Chapter 2 Part 1 - 1

Some years ago, I had already had the idea of ​​publishing my religious thoughts; I was well aware of the difficulties of dealing with this subject, and after such considerations, I decided to reserve it for an older age.I wish to regard it as my final service to the citizens of the world, and at that time the purity of the motives which guided my writing will not be doubted even by those who disapprove of it. What is happening in France now, the complete abolition of the national clergy and of everything compulsively religious, of everything compulsive about faith, has not only caused my writing intentions to take a turn for the worse, but also It is necessary to make such a work, for I am afraid that after superstition, false regimes, and false theology are all destroyed, we will lose sight of morality, humanity, and true theology.

As several of my colleagues have set an example for me, and among the citizens of France, have given me the example of voluntarily disclosing their personal beliefs, so I will do the same; and in doing so, To be entirely as sincere as one says to oneself in one's head. I believe in one God and no other; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe that men are equal; and I believe it is the duty of religion to do what is just, to love kindness, and to seek the happiness of our fellow men. But in order to avoid any misconception that I believe in many other things besides these things, I have, in the middle of writing this book, stated what I do not believe, and the reasons why I do not believe it.

I do not believe in the creeds proclaimed by the Jewish Church, the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the Turkish Church, Christianity, or any other church that I know of.My own mind is my own church. All state ecclesiastical institutions, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, are, in my opinion, nothing but creations of man, established for the purpose of terrorizing and enslaving mankind, and thereby monopolizing power and profit. . I do not mean by this to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have as much right to their beliefs as I have to mine.But for the happiness of mankind, a man must remain true to himself in thought.Disloyalty consists not in believing or not believing; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.

The moral damage caused by ideological lies in society is incalculable, if I may say so.When a man has corrupted the chastity of his mind by preaching what he himself does not believe, he is ready to commit any other crime.He is a missionary for profit; and in order to qualify for the profession he must begin by telling big lies.Can we imagine anything more destructive to morality than this one? Soon after I published that pamphlet in America, I saw that it was very likely that a revolution in the political system would be followed by a revolution in the religious system.When Church and State are united in a sordid relationship, whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or the Church of Turkey, it is very forceful, by means of pain and punishment, to absolutely prohibit the discussion of established creeds, and the main principles of religion; unless Until there is a change in the political system, these questions cannot be properly and openly put before the world; but whenever this can be done, a revolution in the religious system will follow.Man-made creations and priestly tricks will be discovered; thus man will return to pure, unmixed and untainted belief in one God and no other.

The churches or religions of every nation have been established under the pretense of following a special mission which God has entrusted to certain individuals.The Jews have their Moses; the Christians have their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; the Turks have their Muhammad, as if the paths to God are different. Each of those churches has a set of books, which they call Revelation or the Bible.The Jews say their Bible was handed down to Moses by God; the Christians say their Bible came through the Holy Spirit; the Turks say their Bible (the Koran) was brought from heaven by an angel.Those churches accuse each other of unbelief in other churches; for myself, I don't believe in them all.

It stands to reason that correct concepts should be put into words, so before I discuss this topic further, I will first offer some different views on the word "revelation". The word "revelation" when used in religion means something taught directly by God. No one would deny or argue that "God Almighty" has the right to impart such a teaching, if he pleases.But even if it is admitted that there are instances where something has been revealed to one person and not to any other, the revelation is only to one person.When he told the revelation to the second person, the second person told the third person, and the third person told the fourth person, passing it on like this does not mean that it is a revelation for everyone else. enlightenment.This is just a revelation to the first person, as for the others, they just heard rumors from others, so they have no obligation to believe it.

If anything comes to us from a second hand, whether oral or written, to call it a revelation is a contradiction between term and idea.Therefore the revelation must be limited to the first-hand transmission-after that, it is only to hear others say that it is said to be a revelation to him; although he himself may think it necessary to believe, I am under no obligation to believe as he does; because this The revelation was not addressed to me, I just heard him say that he had had that revelation. When Moses told the children of Israel that he had received from the hand of God the two tables of the Ten Commandments, they were under no obligation to believe him, for there was no other basis than his statement; Apart from telling me, there is no other basis.The Ten Commandments themselves have no inherent evidence that they are of God; they contain certain lessons of good morality, but this is within the reach of any competent lawgiver or legislator, without reliance on supernatural intervention.

When someone told me that the Koran was brought to Muhammad by an angel after it was written in heaven, that statement was too similar to the above-mentioned hearsay evidence and second-hand evidence.I haven't seen that angel in person, so I have a right not to believe it. When I was told again that there was a woman called the Virgin Mary, who was said to have given birth to a child without cohabiting with a man, and who had a betrothed named Joseph, and this was said to have been told to him by an angel.I have a right to believe it or not; there should be stronger evidence for this than language, but we don't even have anything written by Joseph or Mary themselves; only by other people's reports that people used to Said--it is hearsay, and I am not prepared to place my faith on such evidence.

