{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41650/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41650","id":"gutenberg_41650","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41650","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\n    Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as\n    possible, including nonstandard spellings and inconsistent\n    hyphenation.\n\n    Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.\n    Bold text has been marked with =equals signs=.\n\n\n\n\n    We have done with the kisses that sting,\n    The thief's mouth red from the feast,\n    The blood on the hands of the king,\n    And the lie at the lips of the priest.\n\n    --_Swinburne_\n\n\n\n\nIs the Morality of Jesus Sound?\n\nA Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society, Orchestra\nHall, Chicago, Sunday, at 11 A. M.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nBy M. M. MANGASARIAN\n\n\n\n\n    _I make war against this theological instinct: I have found traces\n    of it everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is,\n    from the very beginning, ambiguous and disloyal with respect to\n    everything.... I have digged out the theologist instinct\n    everywhere; it is the most diffused, the most peculiarly\n    SUBTERRANEAN form of falsity that exists on earth. What a\n    theologian feels as true, MUST needs be false: one has therein\n    almost a criterion of truth._\n\n    --_Nietzsche._\n\n\n\n\nIs the Moral Teaching of Jesus Sound?\n\n\nA great deal depends upon the answer to the question, \"Is the moral\nteaching of Jesus sound?\" This question brings us to the inner and most\nclosely guarded citadel of Christianity. If it can be captured, the rout\nof supernaturalism will be complete; but as long as it stands,\nChristianity can afford to lose every one of its outer fortifications,\nand still be the victor. Reason may drive supernaturalism out of the\nCatholic position into the Protestant, and out of that, into the\nUnitarian, and out of that again into Liberalism, but reason does not\nbecome master of the field until it has stormed and razed to the ground\nthis last and greatest of all the strongholds--the morality of\nChristianity.\n\nIf Jesus was the author of perfect or even the highest ideals the world\nhas ever cherished, he will, and must, remain the saviour, _par\nexcellence_, of the world. Whether he was man or God, which question\nUnitarianism discusses, is a trifling matter. If his ethical teaching is\npractically without a flaw, I would gladly call him God, and more, if\nsuch a thing were possible. His walking on the water, or his raising the\ndead, or his flying through the air, would not in the least embarrass\nme. I could accept them all--if he rose morally head and shoulders above\nevery other mortal or immortal, our world has ever produced. It is\nclaimed that he did. What is the evidence?\n\nTo facilitate this discussion, and to concentrate all our attention on\nthe subject of this discourse, we will waive the question of the\nhistoricity of Jesus. For the sake of argument, we will accept the\ngospels as history--accept the authenticity of the documents, the\ntrustworthiness of the witnesses, and the inspiration of the texts which\nwe are to quote. We will grant every point; concede every claim, allow\nevery contention of the defendants. We will then say to them: Does the\nevidence which you have presented and we have accepted without raising\nany objections, prove that the moral teaching of Jesus is perfect, or\neven the highest the world has ever possessed?\n\nA system of thought, or a code of morals, is much like a building. A\nserious crack in one of the walls, or a post that is not secure in its\nsocket, is enough to make the whole building unsafe. When a building is\ncondemned, it is not condemned for the parts that are sound, but for the\npart or parts that are unsound. To change my illustration, the strength\nof a chain is in its weakest link. So is the strength of a religion in\nits most vulnerable parts. By overlooking the weakness and dwelling\nsolely upon the strong points, we could make any religion appear as the\nbest in the world; as a similar bias would prove the most rickety\nbuilding even perfectly safe. A lawyer, an advocate, or special pleader,\nmay conceal, or cover up the cracks in the walls of a building, or the\ndefects of an institution. But why should I? My object is not to save\nthe building, but the people who are in it. I am not interested in\nsaving the creed or the religion, but the people who stake their lives\non it. I am not trying to earn my fee, I am trying to serve the people.\nWhy should I, then, be expected to spread the mantle of charity over a\nbuilding that deserves to be condemned, or plead for a religion that\nblocks the path of advancement? And why,--why should any religion beg\nfor charity? To a cashier of a bank, to a treasurer of a corporation, to\nan official of the municipality or the state, who should beg the\nexamining committee not to look into all his dealings, but only to\nreport what good they can of him, we say: \"You are guilty.\" Not only\nthat, but he is also trying to make us his accomplices.\n\nLawyer-like, preachers often tell their hearers to see only the good in\nthe bible, for instance. \"When you are eating fish,\" they say, \"you eat\nthe meat and throw away the bones. Do the same with the bible.\" But why\nshould anything in the bible be meant to be thrown away? Pardon me if I\nuse a stronger expression--why should any part of the Word of God be\ndestined for the garbage box?\n\nIt is a pleasure, and it confirms us in our optimism, to admit that in\nall the religions of the world, even in the crudest, there is much that\nis good, as in every structure or dwelling there are rooms and walls and\nposts that are perfectly sound. Religions live, as buildings endure,--by\nthe soundness there is in them. It is not the cracked wall or damaged\npillar which supports the building--it is the sound parts that keep it\ntogether. The same is true of religions. It is the truths they contain\nthat preserve them. Mohammedanism, for instance, has survived for nearly\nfifteen centuries, and its survival is due to the virtues and not to the\nvices of the Mohammedan faith. This is equally true of Judaism and\nChristianity. If human Society has survived for these many centuries, it\nis because, imperfect as it is, there is enough of justice and honor\namong men to keep it from disintegration. But is that any reason why we\nshould be content with what little justice or truth there is in the\nworld, and not strive for more? And shall we hold our tongues on the\nterrible injustice and oppression all around us simply because there is\nalso goodness and virtue among men? Simply because the human race keeps\ngoing as it is, shall we not endeavor to improve it? And because there\nis some good in all religions, shall we shut our eyes to the dangerous\nfallacies they contain? Is it not our duty as well as our privilege to\nlabor for a more rational and a more ennobling faith?