As we well know today, when several persons witness an accident, no two of them
can agree on exactly what happened. So too, when Jesus died, His followers could
not agree on what He had said or done, so each one went off teaching his own
doctrine. Some said He was a god, some said He was a man. Some said He had
been resurrected, some said He had not. Paul was excused from these difficulties
by virtue of his never having seen Jesus. His entire doctrine was based on a
"vision." (He is reported to have been epileptic.) And this "received" doctrine bears
a striking resemblance to all the other Pagan religions of that era. (4) In Paul's
vision, Jesus, like all the others, was a resurrected savior-god. Paul then spent the
rest of his life going from church to church preaching his particular doctrine and
trying to stamp out the "heresies" being spread by the disciples.
When Emperor Constantine called the first Ecumenical Councils in Nicea in 325
C.E., and again in Rome in 382, Paul's theories were voted in as the official ones,
and the Nicene Creed was written to summarize them. In Lk 1, Luke admits that
practically everybody was writing a biography of Jesus. But at the Council of
Rome, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the ones finally accepted as coming
closest to Paul's theory. And the rest were destroyed, or called "apocryphal."
We might speculate that this doctrine was the most popular because it involved the
least departure from existing Pagan assumptions. In large measure it involved little
more than changing the names of Pagan gods, sacraments, holy-days, etc.
can agree on exactly what happened. So too, when Jesus died, His followers could
not agree on what He had said or done, so each one went off teaching his own
doctrine. Some said He was a god, some said He was a man. Some said He had
been resurrected, some said He had not. Paul was excused from these difficulties
by virtue of his never having seen Jesus. His entire doctrine was based on a
"vision." (He is reported to have been epileptic.) And this "received" doctrine bears
a striking resemblance to all the other Pagan religions of that era. (4) In Paul's
vision, Jesus, like all the others, was a resurrected savior-god. Paul then spent the
rest of his life going from church to church preaching his particular doctrine and
trying to stamp out the "heresies" being spread by the disciples.
When Emperor Constantine called the first Ecumenical Councils in Nicea in 325
C.E., and again in Rome in 382, Paul's theories were voted in as the official ones,
and the Nicene Creed was written to summarize them. In Lk 1, Luke admits that
practically everybody was writing a biography of Jesus. But at the Council of
Rome, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the ones finally accepted as coming
closest to Paul's theory. And the rest were destroyed, or called "apocryphal."
We might speculate that this doctrine was the most popular because it involved the
least departure from existing Pagan assumptions. In large measure it involved little
more than changing the names of Pagan gods, sacraments, holy-days, etc.
Gal 1:1-17 Paul explains how his whole theory came in a vision.
2 Cor 11 Argument that Paul's interpretation of Jesus' life is only correct one. All the other apostles
who are wandering about are deceivers.
Tit 3:8 If anyone disagrees with Paul's doctrines, he must be expelled from the community.
1 Cor 15:12 Paul arguing with a church which obviously doesn't accept his doctrine of the
resurrection.
1 Tim 1:3 Paul still fighting heretics of his doctrine.
1 Tim 6:3 Paul says anyone who disagrees with him will go to Hell.
But 2 Peter 2 to 3 says anyone who refuses to bow to his authority is in serious trouble.
Col 2:8 Paul says don't listen to philosophers. 1 Cor 3:18 Wisdom is foolishness. 1 Cor 1:18•2:16
Christianity is for the ignorant, not the wise or learned. 2 Cor 4:18 We are not interested in the
seen, but the unseen.
2 Cor 4:3 Paul admits the gospel is "veiled," but only to unbelievers. And 1 Cor 4:14 Paul claims he
alone knows how to explain the Scriptures.
2 Peter:16 Peter says some of Paul's writings are "hard to understand," but beware of those who
"twist" the meanings of the Scriptures.
However, Rom 9:6 Paul has no qualms at all about "twisting" the original meanings of Scripture to
fit his own doctrine.
2 Cor 11 Argument that Paul's interpretation of Jesus' life is only correct one. All the other apostles
who are wandering about are deceivers.
Tit 3:8 If anyone disagrees with Paul's doctrines, he must be expelled from the community.
1 Cor 15:12 Paul arguing with a church which obviously doesn't accept his doctrine of the
resurrection.
