From Bondage to Liberty in Religion Part 5

The first of these was the physical universe. I had accepted the theory of evolution in a general way; yet I could not account for the marvelous organism of millions of worlds and suns and systems, of which our earth is but a mere atom, filling the infinity of s.p.a.ce, beyond all human comprehension, revolving and whirling thru s.p.a.ce, each in its alloted orbit, with such perfect order and regularity, and all in the most perfect harmony, governed by such immutable, perfect and universal law, upon the theory of the operation of blind, unintelligent force upon inert matter. Here was an effect. There must be a cause. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Here is an infinite universe; there must be an infinite cause; and that cause cannot be less than Infinite Eternal Intelligence. This cause, for the want of a better name, we call G.o.d. I could thus easily account for the universe thru the processes of evolution, directed by eternal, intelligent will, operating thru eternal immutable and perfect law, upon eternal and indestructible matter. Whether correct or not, this satisfied my mind as to G.o.d and the universe.

I could sing with the Psalmist:

"The heavens declare the glory of G.o.d, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge. Their line is gone out thru all the earth and their words to the end of the world. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard."

As I have before said, I never had any doubt about the existence of a Supreme Being, and that the universe was in some way the product of his creative energy. I think the doctrine of evolution satisfactorily solves the "riddle of the universe," if it recognizes Infinite Spirit as well as Eternal Matter; and that this Infinite Spirit is in some way, tho beyond our comprehension, the real Force or Energy, both the Intelligence and Life, the Great Uncaused First Cause behind all phenomena, who, for the want of a better name we call G.o.d.

Perhaps it is impossible for any one to think of G.o.d without at the same time conceiving some sort of definition of him. Yet, G.o.d cannot be defined. He is infinite. And infinity cannot be defined in terms of the finite. Any attempt to define G.o.d is to limit Him. Our conceptions of G.o.d are at best limited, tho G.o.d himself is not. The finite mind cannot conceive unlimited s.p.a.ce, nor eternal duration. We can conceive of them as _existing_; but we cannot conceive what they are. We can conceive of G.o.d as infinite; but we cannot conceive what infinity is. If we could, it would not be infinite, unless we are infinite. So all attempts to define G.o.d in terms of the finite are futile. And yet, when we look back over the past history of the human race and see what ruin has been wrought by this very thing it becomes appalling! All religious controversies, wars and bloodshed have had their ultimate source just here. Certain men have formed certain conceptions of G.o.d, of his character, his attributes, his will, and his purposes concerning mankind. These they have labelled, patented, copyrighted, and declared to the world to be correct, final and infallible, and demanded that all the world accept them on penalty of death!

To quote, in substance, from a recent author, we might as well try to make a meal of the stars and contain them all in our stomach at once as to comprehend G.o.d in his fullness. G.o.d _is what He is_, no matter what our opinions may be of him. But what any one of us _thinks G.o.d is_, that is what _G.o.d is to him_. This is all the definition of G.o.d that need be given. G.o.d is his own revelation. "The heavens declare the glory of G.o.d." Nature reveals G.o.d in greater power and splendor than any book.

What is _my_ conception of G.o.d? Only this: G.o.d is the Life of the universe; and this includes the ALL. As what we call the spirit is the life in my body, and permeates the whole of it from the most central vital organs to the utmost extremities of nails and hair; so G.o.d--and He is Spirit--permeates the _whole universe_, and is the life of, or in it, as you please.

"'All are but parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body Nature is, and G.o.d the Soul.'"

He is manifest in the majesty of the universe and is seen in the beauties of the flowers. He is reflected in the painted wings of the birds, in the rippling leaf, in the blade of gra.s.s, in the dewdrop, in the snowflake, in all nature; and above all in man himself, in whom He dwells and lives. How n.o.ble and inspiring the thought that I, even I, am a part of the life of the infinite, eternal G.o.d! All this I take on trust--_by faith_--and confess freely that, while believing it I cannot comprehend it. But such a G.o.d must be eternally good. He could not be the monster that Jewish tradition and orthodox Christianity paint him, eternally hating his enemies, all of whom were his own creatures, and plunging into an eternal h.e.l.l of fire and brimstone the larger part of his own children, created in his own image and likeness. While I cannot understand the "problems of his providence," I am sure that "the Judge of all the earth will do right." As to the perplexities that have grown out of the ideas of G.o.d's _foreknowledge, foreordination_, etc., my view is that no such a thing as _foreknowledge_ can be attributed to G.o.d. To do so is to attribute to him time limitations.

