The Philosophy of Christ
Millions assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect, that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech. These following points were fundamental principles I was taught and lived my life by when I was still a Christian. However, some it just did not make sense to me and bothered me a lot. Let us see.
Resist no evil - If smitten on one cheek turn the other
Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this? Christ takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right of self-defence. Vice becomes the master of the world, and the good become the victims of the infamous. According to Jesus, no man has the right to protect himself, his property, his wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any absurdity beyond this?
Love your enemies
Is it possible? Did any human being ever love his enemies? Did Christ love his, when he denounced them as whitened sepulchres, hypocrites and vipers? We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts of others does not breed love in ours and does not allow it. Not to resist evil is absurd; to love your enemies is impossible. If you have a look at APPENDIX 1, you will see that God did not encourage love towards Israel’s enemies but pure hatred that brought forth wars and genocide.
Take no thought for the morrow
The idea was that God would take care of us as he did of sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that belief? Does God take care of anybody? Can we live without taking thought for the morrow? To plough, to sow, to cultivate, to harvest, is to take thought for the morrow. We plan and work for the future, for our children, for the unborn generations to come. Without this forethought, there could be no progress, no civilization. The world would go back to the caves and dens of savagery. Imagine how many believers do not plan for their old day. They rather give their money to the church to make the leadership rich and when they are old they have no money to take care of themselves.
If thy right eye offends thee, pluck it out. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off
Why? Because it is, better that one of our members should perish than that the whole body should be cast into hell. Is there any wisdom in putting out your eyes or cutting off your hands? Is it possible to extract from these extravagant sayings the smallest grain of common sense? There are hundreds, thousands of people rejected by the church based on this principle, instead of loving, caring and helping the “sinner” or unbeliever, they cut them off from communion.
Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his holy city
Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ. Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch; the earth is his footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the rate of over a thousand miles a minute! Where did Christ think heaven was? Why was Jerusalem a holy city? Was it because the inhabitants were ignorant, crud and superstitious?
If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also
Is there any philosophy, any good sense, in that commandment? Would it not be just as sensible to say: "If a man obtains a judgment against you for one hundred dollars, give him two hundred." Only the insane could give or follow this advice.
Think not I come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother
If this is true, how much better it would have been had He remained away. Is it possible that he who said, "Resist not evil," came to bring a sword? That he who said, "Love your enemies," came to destroy the peace of the world? To set father against son, and daughter against father, what a glorious mission! He did bring a sword, and the sword was wet for two thousand years with innocent blood. In millions of hearts, he sowed the seeds of hatred and revenge. He divided nations and families, put out the light of reason, and petrified the hearts of men.
And every one that hath forsaken house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life
According to the writer of Matthew, Christ, the compassionate, the merciful, uttered these terrible words. Is it possible that Christ offered the bribe of eternal joy to those who would desert their fathers, their mothers, their wives and children? Are we to win the happiness of heaven by deserting the ones we love? Is a home to be ruined here for the sake of a mansion there? Yet it is said that Christ is an example for the entire world. Did he desert his father and mother? He said, speaking to his mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
The Pharisees said unto Christ: "Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar? Christ said: "Show me the tribute money ."They brought him a penny. And he saith unto them: "Whose is the image and the superscription? "They said: "Caesar's." And Christ said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."
Did Christ think that the money belonged to Caesar because his image and superscription were stamped upon it? Did the penny belong to Caesar or to the man who had earned it? Had Caesar the right to demand it because it was adorned with his image? Does it appear from this conversation that Christ understood the real nature and use of money?
Can you still say that Christ was the greatest of philosophers?
Is Christ our example?
He never said a word in favour of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favour of industry, economy or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor.
Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music, nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation-to-nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside; not a word in favour of marriage, in honour of maternity, nothing against slavery.
He never married, according to the Gospels… He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seems to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms. All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect.
At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out, "My God My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?"
If we have to give up everything here, now in this life for the next, what is the purpose of this life? There is NO purpose only a goal, it is wishful thinking that the next life will be better.
Man must depend on himself. He must clear the land; he must build the home; he must plough and plant; he must invent; he must work with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties and obstructions; he must conquer and enslave the forces of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world.
Why should we place Christ at the top and summit of the human race?
Was he kinder, more forgiving, and more self-sacrificing than Buddha was? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more perfect calmness, than Socrates did? Was he more patient, more charitable, than Epictetus? Was he a greater philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus was? In what respect was he the superior of Zoroaster? Was he gentler than Lao-tsze, more universal than Confucius was? Were his ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno? Did he express grander truths than Cicero did? Was his mind subtler than Spinoza’s was? Was his brain equal to Kepler's or Newton's? Was he grander in death, a sublimer martyr than Bruno was? Was he in intelligence, in the force and beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes and fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human race?
If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Before him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that, thousands and thousands of brave men and women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with pain. He knew that his church would invent and use instruments of torture; that his followers would appeal to whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of the future lurid with the flames of the auto da fe. He knew what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building prisons for their fellow men. He saw thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white with agony. He heard the shrieks, sobs and cries of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of the teachings attributed to him. He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He saw all wars that would he waged, and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these rakings, these burnings, these executions, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned, that cruelty and credulity would rule the world. He knew that liberty would perish from the earth; knew that popes and kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of men; knew that they would persecute and destroy the discoverers, thinkers and inventors; knew that his church would extinguish reason's holy light and leave the world without a star. He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flaying them alive, cutting out their tongues, searching for all the nerves of pain. He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh, that cradles would be robbed and women's breasts un-babied for gold.
Yet he died with voiceless lips.
Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: "You shall not burn, imprison and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men." Why did he not plainly say: "I am the Son of God," or, "I am God"? Why did he not explain the Trinity? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not write a creed? Why did he not break the chains of slaves? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God? Why did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance? Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man and woman, of the liberty of hand and brain? Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and doubt?
I will tell you why. He was only a man, and did not know!