1 Tim 1:3 Paul still fighting heretics of his doctrine.
1 Tim 6:3 Paul says anyone who disagrees with him will go to Hell.
But 2 Peter 2 to 3 says anyone who refuses to bow to his authority is in serious trouble.
Col 2:8 Paul says don't listen to philosophers. 1 Cor 3:18 Wisdom is foolishness. 1 Cor 1:18•2:16
Christianity is for the ignorant, not the wise or learned. 2 Cor 4:18 We are not interested in the
seen, but the unseen.
2 Cor 4:3 Paul admits the gospel is "veiled," but only to unbelievers. And 1 Cor 4:14 Paul claims he
alone knows how to explain the Scriptures.
2 Peter:16 Peter says some of Paul's writings are "hard to understand," but beware of those who
"twist" the meanings of the Scriptures.
However, Rom 9:6 Paul has no qualms at all about "twisting" the original meanings of Scripture to
fit his own doctrine.
The great bulk of the Bible is made up of stories, poetry, and parables which are
ambiguous enough to enable anyone to read anything he pleases into them.
But perhaps these few notes are enough to make it abundantly clear that no one
can believe all of the Bible; if one is to believe any of it, it is necessary to select a
few passages which agree with each other on some point that one already believes
anyway and ignore all the rest. However, any group of passages is just as valid (or
as invalid) as any other, and the result is the thousands of Protestant sects, or
denominations.
Of course, there is one way to prevent differences in interpretation, which the
Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox branches have successfully employed for
centuries. The method is simply to have an "official" interpretation which is
"divinely inspired" and promulgated by the church organization. And in the old
days, if anyone other than a priest was found to possess a Bible, or if anyone
dared to question the official interpretation, that most time honored and efficient
means of settling disputes was administered: the minority party was simply tied to
a stake by the majority and burned. (Today, he is only consigned to Hell.)
This did, indeed, retard the spread of false doctrines; but some persons today have
reservations about how "divine" the "inspirations" were of such things as the
Crusades, the sale of Indulgences, the Inquisitions, the Protestant Massacres, the
Witch Burnings, the Book Burnings, the Exorcisms, or that enemas of Holy Water
would cure anything from schizophrenia to cancer. (Luther also raised some
interesting points as I recall.)
Weirdly enough, though, if one agrees with the Protestants about the fallacy of
Catholicism, and agrees with the Catholics about the fallacy of Protestantism, one
ends up being labeled as some kind of subversive.
Every Christian sect claims a few passages which are held to be literally true, and
the contradictory passages are explained away as metaphorical. However, the very
reason there are different sects is that they cannot agree on which parts are literal
and which metaphor.
A Protestant reads "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church,"
and he says, "Well now, what Jesus really meant was that this rock of faith will be
the basis for my church," etc. But a Catholic reads it as the divine appointment of
the first Pope, upon which the entire framework of the Catholic Church rests.
A Methodist reads "baptized" and says, "Well now, baptism is just a symbol; it
isn't necessary to actually immerse someone in water." But a Baptist reads it and
says Baptism means dunking and nothing else.
A Baptist reads "This is my flesh, and this is my blood," and he says, "Well now,
Jesus was speaking poetically; He actually meant this is a symbol of my flesh and
blood," etc. But a Catholic reads it and says "is" means is, so the bread and wine
actually become flesh and blood when they are blessed by the priest. And anyone
even suspected of doubting that wine suddenly became Type-A-Positive used to
be "offered up as a pleasing smell unto the Lord." (Gen 8:21)
Today, a city preacher says, "Actually, Jesus was just like most of us; He was
tolerant, well-read, urbane: He ate with sinners and publicans; He befriended
Romans and prostitutes; and He taught us that all men are created equal," etc. And
a country preacher says, "Oh no He wasn't! He was like us - a hard working,
simple man who didn't put up with no sin. He read the Word of God, and that was
all; He didn't go fooling around with a lot of silly book-learning. And right here
where it says about the Tower of Babel story - that proves that God wanted the
different races to stay separate, and not be mixing all together," etc.
When a modern businessman reads that he must give away all he has, he says,
"Well now, Jesus didn't actually mean that I must give away all my hard-earned
cash; what He actually meant was that I mustn't let my business be more
important than my faith," etc. But the ascetic, the monk, the priest, the nun, all
think He did, indeed, mean exactly what He said; so they did give away everything
to "follow Him."
