The following is an excerpt from Mangasarian’s great book, The Bible Unveiled:
Still another word, the explanation of which would greatly help us to understand the bible, is the word magic.
A magician, according to Voltaire, is a man who pretends to possess the secret of doing what nature can not do.
Another Frenchman defines magic as the “strategy of the savage.”
There is not very much difference between these two definitions.
Magic is the weapon, or art, or the science, of the savage against the powers of nature.
The magician claims to be able to “go one better” than nature, or to bring nature to terms.
• If the plague is upon the land, the magician bids it steal away.
• If wild beasts attack his hut, the magician throws a spell over them and makes them harmless.
• Fire will not burn.
• Water will not drown.
• The grave cannot hold its prey.
• Even the god become helpless at a word from the magician.
Magic, in a sense, is the coup d’état of the savage. When one country is at war with another, the best generalship consists in finding out the tactics of the enemy with a view of beating him at his own game. Likewise, the aim of the magician is to steal the secret of the gods and then play the part of a god not only better than the gods themselves, but against them as well. Isn’t man wonderful!
In one sense, magic is science in the making. But while science seeks to control nature through knowledge, magic resorts to spells, charms, incantations and concoctions. In other words, magic is dishonest science.
Now, much as I regret to say it, the bible is more than tainted with this kind of science.
Not a word is there in the bible about studying the laws of nature, for study is not necessary where there is magic. The real thing, science, is made superfluous by the imitation article—magic.
Thus the bible, by its preference for a false science, postponed, if it did not succeed in defeating altogether, the intellectual evolution of man.
Scarcely anything happens in the bible in a natural way. Miracles are so many, and so frequent, that there is practically no nature in the bible:
• The dead arise.
• The rivers flow backward.
• The sea turns into dry land.
• Sticks change into serpents.
• The axe head floats on the water.
• Walls and fortifications fall at the sound of a trumpet.
• Animals talk.
• Virgins become mothers.
• Sun and moon are arrested and then set free.
• A universe is produced out of nothing.
All this is done with as little ado as a magician requires to pull a rabbit out of his sleeve. In the bible, we are in the land of magic. Nature is suspended, and the supernatural is in full swing.
I read the other day of a country farmer who went to see a celebrated conjurer perform his wonders. He saw the “wizard” pick money out of the air, shoot watches into people’s pockets, change copper into gold and silver, and perform a hundred other equally marvelous feats.
As he was leaving the charmed presence of the juggler, he expressed his surprise that so resourceful a man should be under the necessity of giving performance to earn a living. He could not understand why a man whose touch turned everything to gold should collect dimes at the box office. Of course, the explanation is perfectly simple:
The wonders which the conjurer performs are sham wonders. In the same way, the miracles in the bible never help anybody nor accomplish anything because they are sham miracles.
• The bush which burns, and yet is not consumed, is a sham bush—the bush is not a bush, and the fire is not real fire.
• The few loaves and fishes with which Jesus fed a great multitude were sham loaves and fishes, and the multitude which, though hungry, could not exhaust the food, was a sham multitude. Sham bread, sham multitude, sham hunger! Such are the wonderers of the conjurer or the magician in or outside the bible. If Jesus really possessed the power of multiplying a few loaves into an exhaustless supply of bread, why is there then any poverty in the world?
Moreover, the miracles—which are as thick on the pages of the bible as blackberries on a bush—what good did they do to the people for whose benefit they were performed?
• If the Egyptians perished in their homes, the Jews perished in the wilderness.
• If the Egyptians lost their slaves, the Jews lost their sons and daughters—lost themselves.
What good did all the miracles performed in their behalf do for them? Their city, Jerusalem, was set on fire, their homes pillaged, their children put to the edge of the sword, over and over again. What benefit did they derive from the ten thousand miracles lavished upon them?
And look at the Greeks! Not one miracle did Jehovah perform for them. Yet they rose to be the masters of the world, and are still by their worth and genius, the teachers of mankind.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
JEPHTHAH SACRIFICES HIS DAUGHTER
The following story is found in the bible in the book of Judges, chapter 11. It is about a man who burned his daughter to death as a sacrifice to God:
The spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He went through Gilead and Manasseh and returned to Mizpah in Gilead and went on to Ammon.
Jephthah promised the LORD: “If you will give me victory over the Ammonites, I will burn as an offering the first person that comes out of my house to meet me, when I come back from the victory. I will offer that person to you as a sacrifice.”
So Jephthah crossed the river to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He struck at them from Aroer to the area around Minnith, twenty cities in all, and as far as Abel Keramim.
