The Real World > Religion
The Bible Unmasked
Laura:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewun01.htm
by Joseph Lewis
Author of
"The Tyranny of God,"
"Lincoln the Freethinker,"
"Jefferson the Freethinker," etc.
New York
The Freethought Publishing Co., Inc.
Publishers
Copyright, 1926
Joseph Lewis
All Rights Reserved
Printed in United States of America
The first edition of The Bible Unmasked consists of 250 copies, printed on special paper, with gold top pages, and bound in limp leather with title stamped in gold. Each copy is numbered and autographed by the author. This is the first general edition.
Dedication
This book is dedicated in all seriousness to rabbis, priests and ministers, in the hole that it may bring them to realize the fraud they are perpetrating by preaching the Bible as the Word of God, and as a moral ant intellectual guide for or the human race.
-- Joseph Lewis.
"Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-- Thomas Paine.
"By this time the whole world should know that the real Bible has not yet been written, but is being written, and that it will never be finished until the race begins its downward march, or ceases to exist.
"The real Bible is not the work of inspired men, nor prophets nor apostles, nor evangelists, nor of Christs. Every man who finds a fact adds, as it were, a word to this great book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy or sacred; it simply claims to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies to its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with its every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower, confirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of its truth."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll.
The Bible Unmasked
Table of Contents
* Introduction
* I Abram and Sarai
* II Isaac, The Son of Abram, and His Wife Rebekah
* III Incest, or Lot and His Daughters
* IV Jacob, Leah and Rachel
* V The Rape of Dinah
* VI Joseph and Potiphar's Wife
* VII Judah and His Daughter-in-law Tamar
* VIII The 19th Chapter of Judges
* IX King David of Israel and His Wives
* X The Rape of Tamar by Her Brother Amnon
* XI The Story of Ruth
* XII King Solomon and His Songs
* XIII The Book of Esther
* XIV The New Testament
* XV The Virgin Birth, or Mary, The Holy Ghost, Joseph and Jesus
* XVI The Birth of Jesus Christ According to The Gospel of St. Luke
* XVII Elisabeth, the Cousin of Mary, Zacharias and the Angel Gabriel
* XVIII Jesus and the Sinner
* XIX Conclusion
* The Creed of Science by Robert Green Ingersoll
* Endnotes For This File (Converted From Footnotes)
The Bible Unmasked
Introduction.
"The duty of a philosopher is clear. He must take every pain to ascertain the truth; and, having arrived at a conclusion, he should noise it abroad far and wide, utterly regardless of what opinions he shocks." -- Henry Thomas Buckle.
In taking as my subject for this book the question of the morality, or rather the immorality of the Bible, I realize at once the importance and delicacy of the subject. This is true, because what is immoral in one age and time, may at some other time, be considered moral, and what we to-day may consider moral and acceptable, may at some future date be condemned as being immoral.
There is in reality no absolute standard by which we may judge; and in the final analysis our guide in moral affairs should be that which gives to the individual the greatest possible happiness, and which at the same time will inflict no harm upon another individual. Even under this rule there may be instances where a higher and more altruistic principle would be necessary to insure the best interest of the community and to society at large.
Therefore, the subject that I have chosen for my book is as delicate as it is serious, as there is always the possibility of saying something that may be entirely at variance with the conceptions of some of us regarding morality and its phases.
I think I can appropriately quote the poet Moore in his definition of morality, when he says:
"I find the doctors and sages
Have differed in all climes and ages,
And two in fifty scarce agree
On what is pure morality."
The utmost discretion must also be used in such a discussion to avoid any injustice to the individual to the preference of society, and with scrupulous integrity the same rule must be applied to society in its relationship to the individual. Science must formulate the principle of a moral guide. We must disregard all past conventions, except to learn from their shortcomings, so as better to avoid similar pitfalls in the future. We must start anew, so to speak, for the rules and guides which now govern our conduct have been proven false and utterly inadequate for the needs of modern existence.
We are still using for our guide, rules which are as obsolete as a belief in the flatness of the earth.
A new order of morality must be ushered in and it must of necessity be just as revolutionary and just as beneficial to the human race as were the scientific discoveries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which upset all previous conventions and calculations and started mankind upon a career of unparalleled progress.
We must begin the other way round, and instead of our acts being performed solely for divine approbation, we must do our utmost for the benefit of the individual, which in the last analysis is also for the best interest of society. It will be man's relation to man that will become the holy thing. Humanity and not God will be our chief concern. Our acts will not be performed for the purpose of future rewards, but rather for present benefits.
Again, the delicacy of my subject becomes apparent from the fact that certain words and expressions must be used that may shock the sensibilities of certain persons. But this I promise, that any words I may use in this book which may offend or shock any one who reads will not be words or expressions I have purposely selected to designate a character or to express a situation, but will be words and expressions which I have found in the stories as recorded in the Bible.
Let me repeat: if there are words and expressions used which are unfit for refined conversation, these words and expressions will be taken from the Bible which contains the stories I have selected as being, in the light of our present knowledge and progress, immoral, offensive and obscene.
And if you are not acquainted with the words, language, and expressions of the Bible, I ask you kindly to close this book; do not read it unless you want to learn the truth about the Bible. I am not concerned with the truth or falsity of the stories from which I shall quote, but with the fact that these stories are in the Bible and that the Bible is considered holy and sacred -- a divinely inspired book. Were it not for this fact my labor would be unnecessary, and I would not engage myself in it.
I am not writing this treatise as a member of any particular creed, for I do not belong to any. I am writing it as a member of the human family, without regard to race or religion, and for the benefit of all mankind.
The Bible has for many ages been considered as the Holy Word of an Ever-Existing God, and no one has been permitted to question its truth in any respect. It has ruled as the supreme authority in every line of thought; in every field of endeavor, and in every human relationship. At one time, to refuse to be bound by its precepts meant death by the most horrible means that perverted minds could inflict upon a human being. In fact, to doubt the divine origin of the Bible was the most flagrant of crimes.
Erasmus declared that heresy was a greater crime than impurity of life. That Christianity cared more for blind faith than uprightness of living is attested only too well by the pages of history. And the charge that religion and morals are synonymous terms is either stupidity or deliberate fraud. By its very precepts, by its expounders, and by its professors, religion has been proven to be the very antithesis of morality.