To the Infinite G.o.d there can be no such thing as past or future. All is the "_eternal present_" in which G.o.d is still at work, as much as ever before. I confess I cannot comprehend _how_ this is; but I can comprehend _that_ it is.

"Deep in unfathomable mines Of never failing skill, He treasures up his bright designs, And works his sovereign will."

_MAN_

"What is man that thou art mindful of him?" So far as we know, as a pure animal, he is the highest product, the climax of the processes of organic evolution. In addition to this, he is the only known creature on earth, or elsewhere, endowed with those G.o.d-like faculties of mind, thought, reason, will,--_soul_. As far as man's moral character and destiny are concerned, it matters as little how he came to be here, as it does who Cain's wife was. We are confronted with the serious fact that _we are here_; and that we are endowed with these supreme faculties that differentiate us from the lower forms of life about us, and consequently entail upon us, not thru some supernatural revelation, but by natural instinct, certain moral and social responsibilities and obligations, not only to our own kind, but to all those myriad forms of life below us,--obligations and responsibilities which we cannot avoid or escape, except at our peril.

And as to these responsibilities, it is not material whether man is immortal or not. I once had serious doubts of this. But while I now believe it with a firm conviction that in my own mind amounts to moral certainty, yet I recognize that it is beyond the pale of ocular proof or physical demonstration. It pertains exclusively to the realm of faith.

"Strange is it not? that of the myriads who, Before us pa.s.sed the door of darkness thru, Not one returns, to tell us of the road, Which to discover, we must travel too?"

And yet this faith is one of the most comforting and inspiring of all the objects of faith known to man. But he that is governed in his life and conduct, solely by the fear of some dire punishment in the after-life, or some hope of bribing the Infinite to give him a comfortable berth in heaven, is at best but a little and weak soul.

No need to go into any argument here upon the question of whether, "If a man die shall he live again?" Our social and moral obligations to live right with our fellowmen are none the less, whether there is an after-life or not. In fact no man can be right with G.o.d,--a part of whose life he is,--while wrong with his fellow-man.

_THE PROBLEM OF EVIL_

This brings us to a consideration of the problem of evil. "Ever since human intelligence became enlightened enough to grope for a meaning and purpose in human life, this problem of the existence of evil has been the burden of man." (John Fiske.) Out of some attempt to solve it, every religion on earth was born. I do not offer to solve this problem; but to try to take a rational view of it.

Good and evil are relative terms. How could we know anything about the one but thru its contrast with the other? If there were no such thing as evil, how could we be conscious of the good? How could we know that it was good? We cannot know anything except by its contrast with something else. Some element of unlikeness must appear before we can distinguish anything from something else. To quote again from Fiske: "If there were no color but red, it would be exactly the same thing as if there were no color at all." There could be no music except for variety and contrasts in sounds. If we had never tasted anything but sugar, could we know what bitterness is? But having tasted the bitter we then know what sweetness means. Likewise, if there was no such thing as moral evil in the world, we could not possibly know what moral goodness is. We could not know what happiness is if we did not have some knowledge of sorrow and pain. Just why this is so, I do not pretend to know. I am only stating facts as they are; and the great Creator, who is the author of both, if of either, knows; and we may know in proper time. Another pertinent question from Fiske may be asked here: "What would have been the worth of that primitive innocence portrayed in the myth of the garden of Eden? What would have been the moral value or significance of a race of human beings ignorant of evil, and doing beneficent acts with no more consciousness or volition than the deftly contrived machine that picks up raw material at one end, and turns out some finished product at the other? Clearly for strong and resolute men and women an Eden would be but a fool's paradise. How could anything fit to be called _character_ ever have been produced there? But for tasting the forbidden fruit, in what respect could man have become a being of higher order than the beast of the field?"