\n\nIn the teachings attributed to Jesus, whose nativity is celebrated\nto-day[1] in Europe and America, there is much that we are in cordial\nsympathy with. We can say the same of all the founders of religions. If\nany one were to point out to us passages of beauty in the four evangels,\nI for myself would gladly agree to all that may be said in their praise.\nBut if I were asked to infer from these isolated passages that the\nethical teaching of Jesus is not only the most perfect within human\nreach, but also sufficient to the needs of man for all time, I would\ndeem it a stern duty to combat the proposition with all the earnestness\nat my command. It would then be the duty, indeed, of every one to\ndenounce the attempt to arrest the progress of the world by holding it\nbound to the thought of one man. In the interest of morality itself, it\nmust be shown that Jesus is not the highest product of the ages, nor is\nhe the best that the future can promise. There is room beyond Jesus. But\nnot only was Jesus not the perfect teacher his worshippers claim him to\nhave been, but there are flaws in his system--cracks and rents in the\nwalls of his temple--so serious and menacing, that not to call attention\nto them would be to shirk the most urgent service we owe to the cause of\nhumanity.\n\n[1] Christmas Sunday, Dec. 26, 1909.\n\nMy first general criticism of the morality of Jesus is, that it lacks\nuniversality. It is not meant for all peoples and all times. It is\nrather the morality of a sect, a coterie, or a secret society. I object\nto the provincialism of Jesus. Jesus was not a cosmopolite. He was a\nHebrew before he was a man. If we find Jerusalem on the map of the world\nand draw a circle around it,--covering the rest of the map with our\nhands,--we will then have before us all the world that Jesus knew\nanything about,--or cared for. Little did he think of the rest of the\nworld. The continents of Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and the, as\nyet, undiscovered America, had no place whatever either in his thought\nor affection. The yellow millions of China and Japan, the dusky millions\nof Hindustan, the blacks of Africa with their galling chains, the white\nraces with the most pressing problems which ever taxed the brain of\nman--do not seem to have deserved even a passing notice from Jesus. It\nis quite evident that such a country as our America, for instance, with\nits nearly one hundred millions of people of all races and religions,\ndwelling under the same flag, and governing themselves without a King or\na Caesar, never crossed the orbit even of his imagination. Is it\nreasonable to go to a provincial of this description for _universal_\nideals?\n\nWhat Jesus has in mind is not humanity, but a particular race. Israel is\nthe nation that monopolizes his attention, and even in that nation his\ninterest is limited to those that believe in him as the Messiah. The\nidea of a world-salvation was utterly foreign to his sympathies. His\ndisciples were all of one race, and he emphatically warned them against\ngoing into the cities of the Gentiles to preach the gospel. He tells\nthem that he was sent expressly and exclusively for the lost sheep of\nthe house of Israel. Of course, we are familiar with the \"Go ye into all\nthe world and preach the gospel to every creature,\" but Jesus is\nsupposed to have given that commandment after his _death_. In his life\ntime, he said, \"Go not into the cities and towns of the Gentiles.\" If he\nsaid, \"Go _not_, to the Gentiles!\" when he was living, the \"Go to the\nGentiles,\" after his death, has all the ear-marks of an interpolation.\nThe two statements squarely contradict each other. Granting that Jesus\nknew what he was talking about, he could not have given both\ncommandments. Moreover, from the conduct of the apostles who refused to\ngo to the Gentiles until Paul came about,--who had never seen or heard\nJesus,--it may be concluded that Jesus did not change his mind to the\nvery last on the matter of his being sent \"only for the lost children of\nthe House of Israel.\"\n\nBut the thought of Jesus is as Hebraic as are his sympathies. His God is\ninvariably the \"God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\" Suppose he had also\ncalled God, \"The God of Abraham, Confucius and Socrates.\" Ah, if Jesus\nhad only said that! The idea of the larger God was in the human mind,\nbut not in his. The idea was in the air, but Jesus was not tall enough\nto reach it. He did not look beyond a tribal Deity. The God of Jesus was\na Hebrew. To Jesus David was the only man who looked big in history. Of\nAlexander, for example, who conquered the world and made the Greek\nlanguage universal--the language in which his own story, the story of\nJesus, is written, and which story, in all probability would never have\ncome down to us but for the Greek language and Alexander; of Socrates,\nwhose daily life was the beauty of Athens; of Aristotle, of whom Goethe\nsaid that he was the greatest intellect the world had produced; of the\nCaesars, who converted a pirate station on the Tiber to an Eternal\nCity--Jesus does not seem to have heard at all--and if he had, he does\nnot seem to care for them, any more than would a Gypsy Smith.\n\nThe heaven of Jesus is also quite Semitic. His twelve apostles are to\nsit upon twelve thrones--to judge the _twelve tribes of Israel_. There\nis no mention of anybody else sitting on a throne, or of anybody else in\nheaven except Jews. People will come from the east and the west, from\nthe north and the south to meet their father, Abraham, in heaven. The\ncosmography or topography of the world to come is also Palestinian. It\nhas as many gates as there are sons of Jacob; all its inhabitants have\nHebrew names; and just as on earth, outside of Judea, the whole world\nwas _heathen_, in the next world, heaven is where Abraham and his\nchildren dwell; the rest is _hell_. Indeed, to Jesus heaven meant\nAbraham's bosom. And we repeatedly come across the phrase, \"heavenly\nJerusalem\" in the New Testament, as the name of the abode of\nthe blessed? Is it likely that a man so racial, so sectarian,\nso circumscribed in his thought and sympathies,--so local and\nclannish,--could assume and fulfill the role of a universal teacher?