The kindly old Christian doctor reads that "One must hate this life in order to gain
eternal life;" and "A friend of the world is an enemy of God;" and "One must
avoid philosophers, for what men call wisdom is detestable in the sight of God,"
etc. And he says, "Well now, this doesn't actually mean what it sounds like. When
it says `world,' or `flesh,' or `knowledge,' what it really means is: `the sinful
pleasures' of the world like, well, like gluttony, and drunkenness, and adultery,
and stuff like that." But the early Christians believed that it did, indeed, mean
exactly what it sounded like; and they starved themselves and wore sackcloth and
ashes, and happily threw themselves, and their mothers, fathers, and children to
the lions. And philosophers and libraries were most cheerfully burned while the
good fathers gathered around singing praises to God in the Highest.
A Christian biologist reads that the creatures were all created in one day, and he
says, "Well now, this story is just a metaphor. It doesn't actually mean one day as
we know it." But as late as 1926, with the Scopes "Monkey Trial," Christians did,
indeed, mean one day as we know it. Tennessee's revised anti-evolution law was
only declared unconstitutional in 1975. And the statutes of some areas still forbid
the teaching of evolution.
A Christian psychologist reads that one must "speak in tongues, and cast out
demons," and he says, "Well now, when Jesus spoke of demons and strange
tongues, He was just speaking metaphorically; what He really meant was mental
illness, and we must discover and speak new truths." But until a hundred years
ago, when the Bible spoke of demons, Christians did, indeed, think it meant
demons. And to prove their point they burned over six-million witches for doing
traffic in demons. And even today, when Pentecostal Churches read "tongues,"
they do, indeed, mean tongues, and (where it is permitted), they work themselves
into hysteria and proceed to babble away fluently.
The Bible has been a millstone around man's mind for as long as it has existed.
Because of it, every virtue has at one time been made a crime, and every crime a
virtue. Preachers have always had all of the answers - albeit different answers -
and for the last two-thousand years, the different sects have spent most of their
time trying to prevent the spread of false doctrines by exterminating each other.
Lutherans burned any Catholic who intruded on their turf; Catholics burned any
rivals they could get their hands on; and Calvin almost completely liquidated his
own congregation. Today, much to their dissatisfaction, they are only allowed to
"discriminate" against each other - except in Ireland, where Catholics and
Protestants enthusiastically continue their ancient crusades against each other with
highly sophisticated weapons.
And every time a scientist claimed the world was round or that it circled the sun,
he was put to the stake for daring to contradict (somebody's version of) God's
Word. But when the new discoveries became accepted, the churches realized that
what they had thought was literal was really only a metaphor, and then denied that
they had ever taught any different.
When the airplane was being invented, the churches thundered that God had not
intended man to fly, and they went after the Hellish balloons and gliders with
pitchforks. When surgery was being developed, they thundered that it was
"unnatural" to operate on people, and they went after the Devilish doctors with
torches. When the first artificial satellites were launched, they thundered that outer
space was God's territory, and man must not intrude. But airplanes fly, and
satellites orbit, and God did not shower us with brimstone; so now the preachers
deny that they ever said any such thing.
Today, Christians say that what happened in the past was done by ignorant bigots
who were only pretending to be Christians. "I would never do such a thing
because I am a real Christian."
So today, man is faced with extinction within the next forty years if he does not
equalize his death control with birth control; so today, the churches thunder that
man has no right to save himself and his civilization - God must be allowed to
take care of everything the way He always has: with war, plague, and famine, the
"natural" way.
Today, Christians look longingly at "The Button" and wish there were a way of
wiping out those Dirty-Atheist Russians without getting similar treatment;
(comparative economics are beside the point.)
Today, Christians form pressure groups to prevent sex-education in the schools;
and they create "Citizens for `Decent' Literature" to ban books which dare to say
the life-force drive of sex is wholesome and good, or novels which sing praises to
the overt expression of love.
Today, thousands of cadaverous deacons and their desiccated wives still pray for
the lost soul of any female in their flock who shows a healthy enthusiasm for
males; and they congratulate themselves, that thank heaven they have raised their
daughter in such a way that she has never shown the least interest in sex. Then
they wonder why the divorce rate is so high, and why every third hospital bed in
America is occupied by a mental patient.