There was a great slaughter, and the Ammonites were defeated by Israel.
When Jephthah went back home to Mizpah, there was his daughter coming out to meet him, dancing and playing the tambourine. She was his only child. When he saw, he tore his clothes in sorrow and said, “Oh, my daughter! You are breaking my heart! Why must it be you that causes me pain? I have made a solemn promise to the LORD, and I cannot take it back!”
She told him, “If you have made a promise to the LORD, do what you said you would do to me, since the LORD has given you revenge on your enemies, the Ammonites.” But she asked her father. “Do this one thing for me. Leave me alone for two months, so that I can go with my friends to wander in the mountains and grieve that I must die a virgin.” He told her to go and sent her away for two months. She and her friends went up into the mountains and grieved because she was going to die unmarried and childless.
After two months she came back to her father. He did what he had promised the LORD, and she died still a virgin.
The spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He went through Gilead and Manasseh and returned to Mizpah in Gilead and went on to Ammon.
Jephthah promised the LORD: “If you will give me victory over the Ammonites, I will burn as an offering the first person that comes out of my house to meet me, when I come back from the victory. I will offer that person to you as a sacrifice.”
So Jephthah crossed the river to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He struck at them from Aroer to the area around Minnith, twenty cities in all, and as far as Abel Keramim.
There was a great slaughter, and the Ammonites were defeated by Israel.
When Jephthah went back home to Mizpah, there was his daughter coming out to meet him, dancing and playing the tambourine. She was his only child. When he saw, he tore his clothes in sorrow and said, “Oh, my daughter! You are breaking my heart! Why must it be you that causes me pain? I have made a solemn promise to the LORD, and I cannot take it back!”
She told him, “If you have made a promise to the LORD, do what you said you would do to me, since the LORD has given you revenge on your enemies, the Ammonites.” But she asked her father. “Do this one thing for me. Leave me alone for two months, so that I can go with my friends to wander in the mountains and grieve that I must die a virgin.” He told her to go and sent her away for two months. She and her friends went up into the mountains and grieved because she was going to die unmarried and childless.
After two months she came back to her father. He did what he had promised the LORD, and she died still a virgin.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
HUMAN SACRIFICE
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice. God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh. Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are "pleasing to the LORD".
Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.
The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.
Even more peculiar is God's obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:12 -13 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice. Of course, it was a sin not to obey the priests. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers.
Here, in Exodus, like with Abraham in Genesis, the human sacrifice can be avoided if it is replaced with another animal or money. In other words, to avoid the death of one’s first-born child, the father would have to pay whatever the priest demanded. What amounts to kidnapping and ransom was perfectly legal there and then. Such behavior is definitely immoral. And, here and now, it would most definitely be illegal.
However, in chapter 27 of the Old Testament book of Leviticus the Lord allows for no redemptions. The human being must be sacrificed. To avoid difficult language, I will present the entire chapter from the Good News Bible (without the use of quotation marks):
LAWS CONCERNING GIFTS OF THE LORD
The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. When a person has been given to the LORD in fulfillment of a special vow, that person may be set free by the payment of the following sums of money, according to the official standard:
• Adult male, twenty to sixty years old: 50 pieces of silver
• Adult female: 30 pieces of silver
• Young male, five to twenty years old: 20 pieces of silver
• Young female: 10 pieces of silver
• Infant male under five: 5 pieces of silver
• Infant female: 3 pieces of silver
• Male above sixty years of age: 15 pieces of silver
• Female above sixty: 10 pieces of silver
If the man who made the vow is too poor to pay the standard price, he shall bring the person to the priest, and the priest will set a lower price, according to the ability of the man to pay.
If the vow concerns an animal that is acceptable as an offering to the LORD, then every gift made to the LORD is sacred, and the man who made the vow may not substitute another animal for it. If he does, both animals belong to the LORD. But if the vow concerns a ritually unclean animal, which is not acceptable as an offering to the LORD, the man shall take the animal to the priest. The priest shall set a price for it, according to its good or bad qualities, and the price will be final. If the man wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent.
When someone dedicates his house to the LORD, the priest shall set the price according to its good or bad points, and the price will be final. If the one who dedicated the house wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent.
If a man dedicates part of his land to the LORD, the price shall be set according to the amount of seed it takes to sow it, at the rate of ten pieces of silver per bushel of barley. If he dedicates the land immediately after a Year of Restoration, the full price applies. If he dedicates it any time later, the priest shall estimate the cash value according to the number of years left until the next Year of Restoration, and set a reduced price. If the man who dedicated the field wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent. If he sells the field to someone else without first buying it back from the LORD, he loses the right to buy it back. At the next Year of Restoration the field will become the LORD’s permanent property; it shall belong to the priests.