\n\nBut not only was the world of Jesus a mere speck on the map, but it was\nalso a world without a future. Jesus expected the world to come to an\nend in a very short time. And what was the use of trying to get\nacquainted with, or interested in, a world about to be abandoned? The\nevidence is very conclusive that Jesus believed the end of the world to\nbe imminent. He says: \"Verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone\nthrough the cities of Israel before the son of man come.\" As Palestine\nwas a small country, and its few cities could easily be visited in a\nshort time, it follows that Jesus expected the almost immediate end of\nthe world. In another text he tells his disciples that this great event\nwould happen in the lifetime of those who were listening to him: \"This\ngeneration,\" he says, \"shall not pass away,\" before the world ends. This\nbelief in the approaching collapse of the world was shared by his\napostles. Paul, for instance, is constantly exhorting Christians to get\nready for the great catastrophe, and he describes how those still living\nwill be transformed when Jesus appears in the clouds.\n\nThe earliest Christian Society was communistic, because all that they\nneeded was enough to subsist upon before Jesus reappeared. It would have\nbeen foolish from their point of view to \"lay up treasures on earth\"\nwhen the earth was soon to be burnt up. Moreover, they were not\ncommanded to labor, but to \"watch and pray.\" The fruits of labor require\ntime to ripen in, and there was no time. The cry was, \"Behold the\nbridegroom is at the door.\" Hence, to \"watch and pray\" was the only\nreasonable occupation. We can see for ourselves how this belief in the\nnear end of the world would create a kind of morality altogether\nunsuitable to people living in a world that does not come to an end.\nJesus never dreamt that the world was going to last, for at least\nanother two thousand years. If anyone had whispered such a thing in his\nears, he would have gasped for breath. Could the curtain of the future\nhave been lifted high enough for Jesus to have seen in advance some\nof the changes that have come upon the world during the past\ntwenty centuries,--the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of\nMohammedanism,--carrying two continents and throwing the third into a\nstate of panic,--wresting the very Jerusalem of Jesus from the\nChristians and holding it for a thousand years; had Jesus been able to\nforesee the Dark Ages, the Italian Renaissance, the German Reformation,\nthe French Revolution, the American Revolution with its Declaration of\nIndependence, and later on, its Emancipation Proclamation,--and finally,\nhad Jesus caught even the most distant gleam of that magnificent and\nmajestic Empire, the Empire of Science, with its peaceful reign and\nbloodless conquests, slowly and serenely climbing above the horizon,\nbringing to man such a hope as had never before entered his breast, and\ngiving him the stars for eyes, and the wind for wings--had but a glimpse\nof all this crossed the vision of this Jerusalem youth, his conception\nof a world soon to be smashed would have appeared to him as the\ninfantile fancy of a--well, what shall I say?--I shall not say of a\nfanatic, I shall not say, of an illiterate,--let me say--of an\nenthusiast. The morality of Jesus not only lacked universality, but it\nwas also framed to fit a world under sentence of immediate destruction.\n\nJesus' doctrine of a passing world was born of his pessimism. The old,\nwhether in years, or in spirit, as Shakespeare says, are always wishing\n\"that the estate of the Sun were now undone.\" Weariness of life is a\nsign of exhaustion. The strong and the healthy love life. The young are\nnot pessimists. Jesus had the disease of aged and effete Asia. He was\nnot European in ardor or energy. He contemplated a passing panorama, a\nworld crashing and tumbling into ruins all about him, with Oriental\nresignation. The groan of a dying world was music to him. He enjoyed the\nanticipation of calamity. The end of the world would put an end to\neffort and endeavor, both of which the Asiatic dislikes. To tell people\nthat the world is coming to an end soon,--today, tomorrow, is not to\nkindle, but to extinguish hope; and without hope our world would be\ndarker even than if the sun were to be blotted out of the sky.\n\nThe objection against Christianity, as also against its parent, Judaism,\nis that it seeks to divert the attention of man from the work in hand to\nsomething visionary and distant. It was to direct men's thoughts to some\nother world that Jesus belittled this.\n\nWhat are you doing, asks the preacher.\n\nI am laboring for my daily bread.\n\nIndeed! Have you not heard that Jesus said: \"Labor not for the meat that\nperisheth?\"\n\nAnd what are _you_ doing?\n\nWe are building a city.\n\nWhat! Do you not know that it is written in the Word of God that, \"Here\nwe have no abiding City?\"\n\nAnd _you_--\n\nI have married and have decided to share my life with the woman I love.\n\nAnd have you not read in St. Paul's Epistles, says the preacher again,\nthat they who are married neglect the things of the Lord?\n\nAnd _you_?\n\nWe are laboring to improve the world we live in--to make it a little\ncleaner and sweeter.\n\nBut do you not know, asks the man of God, that the world will soon pass\naway,--that, as Jesus has foretold, the sun will turn black, the stars\nwill fall, and the elements will be consumed in a general conflagration?\n\nThe effect of the teaching of both Judaism and Christianity is to\nincapacitate man for earnest work now and here. And what do these\nreligions offer in place of the home, the love, the world, which they\ntake away from us? Let us ask the priest:\n\nWhere then _is_ our home?\n\nYonder!--and he points into space with his finger.\n\nWhere? In the clouds?\n\nHigher.\n\nIn the stars?\n\nHigher still.\n\nIn the ether?\n\nNo, higher yet, far, far away. You can not see it. You have to take my\nword for it.