The Creation of God by Jacob Hartmann (color ebook reader TXT) 📖

assisted Hannah when the Lord closed her womb. The Temple has served many outrageous purposes, and many amusing as well as instructive lessons might be gathered. Fortunately the Jewish Temple is no exception. The heathen temples were equally guilty.

During the reign of Tiberius, the Romans had a temple of Isis, and they had a god called Anubis. A man with the name of Mundus fell in love with a married lady called Paulina, who bribed the priests to permit him to appear to Paulina in the temple as the god Anubis. The priest representing the god Anubis invited Paulina to the temple in order to be entertained by that god. Her husband, pleased with the favor, consented. Paulina was entertained all night at the temple by what she supposed to be the god Anubis, Mundus representing him. Paulina was delighted, her husband also, but Mundus could not hold his tongue. Tiberius heard of it; he caused the temple, priests, and all to be burnt, and Mundus was exiled for three months. The priests were crucified. Anyone curious to know particulars about this matter may consult history.

In modern times, living as we do in an age of reason, fact, and science, we do not take the same view of these particular occurrences such as the Bible speaks of as our forefathers, the ancients who lived in an age of fancy and imagination. The Holy Ghost, unless he is in the substantial form of a man, can accomplish nothing, and either Mrs. Mary Joseph had committed an act of indiscretion before marriage, or Joseph himself was the father.

It would be far more decent for all parties concerned to legitimatize the child. The effect or result would be just the same, since the young gentleman is to be the great reformer of that age, clever, meek, mild, amiable as he is represented to be in the New Testament.

Mark begins his gospel: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

Luke begins historically and then tells his virgin story (i, 27).

John philosophizes, and tells us that (verse 18) “no man hath seen God; the only begotten son which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him.” In verse 45 he is called the son of Joseph.

The entrance of Christ into this world is the most stupid and ridiculous piece of nonsense that was ever written. If Christ is the son of God he can be no relation of David, and Joseph can certainly not be his father. Or if the Holy Ghost was the cause of Mary’s condition before marriage, Joseph condoned the offense by living with her, and is the father by adoption and not by nature; and can by no means be a relation or descendant of David.

Then again, if Joseph is the father, Jesus is not the son of God. In that case, he might be a relation of David, but no relation to God.

Men of ordinary education no longer believe either in the Holy Ghost, the manner of Christ’s coming, nor in his divinity. It is an absurd fabrication, an impossibility and contrary to nature.

I repeat once more, that neither God, his spirit, nor his holy ghost, can perform anything that is in direct opposition to the laws of nature.

The miracles that are attributed to Jesus Christ by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are invariably of a medical nature; embracing all kinds—lepers, palsy, fevers, dropsy, the blind, the dumb, the lame—hemorrhages of women, casting out devils, curing lunatics, healing every disease.

The manner of curing is very peculiar—by touch, by rebuke, by word, by spit and touch.

A sample or two will suffice:

Mark vii, 32: “And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand on him.” 33: “And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue.” 34: “And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said unto him, Ephphatha, that is, be opened.” 35: “And straightway his ears were opened, and the strings of his tongue were loosed, and he spake plain.”

Matt. xvii, 15, etc.: Christ rebukes the devil out of a lunatic.

Chapter xx, 34: He touches the eyes of two blind men and they see.

Luke viii, 43: “And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed by any.” 44: “Came behind him, and touched the borders of his garment; and immediately, her issue of blood stanched.”

Chapter viii, 54 (woman dead): “And put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called saying, Maid, arise.” 55: “And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway,” etc.

John ix, 1: “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man, which was blind from his birth.” Verse 6: “When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.”

Luke xiv, 2: He cures a man of dropsy, etc.

That these cures were actually performed is not very probable, for the simple fact that the art of medicine was little known, and least known among the Jews.

That these four witnesses really were present at the time these operations were performed, we have no proof. Luke says Christ cures blindness by touch; John makes him use spit and clay. We are not told that he was trying experiments. Anyway, every operation was successful. Raising people from the dead was equally successful.

Why should we wonder that such miracles could be performed among the lower classes, rude, uneducated, and poor? They were ready to believe any kind of plausible deception; and it was among this class that he found his adherents.

These performances called miracles are supposed to have happened nearly two thousand years ago. At that time the masses were not to be compared to the masses of to-day in education, understanding, or in the progress made in every branch of art, science, literature, mechanics, etc.