If a man dedicates to the LORD a field that he has bought, the priest shall estimate its value according to the number of years until the next Year of Restoration, and the man must pay the price that very day; the money belongs to the LORD. At the Year of Restoration the field shall be returned to the original owner or to his descendants.
All prices shall be set according to the official standard.
The first-born of an animal already belongs to the LORD, so no one may dedicate it to him as a freewill offering. A calf, a lamb, or a kid belongs to the LORD, but the first-born of an unclean animal may be bought back at the standard price plus an additional 20 percent. If it is not bought back, it may be sold to someone else at the standard price.
No one may sell or buy back what he has unconditionally dedicated to the LORD, whether it is a human being, an animal, or land. It belongs permanently to the LORD. Not even a human being who has been unconditionally dedicated may be bought back; he must be put to death.
One tenth of all the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, belongs to the LORD. If a man wishes to buy any of it back, he must pay the standard price plus an additional 20 percent. One of every ten domestic animals belongs to the LORD. When the animals are counted, every tenth one belongs to the LORD. The owner may not arrange the animals so that the poor animals are chosen, and he may not make any substitutions. If he does substitute one animal for another, then both animals will belong to the LORD and may not be bought back.
These are the commands that the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for people of Israel.
Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.
The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.
Even more peculiar is God's obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:12 -13 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice. Of course, it was a sin not to obey the priests. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers.
Here, in Exodus, like with Abraham in Genesis, the human sacrifice can be avoided if it is replaced with another animal or money. In other words, to avoid the death of one’s first-born child, the father would have to pay whatever the priest demanded. What amounts to kidnapping and ransom was perfectly legal there and then. Such behavior is definitely immoral. And, here and now, it would most definitely be illegal.
However, in chapter 27 of the Old Testament book of Leviticus the Lord allows for no redemptions. The human being must be sacrificed. To avoid difficult language, I will present the entire chapter from the Good News Bible (without the use of quotation marks):
LAWS CONCERNING GIFTS OF THE LORD
The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. When a person has been given to the LORD in fulfillment of a special vow, that person may be set free by the payment of the following sums of money, according to the official standard:
• Adult male, twenty to sixty years old: 50 pieces of silver
• Adult female: 30 pieces of silver
• Young male, five to twenty years old: 20 pieces of silver
• Young female: 10 pieces of silver
• Infant male under five: 5 pieces of silver
• Infant female: 3 pieces of silver
• Male above sixty years of age: 15 pieces of silver
• Female above sixty: 10 pieces of silver
If the man who made the vow is too poor to pay the standard price, he shall bring the person to the priest, and the priest will set a lower price, according to the ability of the man to pay.
If the vow concerns an animal that is acceptable as an offering to the LORD, then every gift made to the LORD is sacred, and the man who made the vow may not substitute another animal for it. If he does, both animals belong to the LORD. But if the vow concerns a ritually unclean animal, which is not acceptable as an offering to the LORD, the man shall take the animal to the priest. The priest shall set a price for it, according to its good or bad qualities, and the price will be final. If the man wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent.
When someone dedicates his house to the LORD, the priest shall set the price according to its good or bad points, and the price will be final. If the one who dedicated the house wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent.
If a man dedicates part of his land to the LORD, the price shall be set according to the amount of seed it takes to sow it, at the rate of ten pieces of silver per bushel of barley. If he dedicates the land immediately after a Year of Restoration, the full price applies. If he dedicates it any time later, the priest shall estimate the cash value according to the number of years left until the next Year of Restoration, and set a reduced price. If the man who dedicated the field wishes to buy it back, he must pay the price plus an additional 20 percent. If he sells the field to someone else without first buying it back from the LORD, he loses the right to buy it back. At the next Year of Restoration the field will become the LORD’s permanent property; it shall belong to the priests.
If a man dedicates to the LORD a field that he has bought, the priest shall estimate its value according to the number of years until the next Year of Restoration, and the man must pay the price that very day; the money belongs to the LORD. At the Year of Restoration the field shall be returned to the original owner or to his descendants.
All prices shall be set according to the official standard.
The first-born of an animal already belongs to the LORD, so no one may dedicate it to him as a freewill offering. A calf, a lamb, or a kid belongs to the LORD, but the first-born of an unclean animal may be bought back at the standard price plus an additional 20 percent. If it is not bought back, it may be sold to someone else at the standard price.