\n\nAnd, unfortunately, so many of us _take his word for it_. And upon what\nterms will the priest condescend to pilot us to our invisible and aerial\nmansions? We must turn over to him now, our all,--mind, body and lands.\nThe doctrine of a world hastening to destruction, while it has\ndemoralized the people, it has enriched the churches. During the middle\nages, and earlier, and also in more recent times, more than once the\ncredulous public has been scared out of its possessions by the preachers\nof calamity. Jesus can not very well clear himself of responsibility for\nthis, because, it was he who tried to hurry the people out of a world\nsoon to be set on fire. When a young man asked Jesus' permission to go\nand bury his father, he was told to \"Let the dead bury their dead.\" This\nwas extraordinary advice to a son who wished to do his father a last\nservice. But Jesus was consistent. The world was catching fire and there\nwas no time to lose. The morality of Jesus was the morality of panic. He\nwould not give people the time to think of anything else but their own\nsalvation from the impending doom. This was Bunyan's interpretation of\nthe spirit of Christianity, for he made _Christian_, the hero of his\nstory, to flee at once from the city of destruction, leaving his wife\nand children, his neighbors and his country behind. The morality of\npanic!\n\nThat this superstition that the world was about to be destroyed\ninfluenced the whole teaching of Jesus, as well as depressed his\nspirits, will be seen by an examination of his famous Sermon on the\nMount. Matthew and Luke give somewhat different reports of it. It is\nlikely that Luke's is the less embellished, and therefore more\nrepresentative of Jesus' real attitude toward life. In the third Gospel,\nJesus says, \"Blessed are the poor.\" Matthew gives it as, \"Blessed are\nthe poor in spirit.\" If the first document had the latter form, it is\nnot likely that a later copyist would drop the \"in spirit,\" but if the\nearlier simply read, \"Blessed are the poor,\" a later writer might find\nit convenient and necessary even, to soften it by adding the words \"in\nspirit.\" In Luke there is nothing said about hungering after\nrighteousness, it is merely, \"Blessed are ye, that hunger now: for ye\nshall be filled.\" The drift of the Sermon as given by Luke, which in\nall probability is nearer the original than that given by Matthew, and\nwhich is at any rate equally inspired, is to wean men from a world\nwhich is but a snare and a delusion, and to get them to cultivate\nother-worldliness. Let me quote a few of the beatitudes:\n\n    \"_Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are\n    ye that hunger now; for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that\n    weep now, for ye shall laugh_--\n\n    \"_Woe unto you that are full; for ye shall hunger._\n\n    \"_Woe unto you that laugh now; for ye shall mourn and weep._\"[2]\n\n    [2] Luke, VI Chap.\n\nAnd the next world according to Jesus was not really a better world, but\nthe reverse of this. Some are hungry now, some are full. In the world of\nJesus, those who are full now, will be hungry, and those who are hungry\nnow will be full. Here Lazarus is suffering, and Dives is in comfort;\nthere, they will change places. That is not a world worth looking\nforward to. It is not even a _new_ world, but the old world turned about\nand actually made much worse. The suffering, the misery, the pain, in\nthe world, now, are at least temporary, but there, they will be\n_eternal_. Here, the rich man, at least, gives of the crumbs of his\ntable to Lazarus, but in heaven Lazarus refuses even a drop of water to\nmoisten the lips of Dives in hell. No healthy and optimistic soul could\nhave dreamed so prosaic a dream. The future is a place of revenge\naccording to Jesus. Such a future as he describes, with thrones for his\nfriends, and hell everlasting for the stranger, would, if really\naccepted, smite humanity with the worst kind of pessimism. We could\npardon Jesus for wishing the destruction of this world, if he only\noffered a better one in its place.\n\nIt is in the light of this belief in a vanishing world that the\nteachings of Jesus should be interpreted. \"If any one,\" says Jesus,\n\"take away thy coat, let him take thy cloak also.\" Of course. Of what\nuse is property in a world soon to be set on fire? Besides, according to\nthe Sermon on the Mount, the way to have property in heaven is not to\nhave any here. To Jesus, the world was like a tavern--good only for a\nnight's lodging; or to change the simile, the world was like a sinking\nship from which, to save ourselves, everything else must be thrown\noverboard. Who would care to accumulate wealth, who would care to marry,\nor rear children, on a sinking ship? Could such an alarmist be a sane\nmoral teacher? Yet, Jesus must have been sane enough to realize that the\ncommand not to resist evil,--to give to everyone that would borrow; to\nturn also the other cheek to the aggressor; and to let the robber bully\npeople out of their belongings,--would upset the very foundations of\nhuman society and create a chaos unspeakably injurious to the moral\nlife; but what is the difference if we are on a sinking ship! In the\nsame spirit, Jesus advises his disciples to let the tares grow up with\nthe wheat. It is not worth while trying to separate them now, the time\nis so short. And when he says that we must \"hate father, mother, and\nchildren for his sake,\" he means that to escape this great, this\nhastening calamity which he predicts, would be better for us than to\ncultivate the affections and the friendships that will soon be no more.\nIt is really impossible for anyone believing in a heaven to be quite\njust to the world that now is. The other world looks so important to the\nbeliever that this one becomes, as John Wesley expressed it, \"A fleeting\nshow.\"\n\nThe position of Jesus on the important question of marriage and the\nrelation of the sexes is also to be studied in the light of the belief\nthat the world is not going to last very long.\n\nIt certainly would be absurd to have any weddings, as it would be cruel\nto have children, or to accumulate property, or to acquire knowledge, in\nsuch a world. Tolstoi, in his _Kreutzer Sonata_, which is a terrible\nstory, interprets the real Christian attitude toward marriage. He shows\nconclusively that it is inconsistent for a follower of Jesus to marry.