Although, it is not difficult for us to understand the significance of such a story that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.When Jesus was born, pagan myths were still quite prevalent in the world, and with such myths one could expect the people to believe such a story.All the extraordinary men who lived under pagan mythology were regarded as the sons of some of their gods.So it was not a novelty to believe that a man was born from heaven; it was commonplace to say that gods had sex with women.According to their legend, Jupiter had several hundred women living with him; so this story is not at all novel or obscene; It corresponds, and only those people will believe it.The Jews strictly believe in one God and nothing else, they never believe in pagan myths, and they never believe in this story.

It is a novelty to study how the theory of the so-called Christian Church arose out of the remnants of pagan mythology.The first example of using it directly is to say that the rumored founder was born from the sky.The theory of the Trinity is just a reduction of polytheism. There were about 20,000 to 30,000 gods in the past; the image of Mary just inherited the image of the goddess Diana in Ephesus; the mythologists say that everything has a god, and the Christian mythologists say that everything has a saint: the Church is filled with saints of this kind, as the Pantheon is filled with others. One kind of god is like; Rome is a place that has both.Christianity's theory is not much different from the idol worship of ancient mythologists, and its purpose is for power and income; so reason and philosophy are needed to get rid of this double deception.

What is said here, even in the most irreverent manner, is by no means applicable to the true character of Jesus Christ.He is a virtuous and amiable character.The morality he preached and practiced was the most charitable one; although Confucius and some Greek philosophers preached a similar moral system many years before him; Didn't beat him. Jesus Christ wrote nothing recorded about himself, like his birth, his parents, or anything else; there is not a single line in the so-called New Testament written by him himself.His history is entirely the work of others; the account of his resurrection and ascension is a necessary fitting part of the story of his birth.Those who wrote his history had brought him into the world by supernatural means, and had to bring him out by the same means, or the first part of the story would have been a complete failure. The second half of the story is in every respect worse told than the first half.The first part is a concept of miracles, not something that is allowed to be made public; so the people who tell this part of the story take advantage of this, that is, although they may not be able to gain the trust of others, they will not be able to find out that they are wrong.As it is not a thing to be proved, they cannot be expected to prove it; nor can anyone whom they speak of prove it themselves. But a dead man raised from the grave and his ascension from the air is very different from the admissible evidence, and from the unseen fetus conceived in the mother's womb.The Resurrection and Ascension, assuming there was such a thing, should have public and visible evidence, like the ascension of a balloon or like the midday sun, at least all over Jerusalem.For a thing to be believed by everyone, it should have proofs and evidences that can be seen by everyone; the story described in the second half can only be recognized in the first half with evidence that everyone can see. Half of the evidence is never presented, so the whole story doesn't stand up.There is no proof, only a handful of people, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as representatives of the whole world, who are said to have seen it and want the rest of the world to believe it.But it appears that Thomas did not believe in the resurrection; and, they say, he would not believe it unless he had seen it with his own eyes.So I don't believe it either, for the same reason Thomas didn't believe it as anyone else. It is no use trying to gloss over or disguise the matter.The story, with its supernatural parts, has all the stigmata of