Godless (31 page)
His violence was tempered with irrationality. “Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.” (Matthew 21:18-19, repeated in Mark 11:13-14, which adds that it was not even fig season.) Is it kind or rational to destroy a plant that happens to be out of season when you are hungry? Is such behavior indicative of mental health?
In Luke 19 Jesus told a parable which includes these ruthless words: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me.” He is clearly comparing the “Lord” in the parable to himself. In Matthew 10:34 Jesus said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” In Luke 22:36 he told his disciples that “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
He was callous. In Matthew 15:22-28, Jesus refused to heal a sick child until the mother pressured him. What if the mother had not been persistent? Would he have withheld his magical favors and let the child die? And why would God have to be asked in the first place? If my children are gravely ill and I don’t take them to the hospital and they later ask me why, and I say “Because you didn’t ask me” or “Because you didn’t ask me humbly enough,” can I be called a good parent?
In Matthew 19:12, showing his pro-life sensibilities, Jesus encourages castration: “There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Modern believers are eager to interpret this verse figuratively. The
New International Version
loosely (and hopefully) translates “made eunuch” as “renounced marriage.” But the literal meaning is “castrate” and many devout Christian men in history have done it to themselves, including the early church father Origen and entire monastic orders. Jesus gives no indication that he is speaking in a parable, or that his words mean anything other than what he said.
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
This is no moral precept—this is sick. Castration keeps babies from being born just as effectively as abortion, so why aren’t pro-lifers picketing churches that follow Jesus? After all, Jesus never once mentioned abortion, pro or con. He never gave advice to women about how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. So, modern Christians who do give such advice are acting very un-Christlike.
New International Version
loosely (and hopefully) translates “made eunuch” as “renounced marriage.” But the literal meaning is “castrate” and many devout Christian men in history have done it to themselves, including the early church father Origen and entire monastic orders. Jesus gives no indication that he is speaking in a parable, or that his words mean anything other than what he said.
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
This is no moral precept—this is sick. Castration keeps babies from being born just as effectively as abortion, so why aren’t pro-lifers picketing churches that follow Jesus? After all, Jesus never once mentioned abortion, pro or con. He never gave advice to women about how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. So, modern Christians who do give such advice are acting very un-Christlike.
We hear a lot of talk about the humble Jesus, but his words reveal something different. He looked at his disciples “with anger.” (Mark 3:5) He said that he was “greater than the temple” (Matthew 12:6), “greater than Jonas [Jonah]” (Matthew 12:41) and “greater than Solomon.” He also appeared to suffer from the paranoia that afflicts dictators: “He that is not with me is against me.” (Matthew 12:30) Of course, that is not true. Jesus did not grasp the simple concept of neutrality. Would he also say, “He that is not against me is with me?”
But probably the worst of all of Jesus’ ideas is the teaching of hell. He did not invent the concept of eternal punishment, but the promotion of the Christian doctrine of hell originated with Jesus. In the Old Testament, hell is just death or the grave. With Jesus, hell became a place of everlasting torment. In Mark 9:43
,
Jesus said that hell is “the fire that never shall be quenched.” In Matthew 13:41-42
,
Jesus gives us a graphic (and almost gleeful) description of the place he created: “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Hitler’s gas ovens were horrendous and the suffering was unspeakable, but they did not burn forever. The murdered victims of the Holocaust suffer no more, but the victims of God’s anger will scream forever and ever.
,
Jesus said that hell is “the fire that never shall be quenched.” In Matthew 13:41-42
,
Jesus gives us a graphic (and almost gleeful) description of the place he created: “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Hitler’s gas ovens were horrendous and the suffering was unspeakable, but they did not burn forever. The murdered victims of the Holocaust suffer no more, but the victims of God’s anger will scream forever and ever.
I don’t believe in Jesus or in God, so I qualify as one of those “things that offend” in the above verse. Anyone who thinks it is moral for someone like me—a person who has used reason and kindness to come to conclusions—to be eternally punished for my views hasn’t the faintest concept of morality. Any system of thought or any religion that contains such a threat of physical violence is morally bankrupt. For this reason alone, Jesus deserves to be denounced as a tyrant.
