The Bible Unmasked

Chapter XIV.

The New Testament.

The Old Testament is so-called because it is supposed to contain the first "Will" of God. And by the word "Will" is meant the same instrument that a person executes to dispose of his possessions after his death.

The believers in the Bible do not think God is dead, although a great many people feel sure that "he" does not exist. The Bible believers insist that God gave that book to the human race to be their guide in all earthly matters; and that it contains the sum-total of all there is to know; the infallible code of morals by which all should live their lives, and the secret for the preservation of their souls after death. For hundreds of years the "blood of the innocents" has been spilled to maintain this belief.

The New Testament is supposed to be the "last will and testament" of God. Just as a person may make a will and after a number of years decide to change some of his bequests, and executes another, so God, according to the Christian believer, elaborated upon his original covenant.

The Jews do not accept this "last will and testament" of God, and therefore reject it as being unworthy of consideration. The Jews believe the Messiah is yet to come, and that his appearance will be signalized by his riding upon the back of an ass.[9] Their attitude is very similar to the actions of people who refuse to accept the "last will and testament" of some of their relatives when it deprives them of bequests which were stipulated in a previous covenant.

It does seem a bit irregular that the Jews, being God's "Chosen People," should not welcome the issuance of a "second will"; and yet if God found another upon whom to place his affection, it is quite natural that his chosen people would reject this "New Testament" and maintain that it is not a true will; that it is fraudulent; that it was written under duress, and question the maker's mental capabilities at the time of its writing.

As the situation stands to-day, the difference of opinion regarding these two testaments of God has caused more sorrow, bloodshed, harm, devilment, misery and devastation than any other single item in the life and history of the human race. It would have been a thousand, thousand times better had God not made, as the legal phraseology terms it, this codicil. Like a dissatisfied heir, the human race might well say to God: "If the Bible is the best you can give us, we don't want it. We would be better off without it."

Can you imagine the puerility of showing to a distinguished visitor from another planet, called here by some marvelous instrumentality like the radio, the Bible as our greatest legacy in life?

As we did not have to go very far into the pages of the Old Testament to encounter stories which shocked our moral sense, so early in the pages of the New Testament we find stories of an equally objectionable nature.

Before proceeding with a review of the birth of Christ as recorded in the New Testament, it might be said in justice to those who are so deluded as to actually believe that Christ was begotten in a miraculous way and is the "Son of God," the truth of the matter cannot be overlooked because of their convictions and feelings. A great many people believe a great many impossible things that must nevertheless be analyzed and publicly ridiculed in order to bring these people to their senses.

How true are the words of Mark Twain, when he says: "Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -- weaken it a little, century after century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."[10]

I have often remarked, that if the Bible said that Moses stood on his eye-lid while God wrote the Ten Commandments with an in-growing toenail, the credulous would find no difficulty in believing it. And why should they? If it is a question of belief and faith what difference does its improbability make? I have read Mark Twain's "War Prayer" with all the solemnity of a preacher reading the Ten Commandments, to a number of devout Christians, and each and every one expressed the deepest feeling and admiration for it, and yet Mark Twain's "War Prayer" is as fine a bit of satire as there is in the English language, and well worthy of the pen of the great Voltaire. Mighty are the possibilities of faith!

It is truly a terrible thing, as Ingersoll says, to take away the consolation that naturally arises from a belief in eternal fire, but it is a holy joy to apply a little of this eternal fire to the body of a Bruno for his devilment in trying to rob the people of this great consolation.

When Columbus maintained that the earth was round, he was denounced and characterized as crazy, and when he set out on his memorable voyage to find a new way to India, and incidentally discovered the New World, the superstitious fell upon their knees and prayed their God to save him from the horrible destruction of falling into an eternal abyss. Was Columbus crazy or were the religious believers sufferers of insanity?

Galileo put a crude telescope to the sky and discovered our true relation to the universe, and proved the earth's rotation 'round the Sun. For his discovery of this great truth and his achievements in the scientific realm, what did these preservers of the faith and believers in the great consolation of eternal fire do to this great and grand benefactor of man? Let me quote the words of Professor John W. Draper:[11]

"He was declared to have brought upon himself the penalties of heresy. On his knees, with his hand on the Bible, he was compelled to adjure and curse the doctrine of the movement of the earth. What a spectacle. This venerable man, the most illustrious of his age, forced by the threat of death to deny facts which his judges as well as himself knew to be true! He was then committed to prison, treated with remorseless severity during the remaining ten years of his life, and was denied burial in consecrated ground. Must not that be false which requires for its support so much imposture, so much barbarity? The opinions thus defended by the Inquisition are now objects of derision of the whole civilized world."

Instances and examples could be given to fill an entire volume, where the progress of the world has been maintained only in the face of the most stubborn opposition from the religious believers who set up the cry that their faith is being destroyed. Even upon the invention of the airplane, some ministers denounced its success as being impious, as man had no right to enter into "God's domain"!

The Bible has been flaunted into the face of every forward and progressive step of the human race and had it continued successfully we would still be following the leadership of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and living in constant fear of the damnation and hell fire of Jesus Christ. Slavery, polygamy, drudgery and ignorance would still be our lot, and the Dark Ages would be something that only the future could refer to.

A believer in Spiritualism finds its doctrines and fraudulent manifestations just as sacred as does a believer in the Divinity of Christ. The "consolation" arising from a belief in Spiritualism is not a deterrent to its exposure. Preying upon the tender feelings and ignorance of a person is a crime even if the delusion of the victim is complete. And as Spiritualism is unmercifully attacked and exposed because of its deception and falseness, so must the Divinity of Christ suffer the same fate because of its monumental humbuggery and fraud. The ignorant and the superstitious must give way to the intelligent. Fraud and falsehood, no matter how "sacred," must be replaced by fact and truth. As fraud in spiritualist manifestations is punishable by law, so should the deception of Christianity and its fraudulent promises be subject to the same rule and penalty.

It has been said of Thomas Paine that "he had no love for old mistakes nor admiration for ancient lies," and to that great man's leadership, I whole-heartedly subscribe.

Chapter XV.

The Virgin Birth, or Mary,
The Holy Ghost, Joseph and Jesus.

In a public debate with the Reverend Charles Francis Potter on the question of the "Virgin Birth of Christ," the Reverend John Roach Straton, before a crowded audience in Carnegie Hall[12] read the details of the birth of Christ as recorded in the book of St. Matthew of the New Testament.

In reading the description of the birth of Christ before this public gathering I maintain that the Reverend Mr. Straton insulted not only the moral sensibilities of the people who heard him, but also their mental sensibilities, when he exposed his monumental ignorance in accepting this narrative as the truth. I venture to say, if the Reverend John Roach Straton were to detail the birth of any other person in the same language which was used relative to Christ, his audience would have rebuked this insult in the unmistakable terms of hoots and hisses. No less a person than the Reverend John Haynes Holmes, in a public statement, has characterized this narrative as obscene.

From the pulpit of Calvary Baptist Church, of which Reverend John Roach Straton is pastor, the Reverend W. L. Pettingill, as reported in the New York Sun of December 4, 1923, said this:
"Only those who believe in Christ as God, in His Virgin Birth and in His Resurrection in the body -- the irreducible minimum of the Christian faith -- will go to heaven. Those who deny any or all of these tenets will be lost -- they will go to hell."

"We have got to smoke them out," cried the reverend, and when he made this last statement I suppose he forgot for the moment that he was not living in the days when thousands suffered death by fire and fagot for denying the very things that he now demands that we all accept. If the ecclesiastical arm were as strong now as it was then, how sweet would the "smoke" of my flesh be to the nostrils of the Reverend Mr. Pettingill. What this reverend gentleman said further particularly interests us at this moment.
"These things do not permit of interpretation. There is no altering the words written. Either the Virgin Birth is truth, or two things must be -- the Bible must be false in regard to this or Jesus of Nazareth was a bastard. Either Jesus was God or a hideous impostor." [Italics Mine.]

I reject the Virgin Birth as Biblically related, Reverend Mr. Pettingill, and accept the alternative.

That Jesus was a hideous impostor has been conclusively proven by others. As we are not concerned with his imposture in this book, we cannot go into details of that element of his deception. We are concerned with his illegitimacy, and to that end we will continue; although in doing so I will be acting contrary to the attitude of a celebrated author, who, when asked during an address before the students of a prominent college what he thought of Christianity, replied: "I am not interested in Jewish family scandals."