No one may sell or buy back what he has unconditionally dedicated to the LORD, whether it is a human being, an animal, or land. It belongs permanently to the LORD. Not even a human being who has been unconditionally dedicated may be bought back; he must be put to death.
One tenth of all the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, belongs to the LORD. If a man wishes to buy any of it back, he must pay the standard price plus an additional 20 percent. One of every ten domestic animals belongs to the LORD. When the animals are counted, every tenth one belongs to the LORD. The owner may not arrange the animals so that the poor animals are chosen, and he may not make any substitutions. If he does substitute one animal for another, then both animals will belong to the LORD and may not be bought back.
These are the commands that the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for people of Israel.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
THE BIBLE UNVEILED IV
Mangasarian lists six arguments in favor of the bible and critically discusses each one:
1. “The bible ought to be judged by its fruits,” is one of the most commended arguments in its favor.
It is claimed that civilization, with all its blessings, is the gift of the bible.
If this were true, it could not prove the bible inspired.
The inventors of steam, the mariner’s compass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress, but would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates and Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of Alexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek literature, or Alexander’s wars, inspired?
But it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.
There was a civilization in Rome and in Greece that were fairer without the bible.
If the bible is the sole civilizing force, how explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even allowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?
2. The next “best” argument in favor of the bible is that it gives the world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his destiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation.
But what is the information worth? Is its account of the creation of woman out of a rib, believable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable? And as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the question than the older or new theosophical books?
3. A third “best” argument is that the bible presents the highest morality and the noblest ideals ever known by man.
What are they? Did the bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or meanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of one’s neighbor, love of one’s country, or nobody to practice charity, or justice, in the world before Moses or Jesus?
But it is not true that the bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book undertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the bible.
According to its teaching, belief comes first; and all the morality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not believe.
4. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted thousands and reformed some of the worst characters. “I have the witness of the spirit in me,” argues the convert, “that the bible is the ‘Word of God.’” And he proceeds to relate how he was a downcast, or fallen in sin, and the bible made a new man of him.
We rejoice whenever the disconsolate find cheer or the fallen rise. Nor is our happiness diminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which worked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow and whatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the gratitude of man.
But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so many who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise at all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is claimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest of the world, is still to be saved.
If the bible only saves some, so does education and other purely human agencies; and if education does not save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the superiority of the “divine” to the human?
Moreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or Emerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or, if a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a bad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that these agencies were divine?
If the bible is not the only power that can help, then it is but one of many agencies; and, why should one of the many agencies which make for improvement be labeled “divine”?
Nor does the plea that: because “I feel it in my heart that the bible is divine,” make it so. If “I feel it in my heart” were enough to prove anything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the Chinaman “feel it” in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours. This argument from feeling practically dispenses with knowledge, and leads to intellectual nihilism.
5. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being “a heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel,” allowance should be made for the unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages.
God was the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and therefore, the defects of the bible should be charged to the account of man.
But why should a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel?
Was not Jesus divine as his father? Why could not he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to unknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If the reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint?
But if reliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily, and very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with his own hand.
Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can spoil is not very heavenly.
If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then it is not any different from any other corruptible thing.
Unfortunately, the infallible book has to be protected against printers’ or revisers’ mistakes. Let us have a better bible—one that no earthen vessel can contaminate.
6. Finally, “Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let alone the errors?” is another of the “strong arguments” of the bible defenders. “There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare,” say they. “Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?”
But it all depends upon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors, but their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would be enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its weakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound links in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are pointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its parts are all right.
1. “The bible ought to be judged by its fruits,” is one of the most commended arguments in its favor.
It is claimed that civilization, with all its blessings, is the gift of the bible.
If this were true, it could not prove the bible inspired.
The inventors of steam, the mariner’s compass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress, but would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates and Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of Alexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek literature, or Alexander’s wars, inspired?
But it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.
There was a civilization in Rome and in Greece that were fairer without the bible.
If the bible is the sole civilizing force, how explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even allowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?
2. The next “best” argument in favor of the bible is that it gives the world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his destiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation.
But what is the information worth? Is its account of the creation of woman out of a rib, believable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable? And as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the question than the older or new theosophical books?
3. A third “best” argument is that the bible presents the highest morality and the noblest ideals ever known by man.
What are they? Did the bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or meanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of one’s neighbor, love of one’s country, or nobody to practice charity, or justice, in the world before Moses or Jesus?
But it is not true that the bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book undertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the bible.
According to its teaching, belief comes first; and all the morality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not believe.
4. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted thousands and reformed some of the worst characters. “I have the witness of the spirit in me,” argues the convert, “that the bible is the ‘Word of God.’” And he proceeds to relate how he was a downcast, or fallen in sin, and the bible made a new man of him.
We rejoice whenever the disconsolate find cheer or the fallen rise. Nor is our happiness diminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which worked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow and whatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the gratitude of man.
But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so many who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise at all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is claimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest of the world, is still to be saved.
If the bible only saves some, so does education and other purely human agencies; and if education does not save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the superiority of the “divine” to the human?
Moreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or Emerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or, if a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a bad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that these agencies were divine?
If the bible is not the only power that can help, then it is but one of many agencies; and, why should one of the many agencies which make for improvement be labeled “divine”?
Nor does the plea that: because “I feel it in my heart that the bible is divine,” make it so. If “I feel it in my heart” were enough to prove anything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the Chinaman “feel it” in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours. This argument from feeling practically dispenses with knowledge, and leads to intellectual nihilism.
5. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being “a heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel,” allowance should be made for the unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages.
God was the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and therefore, the defects of the bible should be charged to the account of man.
But why should a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel?
Was not Jesus divine as his father? Why could not he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to unknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If the reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint?
But if reliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily, and very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with his own hand.
Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can spoil is not very heavenly.
If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then it is not any different from any other corruptible thing.
Unfortunately, the infallible book has to be protected against printers’ or revisers’ mistakes. Let us have a better bible—one that no earthen vessel can contaminate.
6. Finally, “Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let alone the errors?” is another of the “strong arguments” of the bible defenders. “There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare,” say they. “Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?”
But it all depends upon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors, but their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would be enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its weakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound links in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are pointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its parts are all right.
Friday, November 12, 2010
THE BIBLE UNVEILED III
William Jennings Bryan was not the only politician or publicist, who contributed to the tercentenary celebration of the bible.
Writing in the Outlook, Theodore Roosevelt, to his own satisfaction, at least, meets the opponents of the inspiration of the bible, and briefly disposes of them.
“Occasionally critics,” he writes, “taking sections of the Old Testament, are able to point out that the teachings therein are not in accordance with our own convictions and views of morality.”
Is it only “occasional” critics who express disapproval of the Jewish-Christian scriptures? And suppose it true that only “occasional” critics call attention to the harm which the bible does by its immoral and impossible teachings: Does that fact relieve the defenders of the bible from the obligation to answer their criticisms? The important question is not, who makes the criticism; but, is the criticism just?
“The Old Testament,” continues Mr. Roosevelt, “did not carry Israel as far as the New Testament has carried us; but it advanced Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached.”
This is practically a plea of guilty.
Why was not the Old Testament as good as the New is supposed to be? Was it not equally divine?
If the Old Testament was meant to prepare the Jews to accept the New Testament, they have not accepted it yet.
But is it true that “the Old Testament carried Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached”?
It is now nearly two thousand years since the New Testament began to “carry us,” and where have we reached?
In how many things have we advanced beyond the Greeks and Romans, for instance?
Only yesterday the black man carried chains in our land, and throughout Christendom white slavery of a more degrading type than ever known before is still with us. Political corruption of a character which Mr. Roosevelt himself has pronounced the most deep-seated and chronic is eating away the vital parts of the American nation, while the hunger, the misery and the squalor in the slums of our great cities, side by side with the waste of wealth and the worship of show, prove daily the complete failure of Christianity as a regenerating force.
Whatever of hope there is today in the human heart for a better future on earth, and whatever signs there may be of a realization of justice and happiness for all men, here and now, we are indebted for them, not to the New Testament, but to modern thought, which is heresy from the point of view of the New, as well as the Old, Testament.
It is the passing of the bible that has opened the way for real and radical reforms. It is the failure of the inspired teachers to fulfill their promises that has at least induced man to step to the front and assume full control of the world’s destinies. Man no longer prays to the gods; he works.
When the bible was supreme in Europe, was the world better?
Would Mr. Roosevelt return to the Middle Ages? Will he go back to the times of Knox, Wesley, Calvin and the New England clergy, or to the times when, by authority of the bible which then ruled without a rival, in court and church, in the home and the school, men and women were bought and sold like animals, or burned alive as witches, or tortured to death in a thousand dungeons for daring to think.
When the bible was supreme in Europe there was neither science nor commerce.
When the bible was supreme, tyrant and dissolute kings ruled by the “grace of God,” and priest persecuted the thinker in every capital of the Christian world.
It is the emancipation of thought, and not the New Testament, that has conquered for us every blessing we enjoy.
