Godless (29 page)
To the theist, punishment is administered by the offended Daddy. Whoever “reproacheth the Lord” shall be chastised. To the humanist, however, consequences, not punishment, happen as a natural effect of the behavior itself. This does not mean that a humanist parent will allow a child to run into a busy street; it means that the moral basis for restraint is found in the traffic, not in the “Word of Daddy.” The humanist’s child who disobeys and runs into the street is not committing a “sin” by offending the ego or “holiness” of the parents—the evil of the situation exists in the potential for getting run over by a moving vehicle. In other words, it exists in nature.
If there were something dangerous about picking up sticks on the weekend, then humanity should know it by now. Since we all agree that such an act in itself is harmless, then whoever executes a person for committing such a “crime” is an immoral person. Even if there were something wrong about picking up sticks—perhaps akin to threatening the morale of the troops—it is not so terribly wrong that it deserves capital punishment. We don’t send jaywalkers to the gas chamber, or hang children for stealing cookies.
Unless… unless you argue from authority and the authority figure decrees, for no good reason, that such an action offends
Him
. People who believe they are living under the thumb of such a vain and petty lord are not guided by ethics; they are guided by fear. The bible turns out to be not a moral code, but a whip.
Him
. People who believe they are living under the thumb of such a vain and petty lord are not guided by ethics; they are guided by fear. The bible turns out to be not a moral code, but a whip.
Rather than asking believers the silly (to them) question “Is God moral?” it might be more meaningful to ask: “What would the bible have to say in order to be immoral?” If the bible ordered killing, would that be immoral? Or, what if it mandated rape? What if it commanded stealing, lying or adultery? What if its main characters called names, issued threats and acted irrationally? Then would it be immoral? Exactly how bad would the bible have to get before it is discarded? Do Christians ever dare ask this question? (The bible does command or encourage all of these things, by the way.)
Such a question is contrary to the Christian agenda of faith in scripture and loyalty to Jesus. It is the nature of belief not to examine too closely the object of that belief. “Love is blind,” or perhaps blind is love. It would be an insult to ask your lover to prove that he or she is not a bad person. Most believers have had it drummed into their heads, Sunday after Sunday, that the bible is a “Good Book.” They are taught that thinking for yourself is at least woefully inadequate, if not completely evil. Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” II Corinthians 10:5 says, “[bring] into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” This is a circular argument, of course. Don’t question the bible. Why? Because the bible says so.
Few Christians ask whether the bible is morally acceptable. (If they do, they are labeled “liberals.”) Such questioning is heretical to most believers. Whether or not you assume or judge the bible to be morally acceptable, the important question to believers is whether or not you accept its authority. In the minds of Christians, authority equals morality. God is sovereign.
“Do this because I said so” is the kind of thing you say to a small child. A toddler may not be mature enough to follow a line of reasoning, so parents might have to exercise authority to prohibit something dangerous. But the “authority” in this case is not what determines whether something is right or wrong. It is simply an exercise of the minimum restraint necessary to enforce protective, rational guidelines until the child is old enough to reason independently. The parent who treats a toddler in such a manner, temporarily emphasizing authority over rationale, still should be able to explain to another adult why the child’s action would be dangerous or undesirable. The child, in later years, should be able to obtain a reasonable explanation from the parent. If not, the parent is a petty tyrant.
Besides being childish, the morality-as-authority argument is dangerous. People who do not question authority become easy prey to dictators. Cult leaders can manipulate followers who give them blind obedience. Many of the 900 followers of the Rev. Jim Jones drank the poisonous punch,
aware
of what was happening, because they were convinced that he was next to God. The Catholic and Lutheran Nazis wore “God is with us” on their belts, convinced that Hitler was doing the work of Jesus in exterminating the Jews, as he claimed in one of his speeches. Certain Christian fanatics, such as the Christian Scientists, Pentecostals and other fundamentalists, allow their children to die of treatable illnesses because their church tells them that circumventing God’s natural plan is a sin, or that Jesus will heal “all manner of diseases.”
aware
of what was happening, because they were convinced that he was next to God. The Catholic and Lutheran Nazis wore “God is with us” on their belts, convinced that Hitler was doing the work of Jesus in exterminating the Jews, as he claimed in one of his speeches. Certain Christian fanatics, such as the Christian Scientists, Pentecostals and other fundamentalists, allow their children to die of treatable illnesses because their church tells them that circumventing God’s natural plan is a sin, or that Jesus will heal “all manner of diseases.”
