ORTHODOXY

There is as much perfumery in petroleum as there is righteousness in orthodoxy. Its dead theology and make-believe piety have no value only to the priest. Orthodoxy survives only by right of possession. Turn it out of the churches and it would never re-enter them. The church to-day is a hospital for sick dogmas. Every Christian doctrine is a cripple; not one can walk or stand alone. Orthodoxy has put a false valuation on things. It calls a man good who goes to church, offers a prayer in public and accepts the Bible as the word of G.o.d; it calls a man bad who stays at home and enjoys himself with his family on Sunday, who eats without asking G.o.d to bless his food, and who does not expect to go to heaven on the vicarious railroad.

The thirty-nine articles of orthodoxy are only the ashes of the mind.

Honesty is never seen sitting astride the fence.

A handsome bonnet covers a mult.i.tude of sins.

IDEAS OF JESUS

There is a vast difference between knowledge of the Bible and knowledge. A person may know all there is in the Bible, and not know but little. In fact, so much of the Bible is either pure fiction or doubtful history that one is not sure when he has got hold of what is reliable. Probably no person whose name appears in the Bible is less a historical figure than Jesus. As we see him in either gospel he is more the product of the artist than the work of the biographer. He is less a human being than the character of a drama.

Had Jesus been pictured as a man, who was born as men are born, who worked as men worked, who lived and died as men live and die, then there would be less divergence in the views entertained respecting him. To-day, the Jesus of Galilee is looked upon as either a G.o.d or a tramp; a divine Savior or an impostor; the perfect man or a lunatic.

The reason of this is that the gospels are found, as it were, photographs of all those characters labelled Jesus. A person with no fixed idea of what Jesus was, whether human or divine, whether a Christ or a madman, would be unable, after reading the gospels to come to any intelligent conclusion as to what he was. He certainly could not accept the statements of the authors and regard Jesus as a man.

We fail to understand how anyone can read the New Testament story of Jesus and not regard him as a myth. No being ever lived on earth and performed the miracles recorded in the gospels. That is just as sure as the light of the stars. Miracles are not evidence of divinity, but of falsehood. Where we read that a man was raised from the dead we know that somebody has written what is not true. How human beings, who are possessed of ordinary intelligence, can accept the accounts of miraculous events in the four gospels as records of actual facts surpa.s.ses our comprehension.

Those persons who see in the words of Jesus evidence of _his_ divine character, see in such words, when in the mouth of any other person, proof of insanity.

There are contradictory ideas of Jesus contained in the gospels. He is spoken of as a man, as a Christ, as a son of G.o.d, and as G.o.d himself. Now, he could not have been all these. Which was he? Was he G.o.d? Was he the son of G.o.d? Was he the Christ or King of the Jews? Was he the son of Mary and Joseph? Was he a man? Or was he neither?

Our opinion is that Jesus is a myth, that no such being as is painted in the New Testament ever lived. This seems to be the only rational idea of Jesus.

THE SILENCE OF JESUS

A Christian minister not long ago spoke upon the subject: "When the Bible is Silent." He said a great many silly things about his subject, but not one sensible one. This preacher wishes us to believe that when the Bible is silent it is because we cannot hear. He said the silence of Jesus before Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, shows that Jesus knew they would not have understood his words if he had answered them. He further said that Jesus "treated each with whom he came in contact according to the spirit that was in him."

Is it not more likely that Jesus knew he could not impose upon these men as he could upon his ignorant, superst.i.tious followers, and hence dared not speak? Is not his silence a confession of his weakness? Had he been able to answer Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, think you he would not have done so? Of course he would. It is a little singular that the _most momentous questions ever put to Jesus were not answered by him_. The very things the people wished to know he did not reveal. Why not? Why, because he _could_ not.

Should we to-day p.r.o.nounce a man wise and good who professed to possess knowledge that would benefit, if not save, the world, but who refused to impart that knowledge? We reckon not. We should either denounce him as the foe of man or else as a charlatan.

When Jesus was taken before the high priest, Caiaphas, and was asked about the charges against him, he "held his peace."

When he was asked by Pilate. "What is truth?" Jesus was silent; and when Pilate again asked, "Whence art thou?" Jesus "gave him no answer."

When Herod "questioned with him in many words," "he answered him nothing."

What are we to infer from this silence? What the minister wishes us to infer, or that Jesus saw that he was unable to maintain his claim and so sought refuge in silence?

The silence of Jesus condemns him. He was in duty bound to prove that he was the Christ, the Son of G.o.d, as he claimed to be, or else have impostor written on his forehead.

The world will some day grow large enough not to be fooled by a minister.

When it does, Jesus will take his place where he belongs,-in the graveyard of the G.o.ds.

DOES THE CHURCH SAVE

The church pretends to save man from a h.e.l.l hereafter, but does it do so?

How are we to know whether it does or not? We cannot take its word for it.

We want the proof. We do not want to pay for work unless the work is done.

We do not want to believe in order to be saved, unless we are sure that the church can deliver the salvation it takes pay for. The world has taken the promise to save long enough. It has not seen a single soul that has been saved, nor does it know for a fact that a single soul has been saved.

Is it not time that the church showed that it can do what it claims to do?

We want salvation demonstrated. Let the church produce a specimen of its work; let it exhibit a soul that it has saved, or let it publish the affidavit, duly subscribed and affirmed, of a soul that has escaped the fate of h.e.l.l through the efficacy of faith in Jesus. Anything less than this is deception, is imposition, is false pretense. Either this should be done by the church or else it should go out of the salvation-business altogether.

It is astonishing how long the priest has carried on his trade. Here is a man who claims to deal in the affairs of another world for which he demands pay in this world, but he does not show that he carries out his part of the agreement. Men have been paying the priest for thousands of years, for doing what it is impossible to prove has been, or can be, done.

Can anything more stupid than this be imagined? The business of saving man's soul is a cheat, a fraud. Every priest and minister who preaches that man can be saved from h.e.l.l hereafter by believing in Jesus, or anybody else, is preaching what they know nothing about, and they are doing it for the money in it. The church is cheating man, defrauding him, practicing upon his ignorance, his superst.i.tion, his fear. Religion, as far as it relates to any other life than this, has no foundation. Its G.o.d no one knows anything about; its heaven and h.e.l.l no one has ever seen, nor does anyone know where they are; its whole business is run on fict.i.tious capital.

The only thing that the church has saved so far is itself.

Freethought Precepts

The strong should be gentle to the weak.

The rich should not oppress the poor.

The prosperous should be generous to the unfortunate.

The self-reliant should give a hand to the helpless.

The educated should pity the ignorant.

The virtuous should not be cruel to the vicious.

The beautiful should be kind to the plain.

SAVE THE REPUBLIC