The point is that the same law of evolution applies in the moral world as it does in the material. As the highest types of life have been developed only thru the processes of struggle with adverse elements, in which only the fittest, strongest and best adapted to its environment survived, so moral character is only developed thru the struggle with moral evil. Just as one cannot learn to swim on a parlor sofa, but must get in the water and struggle, so one must come in contact with, combat, struggle with, and overcome moral evil in order to develop the highest and strongest type of moral character.

"Heaven is not reached by a single bound; But we build the ladder by which we rise From the lowly earth to the vaulted skies, And rise to its summit round by round."

The rise from a b.e.s.t.i.a.l to a moral plane involves the acquirement of a knowledge of both good and evil. The moral conscience thus developed plays the same role in the moral world that the consciousness of pain does in the physical. As this consciousness of pain is a monitor to warn us from physical danger, so the moral conscience is our monitor to keep us from moral evil. And the higher this moral conscience is developed, the more sensitive it becomes, the higher will its possessor rise in the moral scale. This is the law which Paul tells us is written in the hearts of all men, "their consciences meanwhile accusing or excusing them." This may seem a strange philosophy. But it comports with the facts of nature and life. The mystery of evil is not solved. But at least we have a rational, working hypothesis upon which to deal with it, as will further appear as we proceed.

_SIN_

Evil, at least in the physical world, exists separate and apart from sin. We will not speculate upon the metaphysical differences that may, or may not, exist between moral evil and personal guilt. But I wish to record briefly the views I ultimately arrived at concerning the nature and consequences of sin.

According to the orthodox doctrine, altho sin is defined in the New Testament as the "transgression of the law," it is something _more_ than this;--a direct personal offence against G.o.d; and that therefore its penalties are punitive and vindictive, designed to vindicate the person of G.o.d against insult and injury by disobedience to his law.

Punishment was therefore believed to be administered judicially, according to the extent of the offense, that the sinner might be made to suffer _purely for suffering's sake_, measure for measure. I long ago abandoned this doctrine. I accept fully the New Testament teaching that "sin is the transgression of the law,"--not the law of Moses or any other penal code,--but the great universal, immutable law of Nature in the moral world. That G.o.d is the author of this law does not make its violation any more a personal offense against G.o.d than the violation of a State statute is a personal offense against the Governor, or legislature, or the judge that administers it. G.o.d cannot be personally sinned against. If so He is neither infinite nor immutable. To const.i.tute a personal offense the person offended must take cognizance of it, which necessarily involves _a change of mind_ toward the offender,--otherwise it is not an offense. The same condition would be involved in a second change of mind toward the offender, upon his repentance and forgiveness. Neither is consistent with any idea of infinity or immutability. Neither does G.o.d ever punish sin. Sin is its own punishment, and it operates automatically.

No sin was ever committed that the sinner did not pay the penalty in full. From this there is no more escape than there is from the law of gravitation. If I put my hand into the fire I cannot avoid being burned. If I take poison I cannot avoid the consequences. The fact that there may be an antidote for the poison in no way destroys the truth of this fundamental law.

"The moving finger writes, and having writ Moves on; Nor all your piety nor wit Can lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."

Jesus ill.u.s.trated this law fully and beautifully in the parable of the Prodigal Son, and I can do no better than quote its substance here.

This young man left his father's house. This was not a personal offence against his father, altho the father may well have conjectured what would be the result. He was of age and had a right to go. He spent his funds in riotous living, and as a consequence was reduced to want and suffering, his punishment for his sin. To thus waste his funds was sin, _He punished himself_ by his own conduct. His sufferings became so intense and severe that he resolved to abandon his present surroundings and return home at any cost, even to becoming a menial servant in his father's house. Here we get a clear view of the _purpose_ of punishment, not as vindictive, but remedial and corrective. The young man suffered until his sufferings accomplished their end in correcting and changing his life. As soon as this was done his punishment ended. Just so with all punishment for sin. It will continue until its remedial and corrective purpose is completed and no longer, whether in this life or some other. When the young man returned home his father received him, not as a servant, but a son.