Here’s a good question for those who think God’s authority is the basis for morality: If God told you to kill someone, would you do it? Some Christians will immediately answer “Yes,” arguing that some killing is justified (death penalty, war, self-defense), or that the “giver of life” has the simple right to take life.
Then try this question on a male believer: If God told you to rape someone, would you do it? Some Christians, ignorant of biblical injunctions to rape, might answer, “God would never ask me to do that.” But this simply avoids the question. If God is the source of all morality, and if God asked you to do something that
you
considered immoral, would it matter what you thought? According to the bible we should simply obey God, even when it is difficult. Abraham found it difficult to obey God’s command to kill his son, Isaac, but he was prepared to do it and his obedience was considered praiseworthy! Jephthah found it hard to murder his daughter, but he was obligated by a vow to God to go through with it, and he did, without condemnation. Both of these men, if they were truly moral, would have defied God regardless of the divine consequences. They should have said to God, “You may have the might, but you don’t have the right.” (Or, as I might say, “God, you created hell—you can go to hell.”)
you
considered immoral, would it matter what you thought? According to the bible we should simply obey God, even when it is difficult. Abraham found it difficult to obey God’s command to kill his son, Isaac, but he was prepared to do it and his obedience was considered praiseworthy! Jephthah found it hard to murder his daughter, but he was obligated by a vow to God to go through with it, and he did, without condemnation. Both of these men, if they were truly moral, would have defied God regardless of the divine consequences. They should have said to God, “You may have the might, but you don’t have the right.” (Or, as I might say, “God, you created hell—you can go to hell.”)
Suppose a man were to say to his wife, “Prove how much you love me by helping me rob a bank. And if you don’t help, I will beat you.” We would call such a bully abusive and criminal. Yet this same bankrupt chain-of-command mentality is taught in the bible: God decides what is right and wrong and if you don’t play along you are punished in hell.
Speaking for myself, if the biblical heaven and hell exist, I would choose hell. Having to spend eternity pretending to worship a petty tyrant who tortures those who insult his authority would be more hellish than baking in eternal flames. There is no way such a bully can earn my admiration.
The bible nowhere states that every human being possesses an inherent right to be treated with respect or fairness. Generally, everything flows from God to humans, not the other way around. A true moral guide should have some principles. If humans are supposed to treat other humans in certain ways, or to avoid treating humans in other ways, then there should be some examination of the general value of human life and of human
rights
. Yet this is not to be found anywhere in the bible.
rights
. Yet this is not to be found anywhere in the bible.
There are a few places where God appeared to respect certain key players, such as when the angel asked the Virgin Mary for her permission to be impregnated by the Holy Ghost. But even then her response was submissive rather than egalitarian: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.” (Luke 1:38) It is all on God’s side. If God can grant rights then he can take them away, meaning that there actually are no human rights in God’s scheme.
The biblical view of human nature is negative. Humans don’t deserve respect; they deserve damnation. We are all tainted with Original Sin. Romans 3:12 says, “There is none that doeth good, no, not one.” Eleven verses later Romans says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Job (the sexist) said, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble… Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” (Job 14:1-4
)
)
The view that humans are intrinsically evil is hardly commensurate with an ethical system based on mutual respect. On the contrary, it tends to produce a negative self-image in those who were raised in bible-believing churches, and a cynicism toward other humans. It can become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Witness televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who preached that we are all corrupt and then proved it himself! If he had been raised with a healthier view of human nature, he may not have blown sexual temptation into such a demon in his mind, becoming obsessed with what he railed against. (Or was it the other way around? In either case, the bible fueled the problem.)
It is also historically clear that the true bible believers have little respect for the human rights of anyone outside of their church. I know Christians who will do business only with other Christians, when possible. We all know about the way Christians and other religionists have treated outsiders: Native Americans, Jews, American blacks and South-African natives, and scores of pagan peoples around the world who had the misfortune of being born and raised outside of the “true” faith. We all know about the Crusades in the name of Jesus, the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic-Protestant bloodshed in Northern Ireland and the militant Christian factions in the Middle East.