deceit and concealment on its face.Who was its author we cannot now know, any more than anyone can prove to us that the books in which such stories were written were indeed written by the men whose names bear their names in them; The best existing evidence of that is the Jews.They are the official descendants of those who lived when the Resurrection and Ascension were said to have occurred, which they say is not true.I have long felt a strange contradiction in citing Jews as proof of the truth of this story.Just like a man who says I can attest that what I tell you is true and then cites some who say it is false. At that time there was such a person as Jesus Christ, and he was crucified, and there was indeed such a method of execution at that time, and these historical relationships were strictly within the possible range.He preached the best morality and the equality of mankind; but he also preached against the corruption and greed of the Jewish monks, thus arousing the hatred and vengeance of the whole priestly class against him.The charges brought against him by the monks were charges of treason against the Roman government, to which the Jews paid tribute; It is not impossible to fear; nor is it impossible on the part of Jesus Christ to liberate the Jewish people from the bondage of the Romans.At any rate, the virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life between the two. In such clearly stated facts, and in another instance which I shall mention hereafter, those Christian mythologists, who called themselves the Christian Church, had founded their fables, whose absurdity and exaggeration are not surpassed in ancient mythology. its. The ancient mythologists tell us that the giants fought against Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred stones at him at a time; Every time the giant turned around, fire spewed from Mount Edna. Here it is easy to see that the fact that the case of the mountain is a volcano leads to the idea of ​​the parable; and that the parable fits and ends with this case. Christian mythologists tell us that their Satan fought against the Almighty God, who defeated him and locked him up in hell instead of under a mountain.Here it is easy to see that the first parable gave rise to the thought of the second; for the parable of Jupiter and the giant preceded the parable of Satan by many centuries. In this way, the ancient mythists and the Christian mythists differ very little from each other. But the latter intends to magnify the incident as much as possible.They intended to combine the allegorical part of the story of Jesus Christ with that which took place from Mount Edna; and, in order to connect the various parts of the story, they tried to make use of Jewish legend; The other part comes from Jewish legends. The Christian mythologists, having imprisoned Satan in hell, had to release him again in order to keep the fable going.Changed him into a serpent or a viper and put him in the Paradise of Eden, and in this form he had a familiar conversation with Eve, who listened without surprise to the serpent's speech; He tempted her to eat an apple, and as soon as she ate that apple, all mankind suffered. Since this victory was given to Satan over the whole of creation, some thought that the mythologists of the Church would be kind enough to send him back to hell: or else a mountain would have to be crushed on him (for they said their faith able to move mountains), or, as the mythologists of old have done, lock him up at the base of the mountain to prevent him from mingling among women and doing more harm.But none of this was done, they set him free, and did not even teach him to tie a knot—the secret here was that they could not do without him, and bribed to keep him when they could no longer hold him.They promised him all the Jews, and also promised him in advance all the Turks, nine-tenths of the world, and Muhammad as a condition. After this, who will doubt the generosity of Christian mythology. So at the beginning, after the rebellion and the war in heaven (in which neither side suffered any casualties),—put Satan in hell—and let him escape—give him victory over the whole creation —and because he made all mankind sin by letting man eat the apple, these