God and my Neighbour Part 12

Now, it is not necessary for me to harp upon the conduct of these men of G.o.d: what I want to point out is that these cruel and ignorant savages have been saddled upon the Christian religion as heroes and as models.

Even to-day the man who called David, or Moses, or Elisha by his proper name in an average Christian household would be regarded as a wicked blasphemer.

And yet, what would a Christian congregation say of an "Infidel" who committed half the crimes and outrages of any one of those Bible heroes?

Do you know what the Christians call Tom Paine? To this day the respectable Christian Church or chapel goer shudders at the name of the "infidel," Tom Paine. But in point of honour, of virtue, of humanity, and general good character, not one of the Bible heroes I have mentioned was worthy to clean Tom Paine's shoes.

Now, it states in the Bible that G.o.d loved Jacob, and hated Esau. Esau was a _man_, and against him the Bible does not chronicle one bad act.

But G.o.d _hated_ Esau.

And it states in the Bible that Elijah went up in a chariot of fire to heaven.

And in the New Testament Christ or His apostles speak of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being in heaven. Paul speaks of David as a "man after G.o.d's own heart"; Elijah and Moses come down from heaven, and appear talking with Christ; and, in Hebrews, Paul praises Samuel, Jephtha, Samson, and David.

My point is not that these heroes were bad men, but that, in a book alleged to be the word of G.o.d, they are treated as heroes.

I have been accused of showing irreverence towards these barbarous kings and priests. Irreverence! It is like charging a historian with disrespect to the memory of Nero.

I have been accused of having an animus against Moses, and David, and all the rest. I have no animus against any man, nor do I presume to censure my fellow creatures. I only wish to show that these favourites of G.o.d were not admirable characters, and that therefore the Bible cannot be a divine revelation. As for animus: I do not believe any of these men ever existed. I regard them as myths. Should one be angry with a myth? I should as soon think of being angry with Bluebeard, or the Giant that Jack slew.

But I should be astonished to hear that Bluebeard had been promoted to the position of a holy patriarch, and a model of all the virtues for the emulation of innocent children in a modern Sunday school. And I think it is time the Church considered itself, and told the truth about Jehovah, and Moses, and Joshua, and Samson.

If you fail to agree with me I can only accept your decision with respectful astonishment.

THE BOOK OF BOOKS

Floods of sincere, but unmerited, adulation have been lavished on the Hebrew Bible. The world has many books of higher moral and literary value. It would be easy to compile, from the words of Heretics and Infidels, a purer and more elevated moral guide than this "Book of Books."

The ethical code of the Old Testament is no longer suitable as the rule of life. The moral and intellectual advance of the human race has left it behind.

The historical books of the Old Testament are largely pernicious, and often obscene. These books describe, without disapproval, polygamy, slavery, concubinage, lying and deceit, treachery, incest, murder, wars of plunder, wars of conquest, ma.s.sacre of prisoners of war, ma.s.sacre of women and of children, cruelty to animals; and such immoral, dishonest, shameful, or dastardly deeds as those of Solomon, David, Abraham, Jacob, and Lot.

The ethical code of the Old Testament does not teach the sacredness of truth, does not teach religious tolerance, nor humanity, nor human brotherhood, nor peace.

Its morality is crude. Much that is n.o.blest in modern thought has no place in the "Book of Books." For example, take these words of Herbert Spencer's:

Absolute morality is the regulation of conduct in such way that pain shall not be inflicted.

There is nothing so comprehensive, nothing so deep as that in the Bible.

That covers all the moralities of the Ten Commandments, and all the Ethics of the Law and the Prophets, in one short sentence, and leaves a handsome surplus over.

Note next this, from Kant:

What are the aims which are at the same time duties? They are the perfecting of ourselves, and the happiness of others.

I do not know a Bible sentence so purely moral as that. And in what part of the Bible shall we find a parallel to the following sentence, from an Agnostic newspaper:

Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of action are helps to the children of men in their search for wisdom.