Not until the Renaissance, that is to say, not until Europe deserted its Semitic or Asiatic teachers for those of Hellas and Rome, did modern nations begin to wax strong in mind and body.
The New Testament really carried us to the times of the Old Testament.
It was the Renaissance of Greek thought and art that changed the “thorns and thistles” of theology into the golden fruit of science.
Writing in the Outlook, Theodore Roosevelt, to his own satisfaction, at least, meets the opponents of the inspiration of the bible, and briefly disposes of them.
“Occasionally critics,” he writes, “taking sections of the Old Testament, are able to point out that the teachings therein are not in accordance with our own convictions and views of morality.”
Is it only “occasional” critics who express disapproval of the Jewish-Christian scriptures? And suppose it true that only “occasional” critics call attention to the harm which the bible does by its immoral and impossible teachings: Does that fact relieve the defenders of the bible from the obligation to answer their criticisms? The important question is not, who makes the criticism; but, is the criticism just?
“The Old Testament,” continues Mr. Roosevelt, “did not carry Israel as far as the New Testament has carried us; but it advanced Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached.”
This is practically a plea of guilty.
Why was not the Old Testament as good as the New is supposed to be? Was it not equally divine?
If the Old Testament was meant to prepare the Jews to accept the New Testament, they have not accepted it yet.
But is it true that “the Old Testament carried Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached”?
It is now nearly two thousand years since the New Testament began to “carry us,” and where have we reached?
In how many things have we advanced beyond the Greeks and Romans, for instance?
Only yesterday the black man carried chains in our land, and throughout Christendom white slavery of a more degrading type than ever known before is still with us. Political corruption of a character which Mr. Roosevelt himself has pronounced the most deep-seated and chronic is eating away the vital parts of the American nation, while the hunger, the misery and the squalor in the slums of our great cities, side by side with the waste of wealth and the worship of show, prove daily the complete failure of Christianity as a regenerating force.
Whatever of hope there is today in the human heart for a better future on earth, and whatever signs there may be of a realization of justice and happiness for all men, here and now, we are indebted for them, not to the New Testament, but to modern thought, which is heresy from the point of view of the New, as well as the Old, Testament.
It is the passing of the bible that has opened the way for real and radical reforms. It is the failure of the inspired teachers to fulfill their promises that has at least induced man to step to the front and assume full control of the world’s destinies. Man no longer prays to the gods; he works.
When the bible was supreme in Europe, was the world better?
Would Mr. Roosevelt return to the Middle Ages? Will he go back to the times of Knox, Wesley, Calvin and the New England clergy, or to the times when, by authority of the bible which then ruled without a rival, in court and church, in the home and the school, men and women were bought and sold like animals, or burned alive as witches, or tortured to death in a thousand dungeons for daring to think.
When the bible was supreme in Europe there was neither science nor commerce.
When the bible was supreme, tyrant and dissolute kings ruled by the “grace of God,” and priest persecuted the thinker in every capital of the Christian world.
It is the emancipation of thought, and not the New Testament, that has conquered for us every blessing we enjoy.
Not until the Renaissance, that is to say, not until Europe deserted its Semitic or Asiatic teachers for those of Hellas and Rome, did modern nations begin to wax strong in mind and body.
The New Testament really carried us to the times of the Old Testament.
It was the Renaissance of Greek thought and art that changed the “thorns and thistles” of theology into the golden fruit of science.
THE BIBLE UNVEILED II
In a private letter to an inquirer, to whom I am indebted for the quotation I am about to make, Mr. W. J. Bryan, referring to the author of this book, asks, “If Mr. Mangasarian has books better than the bible, there is nothing to prevent his presenting them to the public, and driving the bible out of use.” But that is precisely what is being done. The bible has been, a step at a time, driven completely out of use in the halls of learning. It is no longer an authority, for example, on questions of science—geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology and all other branches of the principal pursuits of man. Better books on these subjects have replaced the “Word of God.” What is true of science is true of history, politics, government, education, commerce; in all these departments and activities of life better books have relegated the bible into the background.
Did the framers of the American Constitution, for instance, which Gladstone calls “the proudest product of the pen and brain” of man, consult the bible for their work? Did they borrow the doctrine of the separation of Church and State from the bible? The Church in the bible dominates the State; but the Americans compelled the Church to take its hands off the State. Did they learn that lesson from the bible? The Constitution, again, declares that all power is derived from the consent of the governed. Is that biblical? Does not the “Word of God” plainly teach that “the powers that be are appointed of God,” and that not to obey the powers thus appointed, whether they be good or evil, is to receive “damnation to their souls”? Evidently, then, the makers of America had better books than the bible to be guided by.