Today, after 30 years of investigation, the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research
reports in their volume on Sex Offenders that in every type of sex offense, except
one, the offender had a very strict religious background. The only exception was
the simple rapist. But even this type reported that he would not have resorted to
rape if Christian lawmakers had not so restricted all other sexual outlets. When
California moderately liberalized its sex laws in 1976, the "Coalition of Christian
Citizens" immediately went into action trying to pass a referendum revoking the
law.
Today, the churches thunder that every sexual accident must result in a child, even
though it may be hated or twisted.
Today, the churches thunder that even if such a lump of lifeless tissue is certain to
be horribly deformed, it must be forced to live until it can begin to feel its pain -
until it can be made aware of its hideous condition. And when that is
accomplished, it must not be allowed to terminate its own life of Hell on Earth.
Today, the churches thunder that these horribly mutilated infants, and hopelessly
diseased elders must be tortured as long as possible, regardless of anyone's wishes.
They state, dogmatically, that no one has the right to take life, while ignoring the
moral question of whether they have the right to prolong life against the wishes of
those concerned. And at the same time they demand that sometimes innocent
victims of social injustice be murdered in public gas-chambers.
Today, Christians thunder that children must be protected at all costs from seeing
the "horrors" of a healthy human body, or learning where babies come from.
Today, in Ireland and the Middle East, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Moslems
threaten the security of the entire world with their perennial wars over which
group is the One True Religion.
Today, Christians urge their children to become scientists in order to beat the Dirty-
Atheist Russians while threatening them with Hell if they believe any of the basic
principles of modern science. A recent sociological survey statistically proved that
people from devoutly religious backgrounds are intellectually and economically
nonproductive. Roman Catholics, fundamentalists, and traditional Protestant faiths
produce very few intellectuals; whereas most scientists and scholars come from
liberal or non-religious homes. (5)
Has anything changed? Only the problems. Certainly not the basic Christian
virtues of ignorance and cruelty. It is not insignificant that the very symbol of
Christianity, the cross, is an instrument of torture, and that its most central
doctrines revolve around a human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism. And it appears
that this process will always continue, with the Bible always dragging behind like a
ball-and-chain, always impeding man's forward progress, always being used to
sanctify the status quo for as long as there are Christians - which, if they had their
own way, would not be very long.
Everyone who claims to "believe the Bible" has a feeling that he actually knows
what is in it, because parents, teachers, preachers and movie producers have been
reading selected passages to him all his life. But there lies the rub: the passages
were selected to support the doctrine of the one selecting them. When we actually
open the pages of the Bible and read for ourselves, we find anything but the
sweetness-and-light brand of Norman-Vincent-Peal-Christianity which Reader's
Digest and Sunday Supplement type preachers now claim is the only kind there is,
or ever was. However, up until 200 years ago, such heretics would have gotten an
uncomfortably warm reception. And among the less educated, fire-and-brimstone
revivalists are still driving thousands half-insane with fear. Even today, with
spaceships orbiting the outer planets, one still is accosted by these human wrecks,
who, with white lips and trembling hands, demand to know if one is sure - really
sure! - that one is saved.
It should also be remembered that the Bible was written in several primitive,
ambiguous languages; and that the words on which today's doctrines are based
depend on the whims and biases of its translators. In fact, there are 36 different
English versions of the Bible now on the market, and 1,399 non-English versions.
(6)
So it should be obvious by now that the Bible was written by many different men,
with many different opinions, and very great ignorance. It should also be obvious
by now that there is no consistency whatever that would indicate any kind of
divine inspiration; and if some parts were inspired, there is no way of knowing
which they are. And it should be quite obvious by now that the Bible is utterly
useless as a guide to human behavior. One cannot logically believe opposite things
at the same time, so if one is to accept certain parts as literal, he must reject
opposing parts, or call them metaphors. But there is no criterion whatever for
deciding which is literal and which metaphorical. And when we make a metaphor
out of anything we please, and redefine previously written words to mean what we
want them to mean instead of what the author intended them to mean, the whole
process of meaningful communication is dissolved. One might as well look for
support of one's prejudices in tea-leaves, or ink-blots, and not bother with words
at all.