Christian mythologists connect the two ends of the fable.They make this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, at one time God and man, and the Son of God, born from heaven, who came only for sacrifice, because Eve, they say, ate it in her desire. that apple. Leaving now everything that excites laughter from absurdity or disgust from obscenity, let us examine only the parts of the story, and we find it impossible to think of another story that is more slanderous to Almighty God than this one. More powerful, more inconsistent with his intelligence, more contradictory to his power. In order to form it on an ascending basis, the fabricators had to make a character they called Satan as powerful as, if not more powerful than, God.Not only did they give him the power to release himself from hell after their so-called failure, but the power grew ever greater and greater to infinity.Before his failure they regarded him only as an angel whose sphere of existence was limited, like other angels.But according to their accounts, since his failure, he has become omnipresent.He is there anytime, anywhere.He occupies the entire boundless space. Not satisfied with this deification of Satan, they made him take the form of one of the created animals to use strategy to overcome all the power and wisdom of Almighty God.They speak of him as having compelled Almighty God to have an urgent need or to hand over the whole creation to this satan to manage and rule.Or come down to the earth in person and expose yourself on the cross in human form to express surrender and atonement. If the story-makers had said the opposite, that Almighty God had compelled Satan to expose himself to the cross in the form of a serpent as punishment for re-sinning, that story would have been less absurd--less contradictory .But they don't, and let the sinner win and Almighty God lose. I have no doubt that there are many good men who believe this strange fable and live very well by it (for credulity is not a crime).First, they were educated to believe it, and they will believe everything in the same way.There are also many who, at the thought of God's inexhaustible love for man, sacrificed themselves, so ecstatic with such enthusiasm that they forbid or hinder themselves from examining the absurdity and insultingness of the story for the sake of the fanatical thought.The more unnatural any thing is, the easier it is to become the object of bleak admiration. But if the objects of gratitude and admiration are our desires, are they not presented to us every hour?Can we see the beauty of creation ready for us at birth - a world delivered to us at no cost?Is it up to us to make the sun shine, to make the rain fall, and to bring fruit to the land?Whether we are asleep or awake, the great machine of the universe is still there.Are these things, and the future blessings they point out, not our business?Is our general feeling immune to any other subject than tragedy and suicide?Or has man's dim pride become so intolerable that nothing can flatter it but the sacrifice of his Creator? I know that this daring study will alarm many, but it would be too flattering of their credulity to refrain from it for this reason; the times and the subject itself demand it. Doubts that the so-called theories of the Christian Church are fabricated have become very common in all nations; and for those who waver under the skepticism and do not know what to believe and what not to believe, see now a free study of the subject There will be a consolation.So I'm going to examine what's called the New Testament with the books of the Old Testament. These books, from Genesis to Revelation (the so-called Revelation is a book of riddles, which itself requires a revelation to explain), are, as we are told, the Bible. So we should know who told us so, so that we can understand how credible such reports are.The answer to this question is something no one can explain except we tell each other.Nevertheless, the matter, historically, seems to go as follows: When the mythologists of the Church built their system, they collected all the documents they could find, and treated them as they pleased.Whether the works now called the Old and New Testaments were the