Where, again, is it permitted in the bible to tolerate all religions and to favor none? If there is any one idea more prominent than any other in the bible, it is that the religion which it announces is alone true, and that all others are pernicious, and to be suppressed by fire and the sword. And religious tolerance is one of the glories of the American Constitution.
And then, there is the question, “What will you give us in place of the bible?” We can not take anything away from you which you can keep and if you can not keep the bible, you have to let it go, whether or not you can find another to take its place. But are there not better stories in the world than those of the serpent in Eden; the fall of man; the deluge and the drowning of the human race; the ten plagues of Egypt; the talking snake; the whale that swallowed a man who lived to tell about it, and of the innumerable wars and massacres? Is it true that the foolish rites and ceremonies, and the unintelligible trinities, incarnations and resurrections in the bible can not be matched? Are we really worrying that, if we give up these tales and mysteries, we will not be able to find anything to replace them?
If we desire fairy tales, there is the mythology of the Greeks; if we want miracles, there is science with its real wonders; if we want stories of human adventure and heroism, there is history, ancient and modern; if we want biography, better than the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the story of glorious discoverers and inventors whose genius transmuted human ignorance into knowledge and barbarism into civilization. And for the sufferings of the gods, read the story of the martyrdom of man!
Did the framers of the American Constitution, for instance, which Gladstone calls “the proudest product of the pen and brain” of man, consult the bible for their work? Did they borrow the doctrine of the separation of Church and State from the bible? The Church in the bible dominates the State; but the Americans compelled the Church to take its hands off the State. Did they learn that lesson from the bible? The Constitution, again, declares that all power is derived from the consent of the governed. Is that biblical? Does not the “Word of God” plainly teach that “the powers that be are appointed of God,” and that not to obey the powers thus appointed, whether they be good or evil, is to receive “damnation to their souls”? Evidently, then, the makers of America had better books than the bible to be guided by.
Where, again, is it permitted in the bible to tolerate all religions and to favor none? If there is any one idea more prominent than any other in the bible, it is that the religion which it announces is alone true, and that all others are pernicious, and to be suppressed by fire and the sword. And religious tolerance is one of the glories of the American Constitution.
And then, there is the question, “What will you give us in place of the bible?” We can not take anything away from you which you can keep and if you can not keep the bible, you have to let it go, whether or not you can find another to take its place. But are there not better stories in the world than those of the serpent in Eden; the fall of man; the deluge and the drowning of the human race; the ten plagues of Egypt; the talking snake; the whale that swallowed a man who lived to tell about it, and of the innumerable wars and massacres? Is it true that the foolish rites and ceremonies, and the unintelligible trinities, incarnations and resurrections in the bible can not be matched? Are we really worrying that, if we give up these tales and mysteries, we will not be able to find anything to replace them?
If we desire fairy tales, there is the mythology of the Greeks; if we want miracles, there is science with its real wonders; if we want stories of human adventure and heroism, there is history, ancient and modern; if we want biography, better than the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the story of glorious discoverers and inventors whose genius transmuted human ignorance into knowledge and barbarism into civilization. And for the sufferings of the gods, read the story of the martyrdom of man!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
THE BIBLE UNVEILED I
Following are excerpts from M. M. Mangasarian’s book, The Bible Unveiled. Although I will not use quotation marks, all of the following remarks are from this book:
To make it possible for a for man to be as honest in his religion as he would like to be in his business; to make him as unafraid in church as he aims to be anywhere else, and to help make him as impatient of a lie on Sunday as he is on any other day of the week, is the object of these studies on the bible. I wish to be able to kindle in the breast of every free citizen of this free country the love of truth, irrespective of whether it helps or hurts; I wish to shame cowardice and hypocrisy out of every man and woman who speaks the English language.
A book which claims infallibility; which aspires to absolute authority over mind and body; which demands unconditional surrender to all its pretensions upon penalty of eternal damnation, is an extraordinary book and should, therefore, be subject to extraordinary tests.
The veil lifted! I am not going to give new names to the bible, or find new hidden meanings in it. That is not my profession. Occultism, which enables a reader to find in any book whatever he is seeking, has never commanded my respect. By lifting the veil, I mean a very simple thing—showing up the bible.
All idols are veiled. The veil is the idol. Uncovered, they scare nobody. I shall try to do to the great idol of Christendom what the sun does to the earth—coax it into the light.
The majority of people who exalt the bible above all other books have not studied the book—not even read it, except a chapter here and a passage there. If the bible had been a smaller book, people would have been more familiar with its contents, but being a book of ponderous size, the generality of people have only a dabbler acquaintance with its contents. Really, the size of the book has been its best protection. There is scarcely any other book which is more reverenced, and less known, than the bible.