\nEven as the believer must give up all property, he must also give up the\nfamily. If he is single, he must not marry; if he is married, he must\nlive as though he was not married. Tolstoi proves his contention by\nquoting among other texts, the following from Jesus: \"And everyone that\nhath forsaken wife or children or lands for my name's sake\"--which words\nare a direct recommendation to forsake kith and kin, wife and husband,\nin fact everything. To be a Christian, according to Count Tolstoi, is to\nfollow the example of Jesus who abstained from marriage. What is the use\nof talking about divorce when marriage is forbidden? Jesus said that\nMoses allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts; and\nmarriage is permitted, according to Paul, as a concession to human\nweakness. The Christian ideal, however, is celibacy. Jesus is very\npositive on this point. You will not blame me if I quote his own words,\njust as I find them in the New Testament. In the gospel of Matthew,\nchapter nineteen, verse twelve, Jesus speaks of three kinds of eunuchs:\nfirst, those who were born deformed; second, those who have been\nmutilated by men; and third, those \"who have made themselves eunuchs for\nthe kingdom of heaven's sake.\" This is an invitation to all who can to\nemasculate themselves. Is not this pernicious teaching? A man could not\nteach such a doctrine in America to-day without laying himself open to\nthe contempt of his fellows, but when preached by Jesus, hypocrisy and\ncowardice combine to extol it as divine wisdom. Fortunately, such\nteaching is _admired_--not obeyed. That is as far as hypocrisy cares to\ngo. It is owing to the healthy manhood of the occidental nations that\nthis Asiatic superstition has not altogether bankrupted civilization. In\nthe early centuries many of the followers of Jesus mutilated their\nbodies \"for the kingdom of heaven's sake.\" There is in Russia a sect\ncalled _Skopskis_, with a membership of six thousand, which follows the\npractice recommended by the founder of Christianity.\n\nThe vows of _poverty_, _chastity_ and _obedience_, lead practically to\nself-destruction. Poverty is helplessness, or nothingness; chastity is\nself-mortification; obedience, by which is meant, absolute surrender of\nthe will to another, is the stamping out of the mind. Goodness! It is\nnot only the world that Christianity wishes to destroy, but also man.\nAnnihilation--the Buddhist Nirvana, seems to be its goal. How to make a\nman a mere _zero_--poor, emasculated, and a mental slave, seems to be\nthe ideal of this Asiatic cult. After two thousand years of modern\neducation, such is the hold of Jesus upon the Christian world, that in\nour churches is still sung the hymn:\n\n    \"O, to be nothing, nothing!\"\n\nWith this doctrine of celibacy in view, the indifference of Jesus to the\nrights of women as human beings is not a surprise. It has been well said\nthat \"those who trample upon manhood can have no real respect for\nwoman.\" Jesus never spoke of God except as a father. If the highest\nprinciple or being in the universe is a \"he,\" of course woman can never\nhope to be on an equality with man. Motherhood will always occupy a\nsecondary place as long as the father is a god. If God is a father, what\nmother can be on an equality with him? He must rule; she must obey.\nWomen do not stop to think that religion--Christianity, Judaism,\nMohammedanism--is the most stubborn obstacle in the path of their\nadvancement. Jesus ignored women in all the essentials of life. He did\nnot love any one of them sufficiently to share his life with her. He had\nno place for the love of woman in his heart. He kept twelve men as his\nconstant companions. Suppose Jesus had invited some gentle and devoted\nwoman to the honor of apostleship,--what an example that would have\nbeen! But he was not great enough to rise above the bigotry of his age.\nSurely, there were women in his circle of acquaintance better than Judas\nIscariot, who sold him for a paltry sum of money. Women may wait upon\nJesus at the table, they may give birth to him, and nurse him; they may\nfall at his feet to bathe them with their tears and wipe them with their\ntresses--but to be his apostles--not that. Had Jesus been really a great\ngenius he would have understood that in the work of saving people, the\nco-operation of woman is indispensable. There are no better saviors than\nwomen. How many a husband has been saved from drink--from the gutter\neven, by his wife. How many sons have been shielded from a prodigal's\nfate by a mother's all-conquering devotion. Yet for this splendid force\nor agency of reform, Jesus had no appreciation whatever.\n\n    If I were hanged on the highest hill\n            Mother o' mine;\n    I know whose love would follow me still\n            Mother o' mine.\n\nJesus failed to see in woman that which inspires the poet, the painter,\nthe hero, to do their best. He took the Asiatic view of woman. \"Can man\nbe free,\" sang Shelley, \"if woman be a slave?\" Suppose Jesus had said\nthat!\n\nThe bible is on the whole very unfair to woman. This is a sign of its\ninferior morality. It is the bully who takes advantage of the physically\nweak. When, in the Garden of Eden, God is about to punish the first\ncouple for their disobedience, he is much less considerate of the woman\nthan he is of the man. \"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,\"\nis the curse for Adam. That was not a curse at all. Labor is not only\nhonorable, it is also pleasureable. Many work who do not have to--they\nwork, not from pressure, but from pleasure. Many who retire from\nbusiness do so with regret. It is indolence that is a curse. The divine\ncurse against the serpent is even milder. He is told to walk upon his\nbelly for the rest of his life--a change of locomotion was his\npunishment. But when Jehovah curses the woman, he shows,--I was going to\nsay,--the effect of his Asiatic training. \"Unto the woman he said, I\nwill greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt\nthou bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and\nhe shall rule over thee.\"[3]\n\n[3] Genesis III:16.\n\n\"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.