So, to answer paragraph "d" of the Biblical Argument, science is not proving the
Bible "true"; the Bible is constantly being re-interpreted by professional
"theologians" whose livelihood depends on reconciling it with the findings of
science when it is no longer feasible to oppose those findings.
It should be more than evident by now that the Bible is mainly valuable as poetry
and an archeological relic. It shows how a small band of very backward people (as
compared with the Greeks and Romans of the time) used to live and think several
thousand years ago. And it is thus clearly and emphatically not the "Living Word
of an All-Wise, All-Powerful, All-Loving, Just, Merciful, and Intelligent God."
ambiguous enough to enable anyone to read anything he pleases into them.
But perhaps these few notes are enough to make it abundantly clear that no one
can believe all of the Bible; if one is to believe any of it, it is necessary to select a
few passages which agree with each other on some point that one already believes
anyway and ignore all the rest. However, any group of passages is just as valid (or
as invalid) as any other, and the result is the thousands of Protestant sects, or
denominations.
Of course, there is one way to prevent differences in interpretation, which the
Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox branches have successfully employed for
centuries. The method is simply to have an "official" interpretation which is
"divinely inspired" and promulgated by the church organization. And in the old
days, if anyone other than a priest was found to possess a Bible, or if anyone
dared to question the official interpretation, that most time honored and efficient
means of settling disputes was administered: the minority party was simply tied to
a stake by the majority and burned. (Today, he is only consigned to Hell.)
This did, indeed, retard the spread of false doctrines; but some persons today have
reservations about how "divine" the "inspirations" were of such things as the
Crusades, the sale of Indulgences, the Inquisitions, the Protestant Massacres, the
Witch Burnings, the Book Burnings, the Exorcisms, or that enemas of Holy Water
would cure anything from schizophrenia to cancer. (Luther also raised some
interesting points as I recall.)
Weirdly enough, though, if one agrees with the Protestants about the fallacy of
Catholicism, and agrees with the Catholics about the fallacy of Protestantism, one
ends up being labeled as some kind of subversive.
Every Christian sect claims a few passages which are held to be literally true, and
the contradictory passages are explained away as metaphorical. However, the very
reason there are different sects is that they cannot agree on which parts are literal
and which metaphor.
A Protestant reads "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church,"
and he says, "Well now, what Jesus really meant was that this rock of faith will be
the basis for my church," etc. But a Catholic reads it as the divine appointment of
the first Pope, upon which the entire framework of the Catholic Church rests.
A Methodist reads "baptized" and says, "Well now, baptism is just a symbol; it
isn't necessary to actually immerse someone in water." But a Baptist reads it and
says Baptism means dunking and nothing else.
A Baptist reads "This is my flesh, and this is my blood," and he says, "Well now,
Jesus was speaking poetically; He actually meant this is a symbol of my flesh and
blood," etc. But a Catholic reads it and says "is" means is, so the bread and wine
actually become flesh and blood when they are blessed by the priest. And anyone
even suspected of doubting that wine suddenly became Type-A-Positive used to
be "offered up as a pleasing smell unto the Lord." (Gen 8:21)
Today, a city preacher says, "Actually, Jesus was just like most of us; He was
tolerant, well-read, urbane: He ate with sinners and publicans; He befriended
Romans and prostitutes; and He taught us that all men are created equal," etc. And
a country preacher says, "Oh no He wasn't! He was like us - a hard working,
simple man who didn't put up with no sin. He read the Word of God, and that was
all; He didn't go fooling around with a lot of silly book-learning. And right here
where it says about the Tower of Babel story - that proves that God wanted the
different races to stay separate, and not be mixing all together," etc.
When a modern businessman reads that he must give away all he has, he says,
"Well now, Jesus didn't actually mean that I must give away all my hard-earned
cash; what He actually meant was that I mustn't let my business be more
important than my faith," etc. But the ascetic, the monk, the priest, the nun, all
think He did, indeed, mean exactly what He said; so they did give away everything
to "follow Him."
The kindly old Christian doctor reads that "One must hate this life in order to gain
eternal life;" and "A friend of the world is an enemy of God;" and "One must
avoid philosophers, for what men call wisdom is detestable in the sight of God,"
etc. And he says, "Well now, this doesn't actually mean what it sounds like. When
it says `world,' or `flesh,' or `knowledge,' what it really means is: `the sinful
pleasures' of the world like, well, like gluttony, and drunkenness, and adultery,
and stuff like that." But the early Christians believed that it did, indeed, mean
exactly what it sounded like; and they starved themselves and wore sackcloth and
ashes, and happily threw themselves, and their mothers, fathers, and children to
the lions. And philosophers and libraries were most cheerfully burned while the
good fathers gathered around singing praises to God in the Highest.
