Part 3 (2/2)
In conclusion, we thank Archbishop Lynch for his tiandist docuht, and really in the interests of those ”foolish” and ”brutalized” Freethinkers against whoreat success It is another illustration of the essentially bigoted and intolerant spirit of Christianity in general
I am well aware that the Protestant sects of Christianity repudiate this charge of the intolerant and persecuting spirit of Christianity in general, and vainly attempt to shi+ft the whole onus and odium upon the Church of Ro--that it is not responsible for having reddened the earth with blood --but that this was all done contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christianity by men ere not really Christians We deny it We take the position that Christianity itself is essentially intolerant and persecuting in spirit; and, we take the New Testaed words as reported there, and Paul's alleged words as reported there, and can thereby abundantly sustain our charge ”He that believeth not shall be damned” ”A man that is a heretic after the first and second adotry and intolerance? ”I would they were even cut off which trouble you” How kind! ”Think not that I coes could be quoted from the New Testament of similar import, and the Old Testa even your wives or brothers to death should they try to persuade you to worshi+p their God--See Deut 13, 6, 7 and 8
REPLY TO ”BYSTANDER”
I approach this part of my prescribed duty with some hesitation, and not a little reluctance _Bystander_ is brilliant, learned, independent, and honest; and for these qualities, though differing from him on some i to affection I hope, therefore, that Ieven the seentleman in question has had a full share since he honored Canadians by casting his lot ast us
For the benefit of some readers who, possibly, may not have seen it, I may say that _The Bystander_ is a ”Monthly Review of Current Events,”
published in Toronto by Messrs Hunter, Rose & Co, and written by a certain distinguished literary gentleive here only that I feel in courtesy bound to respect the ”ientleood reason, to claim
The last three issues of _The Bystander_ (for April, May and June) have each a paper on Col Ingersoll, his lectures, and cognate subjects; the general tone of which is very liberal, but, at the saersoll and his teachings which I consider unfair and unjust (unintentionally no doubt), and to which I here propose briefly to reply
Having heard Mr Ingersoll lecture but once I ae to speak fully as to the alleged ”blaspheeneral ”tone” on the platform; but this ersoll) ”repels all decent men, whatever their convictions; for no decent man likes blasphemy any more than he likes obscenity,” is certainly not true of the one lecture I heard, or of the score of others of his I have read I humbly claim to be myself a ”decent ersoll's lecture, but rather attracted I also saw many decent people at the lecture (some from a distance), and they did not seem repelled; but, liketo the reports in the _Evening Telegraent people: and instead of being repelled, they greeted the lecturer with the most enthusiastic approbation and applause, repeated over and over again The same reception was accorded him in Montreal, Belleville and Napanee
Bystander contrasts Ingersoll's ”offensive tone” on the platforentleness and sympathy of the Christian preacher on Mars' Hill,”
who, he tells us, ”delivered the truths he bore at once with the dignity of simple earnestness, and with perfect tenderness towards the beliefs which he came to supersede” Let us, for a moment, examine this claim of ”simple earnestness,” and ”perfect tenderness” in behalf of Paul the great preacher of the New Testament Paul says, (Roman iii 7) ”For if the truth of God hath lory, why yet aed as a sinner?” He also tells us (2nd Cor 12: 16) that ”being _crafty_, I caught you with guile,” and likewise assures us that he was ”all things to all men;” to the Jews he ”became as a Jew,”
etc What ”simple earnestness” this is truly! And the Church of Christ has nearly always acted in accordance with this Scriptural doctrine that in _lying_ for God's sake the ”end justifies the means” Mosheies of the Christian Church, ”It was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that ht be promoted”
As to Paul's ”perfect tenderness toward the beliefs which he ca to the Galatians he says [tenderly] ”As we said before, so say I now again, if any ospel unto you than that you have received, let him be _accursed_” (Gal 1:9) That is tender toleration for you! Again, ”A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition, reject”
(titus 4:9) ”I would they were even cut off which trouble you” (Gal
5: 12) We, Freethinkers, would stand a poor chance to-day if Paul's precepts were carried out! Again, ”If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be _Anathema Maranatha_” (1 Cor 16: 22)-What ”perfect tenderness” this is! With a vengeance are these curses and ersoll's lectures, or any Freethinkers' writings, for such consuotry, intolerance, and even cruelty as this ”Christian preacher” pours out upon all who venture to differ from him in belief And what ”perfect tenderness” in Paul to denounce and stigionists--as ”_false apostles, deceitful workers, dogs, and liars!_” Did _Bystander_ or anybody else ever hear such language froersoll or any other Freethinker? Is it not ”offensive to any sensible and right-minded man?” Does it not ”repel all decent ersoll ”attacks doght” What more does he attack? This is exactly what he does attack, and _Bystander_ ad that he himatic orthodoxy Now, if the Christian's God, as described in the Bible, is included in ”dogersoll blasphe to _Bystander_ himself _Bystander_ may say, however, that he does not mean to include the Christian's God in the ”irrational and obsolete orthodoxy,” against which he ad” But does _Bystander_ himself believe in the God of the Bible? Froe he surely cannot Does he believe in the God of who description? (For want of time to refer to, and space to insert chapter and verse, they are not given, but every Bible reader will recognize the passages given as substantially correct):--