\" And why? Is it because she is\nstronger and can therefore endure more suffering than the man? Why\nshould she be struck a heavier and a more crushing blow? And observe\nthat she is cursed in the act which constitutes the greatest and most\nheroic service a woman renders to the human race,--the giving birth to\nchildren. The pain of child-bearing is to be henceforth, says the deity,\nvery much more painful. Well may we blush for Jehovah. If there is a\ndivine moment in human life, it is when a woman becomes a mother. All\nthe tenderness, the love, the gentleness, the devotion, the sweetness,\nand the compassion, of which we are capable, will not be enough to\noutweigh the suffering a woman endures to give life and light to a new\nbeing. And think of choosing this delicate and helpless moment to strike\nat her! And this is the being who has sent his son to save _us_! But who\nshall save Jehovah?\n\n\"And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.\"\nAt the threshold of life she is sold into slavery. She is not given to\nAdam--to share with him the dignity of humanity, the duties and rights\nof life,--but to be his creature. Suppose Jehovah had said: \"A woman is\nas much a human being as a man, and because of her physical weakness, I\nshall charge myself to be her special protector and friend until man\nshall have advanced sufficiently in culture and civilization to do full\njustice to her.\" Ah, if Jehovah had only said _that_! In the Episcopal\nand Catholic marriage services, to this day, the wife is asked to\npromise to obey her husband. And this is the religion that pretends to\nbe just and impartial to women. From the silence of Jesus on this\nsubject, in a country and at a time when woman's condition was\ndeplorable, and where the curse with which she had been cursed had\nreally taken effect,--as well as from the few words he said about\nmarriage,--Jesus shows his utter incapacity to tear himself from his\nAsiatic environment, or to rise to the nobler ideals of an advancing\ncivilization.\n\nAgain, in the light of his belief in a world soon to disappear, it\nbecomes clear why Jesus ignored such subjects, for instance, as\neducation, art and politics. There is not a word in all the sayings and\nsermons of Jesus about schools, or the acquisition of knowledge of\nnature and its laws. He does not devote a single thought to the\neducation of children. Not once does he denounce ignorance, which is the\nmother of all abominations. In the age in which he lived, ignorance was\nthe most abundant as well as the worst crop his own country raised. And\nyet, Jesus had absolutely nothing to say against it. It would take time\nto conquer knowledge, and the time was too short. Moreover, in the world\nto come, such knowledge would be superfluous. What wisdom the believers\nneeded would be given to them miraculously, even as God rained down\nmanna in the desert to the children of Israel. This idea that\neverything, even our daily bread, is _given_ to us, not acquired by us,\nexplains also why Jesus ignored the subject of labor--the great\ntransformer that transforms the world's waste places into gardens and\nits swamps into flourishing cities. \"Consider the lilies of the fields,\"\nargues Jesus, with a suggestion of poetry in his usually severe and\nsolemn speech,--\"they toil not, neither do they spin,\"--from which it is\nto be inferred that, if the lilies can be so fair and flourishing\nwithout toil or labor, so can man, if he will only put his trust in God.\n\nThe kingdom of heaven which is to take the place of this world when it\nhas been burned down to ashes, is not an evolution, or a growth out of\npresent conditions, but it is a totally different order, and is to be\nintroduced suddenly and by miracle. This idea makes human labor\nunnecessary. Hence, the advice of Paul to the slave, not to seek his\nfreedom, and that of Jesus, to let the tares grow up with the wheat. It\nis not by any effort on our part; it is not by human science or labor,\nbut by magic, that is to say, by some unknown, mysterious and sudden\nmanner--like the thief at night, that the kingdom of God is to come.\n\nLittle things as well as great issues, Jesus would have us leave to\nprovidence. Therefore his warning: Take no thought for the morrow. In\nother words labor is necessary for those people only who have no Father\nin heaven who takes notice of even the falling sparrow. But the believer\nhas only to cast his net into the sea and fishes with pearls in their\nmouths will help him pay for his wants. Faith will not only move\nmountains, but it can make a single loaf of bread to satisfy the hunger\nof thousands. In fact, a miracle-worker like Jesus could not\nconsistently recommend labor, which means application of means to ends.\nJesus was a magician. Morality is a Science.\n\nBut let us now consider Jesus' answers to special problems presented to\nhim by many of his hearers for solution. You know the story of the rich\nyoung man who came to Jesus to ask him the way to eternal life. \"Keep\nthe ten commandments,\" Jesus told him. But when the youth answered that\nhe was already doing that, Jesus said, \"If thou wilt be perfect, sell\nall that thou hast and give it to the poor and thou shalt have\ntreasure in heaven.\" I am not surprised that the young man went away\ndisappointed. What is there in poverty to entitle a man to eternal life?\nIs it not a perverse doctrine that associates beggary with moral\nperfection? Why should the mendicant be the pet of heaven. If you give\nall that you have to the poor, you will have to depend upon charity for\nyour living,--or starve. And where will the charity come from, if all\nmen were to follow the advice of Jesus and cultivate poverty? But wealth\nmeans life, it means enjoyment of the world and exuberance of spirits,\nwhich things Jesus dreads. Poverty means lassitude, asceticism, low\nvitality, prostration and weariness of life,--which things Jesus\nconsidered essential to the _destruction_ of the world, which he hoped\nfor. It is only for this world, however, that Jesus believes in poverty.\nIn the next, his followers will receive a hundred-fold for every\nsacrifice made. They will be given thrones, crowns, jeweled streets to\nwalk in--and mansions of pure gold in which they will drink of the\nfruit of the vine. Heaven, in the opinion of Jesus, is like a bank which\npays ten thousand per cent for every privation suffered in this world.\nThe most pronounced commercialism even is not so extravagant as that.\nThe heaven of Jesus is more materialistic than this world.\n\nIt is often claimed that this doctrine of Jesus was a great comfort to\nthe unfortunate, who were given something to look forward to. If they\nwere poor, here, they could hope to be rich there. It is true to a great\nextent that Christianity won its way into the hearts of the masses by\nflattering them. \"Unto the poor the Gospel is preached,\" said Jesus. And\nwhat was its message to them?