The very people, however, who are so ignorant of the bible, would be the first to throw up their hands in horror should the least criticism be directed against its contents. Despite its enormous sales, the bible is a stranger in the home, the school, the study, the shop, and in all the assemblies of the people. But the less some people are acquainted with the bible the more they seem to believe in it. Indeed, ignorance of the bible is indispensable to faith in its inspiration.
Moreover, it is this ignorant veneration which makes it dangerous for any one to read and tell the truth about it. Formerly, when the church had the power, such a man was either hacked to pieces, or burned to cinders; today, even, he is persecuted as much as public opinion will permit. It is a matter of history that in the name of this Jewish-Christian volume, which people do not read and are but superficially acquainted with, nearly a hundred millions of lives have been destroyed in Europe alone. Could anything be more appalling? In modern times, the church can no longer do to the unbelievers in the bible what it did to them for over seventeen hundred years, but it does to them as much as public sentiment will allow.
The reader will be interested in examining with me the book in the defense of which, I regret to say, nearly every imaginable crime has been committed. It gives me pain to say this, but who can hide the truth? Moreover, my sole purpose in telling the plain truth is not to offend, or give pain but to encourage everybody to approach the book without fear. I am not going to praise the bible; but I am not going to denounce it either; I am going to explain it.
It is my desire not so much to talk about the bible—when, and where, and by whom, it was compiled; how it was discovered; burned in the destruction of the temple, and later restored by the scribe Ezra; how it has been edited and revised again and again—but to lift the veil and show the book to the world.
To make it possible for a for man to be as honest in his religion as he would like to be in his business; to make him as unafraid in church as he aims to be anywhere else, and to help make him as impatient of a lie on Sunday as he is on any other day of the week, is the object of these studies on the bible. I wish to be able to kindle in the breast of every free citizen of this free country the love of truth, irrespective of whether it helps or hurts; I wish to shame cowardice and hypocrisy out of every man and woman who speaks the English language.
A book which claims infallibility; which aspires to absolute authority over mind and body; which demands unconditional surrender to all its pretensions upon penalty of eternal damnation, is an extraordinary book and should, therefore, be subject to extraordinary tests.
The veil lifted! I am not going to give new names to the bible, or find new hidden meanings in it. That is not my profession. Occultism, which enables a reader to find in any book whatever he is seeking, has never commanded my respect. By lifting the veil, I mean a very simple thing—showing up the bible.
All idols are veiled. The veil is the idol. Uncovered, they scare nobody. I shall try to do to the great idol of Christendom what the sun does to the earth—coax it into the light.
The majority of people who exalt the bible above all other books have not studied the book—not even read it, except a chapter here and a passage there. If the bible had been a smaller book, people would have been more familiar with its contents, but being a book of ponderous size, the generality of people have only a dabbler acquaintance with its contents. Really, the size of the book has been its best protection. There is scarcely any other book which is more reverenced, and less known, than the bible.
The very people, however, who are so ignorant of the bible, would be the first to throw up their hands in horror should the least criticism be directed against its contents. Despite its enormous sales, the bible is a stranger in the home, the school, the study, the shop, and in all the assemblies of the people. But the less some people are acquainted with the bible the more they seem to believe in it. Indeed, ignorance of the bible is indispensable to faith in its inspiration.
Moreover, it is this ignorant veneration which makes it dangerous for any one to read and tell the truth about it. Formerly, when the church had the power, such a man was either hacked to pieces, or burned to cinders; today, even, he is persecuted as much as public opinion will permit. It is a matter of history that in the name of this Jewish-Christian volume, which people do not read and are but superficially acquainted with, nearly a hundred millions of lives have been destroyed in Europe alone. Could anything be more appalling? In modern times, the church can no longer do to the unbelievers in the bible what it did to them for over seventeen hundred years, but it does to them as much as public sentiment will allow.
The reader will be interested in examining with me the book in the defense of which, I regret to say, nearly every imaginable crime has been committed. It gives me pain to say this, but who can hide the truth? Moreover, my sole purpose in telling the plain truth is not to offend, or give pain but to encourage everybody to approach the book without fear. I am not going to praise the bible; but I am not going to denounce it either; I am going to explain it.
It is my desire not so much to talk about the bible—when, and where, and by whom, it was compiled; how it was discovered; burned in the destruction of the temple, and later restored by the scribe Ezra; how it has been edited and revised again and again—but to lift the veil and show the book to the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