The church Christianity has also progressed somewhat, and there can be no possible excuse for the priests of to-day affirming these pretended cures of Christ. They ought to know that the notions of these things are due to feebleness of intellect in the uncultured brain, to the lack of understanding and the gullibility of the masses. Christ and his disciples were as ignorant as the masses concerning medicine or the healing art. They knew absolutely nothing about it. At 325 A.D., later 318, fathers of the then existing Christian organizations approved of the entire contents. Nay, a large part of it may have been manufactured by them.

At this day there is no reason that men should not know better. Every man, whether priest or layman, ought to understand that so-called miraculous cures can be performed only by men, priests or others, that premeditatedly, with intent, cheat, swindle, and defraud some portion of the public, in consequence of the ignorance of the one, and the superior knowledge, shrewdness, and cunning of the other.

It is a flagrant abuse of authority, a miserable condition of our laws, a stupendous piece of bigotry, an outrage, that a man can be punished for speaking the truth, and it is an actual miracle that people are still so wonderfully stupid as to believe in the scandalous deception of the healing qualities of an old rag, a coat, pretended to have belonged to Christ or some one else. Recently we read in the daily paper, the Sun: “Berlin, Sept. 26.—In Treves, Herr Reichar has been sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for ridiculing the holy coat and for attacking the Roman Catholic prelates because they encouraged the people to believe that it had healing qualities. His publisher, Herr Sonnenburg, was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment. The chief charge against them was blasphemy.”

Even in this city, some miserable cheat or cheats attempted to perpetrate the same sort of scoundrelism in one of the Catholic churches.

During the recent cholera desolation in Hamburg, we read: “In all the churches services of prayer for the abatement of the plague have been held. They have been attended by crowds which have filled the buildings” (Sun).

In ancient times plagues were regarded as visitations from God; to-day we know that they are the products of filth and starvation. Sanitary measures and food for the starving are needed, instead of prayer. The churches would answer a far better purpose converted into soup-kitchens and healthy lodging-houses for the poor and homeless.

In Russia the condition is still worse. The degradation of the masses is extreme. Of the dreadful doings there we hear but the slightest echo. The Russian priest is an ignorant, intolerant, selfish, tyrannical brute. In time of cholera the clergy walk in procession through the streets in church garb, with banners, crosses, candles, chanting and praying, while the dirt, filth, and cholera poison lie all around them.

The pilgrimages to Lourdes are another ecclesiastical swindle. The poor, miserable dupes are enticed in order to be plundered. From the Tribune, “Zola at Lourdes,” we quote: “Nothing could be more truly sensational than the annual pilgrimage thither, the flocking to that shrine of tens of thousands of devotees, dozens of special trains running to it daily; the daily processions, with thousands of priests and tens of thousands of the laity; the fervent prayers of the supplicants, and the wild exaltation of those that are miraculously healed—or who believe themselves to be healed.… So M. Zola, accompanied by Mme. Zola, were at Lourdes, and following the crowd, proceeded at once to the holy grotto. He found it surrounded by more than twenty thousand people, of both sexes and of all ages and conditions. Indeed in none of his novels is a more striking scene portrayed than that. In the afternoon the daily procession occurred. At its head marched no less than two thousand priests, monks, and nuns. Then came the holy sacrament, borne beneath a silken canopy. After it came the sick and the suffering who had come thither to be cured. These were cripples on crutches or leaning on the arms of friends; the blind, led by their friends or fellow-pilgrims; sick and deformed infants in their mothers’ arms; here and there a cripple and a blind man arm in arm, relying upon each other, the one for support, the other for guidance. Behind these thousands came other thousands of suppliants, sightseers, perhaps some scoffers, while yet other thousands stood by and gazed upon the scene.”

It is indeed a miracle that we have so many such persons at this stage of progressive civilization. But the church and its priests have exerted every influence to prevent its advance.

Fortunately the world at large has outgrown this childish nonsense to some extent. The development of our civil laws, with a greater knowledge of the natural laws, keep the church and priestly fanatics in subjection.

As to the resurrection of Christ’s body, or anyone else’s body, we may put it down as fabulous and untrue. Dead bodies do not rise—cannot rise. From the moment a body is dead the process of decomposition begins, and resuscitation is an impossibility. No one believes it, and the priest of this century even doubts it, though the manner of Christ’s birth and death forms the creed of Christian believers, and reads as follows:

“I believe in God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,