The first great step in the emancipation of the minds of the people from the ignorance and superstition of the Bible came about when Galileo put a crude telescope to the sky and removed our earth from the center of the universe, as it was supposed to be, to the tiny insignificant speck in a mighty realm of space, that it actually is. The great conflict between knowledge and superstition began when Astronomy was put upon a scientific basis.
To state briefly this conflict, is to say that the Science of Astronomy has no use for the knowledge, if you can call it such, of the Bible. We all are acquainted with the fact that from the Bible the people became convinced that the earth was the center of the universe, and for centuries no one dared make an attempt to prove the contrary. Oh yes, there were some, but Bruno's heroic statue in Rome bespeaks only too eloquently the price that was paid for matching scientific and philosophic deductions against bigotry and God's Word.
We know that from the Bible ignorant people were convinced that God was sitting in the clouds and for that reason they lifted their hands and raised their voices in appeals for help. Astronomy pointed a telescope to the spot where God was supposed to be and found no such character there. If upon the invention of the telescope God moved to a different abode, he left no trace of his former occupancy. Astronomers, using the most powerful telescopes, telescopes that can scan the universe for millions of miles, testify they can find no trace of such a being, and that God must be some crafty creature to have made his getaway under the circumstances. For there are stars within the domain of man's exploration whose light-rays require thousands of years to reach us, and if God is beyond the region of these stars he is certainly useless to us, because in less time than would be required for him to come to our assistance the human race might be no more.
But God for the moment is not our subject; neither is prayer, nor the Science of Astronomy. We are concerned for the moment with the fact only that the Science of Astronomy, which should find some benefit in the Bible, since it is supposed to deal with the region of space in which Astronomy is interested, rejects that book completely, by saying: the Bible may be perfectly satisfactory as a moral guide, but it contains nothing of value to Astronomy.
The Geologists, the Naturalists, the Zoologists, the Botanists, the Biologists, the Physicists, the Physiologists and in fact all the Scientists are perfectly willing you should use the Bible as a moral guide, so long as you do not insist that they accept it as a standard of truth in their respective spheres. They all come to the same conclusion, that the Bible does not contain a solitary scientific truth.
Let us now examine and discover for ourselves whether the moralist has any use for the Bible, a book that is not only supposed to contain all the knowledge of the world, but that has been held over the heads of the people and sacredly worshipped for so many hundreds of years. I will not dwell upon, nor go into the details of the gross immorality that the Bible has caused; but rather I will discuss those phases of morality which deal with the social or sexual relation of man to society, such as rape, adultery, licentiousness, unfaithfulness and things universally condemned as being opprobrious. The evidence from the Bible itself will destroy its value as a moral guide.
It is a common experience to come in contact with persons who tell me that if the Bible has stood the test for so many years it is good enough for them. I reply that slavery stood the test as an existing institution for a longer period than the Bible has been revered, and yet chattel slavery does not exist to-day. Even so great a mind as Aristotle said that without slavery civilization could not exist. And since the physical slave has been emancipated, let us break the spell of the Bible and its attendant enslaving superstition and liberate completely the mind of man. Freedom of the mind is surely equal in importance to freedom of the body.
And as I am asked from time to time similar questions as to why the Bible still persists, I of course give different instances of long-established standards that are no longer followed by the progressive world. History records many "sacred" books that were once held in awe and reverence, but which are now looked upon as ancient curiosities. The Bible is but another of these "sacred" volumes and is unfortunately far inferior to most of them in moral precepts.
The insane are no longer tortured. We now treat them as mentally diseased. Witchcraft, once so commonly prevalent, is now known to have been religious superstition carried to its ultimate end. Religious mania triumphant! John Wesley spoke the truth when he said, "The giving up of witchcraft is, in effect, the giving up of the Bible." At one time the belief was prevalent and religiously maintained that onions caused cancer; that beads could cure scarlet fever, and that to shave the upper lip was to impare your eyesight!
For ages the adage "Spare the rod and spoil the child" prevailed in the treatment of children. Tender tots were unmercifully beaten by cruel parents. The wide leather strap was an essential part of the household. If there were no family skeleton in the closet. you would be sure to find the child-beating strap there. "If we did not beat the child and put 'fear' into him, how else were we to make him 'good' and have 'respect for his elders'?" was the argument that triumphantly maintained this brutal system. In the days gone by, and I am not so sure that they have passed, the religious-minded could not conceive of any other method of correction. To spare the rod and spoil the child was a sacrilege and an unpardonable act in the sight of God.
Part and parcel with this method went the fear implanted in the imagination of the child by the weird and frightful tales of the "bogey man" and the terrifying ghosts. This fear implanted in the mind of a child is just as poisonous as the venom of a snake. To-day psychology has corrected this brutal and barbarous method in connection with the training of children. Intelligence and its application were the solution, and no greater triumph has been achieved by science than has been accomplished in the realm of child training. And although there are many still tainted with the Biblical notion of physical punishment in the treatment of children, no truly civilized man or woman to-day would use such a heinous method.
And yet in the New York Times for August 22, 1925, the Reverend R. M. Bradner, assistant minister, St. George's Church, New York City, made a plea to go back to this barbarous custom in the treatment of children.
And just as the child does not need something to put fear into him as a corrective, neither do adults need the "fear of something" to keep them good.
Fear, "fear of God" or any other fear, is a negative and destructive force no matter how it is applied. Courage is the watchword and intelligence the key to proper conduct. In the larger realm of human misconduct, punishment as a corrective to fit the crime is an altogether different principle from fear as a deterrent with the subsequent "forgiveness" after the act without the slightest understanding of wrongdoing or of rectification.
The knowledge of the right and the mental strength to follow that right is the ultimate end and goal of education. To commit your crime, "to confess your sins and be absolved of the deed," may be a satisfactory religious doctrine, but it is inimical to justice and human welfare.
I know a man who used to beat his child. The strap was used with much force and vigor without the slightest feeling of compunction. And when I told him he was committing a grave wrong in beating his child he looked at me in blank amazement. I had actually astounded him. He was stunned and speechless. He thought that the beating of his child was as right and as essential as the rising and the setting of the sun and as natural as that night should follow day. His father beat him and no doubt his father was beaten by his paternal ancestor and so it was established beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the corporal punishment of children was not only the only possible method, but was a parent's inalienable and unforfeitable right.