originals these collectors said they had found, or whether they had added, deleted, changed, or embellished them, is a matter of utter uncertainty. If it were this: They voted to decide, among the books in their collection, which ones belonged to the Bible and which ones did not.They discarded several kinds; others were voted to be questionable, like the books they called "Apocrypha";If their resolutions were otherwise, then all who call themselves Christians must have another faith--for one man's faith is another man's vote.Who did all this, we know nothing, they call themselves the Church; and that is all we know about it. We have no external evidence or grounds for believing that these books are the Holy Bible, other than those which I have mentioned, and which are absolutely not, which I shall examine next. The inner evidence contained in the book itself. In the previous part of this essay I spoke of revelation—a subject which I shall now proceed further in order to apply it to the books under discussion. Revelation is telling the person to whom it is revealed something that he did not know before.For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, I need no revelation to tell me that I have done or seen it, nor to enable me to speak or write it. So revelation cannot apply to anything that is done on earth, of which man himself is an actor or witness; and therefore almost all of the historical or anecdotal part of the Bible that is nearly the entirety is excluded from the word revelation. It is not within the meaning and scope, so it is not God's revelation. When Samson took the gate-posts of Gaza and ran away, if it happened, (whether he did so, we do not care) or when he went to visit his Delilah, or caught his fox, What do these things have to do with revelation when you do anything else?If they are facts, he can tell them himself; or if he has a secretary, he can make them write them, if they are worth telling or writing; if they are fictions, revelation cannot make them true; True or false, we are no better or wiser than anyone else at knowing these things.When we contemplate the infinity of God, he guides and governs an inconceivable whole, of which our human understanding is at best only partially discovered. We call these insignificant stories the "Bible" , should feel ashamed. The account of creation, with which Genesis begins, appears, on the face of it, to be exactly like the legend which was popular among the Israelites before they entered Egypt; The beginning of their history is not explained (which is very likely) and they themselves do not know how to get it.From the way the account begins, it appears to be of legend.It begins abruptly: there is no speaker or listener; it is not addressed to anyone; there is no first, second or third person;Moses begins speaking of himself without using a formula as is commonly used elsewhere, such as: "The Lord commanded Moses to say." Why it's called the account of Moses' creation, I can't figure out.I believe Moses was very discerning of these subjects, and would never have put his name on that note.He had been educated among the Egyptians, who, like other peoples of that time, were very adept in the sciences, especially in astronomy; Moses' silent and careful refusal to confirm this account is a good counter-evidence, proving that He neither told it nor believed it. —The thing is, every nation was once the creator of the world, and the Israelites had the same right to establish the cause of creation as any other nation; since Moses was not an Israelite, he probably had no intention of disputing the legend .This account is evidently harmless; but the same cannot be said of many other parts of the Bible. Whenever we read obscene stories, debauchery, cruel and tortured executions, merciless vengeance, more than half of the Bible is filled with such records, it is better to call it the Word of God than the Word of God. The way of the devil is more appropriate.It is a vile history, which has been employed to corrupt and barbarize all mankind; and for my part I sincerely loathe it, as I loathe everything cruel. Till we get to the mixed parts of the Bible, we meet with little but a few idioms, which excite us with aversion or contempt.In