A Christian biologist reads that the creatures were all created in one day, and he
says, "Well now, this story is just a metaphor. It doesn't actually mean one day as
we know it." But as late as 1926, with the Scopes "Monkey Trial," Christians did,
indeed, mean one day as we know it. Tennessee's revised anti-evolution law was
only declared unconstitutional in 1975. And the statutes of some areas still forbid
the teaching of evolution.
A Christian psychologist reads that one must "speak in tongues, and cast out
demons," and he says, "Well now, when Jesus spoke of demons and strange
tongues, He was just speaking metaphorically; what He really meant was mental
illness, and we must discover and speak new truths." But until a hundred years
ago, when the Bible spoke of demons, Christians did, indeed, think it meant
demons. And to prove their point they burned over six-million witches for doing
traffic in demons. And even today, when Pentecostal Churches read "tongues,"
they do, indeed, mean tongues, and (where it is permitted), they work themselves
into hysteria and proceed to babble away fluently.
The Bible has been a millstone around man's mind for as long as it has existed.
Because of it, every virtue has at one time been made a crime, and every crime a
virtue. Preachers have always had all of the answers - albeit different answers -
and for the last two-thousand years, the different sects have spent most of their
time trying to prevent the spread of false doctrines by exterminating each other.
Lutherans burned any Catholic who intruded on their turf; Catholics burned any
rivals they could get their hands on; and Calvin almost completely liquidated his
own congregation. Today, much to their dissatisfaction, they are only allowed to
"discriminate" against each other - except in Ireland, where Catholics and
Protestants enthusiastically continue their ancient crusades against each other with
highly sophisticated weapons.
And every time a scientist claimed the world was round or that it circled the sun,
he was put to the stake for daring to contradict (somebody's version of) God's
Word. But when the new discoveries became accepted, the churches realized that
what they had thought was literal was really only a metaphor, and then denied that
they had ever taught any different.
When the airplane was being invented, the churches thundered that God had not
intended man to fly, and they went after the Hellish balloons and gliders with
pitchforks. When surgery was being developed, they thundered that it was
"unnatural" to operate on people, and they went after the Devilish doctors with
torches. When the first artificial satellites were launched, they thundered that outer
space was God's territory, and man must not intrude. But airplanes fly, and
satellites orbit, and God did not shower us with brimstone; so now the preachers
deny that they ever said any such thing.
Today, Christians say that what happened in the past was done by ignorant bigots
who were only pretending to be Christians. "I would never do such a thing
because I am a real Christian."
So today, man is faced with extinction within the next forty years if he does not
equalize his death control with birth control; so today, the churches thunder that
man has no right to save himself and his civilization - God must be allowed to
take care of everything the way He always has: with war, plague, and famine, the
"natural" way.
Today, Christians look longingly at "The Button" and wish there were a way of
wiping out those Dirty-Atheist Russians without getting similar treatment;
(comparative economics are beside the point.)
Today, Christians form pressure groups to prevent sex-education in the schools;
and they create "Citizens for `Decent' Literature" to ban books which dare to say
the life-force drive of sex is wholesome and good, or novels which sing praises to
the overt expression of love.
Today, thousands of cadaverous deacons and their desiccated wives still pray for
the lost soul of any female in their flock who shows a healthy enthusiasm for
males; and they congratulate themselves, that thank heaven they have raised their
daughter in such a way that she has never shown the least interest in sex. Then
they wonder why the divorce rate is so high, and why every third hospital bed in
America is occupied by a mental patient.
Today, after 30 years of investigation, the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research
reports in their volume on Sex Offenders that in every type of sex offense, except
one, the offender had a very strict religious background. The only exception was
the simple rapist. But even this type reported that he would not have resorted to
rape if Christian lawmakers had not so restricted all other sexual outlets. When
California moderately liberalized its sex laws in 1976, the "Coalition of Christian
Citizens" immediately went into action trying to pass a referendum revoking the
law.
Today, the churches thunder that every sexual accident must result in a child, even
though it may be hated or twisted.