I analyzed his case and told him to make a "pal" and confidant of his boy. I told him he could accomplish much more by kindness and with love in a spirit of understanding than by any other method. Although his face still wore that amazed and stunned look, he promised to try my suggestions; and now after a lapse of nearly three years he boasts of never having struck his child during that period and confesses he owes me a debt that he can never repay. And yet -- and this is the humorous part -- he still looks upon my "infidel" opinions as being something beyond the realm of understanding, despite the fact it was an "infidel" who brought the light of understanding to his "enlightened" Christian mind. History proves that it has invariably been the infidels who have been the humanitarians, the torchbearers, the pathfinders not only of progress but also of human understanding, of love and of sympathy. And if Progress is the aim of mankind, if Liberty is its goal, and Freedom its destiny, then the Bible as a sacred book must go, religion as superstition must cease, and the church as an institution must be abandoned.
Are not the words of Professor Garrett P. Serviss, worth quoting here?
"The only real road to settled peace is that of science; politics will never hit it, nor dogmatic religion either. Science is, in its very nature, universal. It interests all civilized nations alike. It has no favorites, and no preferred views. Its aim is absolutely single, viz, the uncovering of the truth. Knowledge is power -- not partial but complete power, which cannot make war upon itself.
"Mankind has tried the other two roads to peace -- the road of political jealousy and the road of religious bigotry -- and found them both equally misleading. Perhaps it will now try the third, the road of scientific truth, the only road on which the passenger is not deceived -- like a skittish horse with blinders. Science does not, ostrich-like, bury its head amidst perils and difficulties. It tries to see everything exactly as everything is."
Abundant evidence and prison statistics are available to prove the prevalence of the moral and ethical misdeeds of the religious elect. Reference to them is constantly found in the daily papers.
Let us, as a matter of comparison, assume that Freethinkers were guilty of the same crimes as religious believers; the charge would be made that it was their infidel" books, teachings and examples that were responsible for their criminal acts; and there would be a hue and cry over the length and breadth of this land to suppress and destroy all "infidel" literature. We would never hear the end of the "direful influence" such teachings would have upon the minds of people.
If we apply this rule to Freethinkers, let us use the same measurement to religious believers and determine whether or not their books, teachings and examples are responsible for their crimes. Let us be honest. Let us be fair.
What would be said if a prominent Freethinker were to use the words that were so boldly and defiantly uttered by Father Phelan in the "Western Watchman" of June 27, 1913:
"Tell us we are Catholics first and Americans or Englishmen afterwards; of course we are. Tell us, in the conflict between the church and the civil government we take the side of the church; of course we do. Why, if the government of the United States were at war with the church, we would say tomorrow, To hell with the government of the United States; and if the church and all the governments of the world were at war, we would say, To hell with all the governments of the world. Why is it that in this country, where we have only seven percent of the population, the Catholic church is so much feared? She is loved by all her children and feared by everybody. Why is it that the Pope has such tremendous power? Why, the Pope is the ruler of the world. All the emperors, all the kings, all the princes, all the presidents of the world, are as these altar boys of mine. The Pope is the ruler of the world.[1]"
As I said before, no one can claim absolute law in the matter of morality, but there are some things repugnant to all of us and which will not be tolerated in the relationship of man to man. These repugnant acts are so self-evident that everywhere, in no matter what strata of society they exist, they are met with condemnation and censure.
The question of morals; the question of sex; the question of the relation of the individual to society, and of the relation of society to the individual, are all questions of such tremendous importance that each one, to be discussed properly, would require a book for itself. But this much we know: those who have the broadest and most liberal attitude upon these questions generally live the highest and most upright lives. And those who have set dogmatic rules and seek to impose them as guidance for others, are often the ones who lead the most questionable lives.
If it has taken so many centuries to convince the people of simple truths in the scientific realm, one can realize how difficult it will be to bring the people's minds out of the mass of misinterpretation and ignorance that has so long befogged them in the sphere of morality, where the scientific base, as in many other fields, is not so apparent.
To the Puritans, it was not only breaking a moral law, but also a disgrace to kiss one's wife on Sunday. A breach was also established, for which a penalty was exacted, if one were to kiss even his child on this "sacred day." To be seen on the streets on Sunday, except to "walk reverently to and from Church," was so flagrant a violation of the moral code that the perpetrator paid the penalty by a public ducking!
The mockery of it all! It was immoral for any one to be seen upon the public streets on Sunday, except on his way to church, to listen to a preacher "expounding" and "explaining" some of the incongruities, stupidities and immoralities of the Bible!
But this religious insanity did not exist only among the Puritans. It is found wherever Biblical teaching takes precedence over reason and intelligence. It is the inevitable consequence of permitting "instruments of God" and "divinely inspired men" to make our laws and govern our affairs. It reaches its highest form whenever this vile superstition rules the land, as was the case in the days of the Spanish Inquisition.
In Scotland, where the Scotch Presbyterian long held sway, it was a sin for any one to hold market on Saturday or Monday because both days were near Sunday. It was also sinful to go from one town to another, however pressing the need. It was a sin to visit a friend, or water the garden, or to shave, or to walk in the meadows, or to sit in the doorway to enjoy the weather, or even to sleep on the "Lord's Day." Bathing, being pleasant and wholesome, was a particularly grievous offense and therefore was prohibited on Sunday. In fact, it was doubtful whether public bathing was lawful for a Christian at any time. To be clean was considered a sacrilege; and to enjoy one's repast was proof of a sinful nature. But to continue to repeat these hallucinations would be to fill an entire volume. These fanatics went so far as to admonish the people, that on Sundays in particular they should never think of benefiting others; and on that day it was even sinful to save a vessel in distress; and that it was a proof of religion -- for it was God's will -- to let the ship sink and the crew perish.[2]
I suppose they received the inspiration for their acts from the sabbath of the Jews, who on Saturdays in particular and on sacred days in general, are not "allowed" to perform labor of any kind. What a tragedy it is to be under such a fearful spell of superstition!
To many people even to-day, it is highly immoral for a woman too expose her leg beyond a certain point. And only recently we read an account of a Catholic priest who refused to "bless" his congregation because a woman, kneeling in front of him, wore a waist which, when she bent over for "blessing," did not cover the shapeliness of her bosom.
What right the priest had to look at the woman's bosom so exposed I will not discuss. For the life of me, I cannot see what the unintentional exposure of a woman's bosom, particularly to a priest, has to do with blessings from a direct messenger of God. And the New York Times of August 11, 1924, in a cable from Bergamo, Italy, quotes the Mgr. Marelli, Bishop of Bergamo, on women who "lewdly expose their nudity," as saying, "Women must enter church decently dressed, with head and breast covered, without décolleté and with arms covered. Their gowns must be sufficiently long and without indecent transparencies."
Bishop Marelli has also ordered nuns in monasteries who conduct laundries to refuse to wash any articles of clothing which are "indicative of indecency."
If a priest or any one else has any objection to the form, dress or acts of any one as being immoral, what must we say when we examine the Bible in our search for a moral guide?
If the Bible contained real knowledge, if it were a book that made an endeavor to uplift the world and bring us above the level from which man began his existence, we would revere its writers and keep its principles as our guide with a sacredness and devotion justly deserved.
If the Bible contained scientific knowledge that the world is actually crying for to-day, but which the bigoted and superstitious are doing their utmost to retard, what a glorious difference this book would have made upon the civilization of man!
If the Bible instructed man, or at least made an effort to enlighten him, in the intimate relations of life, which when understood and properly consummated, produce the highest and noblest in man, but when viciously indulged in, become the most degraded and perverted practice, what a joy there would be in devoting our lives to the practice and dissemination of its precepts and principles!
How often do we look back over our path of life and bemoan our mistakes; and every one knows that the mistakes that most sharply penetrate our consciousness are the ones made in the sexual realm. We know the sorrows caused by the ignorance of the laws of sex, and we know also that this ignorance multiplies a hundredfold the misery found in the married state. We are also thoroughly familiar with the fact that this ignorance is the primary cause of marital unhappiness and eventually leads to the divorce court.
It has been conservatively estimated that during the past twenty years there have been nearly two million divorces in the United States alone. What poignant disillusionment is suffered by the parties of a married union that causes their love to turn to bitterness and hatred and impels them to seek freedom from each other! What torment and misery do they suffer before they have the courage to permit the sneering public to gossip about their private lives!
Statistics are not always accurate. They do not always reveal the true conditions. It is invariably true that regardless of the number, percentage or proportion of unhappy couples that bring their cases to public light, there are a greater number that suppress their feelings, bear their sorrow and live their lives in abject horror because they do not possess the courage to demand a public rectification of their mistakes. It is knowledge, knowledge, KNOWLEDGE that the world needs, and if the Bible contained that knowledge nine-tenths of the misery that is now suffered by the people would be unknown, and instead a relationship productive of some benefit and pleasure would be the result. Happiness would be exchanged for misery and smiles and laughter would be the rule and not the exception.
What must we say when books, the results of years of careful study and investigation, containing the sexual truth and enlightenment that are so sadly needed by the people, are suppressed, and the Bible is not only circulated freely, but actually forced upon the people by law!
I could mention three books, which, were they issued with each marriage license, would obliterate ninety-five per cent of the now prevailing unhappiness, due to the ignorance of the laws of sex, and would usher in a new order and a new era of marital understanding and happiness. But it is my purpose here to tell you only about the Bible. And when you become fully acquainted with the Bible and what it contains you will no longer wonder why the intellectual world rejects it completely.
It has become a common expression and axiom, that only those believe the Bible who have not read it. And when I say they believe it, I mean that they are under the impression that the book contains the most exalted and noblest rules by which life should be governed. But what a fearful mistake that is! The Bible is the contrary in its moral guidance as it is in any other field of thought.
We can forgive the Bible its mistakes in the scientific fields, but we cannot condone its coarseness and vulgarity in the moral sphere, where it is now being foisted upon us. Whipped and beaten by every other line of thought the Bible is now being proposed as the paragon of moral teachings.
The question of religious liberty has been settled and nearly all the governments of the world have made provisions and protection for it. It behooves us, then, to tell the real truth about the Bible and once and for all settle the bitter differences that have been the cause of so much dissension and strife throughout the world. As soon as the people become acquainted with the fact that the Bible is an unworthy book, when that false halo of sanctity has been removed, one of the heaviest burdens will have been lifted from the minds of the world, and resources amounting to wealth incalculable will be released for the common good.
Therefore it is our duty to expose the Bible. And although there have been others who have devoted their lives and fortunes in enlightening the people, their efforts have been unable to accomplish all. We must continue to tell the truth about the Bible. We must continue to enlighten the people. We must never fail to do our part. And if, after the true facts are known, there are some who still insist the Bible is good enough for them, they are welcome to it. They are entitled to their "faith in filth!"[3] and I for one will fight that they may always possess the right and liberty to be fully protected in their belief.
The Bible is a collection of miscellaneous and disconnected stories that have been preserved, and their original purpose was no more to masquerade as being "inspired" than any of the lascivious stories of Balzac.
The education of mankind cannot really begin until the minds of men have been uneducated from the great mass of superstition and falsehood that has been inculcated in them from the Bible. History proves the truth of Buckle's statement that, "Every great reform which has been effected has consisted, not in doing something new, but in undoing something old."
And how any enlightened country, particularly a republic, can tolerate the Bible in its governmental activities is a situation difficult to understand, unless the officials in power are not acquainted with the history of progress and are utterly ignorant of the price of Liberty.
Thomas Jefferson has truthfully said, "In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
And who can deny the truth of Buckle's statement: "A careful study of religious toleration will show that in every Christian country where it has been adopted, it has been forced upon the clergy by the authority of the secular classes."
The infamous doctrine of monarchy is not only upheld, but is supposed to carry divine right, by Biblical testimony. The greatest fight in the emancipation of the negro slave was to overcome the sanction of this terrible institution by the numerous texts in the Bible which maintained that slavery was prescribed by God. It is common history that the slave-holder's staunchest support, North and South, was that arm of the Bible known as the Christian Church. I want to avoid any discussion that does not directly touch upon the subject of this book and must therefore check myself upon any further points of this nature, leaving them for another opportunity. Indeed, volumes have been written upon this phase of Biblical influence. But let us get back to its moral side.
In the Bible will be found the most degrading word, applicable to woman, in the language of the human race. Mind you! It is mentioned not in the sense that the life the word signifies should be avoided as abhorrent, but it is mentioned in connection with men and women of the Bible after whom fond parents consider it a great honor to name their sons and daughters. I am going to mention this word in the course of this book, as I am sure that if the people were acquainted with what the Bible actually contains they would discard it completely as being utterly unfit for cultural reading.
As a piece of fiction, the Bible ranks, when truthfully weighed, far beneath the great entrancing stories of the French novelists. By comparison with the celebrated masterpieces of erotic composition, the Bible is lacking in that charm and delicacy of expression and is utterly void in its moral conclusion, which so distinguishes this kind of literature. Standards and appreciations are, in a great measure, a matter of personal preference and opinion, and I will leave, therefore, after you have read this book, the question of the Bible's worth to your own judgment.
There have been many instances when Robert G. Ingersoll offered one hundred dollars in gold to any preacher who would read certain parts of the Bible to his congregation, but so far as I know no clergyman ever came forward to claim the money. There is a saying to the effect that "what cannot be spoken, may be sung," so in the course of this book I will mention some of those parts to you.
As long as the Bible is permitted to be read in the home, and the government sanctions it by permitting it to be sent through the mail, I do not think I will trespass much upon indiscretion when I quote from its chapters.
I wish this borne in mind: it is not what I say about the stories in the Bible that makes them so offensive; it is the stories themselves, steeped in all the sordidness of vulgarity, that makes them so shocking and harmful. It is the example of the stories that we are concerned with. They lack the moral viewpoint we want to instill and the power to elevate and uplift. It is what the Bible does not tell in its relation to morality that is of so much importance.
I sincerely trust that anyone who reads this book will never again abuse the world "Holy" in referring to the Bible. Never again should the word "good" be applied to the Bible, which has been found to be so distinctly bad and vulgar. As to making mention that it is divine, all I can say is: I have only sympathy for the deluded, the superstitious and the insane. I am in perfect accord with Havelock Ellis, who claims that were the treatment of the insane in early Biblical times on the same scientific plane that it is to-day, the Bible would never have been written.
It is a conspicious fact that the Bible not only does not contain a moral guide, but it does not contain even the words "moral" and "morality."
Surely its pages bespeak the reason why. The writers of the Bible had little conception of what was moral, or right; and as to the meaning and understanding of morality they were pitifully ignorant. The writers of the Bible had slight concern for the principles of morality. They were more concerned with rape, murder. robbery, slavery, licentiousness, brutal ignorance and degrading superstition.
Some may think, in the reading of this book, that I have picked out the so-called immoral parts of the Bible to lower its estimation in the minds of the people.
Such a conclusion is an admission of the fact, and of the Bible's guilt!
You will be able to determine for yourself, by consulting the Bible, whether or not I am telling the truth.
The first story from the Bible that contains subject matter for my book appears just at the beginning of Biblical history, after "God" had destroyed the world and had made Noah the Commander-in-Chief of all living things. It is just after the success of the Flood that our first story begins, and let us see what a race of perfect, moral people God created, since the first lot was not satisfactory.
It is regrettable that we have no record of the history of the people God destroyed, as I believe their wickedness would have made a fine contrast to those the Lord preserved. But this is pardonable, for the story of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood is now considered, even by high church dignitaries, to have been a monstrous "fish story." It will not be necessary to turn many pages to get to the stories of the Bible, which, by reading, will bring a blush of shame to your cheeks, despite the fact that they will be taken from the book that has so long been regarded and reverenced and legally protected as the "Holy Scriptures."
Laura:
Chapter I.
Abram And Sarai.[4]
The most sacred relation of life is the devotion, the integrity, and the loyalty of a man and a woman. Without this relationship, without the mutual pledge and keeping of a sacred faith with each other, there would be nothing in life to warrant its puny existence. Anything that tends to strengthen this tie of love, that makes for a more happy union and sacred trust, is a force of uplift, of advancement, of progress, and of happiness. Anything that undermines this relationship, that tends to break its bonds, that puts a commercial price upon its devotion is not only harmful, but belongs to the baser things of life which civilization abhors as a plague. For after all, when the sum total of life has been thoroughly analyzed, it is as Robert Burns would say:
"To build a happy fire-side clime for weans and wife,
Is the true pathos and sublime of human life."
For a man to betray a woman in the marital relationship is a deed of grave injustice and for a woman to betray a man in this same relationship is one of the basest of acts. And yet, we sanction the separation of a pair when their union is incompatible and makes their lives a burden instead of a source of happiness in this world of so much pain and sorrow. But if this sacred relationship is used by either party for personal gain and personal safety, or, to secure special favor or special dispensation, our condemnation for such an act is only too well known.
Still, in the Bible, there are related acts of such a character; that are not only not condemned, but the parties thereto receive the blessing and bountifulness of God.
We will proceed to relate a story of such a despicable nature. I quote Genesis, Chapter 12, Verses 11-20.
11. And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
12. Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
13. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
14. And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
15. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
16. And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
17. And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues, because of Sarai, Abram's wife.
18. And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
19. Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
20. And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
Now in the character of Abram we have a man who has been extolled for centuries throughout the world as the product of the finest and best in life. Particularly one whose services in behalf of the Lord should be followed by every one. It was Abram, remember, who received the Covenant from God. And his fame is similar to that of our own George Washington, because he is considered the "Father of the Jewish People." But let me ask: Would you under the pretext of saving yourself, force your wife whom you love, to commit an act of prostitution in order that you might secure safe passage in your travels from one country to another?
Sarai's desires and rights in the matter were of no concern, as long as Abram was sure of protection and free of molestation. We cannot take into consideration, in this narrative, the childish element of God in this transaction, unless we also make him a party to the deal; a deal in which a man's wife is of so little value that he readily consented to have her submit to the embraces of other men in order that he himself might escape harm.
There is no doubt that Sarai performed her part of the bargain with full value, as Pharaoh "entreated Abram well for her sake." It seems in this pretty piece of business sagacity that our sympathies should be with Pharaoh, and our condemnation and contempt for Abram, the Lord notwithstanding to the contrary. Pharaoh distinctly tells Abram, after he has learned the truth, that if he had known that Sarai was Abram's wife, he would not have committed his adulterous act.
Pharaoh should be our model in this story instead of this gentleman whom we are pleased to call the "Father of the Jewish People." Is it from stories like this that our daughters are to receive their impressions and examples of virtue?