those anonymous works, the Psalms and the Book of Job, especially in the latter, we may find many sublime sentiments, reverent expressions of the power and goodness of God; Other works before and after; they are not superior. Said to have belonged to Solomon, though probably a compilation (for one discovers some life-knowledge which, in his circumstances, he would not have known), a series of moral maxims.They are not equal in subtlety to the aphorisms of the Spaniards, nor in cleverness and simplicity to those of the American Franklin. All the rest of the Bible, known to bear the names of "prophets," were the works of Jewish poets and itinerants who mixed poems, anecdotes, and prayers—though those works in In the translation, the atmosphere and style of poetry are still maintained. ①In the whole book called the Bible there is not a word for what we call a poet, nor a word for what we call a poem.The thing is, the word "prophet" (proph-et) was later given a new meaning, and in the "Bible" the meaning of the name is poet, and the meaning of the word "prophecy" (prophesying) is write poetry. "Prophecy" can also be regarded as the technique of composing poems into tunes and playing them with musical instruments.We read prophecies played on flutes, snare drums, and horns—prophecies played on harps, stringed instruments, cymbals, and everything else that was in vogue at the time. If we now speak of a prophecy played on the violin, or on the flute, or on the snare drum, such a statement would be meaningless, or would be amusing, or would be despised, because we have changed the meaning of the term. We are told that Saul was among the prophets, and that he prophesied; but we are not told what they said, nor is it mentioned what he said.The thing is, there's not much to say; because these prophets were a band of musicians and poets, and Saul joined the band, and that's called prophesying. The imagination in these "prophet"-named books is entirely poetic.It is fictitious, often exaggerated, and cannot be tolerated in any other writing than poetry. To point out that these writings are made up of poetic components, I'm going to take the ten syllables in the book and write them as a line with the same number of syllables (a bold measure) and the last word should rhyme.In this way, it can be seen that the combination of those books is the way of poetry.The example I'm going to give is from "Isaiah": ① "The Book of Samuel in the Old Testament" says: Saul was "inspired to speak among the prophets". - translator —"Hear O heavens, hear O earth!" This is God Himself calling attention. Another example I'm going to cite is from Lamentations, and to complete the parable and point out what the poet really meant, I've added two more lines. oh!Water is on my head and tears flow from my eyes like the clearness of the sky; so I will let the mighty torrent run wild, and weep like flood waves for mankind. --author This event is recorded in a book called the Book of Samuel, where it says that Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of prophets!They came with a stringed instrument, a drum, a flute, and a harp, and they prophesied, and Saul prophesied with them.But it was later shown that Saul did not prophesy well: that is, he did not play the part well; for there was said to be a "demon from God" ① attached to Saul, and he prophesied. If there were no passages in the book called the Bible, but this one, which indicated that we have lost the original meaning of the word "prophecy" and replaced it with another, this alone would suffice, because we It is impossible to use the word "prophecy" in this place if the word is used in the sense that it is added later.As it is used here, it is completely deprived of its religious significance, and means that at that time a person could be a prophet or prophesy, just as it is said now, he can be a poet or musician, and with other Morality or immorality in terms of character is irrelevant.The word turns out to be a scientific term that can be applied casually to poetry or music, regardless of the title of poetry or music. Deborah and Barak were called prophets not because they predicted something, but because they made a poem or song bearing their name to celebrate an