Saramago surely already knows...

So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpets, they raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat; so the people charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys. Joshua 6:20-21

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides; they shall trouble you in the land where you are settling. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.  Numbers 33:55-56

In these texts of extreme violence, God not only orders the genocide of the Canaanites but is angry when some of them were spared. In Chapter 15 of the First Book of Samuel, we read that King Saul loses God’s trust, which is transferred to David, for having been too kind in sparing some Amalekites when God's command was to kill everyone, including women, children and the elderly.

The Old Testament is full of stories of violence that contradict the image of a compassionate and merciful God of the New Testament. This is the reason why the late atheist Saramago (the 1998 Nobel Prize winner in Literature from Portugal) said that the Bible was a violent book. Although fewer in number, however even in the New Testament we find some imperfections that could embarrass us.

History of Israel and the human nature
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, the Bible contains the history of Israel and the idiosyncrasies of the Jewish people, just as it has been throughout the ages. In this sense, the Bible is a literary work that is for the Jews what Camões’ The Lusiads is for the Portuguese and Shakespeare’s work is for the English.

In addition to the history and idiosyncrasies of a people, the Bible describes the fallen nature of the human being: the human being as he is, with his ups and downs, perfections and imperfections. Although inspired by God, the authors of the Bible did not sweep this fallen nature under the rug, because what is not taken on is not redeemed, as St. Athanasius later said.

The episode of the Pharisees bringing a woman caught in a blatant act of adultery (John 8:1-11) to Jesus can be read as a metaphor of what the Bible is: God's encounter with man, that is, the encounter of divine mercy with human misery.

From the beginning, right after the first sin, God did not abandon man to himself, but has been pedagogically accompanying him and sending him prophets, preparing him for His own coming as the model of human being to encounter the human being fallen into disgrace.

Jesus of Nazareth took on human nature, for he was like us in everything except sin, because sin does not belong to the human nature that God envisioned and created, but rather to the human nature that man ruined with sin. Jesus, God made man, takes on and accepts this fallen human nature, entering into fellowship with sinners, eating with them in their homes and walking in their company, without requiring them to change their lives. It is they who decide to change their lives when they find themselves unconditionally accepted by Jesus as they are, as seen in the episode of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10).

You heard that it was said... But I say to you…
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well…’  Matthew 5:38-40

‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…’ Matthew 5:43-44

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contrasts his doctrine, which he metaphorically refers to as new wine, with the doctrine of Moses and the customs of the Old Testament. He also establishes a new and eternal covenant that revokes the old.

Therefore, the norm for us is what the New Testament says and what in the Old Testament is in line with the New. In the latter, it is God himself, through his son Jesus Christ, speaking to human nature from within human nature. With Christ and his doctrine in mind, anyone who intends to use the Bible to justify acts of violence is misinterpreting it.

Read the Bible from front to back
And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. (…) The Lamb went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne. (…) ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation…’  Revelation 5:3, 7, 9

Unlike other books, the Bible should be read from back to front. It is Christ, the Lamb who was slain, that can "open", that is, interpret, the Bible. It is from Him, the definitive word of the Father, that everything must be read, because everything points to Him. He and He alone holds the key to its interpretation.

The Bible must be read from back to front, that is, the Old Testament must be read from the New, from the perspective we acquire from reading the New. In this case, the key to interpreting these texts is the figure of Christ as the sacrificial Lamb of God.

Read the Old Testament in a metaphorical way
Taking this into account, the violent texts, especially those calling for genocide, can have a symbolic and metaphorical value. In this sense, Israel represents the will of God, the leaven of the Kingdom of God, the people whom God has called to begin the story of salvation with Him for all mankind. The enemies of Israel, the Canaanites, Philistines, Amalekites, Babylonians or Assyrians, are enemies to the universal plan of salvation. The struggle ceases to be physical and becomes spiritual.

When fighting against evil, call this for what it is, we cannot use half measures, because evil is not eradicated with half measures, but with radicalism so to uproot it. Wiping out Israel’s enemies, killing men, women, children and even their domestic animals now has the sense of eradicating evil at its root. Likewise, addiction to tobacco, alcohol or any other addiction is also not fought with half measures, but with radicalism and determination.

Conclusion: The late writer José Saramago, an atheist and the 1998 Nobel Prize winner in Literature from Portugal, must already know that God does exist and that the Bible is made up of two Testaments – the Old, representing man as he is and the New, man as he should be, in the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ.   

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC

What Is Religion Good For?