--You have lost this world, but the next\nwill be yours. In my opinion this promise, while it sounds big, is a\nvery empty one. It taught the poor to submit to oppression, instead of\ninspiring them to rebellion against injustice. Jesus did not tell the\ntruth when he said that poverty, hunger, ignorance, misery, were\n_blessed_.\n\nYou are also familiar with the story of the men who came to Jesus to ask\nhim whether they should pay tribute to Caesar? Instead of giving to this\nquestion a direct answer, Jesus resorts to quibbling--He asks for a\ncoin, and when one is presented, \"Whose is the superscription,\" he asks.\n\"Caesar's,\" is the answer. \"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's,\"\ncommands Jesus. But one moment: Is a coin Caesar's because his\nsuperscription is upon it? Is it not rather the property of the man who\nhas earned it by his labor? Shall Caesar claim everything that he can\nput his stamp upon? Was not Jesus recommending the blind worship of\nforce when he told them to respect Caesar's name? Suppose, instead of\nevading the question, or attempting a _smart_ answer to it, Jesus had\ncalmly and clearly explained to them that no government, be it human or\ndivine, is just, which is not based upon the consent of the governed.\nAh, if Jesus had only said _that_.\n\nBut he also tells us to \"Give unto God the things that belong to God.\"\nGod and Caesar! Behold the two masters, from neither of which did Jesus\ndeliver man. And how do we give unto God the things that belong to God?\nIf we give it to the priests, will it reach God--and how much of it will\nreach him? Moreover, if we are to tell the things that belong to Caesar\nby the stamp upon them, how are we to tell the things that belong to\nGod? And how did the deity come to let Caesar in as a partner? And what\nwill there be left for us after God and Caesar have had each his share?\nIt is difficult to understand how the robust occidental can find any\nmoral uplift or guidance in so whimsical a piece of advice. Jesus was\nasked a great question, the question of political autonomy and\ninternational law, but he gave to it a trifling answer.\n\nLet us take another example. I have more than once called your attention\nto the story of the thief on the cross. There were really two of them.\nTo one of them Jesus promised paradise. What became of the other? Both\nmen were malefactors, but one of them believed in Jesus and became a\nsaint at the last moment. Can anything be more immoral? Can anything be\nmore arbitrary or fatalistic? If we wished to show that it made no\ndifference how people lived, and that the only thing that saves is\nfaith, which is as effective at the eleventh hour as at the first--we\ncould not have invented a better argument than is furnished by this\nstory in the gospels.\n\nObserve that the man magically saved, as this malefactor was, becomes\nmeaner and more selfish after he is converted than he was before. He\nimagines that God is just waiting yonder to welcome him, and that heaven\nis being put in order for his reception,--while his crime sinks into a\nmere nothing in his eyes. Like the thief on the cross, he has not a\nsingle thought of his victims--not a single pang of remorse for the\nsuffering he has caused. Conversion has made him callous. Whether his\nvictims are saved or damned, he does not care. All his thoughts are\ncentered upon his own future happiness and glory. But suppose the thief\non the cross had said to Jesus when the latter invited him to paradise:\n\"But, what about my victims, Lord? The men and women and children I have\nruined and sent to their doom! How can I be happy in heaven, with my\nvictims in hell--to whom I gave no chance in the last hour to believe\nand be saved? Hanging on the same cross with you, Lord, has made my\nheart a little more tender, and has awakened my conscience. I have\nbecome a better man since I met you. Let me then go where I can atone in\nsome real way for my crimes. Let my heaven consist in serving the people\nI have wronged, until we can be saved together.\" If Jesus had only\nprovoked _that_ for a reply from the converted thief!\n\nCompare with this puffed-up vanity and meanness of the malefactor\nconverted by miracle, the glorious behavior of Othello in the presence\nof death. Jesus' company made the thief on the cross contemptible;\nShakespeare's touch made Othello divine. As he is about to leap into the\narms of death, Othello is not thinking of his soul, or of his future;\nhis one and only thought is of his victim. He does not whine in the ears\nof heaven, nor does he beg to be saved from the punishment he deserves.\nHe is no coward trying to sneak into heaven while his Desdemona lies in\nher blood at his feet. Listen to the words the great poet speaks by his\nmouth:\n\n            Whip me, ye devils,\n    From the possession of this heavenly sight!\n    Blow me about in winds! Roast me in sulphur!\n    Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire!\n\nNo vision of heaven, no thought of glory for himself, can tempt Othello\nto forget his crime. He prefers hell for himself as the only thing with\nwhich his awakened conscience can be calmed. That is the way to be\nconverted!\n\nThe Christian doctrine of forgiveness is the doctrine of license. Jesus\ncommands us to forgive \"seventy times seven.\" He does not seem to\nrealize that the more accommodating we are to the criminal, the more we\nsap the foundations of morality. \"Judge not,\" says Jesus, \"that ye be\nnot judged.\" That is very queer advice. We are not to see wrong or crime\nin others lest they should find the same in us. It is the religion of a\nguilty conscience--which abstains from criticising lest his own faults\nshould be exposed. \"You say nothing about me and I'll agree to say\nnothing about you,\" is a conspiracy to defeat justice. \"For with what\njudgment ye judge ye shall be judged,\" continues Jesus. Not at all. If a\nman has slandered you, must you slander him? If you have been robbed,\nmust you rob in return? Do you have to judge another with the same\nprejudice, bigotry and malice with which he judges you? And must you\nrefrain from passing any righteous judgments from fear of being\nmisjudged or misunderstood by the world? Were we to follow this false\nteaching, we would be giving crime a free sway,--with every tongue tied\nagainst it.