act that had been done.David is among the prophets because he was a musician and author of the famous "Psalms" (though perhaps quite wrongly).But Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not called prophets; there is no mention of them singing, or playing music, or writing poetry, in any record that we have. They tell us that there are major prophets and minor prophets.In this way, they might also tell us that God is also of great and small; for prophecy, in the modern sense, cannot be of great or small size. ——But poetry is different in degree, so that sentence is in line with the situation at that time, when we understand it as a poet of great and small. Henceforth, there is absolutely no need to comment on what was written by those who are called prophets.To strike the ax at once is to show that the original meaning of that word has been misunderstood, and that all inferences drawn from those books in that wrong None of their comments are worth disputing.Nevertheless, in many things the works of the Jewish poets should have had a better fate than the misuse of biblical titles, as they are doing now, to associate these works with some of the rubbish that accompanies them. If we would have ourselves to have correct ideas of things, we must place not only unchanging ideas, but ideas which are absolutely invariable by any means and by any accident, into that which we reverence call the Bible. go; therefore the Bible cannot exist in any writing or in the words of men. The meanings of words are constantly undergoing new changes, and because of the lack of a universal language, ①those who call themselves theologians and commentators, are fond of confusing each other, and I leave them to argue the first part of that sentence, It's about the "demon from God".I still hold on to that title—I do not abandon the meaning of the word "prophecy." --author The necessity of translation, the possibility of errors in translation, the inevitable errors of scribes and printers, and the possibility of deliberate falsification, these things in themselves are sufficient proof that human languages, whether spoken or printed, are Cannot be a vehicle for conveying the Word of God.The Bible exists in something else. 那被称为《圣经》的一部书，在思想和表达的纯洁方面是不是胜于世界上现有的一切书籍呢，依照我的信仰的法则来说，我不能认为它是圣经，因为使我受骗的可能仍旧存在。但是当我看过这部书的绝大部分，除了是一部粗野的罪恶史，和最卑鄙无聊的故事的搜集以外，很少有别的东西，因此我不能称呼它为圣经以亵渎我的造物主。 对于《圣经》 ①已经讲得多了；现在我要继续讨论那部叫做《新约》的书。 新约就是新的旨意，好象造物主有两种旨意。 如果耶稣基督有建立一个新宗教的目标或意图，他无疑地会亲自把那个体系写出来，或者在他活着的时候用着述的形式把它介绍出来。但是没有一种现存的版本可以证实是用他的名义写的。一切称为《新约》的书是在他死后写出来的。他生来是个犹太人，他也自称是个犹太人；他是上帝的儿子，正和任何其他人一样——因为造物主是一切人的父亲。 最前面的四本书，叫做《马太福音》、《马可福音》、《路加福音》和《约翰福音》。这四本书没有交代耶稣基督的一生的历史，只讲到一些他的不相连接的轶事。从这些书看来，他作为一个传道者的全部时间不会超过十八个月；而且只在这短短的时间里，那些人跟他熟悉起来。他们提到他时，他已十二岁，他们说他坐在犹太的博士中间，向他们提出问题和回答问题。 因为这件事发生在他们开始认识他的许多年以前，很可能这个轶事是他们从他的父母那里得来的。从这个时候起大约有十六年没有关于他的叙述。他住在哪里，或者他在这一段时期里做些什么，都不知道。很可能他在搞他父亲的行业，就是以木匠为业。看起来他不曾受过什么学校教育，而可能他不会写字，因为他的父母是极端贫穷，因为看来当他出生的时候，他们连一张床都买不起。 这件事有些奇怪就是世界上最有名的三个人，他们的家庭出身都不大明白。摩西是个弃儿；耶稣基督是生在马房里的；穆罕默德是一个赶骡子的。 他们中间第一个和第三个是不同的宗教体系的创立者；但耶稣基督并没有创立新的体系。他号召人实践道德的行为和信仰一个上帝。他的品性的最大特点是博爱。 根据他被捕的情况，可以看出他在当时是不大为人所知道的；也可以看出他和门徒的集会是秘密举行的；并且说明那时候他已经放弃或停止公开传教。犹大没有别的方法可以把他出卖，只有供给情报说他在什么地方，并且在去逮捕他的官吏面前指出了他。至于为什么要利用和收买犹大来做这一件事情，其原因所在就是上面所已经提到的，他不大为人所知道，而且他的行踪是隐蔽的。 关于他的隐蔽的观念，不但跟他的被称颂的神性极不相称，而且带有一些卑怯的意味。而且他的被出卖，换一句话说，他的被捕是由于他的门徒之一供给了情报，这说明他并不要被捕，因此他也并不要被钉于十字架上。 基督教的神话家告诉我们，基督是为了世界的罪孽而死的，并且说他就是为了死而来的。那么他如果死于热病，死于天花，死于年老，或因任何其①此处系指《旧约》。 - translator 它事情而死，是不是会一样呢？ 据他们所说，对于亚当所宣告的处分是如果他吃了苹果，并不是你必定要死在十字架上，而是你必定要死——只是判定死罪，而没有说明死的方式。所以死在十字架，或任何一种特殊的死法，并不是亚当所要受的死罪的一部分：因此，就是依他们自己的策略来说，也不能说基督的代亚当而死是所定的死罪的一部分。患热病而死将和死于十字架上无所区别，只看机会如何。 照他们所告诉我们的，对于亚当所宣告的死罪，它的意义必不出于两者之一，或者指自然死亡，就是生命停止，或者指神话家所称的定罪；因此耶稣基督就死的一个行为，按照他们的体系来说，一定为了防止临到亚当和我们头上的上述两种事件之一。 那显然不是为了防止我们的死亡，因为人人要死；如果他们的关于长寿的故事是真实的话，自从十字架事件以后，人却比以前死得快些，至于第二个解释（包括耶稣基督的自然死亡在内，作为全人类永久死亡或定罪的替代），很不适当地表示造物主因死的一字作双关戏语或作曲解而取消或收回所处的罪刑。双关语的制造者，圣·保罗，如果用他的名义的书是他写的，对于这个双关语起了帮助作用，因为他在亚当一字上面，又作出了双关语。 他造成了两个亚当：一个事实上犯罪而由他人代为吃苦；另一个代人受罪而事实上吃苦。一个宗教这样地混有曲解、遁辞和双关语，容易使宣传宗教的人学会这一套本领来加以运用。他们学得了这种习惯而不知道它的原因。 如果耶稣基督真是象神话家所告诉我们的那样一位人物，说他到这个世界上来是为吃苦的（这个词的意义，他们有时用来代替去死），那么他真正要忍受苦楚的话将是活在世上。他活在世上等于从天上被放逐或流亡下来，他要回到他原来的国家里去，只有死的一条路。——总之，在这一个奇怪的体系里面，每一件事情跟它所要假装出来的效果，适得其反。它是真理的反面，而我对于检查出它的矛盾和荒谬，已经感到非常厌倦，所以急于要把它结束，才可以进一步讨论些更好的东西。 在称为《新约》的书里面，究竟有多少或哪几部分是由用他的名字作为书名的人所写的，我们一点也无法知道，我们也无法肯定它们原来是用什么语言写的。