But remember, _his wasted fortune was not restored_. "Was he not freely forgiven?" Yes; but forgiveness does not blot out nor restore the past; nor absolve one from the natural consequences of his own acts already committed. It simply means a new opportunity and a new start, but with the handicap of the consequences of the past life. The returned prodigal was forgiven. He had the opportunity to begin life anew as a son, just as he was before. But his material resources represented in his squandered fortune, and the time he lost while squandering it, were lost forever! Be as diligent and frugal as he might, he could never, thru time or eternity, reach that attainment _which he might have reached_, had he used the same diligence and frugality from the start, in the use of his natural inheritance as his operating capital.

Hence, one sins, not against G.o.d, but most of all _against himself_, by violating the law of his own being, and of humanity. And the _consequences_ of sins committed can never be escaped, in this world or any other. If this kind of gospel had been preached to humanity during all these past centuries of Christianity,--instead of a gospel that teaches that no matter how vile, wicked and sinful one may be, nor how long he may thus live in sin, if, in the last hour of life he will only "believe in Jesus," at death he will go sweeping thru the gates of heaven into eternal glory on a complete equality with the n.o.blest saints and purest characters that ever lived on earth,--this world would now be much better than it is.

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," whether divinely inspired or not, is as eternally true, certain, and unescapable in the moral world as are the stars in their courses. Man sins against society in transgressing those natural laws of social relations that bind society together. But even in this, while society suffers from his sins, the sinner himself must ultimately suffer for his own sins above all others.

The question has often been asked me, "If a man cannot sin against G.o.d, but only against himself and society, by what standard, gauge, or measure am I to determine what is right or wrong?" I think the Golden Rule answers that question completely. All sins are either personal or social or both. A man may, by some sort of self-indulgence or abuse or by his own secret thoughts sin against himself _only_, from which he alone must suffer. He may also sin against society by doing some evil to or against some one else or against society as a whole, from which both he and others may suffer. A simple rule of conduct may be this: In view of any proposed course of conduct, word or act, these questions may be asked: "What may be the result? Will it in any way injure me, or any one else? Is any possible evil consequence, either to myself or any one else, likely to come of it?" If the answer is in the affirmative, it is wrong; otherwise not. These are my simple views of sin.

_SALVATION_

What is salvation? Almost the universal answer of Christendom has been for eighteen centuries, escape from h.e.l.l hereafter and the a.s.surance of heaven. Yet, according to the record we have of him, Jesus never taught any such doctrine. It is true that he refers several times to the Gehena of the Jews, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," but always as a natural consequence of some failure to do, or perform certain things that they should do; but never does he appeal to any one to do or perform anything _for the purpose of escaping it_.

Did the reader ever notice that in all the record we have of the sayings of Jesus, he is nowhere quoted as having ever said one word about the great, fundamental doctrines of Christianity, over which pagans and Christians wrangled for four centuries; and over which Christians have wrangled and fought with each other for fourteen centuries? Do we find where Jesus ever said one word about the Garden of Eden, the fall of Adam, original sin, total depravity, vicarious atonement, the mode of baptism, the Trinity, the possession of the Holy Spirit, or any form of ecclesiastical organization or church polity?

Salvation, and Jesus so taught, pertains to this life exclusively. It simply means _to save this life_,--not from physical death, nor h.e.l.l hereafter,--but to its proper function, use and purpose, according to the will of G.o.d, as revealed in nature and human experience. In simpler words, it is to save this life from sin, wrong doing of every kind, and making of it the highest, n.o.blest and best it is capable of.

This is what Jesus taught; and Jesus is the savior of mankind _only_ in that he has taught mankind _how to live_,--not by dying for it. Thus to save this life to the highest, n.o.blest and best of which it is capable, is to save it from sin unto righteousness; and this is to save it both here and hereafter. He that _continually lives right_ cannot die wrong. And whatever the next life may be, it is but a continuation, a larger unfolding and fruition of this. Salvation is here, not hereafter.