”He burns with anger; his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire” ”His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thron by hihty man that shouteth by reason of wine” ”Smoke came out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth, so that coals were kindled by it”
”He had horns coed sword” ”The Lord shall roar froh He roareth frorapes” ”He is a jealous God” ”He stirred up jealousy” ”He was jealous to fury”
”He rides upon horses” ”The Lord is a er will be accomplished, and his fury rest upon them, and then he will be _comforted!_” ”His arrows shall be drunken with blood” ”He is angry with the wicked every day” ”A fire is kindled in er and shall burn unto the lowest hell I will heap mischief upon them; I will spend my arrows upon them I will also send the teeth of beasts upon the ray hairs” [What did the ”suckling” do to merit this?] ”He reserveth wrath for his enery and swore” ”He cried and roared”
Does _Bystander_ believe in a God like that? whoersol to attack! It is true there are good qualities and attributes ascribed to God by the Bible as well as bad; but that does not affect the fact that these are ascribed to him; while the co-existence of two dia is simply absurd Why is it blasphemy to attack such a conception of God, any an Gods of antiquity? As he is represented in the Bible, He is certainly no better than they; and _Bystander_ hiht on the Pagan Gods When primitive Judaism and Christianity set up a God for _our_ worshi+p and adoration, and at the same time tells us, ”by the book,” that He commanded the cruel, fiendish, and indiscri to decline to worshi+p, or adore, or believe in any such Being; and we do not think it ”blasphemy” to attack the false belief and the false God When we read in the ”word of God” that the Lord commanded one of his prophets to diet on excrement; that the Lord met Moses at a tavern and tried to kill him (see Exodus, 4, 24); that the sun and hts, and that nearly the whole world was drowned; that the first man--Adao; that the world was etation flourished before there was any sun,--e read of all these wonderful things, we beg to be excused froht to ridicule them to our heart's content If this is ”disrespect,” or ”insult,” or an ”ignoble spirit of irreverence,” then we plead guilty to the charge, and are willing to abide by it
We do not deny that there may be a God; we only deny the existence of such a one as the Bible sets forth We attack only the Gods whoinations and set up for our worshi+p, and not any high or noble conception of a Deity We fully adreat and mysterious power or force in the universe which we cannot understand or coreat _Unknown_ and _Unknowable_, and have no ”attack”
to make upon this power, no word of ridicule, no blasphemy; but, like Tyndall, stand in its presence with reverence and awe, acknowledging our ignorance
While, however, acknowledging this unseen Poe decline to anthropo_, and invest it withonly in degree not in kind It is only the anthropomorphismas We only attack that which is incredible and absurd--that which ”shocks reason” We believe in religion--the Religion of Huion of _works_ instead of faith and creeds, and _Bystander_ hiht which it cannot bear,” and that, ”unless the credible can be separated from the incredible, the reasonable from that which shocks reason, there will be a total eclipse of faith”
”The Cosony of Moses,” says _Bystander_, ”will, of course not bear the scrutiny of oted as to maintain that it will” If it will not bear such scrutiny, is it blasphemy to attack it, or its author? for the God of the Bible is the alleged author of that Cos Moses or whoever wrote it
But _Bystander_ further reony ”need not fear coony of any other race” We thank him for that favor It is exactly e claiony of Moses, like all the others, is simply a hu” an _inspired_ Cosonies Hence, according to _Bystander_ hiony is simply, like the rest, human: only he thinks it a little better than the others It will not, however, ”bear the scrutiny of modern science” Very likely not! What then, becomes of the ”fall of man,” the ”redemption” the ”Ideal Man,” and the whole Christian Superstructure which rests upon the Mosaic Cos _must_ come down
It is also admitted by _Bystander_ that ”The moral code of Moses is tribal and primeval; it is alien to us who live under the ethical conditions of high civilization and the Religion of Hunificent favor also, we again thank _Bystander_ No materialist or utilitarian could have possibly put it better; albeit a Christian would experience so to make out why, if the ”moral code of Moses” is from heaven, it should be ”alien to us” and to these times? He would be hardly able to understand why he should be coan_ codes to see whether it is ”worse or better than other codes fraress?” Let the Freethinkers take courage _Bystander_, to all appearances, will soon be squarely on our side; and then we can truthfully say, that though the Christians have the greatest scientist, probably, in Canada (Prof Dawson, of Montreal,) on their side, ill have the greatest scholar, historian and _literateur_ in Canada on _our_ side Three cheers in the Liberal camp for _Bystander!_ Indeed, we have some hopes, too, even of Prof Dawson, whose Mosaic orthodoxy see a little of late; and he evidently feels his isolation, his scientific brethren all being on our side
While writing this, the Montreal _Daily Witness_ of June 15th, 1880, coenarian friend in Port Hope (W ational Union,” at present in session in Montreal Froh Pedley, B A, ht of the Age,” fro, as reported in the _Witness_:--