Godless (33 page)

Read Godless Online

Authors: Dan Barker

Tags: #Religion, #Atheism

BOOK: Godless
11.17Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
What is this? These are the real Ten Commandments? They only have a 20 percent match with Exodus 20. Did the rules change between visits? Did God lose his memory? What happened to homicide, theft and perjury? Is adultery okay now? What might have happened with a fourth visit, or a fifth? Notice that these are not additional commandments: they are “the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” If you have ever been tempted to boil a goat in the milk of its mother, now you know better. If I were still a Christian, I would be embarrassed that the God I thought I admired could be so forgetful and so petty. And so downright weird.
 
Other religions have lists of laws. The Ten Precepts of Buddhism (at least 500 B.C.E.) include 1) abstinence from destroying life, 2) abstinence from stealing, 3) abstinence from impurity, 4) abstinence from lying, 5) abstinence from strong drinks and intoxicating liquor, and five more rules for monks only. Notice that these are “precepts,” not commandments, and though they also devote wasted space to religious rules, they were probably easier to carry. They show that we humans are not so stupid that we couldn’t figure out on our own that there is something wrong with killing, stealing and lying, and we did this long before the Israelites claimed the copyright. The human race has a tendency to make behavior lists and the biblical Ten Commandments are not unique.
 
Did things get any better with Jesus? The Old Testament is, after all old. As Julia Sweeney says in her hilarious play and movie
Letting Go of God
: “The world ‘Old’ is right there in the title!” Perhaps the “New” Testament will be an improvement.
 
THE GOLDEN RULE
 
The phrase “Golden Rule” does not appear in the bible. Neither does the famous “do unto others” wording. What Jesus was actually reported to have said is this: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12) The author of Luke relates it this way: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luke 6:31)
 
Matthew’s version is interesting. It appears to parallel an earlier wording of the same idea by Rabbi Hillel in 10 C.E.: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” (Talmud, Shabbat, 31a) The Golden Rule is not unique to Jesus, nor did it start with Christianity.
 
In Hinduism (Brahmanism), around 300 B.C.E.: “This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata, 5, 1517
.
The Vedic period of Hinduism goes back to 1500 B.C.E.)
 
In Buddhism we read: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga, 5, 18)
 
In Confucianism, which started around 500 B.C.E.: “Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.” (Analects, 15, 23)
 
In Taoism we have, “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” (T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien. The date of this writing is uncertain, but it was probably between 900-1200 C.E. Taoism came into its own around the fourth century B.C.E.)
 
Zoroastrianism: “That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.” (Dadistan-i-dinik, 94, 5. This particular quote came after Christianity, but the religion goes back to about 1500 B.C.E.)
 
Some theologians claim that the Christian version of the Golden Rule is superior because it is phrased as the positive “Do” rather than the negative “Do not.” (So, what does that say about the thou-shaltnots of the Ten Commandments?)
 
I personally think that the negative version is more useful. The problem with “Do unto others” is, what if you have bad taste? What if you are a masochist? Should you “do unto others” what you would like to have done unto yourself? What if you enjoy being preached at? Should you pester those who might not enjoy it? Should you prepare meals or buy gifts for others based on what
you
like? What if you are an ascetic? Would you withhold a comfortable life from others? What if you have bizarre sexual preferences? Should you do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
 
This rule does not deserve a gold medal. It would be better titled the “Bronze Guideline.”
 
While the positive version tells you to “do unto others,” there are many people who don’t want anything done to them at all. Although phrased positively, the Golden Rule does not give any positive guidance. It does not say, “Do kind things, peaceful things, compassionate things to others.” The negative version, on the other hand, allows people to be left alone. It rightly recognizes the essence of morality: try to minimize harm. I like the Hindu and Buddhist versions because they identify harm as the real culprit in moral decisions.
 
Whether phrased positively or negatively, what do you do with a wife who hates back rubs and a husband who loves them? The positive expression of the rule would tell the husband to give his wife a back rub, which she doesn’t want. The negative version would tell the wife not to give her husband a back rub, which he would love to have! Either way they lose.
 
Jesus’ Bronze Guideline has sometimes been called the Law of Reciprocity. The general concept is to reflect on how your actions affect others, which is essential to ethical reasoning. But since it is not unique to Jesus, and since the Christian version is poorly phrased, it hardly supports the claim that the bible is a superior guide for moral behavior.
 
LOVE THY NEIGHBOR
 
Closely related to the Golden Rule is “love thy neighbor.” In Leviticus 19:18 we find the commandment: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Although this is not found in any version of the Ten Commandments, Jesus and Paul treat it as if it were on the main list.
 
In Matthew 19:16 a man asked Jesus how to achieve eternal life and Jesus replied, “Keep the commandments.” The man asked, “Which? Jesus said, “Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If God had known that “love thy neighbor” was to be one of the biggies, why did he not include it in his Big Ten? Couldn’t the rule about boiling a goat in its mother’s milk be moved somewhere else to make space for it? (Of course, this was before word processors, and once something is engraved in stone…) On the other hand, perhaps this rearranging of rules in midstream is evidence of moral development. Maybe God, once he became a human being, actually became a better person. Maybe gods have to grow up, too. At face value, loving your neighbor does seem superior to worrying about mixing blood and leaven.
 
This passage does present a problem for most Protestants, who are taught that salvation comes by faith alone, not by keeping the commandments. When the man asked Jesus how to achieve eternal life, why didn’t Jesus say “Believe on me” as Martin Luther preached instead of “Keep the commandments” as the popes preached? The bible is contradictory.
 
In Romans 13:8-9 Paul lists some important commandments and also includes “love thy neighbor”: “for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” In Galatians 5 Paul wrote: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” James 2:8 said it also. So, according to Jesus, we should remove those Ten Commandments from government property. All we need is love. Love is all we need.
 
While we all agree that love is good, this rule is not specific. It does not give any advice about how to treat others. What about people who do not love themselves—how can they love others “as themselves?” What if you were raised in a dysfunctional and abusive family and have a very low self-image? What if you are suicidal?
 
It is important to understand that “love thy neighbor” in the Old Testament meant something less than in the New Testament. In the Leviticus wording it deals with “the children of thy people,” not with the entire earth. The word “neighbor” simply meant fellow Israelite. This is obvious when we observe how God’s people treated other nations. In the context of the Old Testament, “love thy neighbor” is actually discriminatory. It would be like Ku Klux Klan leaders advising their followers to “love your white neighbors.” It was perfectly allowable for God’s people to hate the heathen. King David said that he hated them “with perfect hatred.” (Psalm 139:22)
 
Jesus enhanced the concept by making it universal: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you.” This is an improvement over Israelite imperialism, but the fact that it is less discriminatory does not necessarily make it an exceptional moral guide. We certainly can’t base any laws on this—no one will go to prison for not loving. Some Christians feel that “love your enemy” is so unnatural, so nonintuitive, so shockingly different, that it elevates Jesus to a whole new level of compassion. But I think it is actually less moral than our natural human instincts. There are some enemies who ought not to be loved. Some enemies should be hated. If love is just a blanket imperative that ignores the qualities of its object, then it becomes meaningless. Sure, we humanists can “love” the human race, treating all people fairly—innocent until proven guilty, if you will—but as moral agents we have an obligation
not
to love at times.
 
Love can’t be commanded. No one has the right to tell me to love someone else. I can treat people with fairness. I can give respect where respect is due. But I can’t just turn on love. Love, if it has any special meaning at all, is reserved for those who are dear to me, for those who have earned my admiration, for those whom I find attractive or lovable. It is contrary to human nature to expect that I can have equal feelings for all people, and it cheapens love to bring everyone to the same level. When you say “I love you” to your spouse or lover, try adding “but it could have been anyone else because I love all my neighbors and enemies, too.”
 
What if my neighbor is a jerk? What if after all my sincere attempts to be friendly and fair, my neighbor continues to act destructively? Is it healthy for me to pretend to love this person? I might be concerned for this person’s lifestyle (or I might not) and wish to see an improvement for his or her sake as well as mine, but I certainly am not going to feign love. The biblical Jesus should have known better than to command believers to fake an emotion that is often inappropriate, unnatural and insincere.
 
(At the Freethought Advance in Lake Hypatia, Alabama, a few years ago, a contest was held to see who would come up with the best response when someone says, “Jesus loves you.” The winner was: “Yes, I know. Everybody loves me.”)
 
As with most other biblical rules, Jesus makes “love thy neighbor” a condition for reward: “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans do the same? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
(
Matthew 5:46-48. The biblical god didn’t love everyone, so he isn’t perfect either.) Try saying to someone you love: “The reason I love you is because I am trying to attain perfection and hope to be rewarded someday.” These sayings are based on self-interest and a “spiritual” goal that is out of touch with the real world where morality matters. A better guide for human behavior would take into account the physical conditions, the individual cases, the nature of human feelings and the results of certain actions before making a blanket commandment. “Love thy neighbor” might make a lofty sentiment, but it is an impractical moral guideline.
 
THE BEATITUDES
 
The word “Beatitude” does not appear in the bible. The Beatitudes describe the first eight sayings of the “Sermon on the Mount” (also a phrase absent from the bible) spoken by Jesus in the fifth chapter of Matthew, all beginning with “Blessed are…”
 
Five of the eight Beatitudes have nothing to do with morality. At face value the entire group is more of a religious pep talk than a code of ethical behavior. They are all in the passive voice. None of them are truly ethical in themselves since they are all conditions for a future reward. A true ethical code might mention the benefits (“Blessed are”) of certain actions, but should stress the inherent value of the behavior on its own merits before detailing the gain or loss for the individual. The eight Beatitudes are:
 
(1) “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” This praises a condition that is not admirable. Are we all supposed to become “poor-spirited?” What does “poor in spirit” mean? This verse does not advocate any specific, positive ethical action. It only says that if you happen to be “poor in spirit” then be happy because you are going to heaven. Verses such as these have been cited to keep slaves and women in their place with promises of “pie in the sky.”

Other books

Violet Ink by Rebecca Westcott
Ash & Bone by John Harvey
The Book Club Murders by Leslie Nagel
1999 by Pasha Malla
Working Girls by Maureen Carter
Rabbit Racer by Tamsyn Murray