_HEAVEN AND h.e.l.l_

But do I not believe in heaven and h.e.l.l? Yes, and no. I believe in both, and neither. I do not believe in either the kind of heaven or h.e.l.l I was taught in the church. Yet, I have already said that I did not believe any sin ever committed by man ever went unpunished, either here or hereafter, until the full penalty was paid, and the punishment had completed its remedial and corrective purpose. And I will say here that I do not believe any good deed or word ever performed or said by man ever went unrewarded up to the full value of its merit, either here or hereafter. But I believe both heaven and h.e.l.l to be _conditions_,--not places,--and we have them both here in this life, and will have them hereafter. Each individual makes his own heaven, or his own h.e.l.l, and carries it with him when he leaves this life. To quote from Omar Khayyam:

"I sent my Soul thru the invisible Some letter of that After-life to spell; And by and by my Soul returned to me And answered: I myself am Heaven and h.e.l.l; Heaven's but the vision of fulfilled desire, And h.e.l.l the shadow of a Soul on fire."

The idea of a literal lake of fire and brimstone to be the eternal abode of by far the larger part of the human race, according to the orthodox doctrine of Christianity, is not only unreasonable, but unthinkable. If it exists G.o.d must have made it; and such a thought is a caricature of G.o.d. Such a view of h.e.l.l practically involves the necessity of the personal devil that has always been a.s.sociated with it; and this is also both unreasonable and unthinkable. If such a being exists he is either co-eternal with G.o.d--which is unreasonable--or G.o.d created him--which is unthinkable. The idea that there is in this universe two co-eternal antagonistic spirits in eternal warfare with each other challenges human credulity. If the Bible story of creation and the fall of man is true, as interpreted by orthodox Christianity, the devil got the best of G.o.d right from the start, and has held it ever since; and according to the current doctrines of the plan and means of salvation, will hold it eternally.

This leads us inevitably to one of two conclusions: G.o.d is neither Infinite, Omniscient, nor Omnipotent, else He would not have permitted such a condition to come about, and permit Himself to be thus defeated in his plans and purposes, and lose eternally ninety percent of the highest product of his own creation, Man, whom He made in his own image and likeness. If we still insist that G.o.d is Infinite, Omniscient, and therefore knew in advance all that ever would take place, including the fall of Adam and its consequences, Omnipotent, and therefore able to prevent it, but did not, it only makes the matter worse.

But to take the other horn of the dilemma, that G.o.d _created_ the devil first an angel in heaven, who afterwards led a rebellion in heaven and had to be cast out, and that h.e.l.l was then created as a place in which to put him, but where it proved afterwards that he could not be kept, but got out and robbed G.o.d of the n.o.blest product of his creative genius at the very threshold of creation, corrupting the very fountain of human life itself, whereby he became the ultimate possessor of nine-tenths of all the race forever, is only to make the matter still worse than before. He certainly was not Omniscient, and therefore able to foreknow what this newly created angel would ultimately do, else He would not have made him; nor was He Omnipotent, else He would have prevented it. But if it still be insisted--and unfortunately it is by far the greater part of Christianity--that G.o.d is, nevertheless and notwithstanding, Infinite, Omniscient and Omnipotent, and either deliberately planned or supinely sat by and permitted these things to take place, _then He is not_ a G.o.d of goodness, love, justice, truth, mercy and benevolence, but an unthinkable monster, more diabolical and cruel than the wildest savage ever known to the earth, or the most ferocious beast of prey in the jungle. I might naturally fear such a G.o.d, but never love or respect, but eternally hate him.

I have already given my views of the story of Eden and the fall of man; that man never fell, but is still incomplete, but progressing onward and upward forever; that he was never, on the general average, higher or better than now; and as the years and ages go on he will continue thus to grow better and n.o.bler, making his own heaven as he goes along, and destroying his own h.e.l.l by learning his lessons of suffering for wrong doing, and leaving it behind him. No, G.o.d did not make man in his own image, implant in his very nature that eternal aspiration upward that is possessed by every normal human being, and then make a devil to tempt and ruin him, and a h.e.l.l in which to eternally torment him.

I quote again from Omar Khayyam:

"Oh, Thou who didst with pitfall and with gin Beset the road I was to wander in, Thou wilt not with predestined evil round Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin.