided his substance with the poor. Again he mounted\nthe three steps, again knocked at the doors of Paradise, and again\nthe voice asked: \"Who is there?\" and the Sufi replied: \"Thy slave, O\nGod.\"—But the doors remained closed.\n\nYet seven other years the Sufi spent in works of charity, in visiting\nthe imprisoned and the sick. Again he mounted the steps, again knocked\nat the celestial doors. Again he heard the question: \"Who is there?\" and\nhe replied: \"Thyself, O God.\"—The gates wide open flew.\n\nIs it possible that St. Paul was inspired of God, when he said: \"Let the\nwomen learn in silence, with all subjection.\"—\"Neither was the man\ncreated for the woman, but the woman for the man?\"\n\nAnd is it possible that Epictetus, without the slightest aid from\nheaven, gave to the world this gem of love:\n\n\"What is more delightful than to be so dear to your wife, as to be on\nthat account dearer to yourself?\"\n\nDid St. Paul express the sentiments of God when he wrote—\n\n\"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the\nhead of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Wives,\nsubmit yourselves unto your husbands as unto the Lord?\"\n\nAnd was the author of this, a poor despised heathen?—\n\n\"In whatever house the husband is contented with the wife, and the wife\nwith the husband, in that house will fortune dwell; but upon the house\nwhere women are not honored, let a curse be pronounced. Where the wife\nis honored, there the gods are truly worshiped.\"\n\nIs there anything in the New Testament as beautiful as this?—\n\n\"Shall I tell thee where nature is most blest and fair? It is where\nthose we love abide. Though that space be small, it is ample above\nkingdoms; though it be a desert, through it run the rivers of Paradise.\"\n\nAfter reading the curses pronounced in the Old\n\nTestament upon Jew and heathen, the descriptions of slaughter, of\ntreachery and of death, the destruction of women and babes; after you\nshall have read all the chapters of horror in the New Testament, the\nthreatenings of fire and flame, then read this, from the greatest of\nhuman beings:\n    \"The quality of mercy is not strained:\n    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven\n    Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed;\n    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.\n    'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes\n    The throned monarch better than his crown.\"\n\nX. Eternal Pain\n\nUPON passages in the New Testament rests the doctrine of eternal pain.\nThis doctrine subverts every idea of justice. A finite being can neither\ncommit an infinite sin, nor a sin against the Infinite. A being of\ninfinite goodness and wisdom has no right to create any being whose life\nis not a blessing. Infinite wisdom has no right to create a failure,\nand surely a man destined to everlasting failure is not a conspicuous\nsuccess. The doctrine of eternal punishment is the most infamous of\nall doctrines—born of ignorance, cruelty and fear. Around the angel of\nimmortality, Christianity has coiled this serpent.\n\nUpon Love's breast the church has placed the eternal asp. And yet in\nthe same book in which is taught this most frightful of dogmas, we are\nassured that \"the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over\nall his works.\"\n\nA few days ago upon the wide sea, was found a barque called \"The\nTiger,\" Captain Kreuger, in command. The vessel had been one hundred and\ntwenty-six days upon the sea. For days the crew had been without water,\nwithout food, and were starving. For nine days not a drop had passed\ntheir lips. The crew consisted of the captain, a mate, and eleven men.\nAt the end of one hundred and eighteen days from Liverpool they killed\nthe captain's Newfoundland dog. This lasted them four days. During the\nnext five days they had nothing. For weeks they had had no light\nand were unable to see the compass at night. On the one hundred and\ntwenty-fifth day Captain Kreuger, a German, took a revolver in his hand,\nstood up before the men, and placing the weapon at his temple said:\n\"Boys, we can't stand this much longer, and to save you all, I am\nwilling to die.\" The mate grasped the revolver and begged the captain to\nwait another day. The next day, upon the horizon of their despair, they\nsaw the smoke of the steamship Nebo. They were rescued.\n\nSuppose that Captain Kreuger was not a Christian, and suppose that he\nhad sent the ball crashing through his brain, and had done so simply\nto keep the crew from starvation, do you tell me that a God of infinite\nmercy would forever damn that man?\n\nDo not misunderstand me. I insist that every passage in the Bible\nupholding crime was written by savage man. I insist that if there is\na God, he is not, never was, and never will be in favor of slavery,\npolygamy, wars of extermination, or religious persecution. Does any\nChristian believe that if the real God were to write a book now, he\nwould uphold the crimes commanded in the Old Testament? Has Jehovah\nimproved? Has infinite mercy become more merciful? Has infinite wisdom\nintellectually advanced?\n\nWILL any one claim that the passages upholding slavery have liberated\nmankind? Are we indebted to polygamy for our modern homes? Was religious\nliberty born of that infamous verse in which the husband is commanded to\nkill his wife for worshiping an unknown God?\n\nThe usual answer to these objections is, that no country has ever been\ncivilized without a Bible. The Jews were the only people to whom Jehovah\nmade his will directly known. Were they better than other nations? They\nread the Old Testament and one of the effects of such reading was, that\nthey crucified a kind, loving, and perfectly innocent man. Certainly\nthey could not have done worse, without a Bible. In crucifying Christ\nthe Jews followed the teachings of his Father. If Jehovah was in fact\nGod, and if that God took upon himself flesh and came among the Jews,\nand preached what the Jews understood to be blasphemy; and if the Jews\nin accordance with the laws given by this same Jehovah to Moses,\ncrucified him, then I say, and I say it with infinite reverence, he\nreaped what he had sown. He became the victim of his own injustice.\n\nBut I insist that these things are not true. I insist that the real God,\nif there is one, never commanded man to enslave his fellow-man, never\ntold a mother to sell her babe, never established polygamy, never urged\none nation to exterminate another, and never told a husband to kill his\nwife because she suggested the worship of another God.\n\nFrom the aspersions of the pulpit, from the slanders of the church,\nI seek to rescue the reputation of the Deity. I insist that the Old\nTestament would be a better book with all these passages left out; and\nwhatever may be said of the rest of the Bible, the passages to which I\nhave called attention can, with vastly more propriety, be attributed to\na devil than to a god.\n\nTake from the New Testament the idea that belief is necessary to\nsalvation; that Christ was offered as an atonement for the sins of\nmankind; that heaven is the reward of faith, and hell the penalty of\nhonest investigation, and that the punishment of the human soul will go\non forever; take from it all miracles and foolish stories, and I most\ncheerfully admit that the good passages are true. If they are true, it\nmakes no difference whether they are inspired or not. Inspiration is\nonly necessary to give authority to that which is repugnant to human\nreason. Only that which never happened needs to be substantiated by a\nmiracle.\n\nThe universe is natural.\n\nThe church must cease to insist that passages upholding the institutions\nof savage men were inspired of God. The dogma of atonement must be\nabandoned. Good deeds must take the place of faith. The savagery of\neternal punishment must be renounced. It must be admitted that credulity\nis not a virtue, and that investigation is not a crime. It must be\nadmitted that miracles are the children of mendacity, and that nothing\ncan be more wonderful than the majestic, unbroken, sublime, and eternal\nprocession of causes and effects. Reason must be the arbiter. Inspired\nbooks attested by miracles cannot stand against a demonstrated fact. A\nreligion that does not command the respect of the greatest minds will,\nin a little while, excite the mockery of all.\n\nA man who does not believe in intellectual liberty is a barbarian. Is\nit possible that God is intolerant? Could there be any progress, even\nin heaven, without intellectual liberty? Is the freedom of the future\nto exist only in perdition? Is it not, after all, barely possible that\na man acting like Christ can be saved? Is a man to be eternally rewarded\nfor believing according to evidence, without evidence, or against\nevidence? Are we to be saved because we are good, or because another was\nvirtuous? Is credulity to be winged and crowned, whilst honest doubt is\nchained and damned.\n\nIf Jehovah, was in fact God, he knew the end from the beginning. He\nknew that his Bible would be a breast-work behind which all tyranny\nand hypocrisy would crouch. He knew that his Bible would be the\nauction-block on which women would stand while their babes were sold\nfrom their arms. He knew that this Bible would be quoted by tyrants;\nthat it would be the defence of robbers called kings, and of hypocrites\ncalled priests. He knew that he had taught the Jewish people nothing of\nimportance. He knew that he had found them free and left them slaves. He\nknew that he had never fulfilled a single promise made to them. He knew\nthat while other nations had advanced in art and science his chosen\npeople were savage still. He promised them the world, and gave them a\ndesert. He promised them liberty and he made them slaves. He promised\nthem victory and he gave them defeat. He said they should be kings and\nhe made them serfs. He promised them universal empire and gave them\nexile. When one finishes the Old Testament he is compelled to say:\n\"Nothing can add to the misery of a nation whose king is Jehovah!\"\n\nThe Old Testament filled this world with tyranny and injustice, and the\nNew gives us a future filled with pain for nearly all of the sons of\nmen.\n\nThe Old Testament describes the hell of the past, and the New the hell\nof the future.\n\nThe Old Testament tells us the frightful things that God has done, the\nNew the frightful things that he will do.\n\nThese two books give us the sufferings of the past and the future—the\ninjustice, the agony and the tears of both worlds.\n"
}