Is this the story that the prospective wife is to have before her as an example when she marries the man of her choice; especially, if she is a devout believer in the holiness and sacredness of every word that the Bible contains? Must she picture to herself, when in such a circumstance as related above, that her husband will surrender her to the lust of a stranger so that he may remain unharmed and unhurt? Or, rather, should she select a man as her mate, who follows the example of one who will at all times and under all circumstances protect her first and defend himself afterwards -- one who will lay down his life for her safety?
Further comment upon this story, is, I believe, unnecessary as it speaks its own foul lesson better than anything else could. But we are not finished with this model pair of the Bible, and I must give you another glimpse of their code of morals. One would think that the above story would be sufficient to make any one couple notorious, but the Bible-makers thought additional information of their intimate life would be elevating. And so I quote, Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 1-2.
Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bare him no children: and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Rather a nice compromising situation; a particularly desirable one for a profligate husband; also a particularly liberal and obliging wife. Can you picture the situation as related above? Sarai tells Abram, "I pray thee, go in unto my maid," and the Bible assures us there was no hesitation on the part of Abram as he "hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
To-day the conditions seem to be the reverse. When a wife discovers that her husband is getting a bit too familiar with the maid, she generally consults her lawyer regarding a divorce, and quite a number of divorces have been granted where the maid has been mentioned as the corespondent. But there is more to follow and so we continue.
Genesis, Chapter 16 Verses 3-5.
3. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
5. And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee.
Certainly here is a situation where an appeal to the law seems the only solution. What jealousy arises in a woman's breast under such circumstances I do not know; yet it does seem but natural that when a mistress forces her servant to co-habit with her husband, and when this cohabitation results in a pregnancy, surely the servant is justified in demanding that her mistress's husband give her all the protection that a woman in her condition deserves.
That Hagar should feel contempt for Sarai in the transaction I think is but natural. Well might any one feel contempt for such a woman, especially after she appeals to the Lord to judge between her and her husband. At first thought you might suppose that Sarai was laying a trap for Abram in order that she might secure a divorce from him, assuming that the same laws concerning divorce prevailed at that time as they now do in the State of New York, but that was not her purpose, as the following indicates:
Genesis, Chapter 16, Verse 6.
6. But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
Of all the relationships between a man and a woman the most contemptible is that when the man refuses to protect the woman who will soon be the mother of a child of which he is the father. Sickening beyond expression is the character of a man, who, after performing the act that he did, and under the circumstances, should put the blame and the responsibility upon his wife. True, we hold neither of them in high estimation, but under all such circumstances let us at least favor the weaker of the two. We have seen the character of Abram manifested in his relation with Pharaoh and quite naturally expect him to shirk his responsibility whenever he can. That he was an adept in "hiding behind a woman's skirt" no one can deny. It has just occurred to me to inquire how many men to-day would stoop to the degradation that has so far been related about this leading Patriarch of early Biblical times. Poor Hagar is banished from the house and her only refuge is the wilderness. The Lord steps in at this point, and let us see what his intercession brings to the poor woman.
Genesis, Chapter 16, Verses 7-12.
7. And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him: and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Enough from this chapter concerning the duplicity of Sarai and the culpability of Abram. What would we say to-day were such an example as theirs to be given to the world by our leading men and women? To-day we admire the very opposite of that which makes up the married life of this infamous couple.
Once more in the life of Abram and Sarai does Abram permit Sarai to submit to the embrace of other men for compensation and to save his miserable self. It appears that he made a business of the scheme, and from reports, shared very profitably after each transaction. One quotation of such a degrading act, I think, is sufficient for us at this time, but for the benefit of those who would like to become more fully acquainted with the life of this "Holy" pair, I advise them to read Genesis, Chapter 20. We all know what happened to Hagar for taking the "good advice" of the Lord and returning to her mistress. Both Sarai and Abram cast her out of the house and again into the wilderness with her child. Judging from this instance, the Lord's advice is not a very good thing to follow.
The blessing the Lord gave Hagar when his angel finds her in "her affliction" and "with child" was not very comforting to her either, for verse 12 says her son "will be a wild man; and his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him."
But on to the next story that bears a close relationship and resemblance to this one.
Notes
* 1. Quoted from Upton Sinclair's "Profits of Religion," page 119.
* 2. Buckle, "History of Civilization in England," vol. III, pages 265 to 276.
* 3. In using the word "filth" in reference to the Biblical narratives, I wish it understood that its use is intended to reflect the same thought that would be expressed by the religious-minded in judging the literature of sex as found in books other than the Bible.
* 4. The Bible used as reference in this work is the King James version, published by the American Bible Society. "Its sole object," says the printed statement of the society, "is to encourage the wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment." It also boasts of having issued over 158,000,000 volumes during its existence.
Laura:
Chapter II.
Isaac, The Son of Abram,
And His Wife Rebekah.
"Like Father, like son" -- "a chip of the old block," so to speak, seems to have been the case of Isaac, the son of Abram. Since the Lord so favored Abram for the life he led, it is no wonder that Isaac "followed his father's footsteps." For we find this gallant specimen of the early Jewish Fathers ready to do the same degrading and despicable act with his "fair to look upon" wife, Rebekah, as his father Abram did to his mother Sarai. No complaint here for lack of filial devotion. He ran "true to form" as the saying goes.
For proof I quote Genesis, Chapter 26, Verses 1-7.
And there was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2. And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt: dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of.
3. Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee: for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed:
5. Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
6. And Isaac dwelt in Gerar.
7. And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.
Besides Isaac inheriting his father's tendencies and following in his footsteps, he also inherited his father's ability to select pretty women. Rebekah was as "fair to look upon" as was Sarai, and it seems that both women were so fascinating that wherever they went other men coveted them. Isaac, as well as Abraham,[5] was ready and willing to prostitute his wife for protection to himself.
Genesis, Chapter 26, Verses 8-11.
8. And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.
9. And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her.
10. And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lain with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.
11. And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wile shall surely be put to death.
In Biblical times there was less occasion for the ingenuity of "peeping Toms." Houses were not built as they are to-day. Provisions for privacy were somewhat lacking. Windows and window shades were luxuries that were to be enjoyed at a much later and Pagan period.
Despite the fact that Isaac "deceived" King Abimelech as to the true relationship of Rebekah, the King nevertheless must have found it quite amusing to watch Isaac sporting with her. Abimelech significantly remarks: "Of a surety she is thy wife." What sport could a man and woman "play" so that another person can "for a surety" classify them as man and wife? The word "sporting" as used in this connection cannot fail of its intended meaning.
What a fine situation does this pretty story present to put before an inquiring and inquisitive child! Fond Parents, suppose you had taught your child to revere the Bible, and your child, being dutiful. read it for "inspiration and guidance." Suppose he chanced upon this delightful story, and being unable to grasp the subtle meaning of the word sporting as used in this connection, came to you for an explanation? What answer would you give your child? Would you deliberately lie to him and say that they were kissing each other; or would you more properly caution your child against reading a book which contained a story with such an inference. Wouldn't you consider a book that contained such a suggestive narrative utterly unfit for your child's reading?
Or is it that you yourselves are totally ignorant of what the Bible contains, and, like the rest of mankind, accept it because it has been handed down from generation to generation?
Any one who has the Bible in his home has a very questionable book in his household, and he should not be dismayed if any of his children follow the examples that are found therein.
But back to the Biblical characters for a moment, and let us engage this moment in reflection. There has been a great misunderstanding about the Bible. Instead of admiring and exalting the characters we are told to revere, we should admire and exalt the characters we are told were heathens.
Is not in this story the character of Abimelech more sterling and elevating than that of Isaac? Does he not chide Isaac for deception when he discovers that Rebekah is his wife and not his sister? Does he not censure him for the great harm he might have brought upon her? Should we admire a man who is willing to sacrifice his wife to save himself and condemn another who seeks to protect her? The ninth and tenth verses quoted in this story should be blazoned forth to all the land as an example of an unprincipled character in contrast to that of a man of sterling integrity. The severe reprimand given Isaac by Abimelech when he said: 'What is this thou has done unto us? One of the people might lightly have lain with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us," is sufficient condemnation by Biblical testimony alone for his act.
To the fair daughters of the land, I advise them before they take a man as a husband to make sure that he does not believe too literally in the morality of the Bible, and that his attitude towards woman be of a different hue than that of the character which the religious element of the community have admonished us to follow so implicitly.
The preacher finds profit and interest in telling you about the little farce of Abraham offering this precious son, Isaac, as a sacrifice to the Lord, but they don't tell you how this same son, whom the Lord so opportunely saved, was willing to offer his wife to the lust of another without the Lord even giving it a "second thought."
I wonder where the Lord was, while this interesting scene, which Abimelech observed, was taking place. Was he also enjoying the sight of watching Isaac sporting with Rebekah?
We will now proceed to the next divinely inspired story. In this story the very lowest ebb of moral degradation is reached. To think that a book held so sacred should contain such a narrative is almost beyond comprehension.
This story, taken from the book that is supposed to be our infallible guide in all the relations of life, is really beneath contempt. But it is so necessary and essential that the world know exactly what the Bible contains that I will quote the vital parts of it to you. Comment upon this story will not be necessary, as it is one of those narratives which tell in no uncertain terms their own story and worth. If this story were told with some degree of polish or merit, we might value it for its literary worth, but it is so miserable, both in its literary style and in its plot, that it is even unfit to dwell upon except to expose its degrading lesson.
Laura:
Chapter III.
Incest or Lot and His Daughters.
That ministers and "messengers of the Lord" have always enjoyed privileges denied to others is a fact, despite the fact that this fact is a paradox. That "holy men," men who know least about what they pretend to know, should take precedence over the rest of mankind is an incongruity. And it is because of two such "holy men" that a father, and incidentally a grand Patriarch of the Bible, offers his daughters upon the alter of lust.
But the Bible can tell its own story best and so I quote Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 1-7.
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2. And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7. And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Being unable to satisfy the men of Sodom by persuasion, and rather than surrender these two precious "angels" to them, Lot resorted to a method which very seldom fails with "unreasonable" men. When an appeal to their manhood is of no avail many women seek death rather than suffer the embrace of their attacker, and we admire women with such courage, but that is not according to Biblical standard. This is the method the Bible advises us to pursue.
Genesis, Chapter 19, Verse 8.
8. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
An elevating situation is this! Here is a father willing to give his two virgin daughters to an angry mob of men to "do ye to them as is good in your eyes," which simply means to rape them, provided they do not harm the two angels of the Lord.
It is important for parents who are so concerned about the moral life of their children and whose interests they have so much at heart -- especially their daughters -- to consider well this story. If parents who are believers in the Bible are concerned about the places of amusement and companions of their children, they should consider this story when they admonish them to read the Bible for guidance.
What father would follow the example of this "man of God" who, when the exigency of the circumstances just related arose, offered his daughters to be so sacrificed? I do not know what you think of a father who would give his two virgin daughters to the lust of an angry mob of men to protect two angels of the Lord, but my love of liberty deters me from telling you what I think of him.
The story continues in the Bible with God having saved Lot and his family and bringing destruction upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, for their wickedness. As we are not concerned with that element of the Bible at the present time it is needless to dwell upon the puerility of the narrative chronicling this event. But I do not think I will digress too far when I call your attention for a moment to the justice of God in saving and blessing a man of Lot's unprincipled character, after he had offered his two daughters upon the altar of lust.
After God had rained "fire and brimstone" upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and had destroyed all the inhabitants and "all that grew upon the ground," we find Lot with his wife and two daughters safe beyond the limits of destruction. We are all acquainted with what happened to Lot's wife because she desired to see what happened. I am sure we all would have done the same thing under the circumstances. It is a natural impulse, and one of the strongest of our nature. With only Lot and his two daughters left of all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, whom you will remember God destroyed for their wickedness, let us follow closely the action of their lives and see what a beneficent example and legacy of morality they left the world. Let us also weigh in the balance God's judgment in making this selection. We now come to the most important phase of this story, and if you are ready to read the details of an incestuous union between father and daughter, read attentively what is to follow.
I am quoting from the Holy Bible, Genesis, Chapter 19, Verses 30-38.
30. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
My vocabulary fails me in trying to comment properly upon this story. Just think of it! A father committing the sexual act with his own daughters and so drunk that "he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose!"
Is it possible that people really grasp the significance of this story? Are they aware of its gross debauchery? Can the minute details of this story be read without bringing a blush of shame to the cheeks of the reader?
Just a word to parents about this "Holy Book of God." What would you fathers and mothers say if your daughter should read the Bible and come and tell you, in detail, of this revolting episode? It is needless to ask what you would do if she brought home another book in which a story of this kind appeared. You would admonish her never to pollute her mind with such filth. If that would be your action with a book of any other title than that of "Holy Bible," to what depths of superstition have you sunk that you are so blind to its degrading influence?
