The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume IV Part 21

Ministers ask: Is it possible for G.o.d to forgive man?

And when I think of what has been suffered--of the centuries of agony and tears, I ask: Is it possible for man to forgive G.o.d?

How do Christians prove the existence of their G.o.d? Is it possible to think of an infinite being? Does the word G.o.d correspond with any image in the mind? Does the word G.o.d stand for what we know or for what we do not know?

Is not this unthinkable G.o.d a guess, an inference?

Can we think of a being without form, without body, without parts, without pa.s.sions? Why should we speak of a being without body as of the masculine gender?

Why should the Bible speak of this G.o.d as a man?--of his walking in the garden in the cool of the evening--of his talking, hearing and smelling?

If he has no pa.s.sions why is he spoken of as jealous, revengeful, angry, pleased and loving?

In the Bible G.o.d is spoken of as a person in the form of man, journeying from place to place, as having a home and occupying a throne. These ideas have been abandoned, and now the Christian's G.o.d is the infinite, the incomprehensible, the formless, bodiless and pa.s.sionless.

Of the existence of such a being there can be, in the nature of things, no evidence.

Confronted with the universe, with fields of s.p.a.ce sown thick with stars, with all there is of life, the wise man, being asked the origin and destiny of all, replies: "I do not know. These questions are beyond the powers of my mind." The wise man is thoughtful and modest. He clings to facts. Beyond his intellectual horizon he does not pretend to see.

He does not mistake hope for evidence or desire for demonstration. He is honest. He neither deceives himself nor others.

The theologian arrives at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and he calls this G.o.d. The scientist arrives at the unthinkable, the inconceivable, and calls it the Unknown.

The theologian insists that his inconceivable governs the world, that it, or he, or they, can be influenced by prayers and ceremonies, that it, or he, or they, punishes and rewards, that it, or he, or they, has priests and temples.

The scientist insist that the Unknown is not changed so far as he knows by prayers of people or priests. He admits that he does not know whether the Unknown is good or bad--whether he, or it, wants or whether he, or it, is worthy of wors.h.i.+p. He does not say that the Unknown is G.o.d, that it created substance and force, life and thought. He simply says that of the Unknown he knows nothing.

Why should Christians insist that a G.o.d of infinite wisdom, goodness and power governs the world?

Why did he allow millions of his children to be enslaved? Why did he allow millions of mothers to be robbed of their babes? Why has he allowed injustice to triumph? Why has he permitted the innocent to be imprisoned and the good to be burned? Why has he withheld his rain and starved millions of the children of men? Why has he allowed the volcanoes to destroy, the earthquakes to devour, and the tempest to wreck and rend?

IV. THE TRINITY

THE New Testament informs us that Christ was the son of Joseph and the son of G.o.d, and that Mary was his mother.

How is it established that Christ was the son of G.o.d?

It is said that Joseph was told so in a dream by an angel.

But Joseph wrote nothing on that subject--said nothing so far as we know. Mary wrote nothing, said nothing. The angel that appeared to Joseph or that informed Joseph said nothing to anybody else. Neither has the Holy Ghost, the supposed father, ever said or written one word.

We have received no information from the parties who could have known anything on the subject. We get all our facts from those who could not have known.

How is it possible to prove that the Holy Ghost was the father of Christ?

Who knows that such a being as the Holy Ghost ever existed?

How was it possible for Mary to know anything about the Holy Ghost?

How could Joseph know that he had been visited by an angel in a dream?

Could he know that the visitor was an angel? It all occurred in a dream and poor Joseph was asleep. What is the testimony of one who was asleep worth?

All the evidence we have is that somebody who wrote part of the New Testament says that the Holy Ghost was the father of Christ, and that somebody who wrote another part of the New Testament says that Joseph was the father of Christ.

Matthew and Luke give the genealogy and both show that Christ was the son of Joseph.

The "Incarnation" has to be believed without evidence. There is no way in which it can be established. It is beyond the reach and realm of reason. It defies observation and is independent of experience.

It is claimed not only that Christ was the Son of G.o.d, but that he was, and is, G.o.d.

Was he G.o.d before he was born? Was the body of Mary the dwelling place of G.o.d?

What evidence have we that Christ was G.o.d?

Somebody has said that Christ claimed that G.o.d was his father and that he and his father were one. We do not know who this somebody was and do not know from whom he received his information.

Somebody who was "inspired" has said that Christ was of the blood of David through his father Joseph.

This is all the evidence we have.

Can we believe that G.o.d, the creator of the Universe, learned the trade of a carpenter in Palestine, that he gathered a few disciples about him, and after teaching for about three years, suffered himself to be crucified by a few ignorant and pious Jews?

Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the third. Each of these three persons is G.o.d. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after.

Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age of the other two.

So, it is declared that the Father is G.o.d, and the Son G.o.d and the Holy Ghost G.o.d, and that these three G.o.ds make one G.o.d.

According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar, if we add two to one we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.

How is it possible to prove the existence of the Trinity?

Is it possible for a human being, who has been born but once, to comprehend, or to imagine the existence of three beings, each of whom is equal to the three?

Think of one of these beings as the father of one, and think of that one as half human and all G.o.d, and think of the third as having proceeded from the other two, and then think of all three as one. Think that after the father begot the son, the father was still alone, and after the Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and the son, the father was still alone--because there never was and never will be but one G.o.d.

At this point, absurdity having reached its limit, nothing more can be said except: "Let us pray."

V. THE THEOLOGICAL CHRIST

IN the New Testament we find the teachings and sayings of Christ. If we say that the book is inspired, then we must admit that Christ really said all the things attributed to him by the various writers. If the book is inspired we must accept it all. We have no right to reject the contradictory and absurd and accept the reasonable and good. We must take it all just as it is.

My own observation has led me to believe that men are generally consistent in their theories and inconsistent in their lives.

So, I think that Christ in his utterances was true to his theory, to his philosophy.

If I find in the Testament sayings of a contradictory character, I conclude that some of those sayings were never uttered by him. The sayings that are, in my judgment, in accordance with what I believe to have been his philosophy, I accept, and the others I throw away.

There are some of his sayings which show him to have been a devout Jew, others that he wished to destroy Judaism, others showing that he held all people except the Jews in contempt and that he wished to save no others, others showing that he wished to convert the world, still others showing that he was forgiving, self-denying and loving, others that he was revengeful and malicious, others, that he was an ascetic, holding all human ties in utter contempt.