Today, the churches thunder that even if such a lump of lifeless tissue is certain to
be horribly deformed, it must be forced to live until it can begin to feel its pain -
until it can be made aware of its hideous condition. And when that is
accomplished, it must not be allowed to terminate its own life of Hell on Earth.
Today, the churches thunder that these horribly mutilated infants, and hopelessly
diseased elders must be tortured as long as possible, regardless of anyone's wishes.
They state, dogmatically, that no one has the right to take life, while ignoring the
moral question of whether they have the right to prolong life against the wishes of
those concerned. And at the same time they demand that sometimes innocent
victims of social injustice be murdered in public gas-chambers.
Today, Christians thunder that children must be protected at all costs from seeing
the "horrors" of a healthy human body, or learning where babies come from.
Today, in Ireland and the Middle East, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Moslems
threaten the security of the entire world with their perennial wars over which
group is the One True Religion.
Today, Christians urge their children to become scientists in order to beat the Dirty-
Atheist Russians while threatening them with Hell if they believe any of the basic
principles of modern science. A recent sociological survey statistically proved that
people from devoutly religious backgrounds are intellectually and economically
nonproductive. Roman Catholics, fundamentalists, and traditional Protestant faiths
produce very few intellectuals; whereas most scientists and scholars come from
liberal or non-religious homes. (5)
Has anything changed? Only the problems. Certainly not the basic Christian
virtues of ignorance and cruelty. It is not insignificant that the very symbol of
Christianity, the cross, is an instrument of torture, and that its most central
doctrines revolve around a human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism. And it appears
that this process will always continue, with the Bible always dragging behind like a
ball-and-chain, always impeding man's forward progress, always being used to
sanctify the status quo for as long as there are Christians - which, if they had their
own way, would not be very long.
Everyone who claims to "believe the Bible" has a feeling that he actually knows
what is in it, because parents, teachers, preachers and movie producers have been
reading selected passages to him all his life. But there lies the rub: the passages
were selected to support the doctrine of the one selecting them. When we actually
open the pages of the Bible and read for ourselves, we find anything but the
sweetness-and-light brand of Norman-Vincent-Peal-Christianity which Reader's
Digest and Sunday Supplement type preachers now claim is the only kind there is,
or ever was. However, up until 200 years ago, such heretics would have gotten an
uncomfortably warm reception. And among the less educated, fire-and-brimstone
revivalists are still driving thousands half-insane with fear. Even today, with
spaceships orbiting the outer planets, one still is accosted by these human wrecks,
who, with white lips and trembling hands, demand to know if one is sure - really
sure! - that one is saved.
It should also be remembered that the Bible was written in several primitive,
ambiguous languages; and that the words on which today's doctrines are based
depend on the whims and biases of its translators. In fact, there are 36 different
English versions of the Bible now on the market, and 1,399 non-English versions.
(6)
So it should be obvious by now that the Bible was written by many different men,
with many different opinions, and very great ignorance. It should also be obvious
by now that there is no consistency whatever that would indicate any kind of
divine inspiration; and if some parts were inspired, there is no way of knowing
which they are. And it should be quite obvious by now that the Bible is utterly
useless as a guide to human behavior. One cannot logically believe opposite things
at the same time, so if one is to accept certain parts as literal, he must reject
opposing parts, or call them metaphors. But there is no criterion whatever for
deciding which is literal and which metaphorical. And when we make a metaphor
out of anything we please, and redefine previously written words to mean what we
want them to mean instead of what the author intended them to mean, the whole
process of meaningful communication is dissolved. One might as well look for
support of one's prejudices in tea-leaves, or ink-blots, and not bother with words
at all.
So, to answer paragraph "d" of the Biblical Argument, science is not proving the
Bible "true"; the Bible is constantly being re-interpreted by professional
"theologians" whose livelihood depends on reconciling it with the findings of
science when it is no longer feasible to oppose those findings.
It should be more than evident by now that the Bible is mainly valuable as poetry
and an archeological relic. It shows how a small band of very backward people (as
compared with the Greeks and Romans of the time) used to live and think several
thousand years ago. And it is thus clearly and emphatically not the "Living Word
of an All-Wise, All-Powerful, All-Loving, Just, Merciful, and Intelligent God."
CONTINUED