Wake up, well-meaning parents, and become conscious of the obscenity to be found in this unwholesome book. A whole volume could be written about this story of Lot and his daughters, but at present we are only concerned with the act of incest.
This story of Lot and his daughters does not even contain a moral. The father to-day who is guilty of such an act is sent to prison. If he were so drunk that "he did not know when she lay down nor when she arose," it would be so much the worse for him.
This story of the Bible is too revolting to dwell upon longer except once more to impress forcibly upon you the "high elevating moral standard of its pages." I ask, is it possible for a person to read such a story, and then tell the innocent children of the race to read the Bible for moral inspiration and guidance? A story in which the very name of father is slandered, and where the pure blossom of womanhood is pictured in this degenerate manner.
Laura:
Chapter IV.
Jacob, Leah and Rachel.
Integrity and faithfulness are two virtues which we cherish above all others. Deception is abhorred, no matter in what condition, or by whom it is practiced. But since Jacob is a Patriarch of the Bible and one of God's favorites, deception when practiced by him is excusable. Pardonable also is the prostitutional bickering between two wives when related in the Bible. Were such a scene to be found in any other book it would very properly be called vulgar and judged too coarse for cultural reading.
The story goes that Jacob came unto the house of Laban, who had two daughters. Leah, tender eyed, was the elder; but Rachel, the younger, was beautiful and well favoured. But let the story be told as the Bible records it.
I quote Genesis, Chapter 29, Verses 15-20.
15. And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?
16. And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17. Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18. And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19. And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20. And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.
Now so much for the bargain. Jacob served seven years for the girl he loved. Surely such a servitude is well deserving of payment. Since there was no pretense made as to why Jacob wanted Rachel as his wife, I will quote it here.
Genesis, Chapter 29, Verse 21.
21. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
It is needless to mention here the almost irrepressible desire to embrace his wife that obsesses a man on his wedding night, particularly when he has waited seven years to win the object of his love. But since the Bible has led us so far into the story we will let it continue with the narrative:
Genesis, Chapter 29, Verses 22-24.
22. And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
23. And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
24. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for a handmaid.
Since Leah and Rachel were not twins and since their descriptions, as Biblically described, were such as to unhesitatingly distinguish one from the other, Jacob must have been blinded by passion not to have seen that the daughter given him by Laban was not the one he had bargained for. Nevertheless, "he went in unto her," and only discovered his mistake the following morning; no doubt when the light of day shone upon her.
But back to our story, and see what happens when Jacob discovers that the woman he lay with the night before was not the one for whom he had labored seven years and was to receive as his share of the bargain. His choice was Rachel, "the beautiful and well favoured." The deception of Laban is not of interest to us at this time. Since it is Jacob's concern we will let him speak for himself.
Genesis, Chapter 29, Verse 25.
25. And it came to pass that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
No one can deny the fact that Jacob was perfectly justified in his complaint. For a mere pittance of another seven years of labor Laban gives Jacob, after a week's work as a bond of good faith, the daughter of his choice. But since the Bible can tell this detail of the matter better than I can, I will give way to it.
Genesis, Chapter 29, Verses 26-30.
26. And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.
27. Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
29. And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.
30. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
And now the Lord enters into this family affair, not to help the situation, as one would expect from an omniscient being, but to bring his curses with him.
Genesis, Chapter 29, Verse 31.
31. And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.
The fecundity of Leah, after the Lord "opened her womb," is surely worth recording and it follows.
Genesis, Chapter 29, Verses 32-35.
32. And Leah conceived, and bare a son; and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
33. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.
34. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi.
35. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she said, Now will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing.
Unfortunately, because of Leah's fecundity, Rachel becomes jealous of her sister and demands of Jacob that she, too, bear him a child. Jacob chides her for demanding of him that which he would be only too willing to give, but the fault lies with her. As fecund as was her sister so sterile was she. But a peculiar method is pursued by the Biblical female characters when they find themselves unable to bear children. This method prevailed in the household of Abram and Sarai and I see no reason why it should not be permissible in the polygamous household of Jacob, Leah and Rachel.
Genesis, Chapter 30, Verses 1-4.
And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.
2. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel; and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?
3. And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.
4. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.
Like Abraham, Jacob lost no time in complying with the wishes of Rachel to "go in unto" Bilhah, her handmaid. What an accommodating arrangement must have prevailed for the Biblical men of old. No wonder we have agitations to go "Back to Methuselah."
But to record the progeny of Jacob we continue to quote
Genesis, Chapter 30, Verses 5-8.
5. And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.
6. And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.
7. And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.
8. And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali.
That must have been a spectacular wrestling match between Leah and Rachel. But Leah was not to be outdone, and when she could no longer bear children, gives Jacob Zilpah, her handmaid, to continue the race in her desperation to overcome the comeliness of her sister.
Genesis, Chapter 30, Verses 9-13.
9. When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.
10. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son.
11. And Leah said, A troop cometh: and she called his name Gad.
12. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a second son.
13. And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.
In the 11th verse just mentioned I believe there must be a mistake regarding the number of children Zilpah, Leah's maid, bore at this time. To quote: "And Leah said, A troop cometh; and she called his name Gad." Judging from the word "troop" I was led to believe that she was to bear twins or triplets, but again, I suppose I must confess my lack of spiritual understanding.
A situation which I believe quite unparalleled in the literature of the land and sufficient unto itself without further comment, follows.
Genesis, Chapter 30, Verses 14-16.
14. And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes.
15. And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes.
16. And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.
For a sister to bribe a sister with the sweat of her son's labor for the privilege of sexual intercourse with her own husband is too coarse an act of prostitution for me to comment upon further. Can you find in any book other than the Bible such a despicable bargaining?
"And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son's mandrakes.
"And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes." And the Bible does not hesitate to say that "he lay with her that night!"
To dwell upon the degrading custom of polygamy as was practiced in the early Biblical days is not exactly within the scope of this work, and for that reason I will leave unmentioned some of the recorded instances of this condemned institution.
I cannot understand how public men, men of learning and experience, can insist that the Bible, which contains the stories quoted that shock even the vulgar-minded, should be our pre-eminent guide in all earthly affairs, and that it should not only be read by, but actually taught to the growing generation in search of high moral ethics.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version