Modern warm and fuzzy American Protestants who try to distance themselves from such intolerance and brutality should ask themselves: would I prefer my son or daughter to marry a Catholic, Jew, Muslim or atheist? Paul advised Christians: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14
)
The intrinsic intolerance of Christianity cannot be candy-coated.
)
The intrinsic intolerance of Christianity cannot be candy-coated.
Matthew 7:18-20 says, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit… Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Those of us outside the historically bloody religions have no restraints against denouncing the “fruit” that has been produced by such trees as Christianity. If the bible contains any seeds of respect or fairness toward other humans, it is sadly absent from a reading of the text or from the institutions produced by it.
Good deeds, in the bible, are almost always connected with heavenly reward, “God’s will,” avoiding punishment or with a missionary agenda. Most “Christian charity” is given to prove the superiority of Christianity or to win converts, not because human life is good, valuable and worthy of respect in its own right.
Truly good Christian individuals don’t find their motivation in the bible. They do good because they are good people. Bertrand Russell said, “Men tend to have the beliefs that suit their passions. Cruel men believe in a cruel God and use their belief to excuse their cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly God, and they would be kindly in any case.”
We hear a lot of “God is love” sermons from the pulpit, but even a cursory glance at the bible reveals that God kills a lot of people. He drowned the entire population of the planet, saving one family. He sent a plague to kill all the first-born children in Egypt, human and animal. He rained fire and brimstone on Sodom, killing everyone—boys, girls, babies, pregnant women, animals. He sent his Israelite warriors to destroy the neighboring pagan tribes—men, women and children.
In I Samuel 6
,
the ark of the Lord was being transported across country and five farmers of Bethshemesh “rejoiced to see it.” They opened the box and made a burnt offering to the Lord, and for this terrible sin God “smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.” Is it moral to kill 50,000 people for a petty offense? And exactly what was the crime? These men were trying to worship this very god, in their own way. Wouldn’t a God of mercy understand their innocent mistake? What if one of my children gave me a birthday card with the words “Daddy, I luv you” and I punished them for spelling the word wrong? (By the way, is it reasonable to think there was a settlement of more than 50,000 at that time in history?)
,
the ark of the Lord was being transported across country and five farmers of Bethshemesh “rejoiced to see it.” They opened the box and made a burnt offering to the Lord, and for this terrible sin God “smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.” Is it moral to kill 50,000 people for a petty offense? And exactly what was the crime? These men were trying to worship this very god, in their own way. Wouldn’t a God of mercy understand their innocent mistake? What if one of my children gave me a birthday card with the words “Daddy, I luv you” and I punished them for spelling the word wrong? (By the way, is it reasonable to think there was a settlement of more than 50,000 at that time in history?)
In I Samuel 25
,
an industrious man named Nabal refused to hand his produce over to David and his troops who were passing through the area. “Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be?” That is not an unreasonable complaint. Nabal had a moral obligation to his workers. In punishment for protecting what he rightfully owned, “the Lord smote Nabal, that he died.”
,
an industrious man named Nabal refused to hand his produce over to David and his troops who were passing through the area. “Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be?” That is not an unreasonable complaint. Nabal had a moral obligation to his workers. In punishment for protecting what he rightfully owned, “the Lord smote Nabal, that he died.”
In Numbers 25:16-17
,
“The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite them.” Here is what happened six chapters later: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males… And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and beasts.” Well, this isn’t so bad, is it? They slaughtered the men and burned the cities, but they did save the women and children. Read on:
,
“The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Vex the Midianites, and smite them.” Here is what happened six chapters later: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males… And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and beasts.” Well, this isn’t so bad, is it? They slaughtered the men and burned the cities, but they did save the women and children. Read on:
Other books
Revenge of Innocents by Nancy Taylor Rosenberg
Torn (Demon Kissed #3) by Ward, H.M.
Cinderella Smith by Stephanie Barden
Us Conductors by Sean Michaels
Canapés for the Kitties by Marian Babson
Dark Runner: LodeStar 3.5 by Cathryn Cade
Always Come Home (Emerson 1) by Maureen Driscoll
In Death 12.5 - Interlude in Death by J.D. Robb
A Diamond in My Pocket by Lorena Angell
My Dog Doesn't Like Me by Elizabeth Fensham