这些书里现在所包含的东西，可以分为两类——轶事和书信往来。 前面已经提到过的四种书，《马太福音》、《马可福音》、《路加福音》 和《约翰福音》，完全是轶事体裁。他们讲述已经发生过的事迹。他们叙述耶稣基督所做的和所说的，也讲到别人对于他所做的和所说的；而且在有些事例方面，他们对于同一事件用不同的方法讲出来。那些书断然谈不上启示；不仅因为作者之间的见解不同，而且因为启示不适用于由亲自看见的人来叙述的事实，也不适用于亲自听见的人来叙述或记载的任何谈话或会话。称为《使徒行传》的一本书（一本隐名的着作）也属于轶事部分。 《新约》中一切其它部分，除了那本称为《启示录》的谜语书以外，是收集的书信，总称为书信的书。书信的伪造在世界上是很普通的一种习俗，所以究竟是真是假，至少有各占一半的可能。虽然，有一件事情不用多疑，就是从那些书中所包含的事件，加上某些旧故事的帮助，教会已经建立起一个宗教的体系，这体系跟教会所标榜的那个人的品格十分矛盾。它所建立起来的宗教是注重于豪华与收入，而假装着要效学一个生活谦虚和贫穷的人。 涤罪的发明，依靠祷告及用钱从教会那里赎罪，把灵魂从那里释放出来；出卖赦罪符、免罪符和特赦等等都是税收的法律，虽然名称上和形式上并不如此。无论如何，事情是这样的，那些花样都起源于十字架事件的发作，而从那里所得出的理论是：一个人可以代替另一个人，并且能够为他做功德。 所以，所谓赎罪（据称已由一个人代替了另一个人的行为而得到完成）的全部理论或教义也许原来就是故意捏造出来，以便引出和虚构出其它一切次一等的和金钱上的赎罪，而且赎罪理论的观念所由建立起来的书中各章节。也是为了那个目标而制造和捏造出来的。当教会告诉我们那些书里的每一部分都是真的，为什么我们对于这件事情要比它所告诉我们的其它一切事情，或比它所说的已经做到的奇迹，给予更多的信任呢？说教会能够捏造写作是肯定的，因为它能够写；而且讨论中的作品的写作，是任何人都能做到的一种；至于说这些作品确是出于教会的捏造，比较它告诉我们它能够并且已经做出奇迹，是具有同样的可能性的。 从那个时候起，经过这样长的一段时间，迄今没有能够提出外界的证据来证明究竟所谓“赎罪论”是不是出于教会的捏造（因为这样的证据，不论是正面的或反面的，同样可以怀疑它是出于捏造的），所以这件事情，只能参考事情本身里面存在着的内部证据；而这方面可以提供很有力的推定，认为它是出于捏造的。因为这个内部证据证明，作为赎罪的理论或教义的基础的观念，是金钱的正义，而不是道德的正义。 如果我欠了一个人的钱而不能还他，他就以让我去坐牢来威胁我，另外一个人能够承担这笔债务而代我去还；但是如果我犯了一个罪，那情形就完全不同；道德上的正义不能把无辜的人来代替有罪的人，即使无辜的人自己挺身而出也不行。如果以为正义可以这样做，就破坏了它自己存在的原则本身；这样就不成其为正义；它就变为不分皂白的复仇。 经过这样的简单思考之后可以看出赎罪论是仅仅建立在金钱的观念上，相当于欠债的情况，可以由另一个人代为偿还；而且这种金钱上的观念既然又可以适应于第二种赎罪的制度，即把金钱付与教会来购买免罪符，可能就是同一班人捏造了这两种理论：而实际上井没有象赎罪那样的事情；那是虚构的，人和他的创造者之间所处的相互地位，还是跟自有人类存在以来一样，人作这样想就是他的最大的安慰。 让他相信这一个，比较相信任何其它的体系，他会活得更和谐一致而富有道德。教导一个人的时候，如果要他把自己想成为一个法纪以外的人，一个被逐出的人，一个乞丐，一个被抛弃于粪堆上的人，跟他的造物主相隔得无穷的遥远，如果要与造物主接近，一定要向中间人卑躬屈膝，匍匐而行，露出畏缩卑怯的状态，那末，这样或者使他对于宗教上的一切事情怀着蔑视的念头，或者变为冷淡，或者转变成为（象他所说的）虔诚。在后者的事例中，他把他的生命消磨于忧伤憔悴之中，或者是过着假装的生活；他的祈祷是谴责；他的谦逊是忘恩；他把自己称为蛆虫，把肥土称为粪堆；把对于生命的一切祝福，统以忘恩的名称，叫做虚空；他瞧不起上帝所赋与人的最好的东西——天赋的理性。他力图把理性所反对的一种体系的信仰强加在自己身上，他忘恩负义地把它叫做人的理性，好象人能够把理性给与他自己。 虽然他有了这样一切奇形怪状的谦逊和这样地看轻人类的理性，他却冒险进入于最大胆的推断；他在一切事情方面吹毛求疵；他的自私自利永远不会满足；他的忘恩也永无止境。他自己起来指挥全能的上帝做些什么，甚至于在宇宙的治理方面；他的祈祷是独裁式的；当阳光照耀的时候，他祈祷下雨；当下雨的时候，他祈祷出太阳；他在祈祷每一件事情的时候都循着同一的观念；他的一切的祈祷究竟是什么内容呢？只是试图使全能的上帝改变他的意思，而做和他现在所做的相反的事情。他好象要说——你没有我那样懂得透。 但是有些人恐怕要说——是不是我们不会有上帝的道——没有启示！我回答说：有的，有上帝的道；有一个启示。 上帝的道就是我们所看到的创造：而且在这个道里面，没有人的创作能够加以伪造和改变；上帝说话是对着全世界的人而说的。 人类的语言是地方性的，而且是常在改变的，所以不能用作传达不变的和普遍的消息的手段。据他们说，上帝差遣耶稣基督从大地的这一端到那一端来报告大喜的信息给世界各国，这种想法仅仅是与某些人的愚昧相一致的，这些人不懂得世界的范围有多大，或者相信（象那些世界救主们所相信的）而且经历几个世纪之久仍继续相信（这和哲学家的发现及航海家的经验有矛盾），认为大地是象盘子一样平的可以从这一头走到那一头的。 但是耶稣基督怎样能使任何事情为一切国家的人民所了解呢？他只能说一种语言，就是希伯来语；而世界上共有几百种语言。两个国家说同一种语言或是彼此了解的是很少的。讲到翻译吧，凡是懂得一些外国语的人都知道从一种语言译成另一种语言不可能不把一大部分的原意失去，而且往往把意义弄错；除这一切以外，在基督活着的时候，还完全不知道什么叫做印刷术。 这是永远必要的：完成一个目标的手段应和那个目标的完成相符，否则目标就不得完成。就在这里边可以找出有限的与无限的能力和智慧之间的区别。人往往因为对于某种目标缺乏自然的能力，并且也往往因为缺乏适当地运用固有能力的智慧，而不能达到他的目的。但是无限的能力和智慧不可能象人那样会失败。它所用的手段是永远和目的相符合的：但是人类的语言，特别由于没有一种普遍的语言，不能用作传达一种不变和统一的消息的普遍手段，因此上帝不会把它当作手段来向全世界的人表现自己。 惟有在创造之中，可以把我们对于上帝的道的一切观念和概念统一起来。“创造”说出一种普遍的语言，人类的说话和语言尽管是多种多样的，都与它无涉。这是一个永远存在的原本，每一个人都能读的。它不能被伪造；它不能被冒充；不会遗失；不能改变；也不会被禁止发行。它不是根据人的意志来决定要不要出版；它把自己发表出来，从地球的这一端到那一端。它向一切国家和一切世界宣扬出去，而这种上帝的道把人类对于上帝必须知道的一切都启示给人。 我们要不要想到他的能力？我们从“创造”的广大无量可以看出。我们要不要想到他的智慧？我们从支配着不可思议的整体的不变的秩序中可以看出。我们要不要想到他的慷慨？我们从充满地上的丰富物资可以看出。我们要不要想到他的仁慈？我们从对于忘恩的人也不拒绝给他丰富的物资可以看出。最后，我们要不要知道上帝是什么？不要去查那本称为《圣经》的书，那是随便什么人的手都可以写得出来的，应该去研究那称为“创造”的《圣经》。 人可以和上帝的名称联系在一起的惟一的观念，就是关于第一原因的观念，即一切事物的原因。虽然什么叫做“第一原因”是不可思议而难以叫人想得明自的，但人们终于相信了它，由于不相信它的困难还要大到十倍。要想象出空间不能有止境，其困难是无以形容的；但是要想象出有一个止境却更为困难。我们称之为时间的东西会永久延续下去，这也不是人的能力所能想象出来的；但是要想象出一个没有时间的时间，却更加不可能。 在同样的推论之下，我们所看到的每一件事物都有一个内在的证据，证明它不是它自己所造成的。每一个人对于他自己来说就是一个证据，证明他不曾造成自己；也不是他的父亲，他的祖父，甚至于他的同类里的任何一个人所能造成他的；也没有任何一棵材，或任何一只动物能够自己造自己；就从这样一种证据所产生出来的信念，使我们象过去一样不得不信仰一个永久存在着的“第一原因”，这个信仰的性质跟我们所知道的任何物质的存在完全不同，并且一切事物都凭着它的能力而存在；而人把这个“第一原因”叫做上帝。 人惟有依靠运用理性，才能发现上帝。离开了理性，他将什么东西也不能了解；在这种情形之下，即使读了那本称为《圣经》的书，一个人和一匹马并没有什么不同的地方。那些人怎么会假装把理性抛弃掉呢？ 在那本称为《圣经》的书里，能使我们得到一些上帝观念的惟一的部分是《约伯记》里的几章和《诗篇》第十九篇，据我所记得的，没有其它的了。 那些部分是真正的自然神教的作品；因为它们是通过上帝创造的东西来论究上帝的。他们把“创造”的书当作上帝的道，而不用其它的书，并且一切的推论都从那本书里得出来的。 在这里，我插上爱迪生把《诗篇》第十九篇译成的一篇英文诗。那散文我记不得了，而且在我写这本书的地方我也没有机会可以看到它。 广阔的穹苍高高在上，碧蓝的天空一片无量， 灿灿的诸天，光耀的框框， 他们的伟大的元始的宣扬。 不厌不倦的太阳，一天又一天， 施展着他的造物主的威权； 把全能的上帝手创的杰作， 传布到地上每一个角落。 不久茫茫的暮色笼罩大地。 嫦娥开始述说她的奇异故事， 夜夜说给大地仔细听， 她出生的故事，反复没有停。 群星围月似火烧燃， 诸大行星轮番更换， 边转边证实嫦娥的消息， 把真理从这一极传到那一极。 虽说是一片庄严的寂静， 围着这个黑暗的地球驰聘； 虽说是无声与无音， 在他们的发光体中无物可寻。 然而理性的聪耳听来都喜悦， 发出了光辉的音节。 当他们照耀着就永远歌唱， 创造我们的手属于至高至上。 除出造这些东西的手或能力是属于神的，是全能的，人还有什么事情需要知道？如果他容许他的理性活动起来，让他凭不可抗拒的力量来相信这一点，他的道德生活的规则自然会跟上来。 《约怕记》中的暗示全部跟这诗篇有同样的倾向；就是从已知的真理中演绎出或证明一条真理，而不如此就不会知道这条真理。