\n\nBut did not Jesus say \"Love one another,\" and is not that enough? If it\nwere enough, the past twenty centuries would have been centuries of\npeace and brotherhood. Instead, they have been centuries of war and\npersecution. The world is in need of a Jesus who can _make_ people love.\nIf Jesus has this power--why is Europe still armed to the teeth? I do\nnot deny the good intentions of Jesus. I question his _power_. He has\nnot even succeeded in making his own followers, Catholics and\nProtestants, to love one another. Christianity has had a good, long\nchance to show results. A religion which is split up into an\never-increasing number of sects is not going to bring about unity and\nbrotherhood. \"He that believeth not shall be damned,\" and \"depart from\nme ye cursed,\" takes from the rose of love both petals and perfume, and\nleaves only the thorns.\n\nBut Jesus also said \"Love your enemies.\" The advice of Confucius to\n\"love our benefactors and to be just to our enemies,\" is more sensible.\nIt is neither practical nor desirable to love one's enemies. Can we love\nthe slanderer, the oppressor, the murderer? If our \"enemy\" is not all\nthis, he is not an enemy. But we can be just to the people who are mean,\ndeceitful, spiteful or pitiless toward us. Did Jesus love his enemies?\nWhy then was not Judas saved? And why did he say to his disciples that\nfor the people who rejected them there awaited the awful fate of Sodom\nand Gomorrah?\n\nBut did not Jesus pray for his murderers on the cross? Was his prayer\nanswered? If there is any truth in history, the Jews have suffered for\ntheir supposed participation in the tragedy of Calvary more than words\ncan describe. I have always thought that the prayer, \"Father, forgive\nthem, for they know not what they do,\" was put in Jesus' mouth, at the\nlast moment, for a theatrical effect. If the atonement was one of the\neternal decrees of God, the people who put Jesus to death were only\ncarrying it out. If, however, knowing that Jesus was a God, they,\nnevertheless, wanted to kill him, they must have been imbeciles to\nsuppose a God could be murdered safely; but if they did not know the\ntruth and committed the crime ignorantly, they were not forgiven for it,\nand the bible describes the fearful punishment prepared for them.\n\nAnother much commended saying of Jesus is the following: \"Inasmuch as ye\nhave done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me.\" This has\nbeen interpreted as a command to help and succor even the poorest of the\npoor. I admire the thought. I applaud the generosity. But would it not\nhave been grander, if Jesus, instead of saying, \"ye have done it unto\nme,\" had said, \"ye have done it unto Humanity.\" \"For my sake\" is not so\nlarge and noble as \"for Humanity's sake.\" One of my neighbor preachers\nsaid the other day that he loved the poor and the lost \"because Jesus\nloved them.\" Then, it was _Jesus_ he loved, and not his fellows.\nEvidently he would not love them, if Jesus did not. What would become of\nthis preacher's interest in his fellowmen, should he ever lose his faith\nin Christ? That explains why people often say that without religion\nthere can be no morality. We desire a morality that can outlive all the\ngods. Christ or no Christ,--can we still be kind and just and\ncompassionate toward the weak and the unfortunate?\n\n\"If you take Jesus Christ out of the world, the world's a carcass, and\nman's a disaster,\" cries the preacher at the top of his voice. Of\ncourse. If everything is to be done for Jesus' sake, what will become of\nmorality, civilization or humanity with Jesus dropped out? We need no\nbetter excuse for summoning all our energies to combat a religion that\ncommits the destinies of our world to the keeping of one man,--and he,\nin all probability,--a myth.[4]\n\n[4] Read the author's _The Truth About Jesus--Is He a Myth?_\n\nLet us recapitulate: Jesus taught a magical, not a scientific morality.\nIt was by being born of \"water and the Holy Ghost,\" whatever that might\nmean, and not by intellectual and moral effort, that people were to be\nsaved. He placed the creed above the deed, and himself above humanity.\n\"Believe in me, do good for my sake,\" gives to morality a sectarian\nstamp, or taint, which is bound to corrupt it. Morality is born of\nliberty. Christianity is the religion of absolutism, in which Jesus or\nGod is everything, and man a mere puppet. Christianity denies to man the\nright to reason. He must only obey. There is no morality where there is\nno liberty. By his doctrine of an impending catastrophe, a future hell,\nand by his promises of fabulous wealth and glory beyond--Jesus helped to\ndisturb and distort the judgment of the weak and the fearful,\npreventing thereby the cultivation of sane thoughts of life. The\nmorality of Jesus was the morality of panic.\n\nAnd what do we offer in place of supernaturalism, whether it be\nChristianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Brahmanism, or any other \"ism\"? In\nplace of magic or miracle, we offer science; in place of \"belief,\" we\noffer knowledge--the open light of day and the unhampered interchange of\nhuman love and thought. In place of Christ or God--both absent, and\nneither dependent upon anything we can do for him--we offer Humanity,\nforever at our side, and in daily need of our bravest service and most\nunstinted love.\n\n\n\n\n THE STORY OF MY MIND\n OR\n HOW I BECAME A RATIONALIST\n\n_Price, Fifty Cents_\n\n\u00b6 In this latest publication of the Independent Religious Society, M. M.\nMangasarian describes his religious experience--how, starting as a\nCalvinist, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and a pastor of\nthe Spring Garden Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, he thought and\nfought his way up to\n\n=RATIONALISM=\n\n\u00b6 The book contains a dedication to \"My Children,\" in which the author\nsays:\n\n    \"I am going to put the story in writing, that you may have it with\n    you when I am gone, to remind you of the aims and interests for\n    which I lived, as well as to acquaint you with the most earnest and\n    intimate period in my career as a teacher of men.\"\n\n _ORDER THROUGH_\n\n THE INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY\n ORCHESTRA HALL BUILDING CHICAGO","title":"Is the Morality of Jesus Sound?: A Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":9081}