And who could possibly think he was wise? The moral teachings of Jesus include these pearls of wisdom:
• don’t make any plans for the future (Matthew 6:34)
• don’t save any money (Matthew 6:19-20)
• don’t become wealthy (Mark 10:21, 25)
• sell everything you have and give it to the poor (Luke 12:33)
• don’t work to obtain food, such as meat, because it doesn’t last forever (John 6:27)
• don’t have sexual urges (Matthew 5:28)
• marrying a divorced woman is committing adultery (Matthew 5:32)
• act in such a way that people will want to persecute you (Matthew 5:11)
• let everyone know that you are special and better than the rest (Matthew 5:13-14)
• hate your family (Luke 14:26)
• take money from those who have no savings and give it to the rich investors (Luke 19:23-26)
• if someone steals from you, don’t try to get it back (Luke 6:30)
• if someone hits you, invite them to do it again (Matthew 5:39)
• if you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment (Matthew 5:40)
• if someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles (Matthew 5:41)
• if anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question (Matthew 5:42)
• if you do something wrong with your hand, cut it off, and if you do something wrong with your eye, pluck it out
(
Matthew 5:29, 30—said in a sexual context)
• if you are a man, then a good way to make points with “the kingdom” is to avoid women
(
Matthew 19:12)
Much could be said about the moral character of other biblical personages, such as Noah (drunkard), Abraham (who lied about his wife), Lot (incestuous father), Moses (a murderer), David (adulterer and murderer), Solomon (polygamist), Peter (who swung swords and lied like a coward), Paul (who told women to keep silent) and many others. Believers could argue that these are mere mortals, that we should expect them sometimes to act according to their corrupt human nature, and that this actually proves the need for a Savior who can love evil creatures in spite of our humanity. Only in a theological context might this be a plausible, if unsatisfactory, response. The fact remains that it is difficult to find consistent examples of moral behavior in the bible. We might grant the benefit of the doubt to the human characters in the bible, but why should we expect any better when the deities themselves—God and Jesus—act like thugs or lunatics who ought to be locked up?
We have already noted that the bible encourages slavery. It took the Civil War to rid ourselves of the fruits of such inhumanity in the United States, a task that was made more difficult due to the preachers (mainly standing in southern pulpits) who used the bible to defend their position. Not all churches were actively pro-slavery, but those that were found little difficulty supporting slavery with scripture. Why would a moral deity not have known this would happen? A single word from Jesus, if he were truly God, would have shaved 2,000 years off the time it took us to progress out of human bondage in most parts of the world. Unfortunately, it does still exist in some countries and regions.
Even though the phrase “original sin” does not appear in the bible, the scriptural concept that human nature is intrinsically evil has been an insidious doctrine. Jesus admits that mere humans can do good things, but we are nevertheless evil by nature: “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children…” (Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:3) What worse psychological damage could be done to children than to tell them that they basically are no good? What does this do to self-image? How many children go to sleep at night afraid of hell?
Jesus said, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:6) All through history, the church has interpreted this verse literally, using it to execute heretics with fire and other forms of capital punishment. Somebody tell Bruno, Servetus and other victims of the Catholic Inquisition and Protestant Reformation that the bible is a morally superior book.
Exodus 22:18 says, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” This one verse was responsible for the murder of thousands, perhaps millions, of women who were believed to be witches. Anyone who thinks this is a good moral teaching should become a fascist. It is manifestly
immoral
to deal with enemies, real or perceived, by genocide.
immoral
to deal with enemies, real or perceived, by genocide.
One of the most damaging ideas in the bible is the concept of a Lord and Master. The loftiest biblical principles are obedience, submission and faith, rather than reason, intelligence and human values. Worshippers become humble servants of a dictator, expected to kneel before this king, lord, master, god—giving adoring praise and taking orders. According to the bible, we all eventually will be
forced
to bow before Jesus: “every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” (Romans 14:11) The master/slave relationship has become so ingrained in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim world that independent thinkers are considered heretical, evil rebels. Prophets, popes and ayatollahs have capitalized on this dichotomy of abasement in order to manipulate gullible followers. And even if they hadn’t—even if the church had had a blameless history—why is there merit in submission?
forced
to bow before Jesus: “every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” (Romans 14:11) The master/slave relationship has become so ingrained in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim world that independent thinkers are considered heretical, evil rebels. Prophets, popes and ayatollahs have capitalized on this dichotomy of abasement in order to manipulate gullible followers. And even if they hadn’t—even if the church had had a blameless history—why is there merit in submission?