I quote the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 18.
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The inference here is too plain for even a dullard not to understand. A young girl is betrothed to a young man. Mind you, not to a "holy ghost"; not to something intangible and unseen, but to a young man, virile and in possession of all his faculties. "Before they came together," which needs no elucidation, the girl was found to be "with child." Now the writer of this narrative was fully aware of the fact that before a child is born it is necessary for a man and a woman to "come together."

Laying aside the pertinency of a child asking an explanation of what is meant by "coming together," we see the necessary male adjunct of this union by the introduction of the Holy Ghost. In claiming that it was the Holy Ghost who cohabited with Mary and was the father of Jesus, Elbert Hubbard thought it was the greatest compliment ever paid to man.

I say this solemnly and with deep conviction: If all the acts of adultery and unfaithfulness could be blamed upon the Holy Ghost and accepted as such by the injured party, a great deal of misery and sorrow of the world would be avoided. Men are so jealous of their loved ones, that if they find them liberal even with their glances and smiles to other men, a situation hard to overcome presents itself. What, I pray you, would be the result of the situation in which we find Mary, the espoused of Joseph and mother of Jesus? I am sure the Holy Ghost story would not hold water. I am sure the young man would say: "If you are unfaithful to me before we are married, what can I expect after we are wedded?" I am inclined to think the young man would say that he was "finished with her" and would demand the return of his diamond ring. More than one proposed marriage has been broken for a far less cause than that of finding the espoused "with child."

Men are very adverse to supporting other men's children. As each man, in a situation of this kind, is a law unto himself, we will proceed with the story as it concerns Joseph.

St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 19.
19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Bully for Joseph! His act is commendable. Surely worthy of our praise. But why "put her away privily"? And why was he not willing "to make her a public example"? Why was he not jubilant that God complimented him to such an extent that he chose his sweetheart to bear his son and Savior of the world?

It is quite evident from the narrative that Joseph bore a great love for Mary and was willing to marry her despite the fact that she had slipped from the path of virtue even after her betrothal to him.

That some sly and smooth-tongued seducer was responsible for Mary's plight cannot be denied. A super Don Juan he must have been to be able to entice a girl already pledged to another to suffer his embrace.

And although it is claimed by some that Pandora, a "good for nothing" neighbor, was responsible for Mary's condition, the time is far too distant for the production of any credible evidence regarding the notorious affair, as evidence in such cases is considered the most difficult to secure. "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily," is sufficient evidence alone to brand Mary's condition with the stamp of unfaithfulness.

No doubt the parents of Mary, to avoid having a public scandal and to check the vile tongue of Mrs. Grundy, pleaded with Joseph to take Mary to a place where they were unknown until after the delivery of the child. Such a thing is done now, and there is no reason to suppose that it wasn't done then. No doubt Mary herself was anxious to repent, and in her pleadings with Joseph must have promised him -- faithfully -- that she would never again stray from the path of virtue and rectitude. Joseph evidently believed with Shakespeare, "that love is not love that alters when it alteration finds," and so he overlooked the slight "alteration" he found in Mary. If the angel of the Lord could tell Joseph about the Holy Ghost, he could surely inform him what Shakespeare was to write more than 1,500 years hence!

But despite his great love for Mary and despite her "slight alteration" Joseph began to have his doubts about the Holy Ghost version of her condition as the narrative continues.

St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verse 20.
20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

One thing the above quotation proves. It proves that Joseph did not believe that the child conceived by Mary was of the Holy Ghost. Joseph gave the matter serious consideration.

And if Joseph, who was on the scene and acquainted with all the facts of the deed, did not believe the "ghost story" how can you expect us, after nearly two thousand years have elapsed, to accept it as a verity? As for having the truth revealed to him in a dream by an angel, that is too laughable for mention. Truly that is "such stuff as dreams are made of."

That the story of Christ and his so-called virgin birth is a pure fabrication and myth, and was invented by the deluded and superstitious believers of that time, is attested to by the following verses of the narrative. It was an attempt on the part of some to "contest or reinterpret" the "first will" or Old Testament, in an endeavor that they might become the favored ones of God. The text proves unequivocally that it was not the miraculous birth of Christ that was of so much concern; the supreme importance was the fulfillment of the so-called prophecy that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son"; as the following text proves.

St. Matthew, Chapter 1, Verses 21-25.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It is unnecessary for me to show the falsity of the prophecy, "now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying:

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which being interpreted is, God with us," because Thomas Paine has so admirably unmasked this monstrous lie, I am going to quote his version of it from his celebrated "Age of Reason."[13]
"Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," Isaiah, chap. vii. ver. 14, has been interpreted to mean the person called Jesus Christ, and his mother Mary, and has been echoed through Christendom for more than a thousand years; and such has been the rage of this opinion that scarcely a spot in it but has been stained with blood, and marked with desolation in consequence of it. Though it is not my intention to enter into controversy on subjects of this kind, but to confine myself to show that the Bible is spurious, and thus, by taking away the foundation, to overthrow at once the whole structure of superstition raised thereon, I will, however, stop a moment to expose the fallacious application of this passage.

Whether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah, to whom this passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only to show the misapplication of the passage, and that it has no more reference to Christ and his mother than it has to me and my mother. The story is simply this: The king of Syria and the king of Israel, (I have already mentioned that the Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel), made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies toward Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says, verse 2, "And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind."

In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign. This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing, giving as a reason that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son"; and the 16th verse says, "For before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest, (or dreadest, meaning Syria and the kingdom of Israel) shall be forsaken of both her kings." Here then was the sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or promise, namely, before this child should know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him, in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet and the consequence thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find a girl with child, or to make her so, and perhaps Isaiah knew of one beforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any more to be trusted than the priests of this. Be that, however, as it may, he says in the next chapter, ver. 2, "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son."

Here, then, is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child and this virgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this story, that the book of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid interests of priests in later times, have founded a theory which they call the Gospel; and have applied this story to signify the person they call Jesus Christ, begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a woman, engaged in marriage, and afterward married, whom they call a virgin, 700 years after this foolish story was told; a theory which, speaking for myself, I hesitate not to disbelieve, and to say, is as fabulous and as false as God is true.[*]

But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah, we have only to attend to the sequel of this story, which, though it is passed over in silence in the book of Isaiah, is related in the 28th chapter of the second Chronicles, and which is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had pretended to foretell in the name of the Lord, they succeeded; Ahaz was defeated and destroyed, a hundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered, Jerusalem was plundered, and two hundred thousand women, and sons and daughters, carried into captivity. Thus much for this lying prophet and imposter, Isaiah, and the book of falsehoods that bears his name.

* In the 14th verse of the 7th chapter, it is said that the child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given to either of the children otherwise than as a character which the word signifies. That of the prophetess was called Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and that of Mary was called Jesus.

I challenge every minister of Christianity to refute Thomas Paine's exposure of this all too monstrous lie and the most dastardly piece of imposition ever perpetrated upon the human race! I make no restrictions to this challenge. It includes every gentleman of the cloth of every church professing the Christian doctrine.

Prove Thomas Paine false or cease your hypocrisy with its unholy gain!
Chapter XVI

The Birth of Jesus Christ
According to
The Gospel of St. Luke

Perhaps the birth of Christ as related by St. Matthew was not minute and conclusive enough as to the details of the sexual act and so we turn to the Gospel of St. Luke to supply this most interesting account.

As we have already reviewed cases of unfaithfulness, incest, polygamy, prostitution, rape, adultery, child by whoredom, and almost every phase of immorality known to man, it will not, I am sure, be inappropriate to continue with this version of the birth of Christ.

I quote The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verses 26-28.
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

One difference already noted between the narrative of St. Matthew and St. Luke regarding Mary and the conception of her child, is that in St. Matthew it is the Holy Ghost who is responsible for her pregnant condition and in St. Luke the angel Gabriel is mentioned. And although here is a distinct contradiction between the two accounts, the designation of the character by different names responsible for the condition makes very little real difference. What we are concerned with is the fact that it was someone else than the man she had promised to wed.

We have read of angels "whispering" to a person, but we have never heard of an instance where "the angel came in unto her." And the word Angel is equally appropriate as that of the Holy Ghost.

The Gospel according to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 29.
29. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

Ah! We have the secret direct from the Bible. Let me repeat the above quotation to bring its full significance to you. "And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be." I wonder what this he angel proposed to Mary that made her "cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be"? Is it possible that she was innocent of the relationship he proposed, or was she simply amazed at his daring and boldness? especially so, since she was already engaged to some one else and was mindful of her virginity. And what an altogether different story it would have been if God had sent a she angel to visit Mary! To my mind a woman is a nearer approach to an angel than a man could ever be.

No wonder the poor girl was troubled. She had a difficult problem on her hands. Although the Bible is not explicit in what this he angel said to Mary, we are not devoid of imagination; and so continue.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 30.
30. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

From this verse we glean the manner of pursuit and what the angel was after. "Fear not" is the pet phrase of the seducer. The angel's courting has not been in vain. Victory has been achieved. Similar action to that of Mary is taking place, at this very moment, throughout the world. Seduction, unfortunately, is still too commonly prevalent. Is it possible that the angel "doped" Mary as sometimes happens in cases of this kind and when she "awoke" she was unaware of what had transpired? For she says,

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 34.
34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

You see Mary was aware of the fact that without a man's help she could not have a child. Where Mary received her sex education I do not know; perhaps from the story of Tamar and Judah? And so we continue with the unusual story of the intercourse of an angel with a maid.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 31.
31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Yes, the deed is done. The angel has satisfied his desire. The prophecy is well founded. As truly "prophetic" as Isaiah and his subsequent action. Although any potent man could accomplish the same result. For more of this kind of "literature" continue the narrative as it consecutively appears in the Bible.

But it occurs to me that if Jesus was to be immaculately conceived, and God was to be his father, he should have chosen a different place of incubation than that of a woman's womb. It is in the womb that all of us mortals are conceived and the Bible's own testimony regarding this birth is rather disconcerting to those devout believers in the miraculous birth of Christ. If there were to be a really and truly miraculous birth, conception should have taken place in the ear, or arm, or leg, but in the womb -- never!

It is quite probable that a story like the one just related, detailed in any other book than the Bible, would be construed as being of a highly spicy tone and condemned as being vicious in its moral conclusion. Surely, Mary would be looked upon as a girl whose character was not worthy of emulation. Her actions indicate that a knowledge of sex would have been very helpful, because her ignorance was certainly not bliss. I wish for the moment to speak to the fathers and mothers of young girls; particularly those of the Christian faith. What would you say if your daughter came and told you that she was "with child by an angel"? What would the young man to whom she was engaged in marriage say about her condition? I am sure you would immediately make a thorough search for this angel and bring him to account. In certain parts of this country, this angel, if caught, would not be given much of an opportunity to explain himself. And if he said that he was "an angel of the Lord" you know how much weight that would have.

And now you parents, you who are so anxious about the welfare of your daughter, and so mindful of her amusements and companions; if your daughter were reading a book, whose plot corresponded to the story of Mary, would you not admonish her that such a book was unfit to be read, that its example was vicious and detrimental, and that "nothing good" can come from such stories? Wouldn't you make an effort to discourage her interest in such literature? By what rule, then, does a story which is suggestive in any other book, become of high moral value when it is found in the Bible?

Now let me say a word about the moral import of this narrative. It is of the grossest obscenity. It poisons the minds of children not only to the vital facts of biological science, but even prejudices the minds of adults to these vital facts. Would you think of reading this story to your children for the purpose of drawing a moral lesson? What moral principle can be inculcated from this narrative? Is it the seduction of Mary and the illegitimacy of Christ?

Chapter XVII.

Elisabeth, the Cousin of Mary,
Zacharias and the Angel Gabriel

It is generally true, that when a thief visits a community, more than one person suffers a loss before the thief is caught. The same can be said of impostors who prey upon others for existence; seldom do they stop with one victim. And it is equally true that the seducer rarely dishonors one woman only. Since the Bible would not be conclusive and complete without a story of seduction, we will proceed with the next narrative.

What impresses us in that which is to follow, is not so much the seduction of a woman -- this we recorded in the previous chapter -- as the fact that one woman was not sufficient to satisfy the desires of God! His "holy ghost" and "angel" sought and consummated intimate relations with two women; and curiously, these women were closely related, being by blood first cousins -- peculiarly a family affair. Why these two women were especially selected is not revealed. For very strangely one was a virgin and the other a married woman "well stricken in years," who presumably had passed her menopause, but whom, like Cleopatra, evidently "age cannot wither, nor time stale her infinite variety."

One thing is certain, Elisabeth's age did not dampen the ardor of this potent male -- this profligate and seducing angel.

I cannot say for certain that it was the same angel of the Lord who was responsible for the impregnation of both Mary and Elisabeth, but as I have no conclusive evidence to the contrary, I think the circumstances are such as to lead one to believe that it was the one and the same angel. I have presumed to accept it as such.

If through the instrumentality of one angel God was unable to satisfy his desires, and chose to use two angels, then I stand subject to correction. One particular and pertinent difference, however, between the seduction of Mary and that of Elisabeth, is, that Mary was only betrothed in marriage, while Elisabeth was already bound by law and ceremony.

In the case of Mary, she still had time to change her mind as to who was to be her husband and the father of her child. This we all agree is the right and prerogative of every girl. If a young lady, while engaged to a young man, should meet another young man, whom she likes better and whom she thinks will make her a better husband and is better suited to be the father of her children, decides to change her mind, she should certainly be privileged to "break her engagement" and accept the man she prefers.

But in the case of Elisabeth, we are dealing with a lady already married. She had already pledged faithfulness, to the end of her days, to the man to whom she was married, and only by a divorce could she become free of her sacred pledge and marriage bond in order that she might, morally, have marital relations with another man.

We all admire constancy and loyalty. These two virtues are cherished by all. If a woman no longer finds favor in her husband; no longer finds the love she craves, the proper thing to do is to separate. The same rule applies to the husband. But to violate the pledge of loyalty while still married is abhorred the world over, and has ever been -- in every age and in every clime -- God, Angels and Holy Ghosts to the contrary, notwithstanding.

"Free love" may be a spiritual code, but as yet the human race has not voiced its approval of it.

As most marriages, after the legal formalities are complied with, are consummated by a religious ceremony, and the final oaths administered when the bride and groom, hand in hand, place them upon the Bible as a seal of divine approval to their union, let us look into the Bible for its code and instructions and examples of this sacred institution, truly this holy union -- Marriage.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verses 5-7.
5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

7. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren; and they both were now well stricken in years.

The significant thing in the above quotation is that both Zacharias and Elisabeth had kept inviolate their marriage vows. Never had either of them broken faith with the other. Their love and companionableness for each other prevailed throughout their lives and as "they both were now well stricken in years," would it not have been a glorious thing had the Bible revealed to us the secret or code by which they lived their lives, so that we poor mortals could fashion ours upon it? If Zacharias and Elisabeth knew the secret of a perfect union, why didn't the Bible reveal it to us? Oh! how precious that knowledge would be to the human race!

The Bible reveals a "secret" to us, but is it the secret we want revealed?

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verses 8-12.
8. And it came to pass, that, while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,

9. According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.

10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

11. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

12. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

Certainly the Angel could not have selected a better time or place to speak to Zacharias than at the temple where he was "laboring in behalf of the Lord."

"And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled and fear fell upon him."

It is quite apparent from the narrative that old Zacharias must have been familiar with this he angel's intentions. For why should a "servant of the Lord" fear a visit from "an angel of the Lord"? I should think he would be quite jubilant over the occasion.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verses 13-17.
13. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias; for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

16. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

17. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Here again is the pet phrase of the seducer. "Fear not, Zacharias -- thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son." But so far as I am able I can find no expressed desire on the part of either Zacharias or Elisabeth to have a son. And if we remember well the narrative, Zacharias was "well stricken in years" from which we are to infer that he was no longer able physically to perform the act necessary to make him a father.

Is there any wonder that old Zacharias was troubled by the visit of this he angel, especially when he was told to "fear not, thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son"?

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 18.
18. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

Surely this was a proper question. Zacharias knew full well that he was unable to bring about the condition this he angel predicted, and naturally inquired how the accomplishment would be effected.

"What a fool this old man is," this he angel must have cynically muttered to himself. But to old Zacharias, the Bible tells us, he said something quite different.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 19.
19. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Could a schoolboy miss the point? Why, I, Gabriel, am to perform this noble deed. Churchmen always surround themselves with the hypocrisy of being "messengers of the Lord," and in doing so they come pretty close to getting everything they want.

If this condition was to come about by the desire of God, why didn't he tell Zacharias about it himself without the necessity of an intermediary he angel? God spoke to Abraham and Moses and other Biblical characters, and I see no good reason why he shouldn't have spoken directly to Zacharias.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verse 20.
20. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Poor old Zacharias! What chance did he have with this passionate and robust he angel? No doubt he thought "discretion is the better part of valor" and kept his mouth shut while the seduction went merrily on.

What else could he do but remain dumb? Wouldn't such an encounter and such a threat make any old man speechless? And by the way, if Zacharias did not believe that this he angel was sent by God do you know of any reason why we should? Zacharias was acquainted with the gentleman and certainly he should have known who he was.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verses 21-23.
21. And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.

22. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple; for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.

23. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

So much for Zacharias, and now a word about his wife, Elisabeth. What was her attitude in the matter? In a way she was more concerned about the affair than her husband. She had to bear the child. Did she encourage the angel? Or did the angel see her first and did she tell him to tell Zacharias to keep his mouth shut, "until the day that these things shall be performed ... which shall be fulfilled in their season"?

And was old Zacharias speechless because he was warned by Elisabeth, as wives sometimes do, who carry on clandestine relations with other men? It is the consummation of "these things shall be performed" that interests us and so we continue.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 1, Verses 24-25.
24. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

25. Thus had the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

Yes, the deed is done, for we read, "after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months." Nothing startling about that, except the hiding. It was to be expected that she would conceive. The result is in proper sequence to the act. The marvel or miracle, if you wish, would have been had she not conceived after the sexual relation with a potent man. Everything normal and in order as far as I can determine, except perhaps, for the act of adultery on the part of Elisabeth, for we have Zacharias's own word that he could not do what "was fulfilled in their season."

Zacharias's own words, "for I am an old man" brands Elisabeth an adulteress. If Elisabeth was not guilty of faithlessness, why did she "hide herself five months"? It has been asked, and asked rightly: Whom was she hiding from? Certainly not from Zacharias, because he knew all about it. Did she hide herself, because the neighbors, knowing Zacharias's physical condition, would gossip? What do you think was the cause of Elisabeth's hiding?

"Thus has the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me to take away my reproach among men." Lucky woman, is all that I can say, because from time immemorial the woman who in wedlock has borne a child from the seed of man other than her lawful husband, has felt the reproach of men until the end of her days.

Is this the part of the Bible women are strongly advised to follow? I strongly advise women against following the example of Elisabeth. If women do not heed my advice, and choose rather the authority of the Bible, they will soon find that men are not so credulous and people not so gullible as this narrative would have you believe. Only in the Bible are these things accepted and believed; they would not be tolerated in real life.

Before passing on to the next episode let me say a word to those who have their marriage solemnized by the Bible in a religious ceremony: and this to the blushing bride.

Is the action of Elisabeth in her relation with the angel and her attitude to poor old Zacharias the model that you are to fashion your wedded life upon?

Will you desert your husband, when "he is well stricken in years," for a younger and more virile man?

Will you willingly consent to an act of adultery with "an angel of the Lord"? Will you claim that the child in your womb is of the "Holy Ghost"? And hide yourself until it is all over?

Or will you be too loyal to your vows to even listen to the wooing words of a sly seducer?

And now just a word to the bridegroom: If you look forward to a happy married life, be sure before you make the young lady your wife, that she does not believe the Bible contains the proper moral code, and particularly that the story of Elisabeth will not be her guide in her life-companionship with you.


* 9. Zechariah 9-9.

* 10. "Mysterious Stranger," page 142.

* 11. "Conflict between Religion and Science," pages 170, 171.
* 12. March 22, 1924.
* 13. "Age of Reason," pages 122-124.
Chapter XVIII.

Jesus and the Sinner.

Far be it from me to question the acquaintances and companions of a person and least of all those of Jesus Christ. If Jesus chose to associate with women of questionable virtue and chastity surely he had a perfect right to do so. He is not the only one who has had such associates; but whether this choice was of his own free will or of necessity I do not know. But I do know this: Were I to write a story glorifying the prostitute; and accord to her the same social privileges; and act towards her with the same dignity; and place her upon the same level with virtuous women, there would rise a hue and cry from the religious forces that I was advocating "free love" and "undermining the foundation of the home"; and is it "spiritual righteousness" to have in your home a book detailing the scenes between a "woman of the street" -- a sinner, passionately displaying her attachment for a man while he is receiving the hospitality of another person, because this degrading scene is related in the Bible? As much as I sympathize with the prostitute; as much as I will do all in my power to alleviate the prejudice against her and help her to a worthy position in society, I strenuously object to her public performance of displaying her affection for Jesus as being fit material for the edification of our children.

Having in mind the adage that a person is known by the company he keeps, I will proceed with the Biblical narrative of Jesus and the Sinner.

I quote the Gospel according to St. Luke, Chapter 7, Verses 36-38.
36. And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

37. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought a alabaster box of ointment,

38. And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Let us for the moment put ourselves in the position in which we find Jesus. What a compromising position it must have been to have a "sinner" (and the inference is only too plain) follow you about, enter the house where you are a guest, begin to inundate you with her tears, wash your feet and then wipe them with her hair, then kiss them, and finally annoint you with perfumed ointment! Mind you, after she had sprinkled his feet with tears and smothered them with kisses, she dries them with the silken tresses of her hair!

What more could any man receive? Surely the manifestation of a supreme love. No wonder she followed him about and only awaited the opportunity to show in an unmistakable manner her real affection for him.

What do you think of a man who allows a woman to do to him what this woman did to Jesus? Don't you think he could have been just as appreciative of her affection without this elaborate public display of washing, kissing, and anointing? Can you imagine Jesus after the washing he got and the anointing of the sweet-smelling ointment over him?

If Jesus did not object to artificial means of beautifying and making himself smell sweetly, what objection, I pray, can there be against the girls of to-day who devise means of artificially beautifying themselves? Didn't Jesus favor it? Didn't he like it? Then why shouldn't girls practise what Jesus himself was so much in favor of?

To those ministers who have so loudly denounced the girls of to-day and yet hold Jesus up as a model for mankind, I say, be consistent, ye hypocritical reformers. What was good enough for Jesus should certainly not be too vulgar for the girls of to-day. However, I would not advise any of our girls of to-day to do to the man they love what this woman did to Jesus. It is unbecoming not only to womankind, but is a mark of degeneration in a man.

In order to continue consecutively with the story I will quote the interpolated part between verses 38 to 44 of this chapter; for if these verses were not interpolated by some smart translator, who knew the effect this story would have upon thinking people, then they prove Jesus to have been the supreme hypocrite and impostor.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 7, Verses 39-43.
39. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of a woman this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner.

40. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

41. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed him five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

42. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

43. Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou has rightly judged.

This is pure camouflage, and does not in any way mitigate the nauseous washing, drying, kissing and anointing.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 7, Verses 44-46.
44. And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gayest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

45. Thou gayest me no kiss: but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

Monumental conceit and the currying of favors from "women of the street" are attributes of the hero of Christianity upon which the leaders of this creed have failed to enlighten us. The insolence of Jesus in telling the man who had invited him to his home to partake of a meal with him, that this woman -- this sinner, mind you -- had washed his feet and wiped them with her hair and kissed and anointed them in the bargain, while he, his host, was guilty of such neglect, is without parallel.

Why, if I were Simon, I would have told Jesus that the function of washing one's feet is a personal task, and that if there were any woman of the street desirous of doing this service for him she should do it elsewhere. Simon would have been perfectly justified in making such a rejoinder.

And now for the climax of the episode.

The Gospel According to St. Luke, Chapter 7, Verses 47-48.
47. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven: for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

48. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

Let me repeat the last line of the above quotation. "And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven." Now who wouldn't have forgiven her her sins for what she had done? Certainly she earned forgiveness. And the man would have been an ingrate had he not forgiven her. I would have forgiven the woman without the ministrations with which she attended Jesus.

It may be of interest to the reader to know that the Gospel according to St. Matthew records this scene somewhat differently. In the Gospel of St. Matthew it says that while Jesus was at meat with Simon, this woman of the street poured sweet-smelling ointment on his head, and the other guests objected to this lavish expenditure, because the ointment could be sold and the money given to the poor; which I think was a very sensible and commendable thought. To this proposal Jesus magnanimously replied: "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." I want this distinctly understood that it was the Son of God who was speaking!

Chapter XIX.


* Table of Contents

As we concluded our review of the Old Testament while there still remained additional matter that was fit subject for our investigation; so we find the same condition prevailing in the New Testament. Enough subject matter still remains to be exposed; but were I to relate in detail all the vulgar sayings and repeat the indelicate expressions, I fear my task would never end.

Again I must say, the best evidence of the Bible's unworthiness lies in the Bible itself. To read it is sufficient to condemn it.

It is a tragedy to think that there are millions of people actually worshipping the Bible when the book is not fit even to receive their respect. I say this is a tragedy, because it shows the fearful ignorance and still more fearful superstition of a great portion of the living world, in an age of such marvelous scientific achievements and progress. Is it any wonder that the morality of mankind has not reached the heights man has achieved in other realms when we have such a spectacle as the following advertisement, "paid for by a native Pittsburgh Catholic business man who believes in his religion," which appeared in the New York Times, October 22, 1925?
The Creed of Science
By Robert G. Ingersoll

To love justice, to long for the right, to love mercy, to pity the suffering, to assist the weak, to forget wrongs and remember benefits -- to love the truth, to be sincere, to utter honest words, to love liberty, to wage relentless war_ against slavery in all its forms, to love wife and child and friend, to make a happy home, to love the beautiful in art, in nature, to cultivate the mind, to be familiar with the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble deeds of all the world, to cultivate courage and cheerfulness, to make others happy, to fill life with the splendor of generous acts, the warmth of loving words, to discard error, to destroy prejudice, to receive new truths with gladness, to cultivate hope, to see the calm beyond the storm, the dawn beyond the night, to do the best that can be done and then to be resigned -- this is the religion of reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the heart and brain.
Catholics Love the Bible

The Catholic Church cherishes the Bible. ALL OF IT. She believes the Bible to be the Word of God -- not a mere human document. She believes the Bible contains no errors. Catholics reverence the Bible so much that they rise and stand when it is read and KISS IT DEVOUTLY after reading it.

Ridicule or sympathy should be meted out to those who still accept the Bible as divine truth, when they have at their disposal the accumulated knowledge of the ages -- knowledge which not only proves the Bible to be false in every department in which it claims authority, but distinctly pernicious in its influence as well. If a man chooses to "kiss devoutly" the Bible, I pray that he will not force this humiliation upon his children.

We can only conclude that those who still accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God are so sadly deluded by superstition and fear that they haven't the courage and mental strength to throw off this paralyzing poison. But no matter for what cause, the time has come when such people should no longer be able to dictate to others in the intellectual and moral spheres of man.

If there were a real Bible for the human race, that book would contain all that this so-called Bible does not contain. The real Bible would begin with the alphabet and the multiplication table and contain every law and principle of nature. We would constantly consult its pages to determine our proper course through life. It would be our Guide and Enlightener. It would be the Text-book of our Existence; the Dictionary of our acts.

One thing is certain and beyond the peradventure of a doubt, and that is this: The real Bible would not contain the immoral stories that make up the major part of this fraudulent one. Why, Satan, if he existed, would loudly protest the charge that he was the author of such a shameful and degrading book as now bears the title of "Holy Scriptures." And mark this: In no other volume would this vulgar insult to the human race be tolerated.

Abraham Lincoln used the expression of "sinners calling the righteous to repentance"; and do we need a better illustration of the truth of it than in the statement of the Reverend George Elliott, editor of the "Methodist Review," a minister of the church and an advocate of the Bible's teachings, when he says in a protest against the books of to-day that "never in the history of American literature has it been so soiled by the stink of sex."[14]

Is it possible that the Reverend George Elliott has never read the Bible? Or is he like the little boy who was asked if he knew what was in the Bible and who replied, "Oh! yes; I know everything that's in it. Sister's young man's photo is in it, and ma's recipe for face cream, an' a lock of my hair cut off when I was a baby, an' the ticket for Pa's watch."

Where can you find another volume, Reverend George Elliott, that contains as many "sex stories" as does the Bible? If the story of "Lot and His Daughters" -- where a father is made drunk so his two virgin daughters may effect an incestuous union with him; and the story of "Tamar and her father-in-law Judah" -- where a daughter-in-law is with "child by whoredom" by her father-in-law; and the story of the "Rape of Tamar By Her Brother Amnon" -- a story where a loving and dutiful sister is outrageously ravished by her brother; if the adulterous episodes of David; the seduction of Mary, and the unfaithfulness of her cousin Elisabeth, do not "stink of sex," then pray what name would you give to their foul odor?

The time has come when the Bible must be stripped of all its false halos and be measured for what it actually is; and I make this prediction: when the Bible is considered in its true light, it will be relegated to a position of utter disrespect -- without foundation, not alone in fact, but in decency as well. For a clergyman to call the stories of other books obscene when he recommends the Bible, is like "the pot calling the kettle black." Instead of boasting of their connection with and support of the Bible, they should rightly hang their heads in shame.

On another occasion the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr,[15] writing to the editor and publisher of a popular magazine, had this to say concerning the stories it published.
" a dirty and suggestive publication coming pretty close to abuse of the legal use of the U.S. mails. It plays up the sexual passions and depicts the decadent and salacious tendencies in modern life. So far I suppose it is true to life, but life on its lower and baser side. It is destructive and subversive of what good remains in modern society, and helps give the car of modern civilization a further push down the road to ruin.

"I am thankful that there are a number of publishers in our fair land who would not be guilty of putting such a magazine on the market. As a man, and one who may consider himself a gentleman, I think the whole tone and moral influence of the publication is unworthy of you or any honorable person. Would you want your high-school daughter, if you have one, to read such trash?

"Burn the stuff and start a paper that has an ideal and is not lower even than the low average of many modern homes. Papers should not merely reflect life as it is, the petty and wicked phases of it, but should be constructive, helpful. Surely a publisher has a duty to society and a responsibility for the influence of the stories he permits to get into print. The tendency is downward, but that is no reason why it should be accelerated by exploitation."

(Signed) Ralph W. Kohr.

More appropriate language, or a more truthful statement could not be made in characterizing the stories of the Bible, than the above letter, sent by the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr, to the editor of the magazine in question. Could there be "dirtier" and more suggestive stories than the ones we have just reproduced from the Bible? And could there be stories which come closer to the "abuse of the legal use of the United States mails?"

Have you ever read stories which played up the sexual passions and depicted the "salacious tendencies of life" better than the narratives we have just taken from the Bible? The stories we have quoted from the Bible "may be true to life," but surely "life on its lower and baser side." If such stories are "destructive and subversive of modern society and help give the car of modern civilization a further push down the road to ruin," then I cry that the Bible is the most destructive and subversive influence of modern civilization.

Lucky indeed are we that there are in this fair land of ours publishers who have not taken inspiration from the Bible in the kind of stories they supply to the public. Lucky, indeed, are we! And I wonder if the Bible, as clergymen are so boastful in maintaining, is the "best seller" because of its stories.

And if the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr considers himself a gentleman, then I consider the "whole tone and moral influence" of the Bible unworthy the support of any "honorable person." The Reverend Ralph W. Kohr asks this question and I use the same words in reference to the Bible: "Would you want your high-school daughter, if you have one, to read such trash?" Would you want your daughter, Reverend Ralph W. Kohr, if you have one, to read such trash as "Isaac and His Wife Rebekah," "The Rape of Dinah," "The Story of Esther," "Joseph and Potiphar's Wife," "Mary, Joseph and the 'Holy Ghost,'" "Elisabeth, Zacharias and Angel Gabriel" or any one of the salacious narratives from "Abram and Sarai" to "Jesus and the Sinner"?

If such literature as this is being blindly and madly circulated, then is it not time that some one who is not blind and some one who is not mad cry "Halt" to the further corruption of our children by the Bible? Or has the prophetic utterance of Shakespeare...

"O, Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts
And men have lost their reason"

...come to pass?

Is the Bible the book our daughter should read to become familiar with the Prince Charming of Life, that subtle magic that gives life a little bloom and a little sweetness? Should she read the Bible so as to fashion her life upon the acts of Sarai, or Potiphar's Wife, or Esther, or Mary, or Elisabeth? Should she read the Bible in the expectation that her lover, husband and life's companion should possess the "sterling" character of an Abraham, Isaac or a David?

If we give a child a book and tell that child in that book will be found "the key to happiness and duty," can we honestly and rightfully punish that child if he should follow the examples and precepts that the book contains?

If the Government sanctions the Bible, by giving exemption of taxation to the institutions that expound it, what a paradox it is to penalize those who are guilty of the very crimes which in the leaders of the Bible are condoned! Surely if David was pardoned by God for the crimes he committed, and we are told that David "was a man after God's own heart," should we not pardon those guilty of the same crimes that David committed? And what hypocrisy it is on the part of our Government to have the Bible in our courts of law for the culprit to take his oath upon and then be tried for the very crimes which the Bible itself sanctions. Is the blindness of the Statue of Justice to be taken as literally true -- because this travesty and parody of justice continues day after day?

Could there be a more ludicrous situation than this? Recently I attended the court session of a man being tried for rape. In taking the stand in his own behalf the man was given the Bible to place his hand upon and made to take an oath "that he would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God," and yet in that very Bible is recorded one of the most heartrending cases of rape known to man!

Since we are instructed to read the Bible for our "key to happiness and duty," is it not reasonable to suppose that the reading of the Bible prompted this act of rape? And is it not also reasonable to suppose that ministers of the gospel, whose profession has supplied perpetrators of every crime on the calendar, from petty larceny and disorderly conduct to rape and murder, are prompted in their acts by the reading of the Bible? Shades of Father Hans Schmidt and Pastor Richardson!

And my reasonableness to suppose this, comes from the fact that the greatest number of inmates in our penal institutions are those who have received Biblical instruction. So great an authority as Havelock Ellis, in his masterful book, "The Criminal"[16] makes this statement: "In all countries religion, or superstition, is closely related to crime."

And why should it be otherwise, when it is not our relation to our fellow-men that will save our "souls" but "by grace are ye saved thru faith; and that not of ourselves."[17] And "without shedding of blood is no emission."[18] And "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."[19]

Do we need a better illustration of religious homicidal mania, induced by Bible reading, than the case reported in the New York Times, November 28, 1924:

Crazed by Religion, Maid With
Axe Kills One and Gashes Two.

This was the case of a woman who brutally killed her employer, fatally injured his wife, and wounded their daughter, who attempted to intercede in their behalf. When arrested for the crime and subjected to examination by the police, the woman said, "Why should I be sorry when the Lord told me to do it?" But a few months before this horrible crime the world was appalled and shocked by the burning to death of three members of a man's family because of his delusion that the "Holy Ghost" had whispered to him that only "through fire" could he purge his soul of sin. And let us not forget the brutal murder of a crippled father by a mother and daughter, who, after listening to a revivalist at a Bible meeting, "heard the voice of God," went to their home, and murdered the old man while he lay helpless in bed.

Let me recall a case as reported in the New York Times of April 27, 1922. John Cornyn, of San Francisco, shot and killed his two boys, one seven and the other eight, because, according to the police, he had been in "communication" with his wife who had been dead a year and she had asked him to "send all of her five children to her."[20]

It is not generally known that Charles J. Guiteau, the assassin of President Garfield, was a devout religious believer, and was engaged in writing a book, entitled, "The Truth a Companion to the Bible," when he was inspired by God to commit this dastardly crime against the Republic by the murder of the President.[21]

And in the New York American, August 20, 1925, appears this tragic item:

Kills Her Baby in Crib at
Angel's Call Amityville Woman Stabs Sleeping Infant
with Table Knife to "Send
It To Heaven."

Did the reading of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham prompt this poor deluded woman to murder her child?

And yet we have certain judges, suspending sentences upon culprits only upon condition that they attend church and read the Bible! I could cite instances of this kind to fill an entire volume, but merely refer you to the daily newspapers to supply this information. And now, if you will, let me quote an item which shows the "direful" result of those who "have no religion" and are minus "that great consolation that comes from a belief in the saving grace of Christ."

I quote from the New York Evening Mail of November 16, 1921:
There are two institutions that Walcott, Iowa, the richest town per capita in Iowa, prides itself in not possessing. These are churches and jails. In its religious beliefs, Walcott is unique. For more than fifty years the town has been without a church. It once had a jail, but like its only church, established sixty-five years ago and which existed but a few years, it was put in the discard. While the jail building stands, there is no vestige of a church edifice. But there are no locks to the jail, and the hinges have rotted off. "We are freethinkers and believe in free American citizenship seven days a week. We do not need preachers to dictate to us. We are better off without them," states Mayor Strohbeen, in expressing Walcott's lack of churches. "We are getting along very well as we are -- much better than with churches. We like to be let alone. There is no more peaceful or law-abiding town in the United States than Walcott. Why should we want churches? They bring strife and dissension -- we want peace and quietude," commented the town's popular mayor. In a business and commercial way Walcott is a thriving town. It has two banks with combined deposits of $1,500,000. This is a remarkable showing when it is considered that the population of the town is but 384. It has a consolidated school -- second to none in this part of the state. Recently the citizens erected a fine auditorium. There Chautauquas and musical entertainments are held on week days and dances on Sundays.

Since the appearance of this item in the newspapers, I am informed that the religious forces of nearby towns have contributed enough money to erect a church. The building of the jail will have to be done at the town's expense.

But let us get back to our subject and the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr, while I tell him that not only are the Bible's stories unfit to be read by our daughters, but I will go a step farther and say, that the children sent to Sunday School to have the Bible expounded to them and to be inculcated with a reverence for it as being the Word of God are being tainted with utter stupidity and degrading superstition.

If the Bible contained only the trash that the Reverend in his letter to the editor said that his magazine contained, then the Bible would be only as "trashy" as that magazine; but as it is, the Bible contains matter a thousand times more harmful and pernicious. One thing is certain, this editor does not claim that the stories appearing in his magazine are touched by divine inspiration.

If corruption in one instance is punishable by law, then contamination by any other method should meet the same penalty. If bastardy, adultery, prostitution, rape, and incest are unfit subjects for our children, the title of "Holy Bible" upon the covers of a book, cannot, magic-like, transform these immoralities into cultural virtues!

And the following letter written by Mark Twain, in answer to a protest of a young woman superintendent in the Children's Department of the Brooklyn Public Library, who charged that "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" were corrupting the morals of the children, is indeed pertinent.[22]
"I am greatly troubled by what you say. I wrote Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn for adults exclusively, and it always distresses me when I find that boys and girls have been allowed access to them. The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean; I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was 15 years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean, sweet breath again this side of the grave. Ask that young lady -- she will tell you so.

"Most honestly do I wish I could say a softening word or two in defense of Huck's character, since you wish it, but really in my opinion it is no better than those of Solomon, David, Satan, and the rest of the sacred brotherhood.

"If there is an unexpurgated [Bible] in the Children's Department, won't you please help that young woman remove Huck and Tom from that questionable companionship?"

"Burn the stuff and start a paper that has an ideal and is not lower even than the low average of many modern homes," cries the Reverend Mr. Kohr. I do not say "burn the Bible." I am not as bigoted as the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr about those things which I do not accept. I say preserve the Bible. Preserve it for the sake of exposure. Hold it high and flaunt it before all the people that its true worth may be known. Spread it far and wide, only do not contaminate our children with its contagiously vile pages. And again I make this prediction: When the Bible is once read and understood like other books, it will be rejected and discarded as being unfit and unworthy the attention and respect of man.

There is no home in America whose "low average" is lower than the morality found in the Bible. No home in America, no home in this great Republic of ours, should permit its sacred confines to be polluted by the presence of the Holy Scriptures.

And what right has the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr to refer to "even the low average of many modern homes," when he is engaged in the distribution of the very book that may be responsible for the reduction of many modern homes to the low level of which he speaks? I dare say that if a modern volume were to be found in any home, containing the demoralizing stories that the Bible contains, the Reverend Ralph w. Kohr would become livid with rage and expostulate upon such a brazen disregard of modesty and the contamination of our lives with the "decadent and the salacious" element of life.

Do not burn any book. The greatest destroyer of falsehood is truth. Although truth at times appears lazy and apathetic it will eventually triumph. The searchlight of truth will burn falsehood with a fiercer intensity of destruction than the heat from the phosphorus flame.

Remember it is only in comparatively recent times that the glorious public schools were instituted to teach the people to read. And it will not be long before the believer in the Bible will be the exception rather than the rule. "Papers (books) should not merely reflect life as it is, the petty and wicked phases of it, but should be constructive, helpful." If the Reverend Ralph W. Kohr is an honest man, and these are his honest sentiments, then how is it possible for him to be a minister of the Bible? How can he be honest, and at the same time preach from the book which contains the stories we have recorded?

Does he call the recording of such phases of life "constructive and helpful," or are they more truthfully, "the petty and wicked part of it"? I am sure I do not need to explain their reflections of the pettiness and wickedness of life. Your own conscience tells you that! If as he says, "a publisher has a duty to society and a responsibility for the influence of the stories he permits to get into print," then surely the printers of the Bible are guilty of a monumental crime. And every man connected with its distribution and dissemination is equally guilty.

And if the tendency and impulse of life is downward, as he says, certainly "there is no reason why it should be accelerated by exploitation."

And now I ask you this pertinent question, Reverend Ralph W. Kohr, and all clergymen and ministers of religion: What right have you to exploit the Bible and prey upon the ignorant and credulous, when you know, measured for what it actually is, the Bible, as far as its stories are concerned, is not entitled to the respect of Man?

What right have you to exploit the Bible as the Word of God and wear the sanctimonious livery of a man of God, when the Bible has been shown to contain the most foul, repulsive, disgusting, licentious, repugnant, indecent, lascivious, wicked and corrupting episodes capable of performance by the vilest of beings? It is not necessary for me to tell you how vile and degrading is this so-called "Book of God." It is only too plainly evident to those who read it. Its stories, in their brazen disregard of modesty, prove my contention that they pollute the very pages upon which they are written. No greater fraud has been committed than to exploit the ignorant and the superstitious under the sanction that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God and that "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."[23]

Until recently, I was told, the custom prevailing at the inauguration of some of our governors and Presidents, after the oath of office had been administered, was for the elected official to open the Bible and kiss a verse at random. The official would then mark the verse which he had kissed and give it to the press representatives to broadcast to the people.

This custom in part, however, has now been abandoned, for it is said that on one occasion the elected official kissed one of the verses of the Bible which, when marked and read, was discovered to be absolutely and positively filthy.

If an elected official now chooses to kiss the Bible at his inauguration (or her inauguration as in the case of "Ma" Ferguson of Texas, or Mrs. Nellie Ross of Wyoming) he either kisses the cover of the Bible, or a verse selected beforehand. In some cases a verse is merely indicated by placing a finger upon it.[24]

It is certainly an anomaly and an incongruity that there are verses in the Bible which cannot be mentioned separately and which are so grossly vile that extreme caution must be exercised so as to prevent their becoming public.

The sanction of the Bible in our Courts of Law, where a person is almost actually made to take an oath upon it before he is permitted to testify, is a travesty of justice.

The Bible itself, as a book of revealed truth, is a monumental lie!

Judges are continually complaining of the perjury of witnesses, and lawyers know only too well its prevalence. The oath, taken on the Bible, as now administered, is nothing but a formality. It has absolutely no restraining influence. The honest man will tell the truth irrespective of his oath upon the Bible, and the thief will lie, his oath upon the Bible notwithstanding. The religious conviction of a person does not prevent him from violating his oath, nor does the unbelief of a person hinder him from performing his sacred duty to the fullest measure of integrity.

There is a case on record where a man was actually fined for sending a verse of the Bible openly through the mail! Just think of it. There are verses in the Bible which are too indecent to enjoy the privileges of the United States mail! -- verses which a Federal Court has officially condemned as being vile and vulgar, and in violation of the obscenity law.[25] (I call the attention of the Rev. Ralph W. Kohr to this situation.)

Is it possible? Is it really possible, that there are passages in the Bible which cannot be sent openly through the mail? Is it possible that God (and the religious elect solemnly swear that he wrote every word of the Bible) used obscene language in imparting his sacred knowledge to the world?

If this is true, and the records prove it to be true, this alone should be sufficient to condemn the Bible as a cultural book and destroy utterly the thought that it is the inspired word of God.

I could give the names of literally thousands of books that contain the very highest moral precepts which any one could open at any page and read any line and not have the slightest fear of shocking the tenderest sensibilities of a child.

And then again, why not use the Declaration of Independence, or more properly the Constitution of the United States, in the ceremony of inducting our officials into office? To swear upon the Bible allegiance to uphold the Constitution is a paradox, for the system of government as advocated in the Bible is the antithesis of our Republic, and the social order which it maintains is the direct contrary of the ideals of this great Democracy.

In some states, particularly in New York, where the Bible is permitted to be read in the public schools, the provision granting this privilege is generally stipulated in words to the effect: that upon the opening of school, a verse from the Bible, may be read "without note or comment."

Judging from the stipulation which is incorporated in the charters of the Boards of Education, it would appear that any verse in the Bible could be selected and read and that the one doing so would be performing his full duty. But nothing could be further from the truth. If any one dared to read some of the verses in the Bible, "without note or comment," he would be expelled from the school for grossly insulting the pupils.

It is amazing to me that so many people are ignorant of what the Bible actually contains. And it is still more amazing to me that educators, knowing what the Bible contains (for surely they know as much about the Bible as I do), permit this outrageous performance of reading the Bible to our public school children, to continue day after day. As educators, it is their duty to protest against this insult to the intelligence of the people and to the educational system of this country. To permit the Bible to be read daily to our public school children and to impress upon their tender minds a reverence for it as the infallible word of God, is to me not only a dereliction of duty which should be censured in the severest of terms, but is positively criminal. As I wish to avoid any interference with the distribution of my book I will refrain from quoting those verses which the Court has condemned as being obscene, but which nevertheless deserve to be exposed to the pitiless rays of the light of day.

"But if you take away our Bible, what will you give us in exchange," is the cry of the stupid and ignorant. If we eradicate fear, prejudice, hatred and superstition from the human mind, must we replace them with equally objectionable traits? Is not the glorious gift of reason a sufficient compensation? Is not freedom of the mind a glorious enough exchange?

But to those who insist that they "must have something," to them I say:

If you must have a Bible; if you must hoodwink the ignorant; if you must bamboozle the herd; if you must cower the superstitious; if you must have something "divine"; if you must have a "revelation," then by all means let us have something with a little merit in it; something comparable to the intelligence of the day; something representative of the spirit of progress; something actually conducive to the Brotherhood of Man. If you must have "faith in something," have it not in filth.

And in writing your creed and formulating your doctrines, always remember, that
"any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."


# 14. "Methodist Review," January-February, 1924.

# 15. I have made repeated attempts to secure his address, and the church with which he is connected, but have been unable to do so. The editor in whose magazine his communication appeared, writes me as follows: "Replying to communication with further reference to Reverend Ralph W. Kohr's address, I regret to have to inform you that a diligent search of our files fails to reveal the information desired, and I cannot therefore comply with your request."

# 16. Page 185.

# 17. Ephesians, 2:8.

# 18. Hebrews, 9:22.

# 19. Mark, 16:16.

# 20. Quoted from "A Magician Among the Spirits," by Houdini. Page 182.

# 21. "A Magician Among the Spirits," Page 188.

# 22. Mark Twain's Autobiography, Vol. 2, Page 335.

# 23. John 3:16.

# 24. At the first inauguration of Woodrow Wilson he opened the Bible at a specified chapter and "kissed it fervently." At the inauguration of Warren G. Harding he placed his finger on a selected text. Theodore Roosevelt merely placed his hand upon the Bible while the oath was administered. Both William Howard Taft and Calvin Coolidge kissed a page of the Bible without reference to any particular text (newspaper reports). The oath of office prescribed by the Constitution is purely secular, and does not call for the use of the Bible.

# 25. In 1895, John B. Wise, of Clay Center, Kansas, was arrested for sending obscene matter through the mails, which consisted wholly of a quotation from the Bible. In the United States Court, after a contest, he was found guilty and fined. -- Page 257, "Free Press Anthology," by Theodore Schroeder.
The Phillistines were the enemy's of God and the Jewish people. They were the initiaters of the violence against the Jews. They wanted to murder the Jewish peoples and of that group belonged Goliath. Goliath was 9 feet tall for a reason. This is the same reason why he had such an evil nature. Because the angels of God left their first homes (their angelic bodies) in order to fornicate with the sons of man (Genisis 6) . The offspring of these fallen angels and human women, were giants and the mighty men of old and renown. Thus the giants including the evil man Golliath, was not a man but an evil, angle / human hybrid, resulting from the disobediance and defiance of the angels or (nephillum).