Tom Paine left Moses and Isaiah centuries behind when he wrote:

The world is my country: to do good my religion.

Robert Ingersoll, another "Infidel," surpa.s.sed Solomon when he said:

The object of life is to be happy, the place to be happy is here, the time to be happy is now, the way to be happy is by making others happy.

Which simple sentence contains more wisdom than all the pessimism of the King of kings. And again, Ingersoll went beyond the sociological conception of the Prophets when he wrote:

And let us do away for ever with the idea that the care of the sick, of the helpless, is a charity. It is not a charity: it is a duty. It is something to be done for our own sakes. It is no more a charity than it is to pave or light the streets, no more a charity than it is to have a system of sewers. It is all for the purpose of protecting society, and civilising ourselves.

I will now put together a few sayings of Pagans and Unbelievers as an example of non-biblical morality:

Truth is the pole-star of morality, by it alone can we steer.

Can there be a more horrible object in existence than an eloquent man not speaking the truth? Abhor dissimulation. To know the truth and fear to speak it: that is cowardice. One thing here is worth a good deal, to pa.s.s thy life in truth and justice, with a benevolent disposition, even to liars and unjust men.

He who acts unjustly acts unjustly to himself, for he makes himself bad. The practice of religion involves as a first principle a loving compa.s.sionate heart for all creatures.

Religion means self-sacrifice. A loving heart is the great requirement: not to oppress, not to destroy, not to exalt oneself by treading down others; but to comfort and befriend those in suffering. Like as a mother at the risk of her life watches over her only child, so also let every one cultivate towards all beings a bounteous friendly mind.

Man's great business is to improve his mind. What is it to you whether another is guilty or guiltless? Come, friend, atone for your own guilt.

Virtue consists in contempt for death. Why should we cling to this perishable body? In the eye of the wise the only thing it is good for is to benefit one's fellow creatures.

Treat others as you wish them to treat you. Do not return evil for evil. Our deeds, whether good or evil, follow us like shadows.

Never will man attain full moral stature until woman is free.

Cherish and reverence little children. Let the slave cease, and the master of slaves cease.

To conquer your enemy by force increases his resentment.

Conquer him by love and you will have no after-grief.

Victory breeds hatred.

I look for no recompense--not even to be born in heaven-- but seek the benefit of men, to bring back those who have gone astray, to enlighten those living in dismal error, to put away all sources of sorrow and pain in the world.

I cannot have pleasure while another grieves and I have power to help him.

Those who regard the Bible as the "Book of Books," and believe it to be invaluable and indispensable to the world, must have allowed their early a.s.sociations or religious sentiment to mislead them.

Carlyle is more moral than Jeremiah, Ruskin is superior to Isaiah; Ingersoll, the Atheist, is a n.o.bler moralist and a better man than Moses; Plato and Marcus Aurelius are wiser than Solomon; Sir Thomas More, Herbert Spencer, Th.o.r.eau, Matthew Arnold, and Emerson are worth more to us than all the Prophets.

I hold a high opinion of the literary quality of some parts of the Old Testament; but I seriously think that the loss of the first fourteen books would be a distinct gain to the world. For the rest, there is considerable literary and some ethical value in Job (which is not Jewish), in Ecclesiastes (which is Pagan), in the Song of Solomon (which is an erotic love song), and in parts of Isaiah, Proverbs, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Amos. But I don't think any of these books equal to Henry George's _Progress and Poverty_, or William Morris' _News from Nowhere_.

Of course, I am not blaming Moses and the Prophets: they could only tell us what they knew.

The Ten Commandments have been effusively praised. There is nothing in those Commandments to restrain the sweater, the rack-renter, the jerry-builder, the slum landlord, the usurer, the liar, the libertine, the gambler, the drunkard, the wife-beater, the slave-owner, the religious persecutor, the maker of wheat and cotton rings, the fox-hunter, the bird-slayer, the ill-user of horses and dogs and cattle.