The United States of America is a proudly rebellious nation. We fought a revolution to kick the lord and master out of our affairs. It was a good and moral act to rebel against the tyranny of the king. It seems incongruous that so many Americans, who would never tolerate a dictator in government, are so eager to pay tribute to a universal Lord. Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” But what about the individual? What about democracy? Jesus considered that human beings are cogs in someone else’s machine, be it God’s or Caesar’s. This goes against the grain of a modern representative society. It is not moral to be told to submit to a Caesar or to a god.
Most Christians talk a lot about the bible, but don’t know what it says. They
think
it is filled with wonderful advice. Many of them act shocked, incredulous or offended when skeptics quote horrible scriptures. During many debates and TV and radio shows on which I have quoted unsavory bible verses, biblically illiterate callers or audience members have asked me, “What bible are you reading?” And I might reply, “What bible are you
not
reading?” Most “positive” teachings in the bible are uninspired, inadequate or dangerous.
think
it is filled with wonderful advice. Many of them act shocked, incredulous or offended when skeptics quote horrible scriptures. During many debates and TV and radio shows on which I have quoted unsavory bible verses, biblically illiterate callers or audience members have asked me, “What bible are you reading?” And I might reply, “What bible are you
not
reading?” Most “positive” teachings in the bible are uninspired, inadequate or dangerous.
I participated in a debate in Atlanta in 1988 on the subject “Is the bible an acceptable guide for moral behavior?” My opponent was Dr. Walter Lowe, professor of systematic theology at Candler School of Theology at Emory University. During his entire prepared statement he never once used the bible to support his position! He spent his time debunking the critical mindset of skeptics and presenting a “framework” for certain liberal understandings of Christianity, as if the mere discounting of skepticism could stand in place of evidence that the bible is a good book. My presentation was filled with specific quotes demonstrating that there is much immorality in the bible. His rebuttal was simply to label my interpretation of scripture as “fundamentalist.” I was unwilling to give the bible the benefit of the doubt, he claimed, or to understand that the moral principles are contained over and above what the text actually says.
I hear this criticism a lot. If we freethinkers were mature and sophisticated enough to study the scriptures as they
should
be studied (higher criticism, context, metaphor, cultural elements, and so on), then we would have fewer problems understanding them. But this is nothing more than saying, “If you held my point of view, then you would hold my point of view.”
Everyone
thinks his or her interpretation of the bible is the correct one. I agree that taking the bible at face value is simplistic; however, liberal scholars should admit that skepticism regarding scriptural integrity is greater among liberal experts. They cannot deny that there is a storm of disagreement among scholars, theologians and ordinary believers about the “true” meaning of the text.
should
be studied (higher criticism, context, metaphor, cultural elements, and so on), then we would have fewer problems understanding them. But this is nothing more than saying, “If you held my point of view, then you would hold my point of view.”
Everyone
thinks his or her interpretation of the bible is the correct one. I agree that taking the bible at face value is simplistic; however, liberal scholars should admit that skepticism regarding scriptural integrity is greater among liberal experts. They cannot deny that there is a storm of disagreement among scholars, theologians and ordinary believers about the “true” meaning of the text.
Other books
Aftershocks by Monica Alexander
Fire Raven by McAllister, Patricia
Kaleb (Samuel's Pride Series) by Barton, Kathi S.
Clarissa Oakes by Patrick O'Brian
The Book of Dares for Lost Friends by Jane Kelley
Circumstantial Marriage by Connor, Kerry
All Our Names by Dinaw Mengestu
One Crow Alone by S. D. Crockett
Amanda McCabe by The Rules of Love