These fallen angels were present in Noah's day and after that. (provocative the statement "and after that" pertaining to the Nephillum). Where are they today? I believe they ARE the Demons that we encounter inhabiting humans who are "possesed". Note here that they are able to appear as angles of light. Or as Aliens perhaps. Because the genetics of man was going to produce the Messiah , Satan tried to corrupt it through the offspring of this vile union. Thus the flood was Gods temporary answer to thwart Satans plan) Golliath was post flood offspring of this anomily. Nowhere in the scriptures is their anything that suggests that these fallen angels were eliminated and in fact reference "and after that" tells us clearly that this is still happening today. It was this hybrid offspring who were the main reason for the flood in Noah's day. Noah and his family were saved because they were not genetically comprimised and their ways not violent. Their are more reference to "Giants in the land" in subsequent scripture. The Jews were always instructed to slaughter them when encountered. There are also references to their natures being filled with violence and evil. I had to digress to set the table so to speak, so that it was understood that the Phillistines were not genetically pure and the ENEMY of both God and the Jews.

Now back to David and Golliath. The reason for the taking of the 100 Phillistine forskins was agreed on by David, was that Saul thought David would be killed by them. He was "possesed by an evil demon" and jealous of Gods blessing and protection or manifestation in David. How can you say that killiing those that would take your life and your family's lives is evil. If someone wished you and your loved ones death and continuously attempted to slaughter you and them, would you find this wrong to take their lives before they took yours. It is not as if David slaughtered a peace loving , innocent group of men just minding their own business.
Oh, where to begin. Lets start by saying that some things cannot be questioned. Things like death for instance. No person in their right mind would argue with the fact that nobody gets out of here alive. The only question is "then what" ? After all, this is what the whole institution of "religion" is based upon, and each system has its own conflicting beliefs on this matter.
So it would stand to reason that since the beliefs are conflicting, that they cannot all be right (true), as each would like to "believe". However they all can be wrong (not true), at least to one degree or another.
But here is another take on the subject. What if one system of beliefs , say judeo/christianity for example, who use and interpret the same scriptures (Bible) have it all wrong in this context ? What if the leaders of this religious institution throughout history are imposters ? This meaning that the very ones who profess to have a personal relationship with the creator, and are the "chosen people" or "church" or whatever else they think they are, what if they are not who they claim to be.
And what if at the same time , there is another small group of people in the world who really are. But the world has no knowledge of this people. If this were the case then the imposters would be easily identified, not by the world but by them who really are the "chosen ones". The world as a whole cannot discern the difference. And organizations like SOTT cannot know either. Any educated person with enough ambition can do enough historical, archeological, mathmatical, & other research to determine certain "truths" pertaining to biblical writings. And in so doing they would come to the same conclusions that you have. And rightly so.
But what if the very thing that you have "discovered", all the factual "errors" in the book (bible) you have disected with an open mind, what if this was the plan all along ? What if the waters were intentionally muddied to hide the truth from all who were not meant to "see" it ? If this were the case ( and it is ), you would be exactly where you are now, and that is deceived, or at the very least confused. Just like all the billions throughout history who have professed to know and understand the scriptures (writings) but do not.
The fallen host are foolish, but they are not dummies. They serve a purpose as all creation (visible & invisible) does. So ask yourself this question, Why do I exist, for what purpose ultimately ? I can assure you that the answer is out there. But it is only revealed to a few now, during this age, and that for a purpose also. No, I am not conceited, or vain in saying this, as you may think, because TRUTH, ultimately, is REVEALED, not learned.
My Father (source) taught me something very early in life that you should know ( and I think you do )
and that is that NOTHING is what it appears to be.
Here we go again. Laura, your resentment is showing. I know that we live in a "free society", and that women are "equal" to men in all aspects of it (supposedly). But is this so ? Are you sure ? It would seem to me that if man and woman were "equal" in all aspects, then there would be no need for one or the other. Perhaps you have been conditioned to believe things about your being (female), that are not true ?
For example that women give birth to children. You know that the child is always the mothers child in our culture. Just look at the courts concerning divorce proceedings, or television sitcoms for example. Ever notice how the father is always portrayed as the selfish, stupid idiot and the mother is the all wise and loving caregiver ? Talk about a conspiracy .There seems to be something going on that is just not right. Oh, did I say "right', how dare me. Silly me, I should know that the man and his wife are "partners".....50/50 right ? With neither having any authority over the other. Any hard decisions to be made , what do we do. Why we vote on it of course.....thats "the american way". But what if we disagree ? Oh well, then nothing gets done. That settles that. Equal authority is NO authority, its a contradiction in terms.
But back to the subject of children . A child is the seed of the father. The man conceives (begets) the child, not the mother. But thanks to the "liberation of woman", this essential knowledge is lost. And this is the root of all kinds of evil in our society especially concerning the family unit, the most basic foundation of any society.
A woman "delivers" a baby.......ummm, I wonder to whom exactly she is "delivering" this child to. Could it be the father (source) of this child ? ( who also should be the woman's "husband" by the way )......"husband" meaning "land lord" ( seeing that his seed was planted in the fertile ground (womb) of the "woman" (womb man). But thats another story.
Sorry, Laura, Im just having a little fun with you. But your resentment towards male authority is obvious in almost all that you write when disecting biblical scripture, so I couldnt help myself. Hey, remember the TV show Father Knows Best ( or was that before your time ) ? Anyway, the Father (source) of all creation knows best. And "He made them (man & woman) male and female " for a purpose and a reason. One does not deminish the importance of the other in any way whatsoever. But "...two cannot walk together in peace but one be the head ".
I would hate to see your bias cloud your judgement Laura, especially when our minds should be open to the truth, as you yourself have said many times.
Uhmm, 'whyisthatso' - what in the world are you talking about? Are you at all familiar with the content of this forum? Did you just come here to spout "bible prophecy" - you have SERIOUSLY walked into the wrong bar.

Please take the time to get up to speed on the material covered on this forum before posting further noise and further nonsense.
The post was in reference to the article "The Bible Unmasked" by your author Laura. The purpose was to point out to her that the search for "truth" might be better served if one were to accept it. (truth) But it is obvious that the femenine agenda will not allow it. The "Bible" as such has always been attacked for its overly masculine context. Being female, it is no wonder that Laura would seek to discredit any and everything about it, no matter what the actual "truth" is. Of course, Im sure that she does not see it this way, but others can and do. Unless and until she can accept the fact (truth) that male and female are not created "equal", then she will never understand the very thing (truth) she searches so diligently for.
Either way there is one undeniable truth that she cannot ignore. That is that she is female, and not male. This truth relates to much more than is obvious. There is a reason and purpose for the "sexes" as created, that involves far greater issues other than procreation of the race. If she were to devote her efforts to the study of this unescapable fact, then she might better understand the context of the writings of the "bible".
Its really very simple. Start out by asking "why". She will be amazed at what she will find.
whyisthatso said:
The post was in reference to the article "The Bible Unmasked" by your author Laura.
I guess your reading comprehension is pretty limited, or you don't pay attention to details, otherwise you would have noted that I am not the author of the material in question.
whyisthatso said:
Being female, it is no wonder that Laura would seek to discredit any and everything about it, no matter what the actual "truth" is.
The article that is the subject of this thread was written by a male.
My appologies to you Laura (administrator). I failed to notice that you ( or someone named Laura ) only posted the article and are not the author. You are correct , I should have paid more attention to detail. Its just that I have read many of your articles and the one in question mirrors your views so much that if I didnt know better ( as I do now ) I would bet that it was yours. Anyway, I offer my sincere appology to you for being presumptuous and wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
Having said this, my point still stands. And that is that the context of the Bible is overly masculine in nature for a reason. That being a matter of authority. All creation is established and sustained by this most basic principle and foundation. The absence of authority is confusion, chaos. Every evil that exist in this world today is the result of the unwillingness to accept or the failure to submit to authority. But of course, true authority must be "authorized", else one is "unauthroized" to act in that capacity. Because true authority is granted by the "Author" (source).
Top Bottom