There are fewer and fewer religious people in the world. Could it be that religion is good for nothing, and serves no purpose? What do statistics say about the lives of those who are religious compared to those who are not? Which group is happier? Which group is better prepared to face misfortune?

A call to self-transcendence
In ancient times, men gazed at the stars at night and this lifted their thoughts beyond the toils and worries of everyday life. A gaze that lifted them beyond themselves and the world to the transcendence will naturally lead to greater self-transcendence. In modern times, however, men no longer look at the stars, but at the television.

Television in general, during the peak viewing hours or the so-called prime time, presents prime-less programs. Far from being a call to self-transcendence, television leads man to meddle even more in the most immediate and urgent, in the day-to-day affairs. Someone once said that contemporary men walk in circles, at odds with each other, because they no longer look up to heaven.

In one village there was a boy who threw stones at the moon; of course, he never hit his target, but he was of all the boys, the one who threw the farthest. So, what apparently seemed to be a nonsense, like throwing stones at the moon, served a purpose, the purpose of self-transcendence, the purpose of becoming a better stone thrower. The same happens with religion, which apparently seems to serve no purpose but in the long run its effects are noticeable and undeniable.

Search for meaning
Religion is no longer present in people's daily lives, because it no longer explains anything and has no practical applications that make life better and more pleasant. Science, on the contrary, explains more and more things and has practical applications for everyday life that make our lives more comfortable.

Science indeed does explain many things, but it does not explain the most important thing: it tells us that the world began with a "Big Bang," but it does not tell us who caused this big explosion or what was there before, and the purpose of the Big Bang. It tells us that since that big explosion, the world continues to expand and will expand until it expends all its energy and dies, but it does not tell us what is beyond the end of the world. Most importantly, between the "Big Bang" and the end of the world, it does not tell us what is the meaning of life, for what do we exist or why do we exist.

It is true that we can very well live without these questions, like the agnostics do by burying their heads in the sand; they think that in ignoring these questions, is the best way to answer them. With this kind of attitude, there would be no progress in any branches of knowledge. Science is born from asking questions and looking for answers.

The spirit of a human being is like a child who has just attained the age of reason. By the age of seven, the child gains self-awareness and discovers that he exists. He then questions everything and everyone, searching for reasons to satisfy his restless spirit. Usually, he clings to his parents or some adult he trusts and bombards them with a succession of whys, looking for the ultimate or primal reason for the uncaused cause.

This often leads adults, who do not want to admit God as the uncaused cause and the primary reason for everything and everyone, to a dead end. At that point, they tell the child to shut up and call him a nuisance. Thus, the child stops questioning himself and questioning others, and like the adults who are his mentors, he puts an end to this exercise of seeking the whys of everything and is content to live in pure mundanity, as do the rest of the living beings who have also stopped questioning themselves.

Science and the rest of the knowledge and instances of society all disagree on the problem of death. Only religion presents a coherent solution. The most intellectual ones, like Karl Marx, say that it should not worry us, because while we exist, death won’t exist and when eventually death comes to exist, we won’t exist.... The more materialistic ones say to make the most of life as one only lives once.

The conflict between science and religion is like the conflict between love and money. Nobody denies that having money has always been important and is increasingly more so, because with it one has access to an ever-increasing number of comforts and pleasures. Despite the undeniable importance of money in living, everyone agrees that love is even more important. Money cannot buy love, but love can buy money; without money life still has meaning, but without love it has none.

Technology, spirituality and ethics
If science, the general theory of things, is translated through technology into practical applications that make our lives easier, then religion, an even more general and more encompassing theory than science, is translated into day-to-day spirituality and ethics.

Science through technology does not tell us how to live our lives but it does lead us to a form of materialism and consumerism, that is, to filling our homes with junk.

Religion not only gives meaning to life but through spirituality and ethics, it shows us the path that leads to the fullness of life, to self-realization, that is, to the happiness that we all desire. What technology is to science, spirituality and ethics are to religion.

If technology contributes to the material well-being of the body, then spirituality contributes to the well-being of the soul. While science and technology are concerned only with the material well-being of man, spirituality aims at the well-being of the person as an individual being, ethics aims at the well-being of the individual as a social being and as an integral part of a community.

Those who live in pure worldliness will say that both spirituality and ethics can exist and subsist without religion. In fact, this is the tendency of the postmodern man.

This takes us back to the inquisitive child we compared previously to the true spirit of the human being. Faced with an ethics without religion, we are forced to conclude that if what really counts is what goes on down here, there is no ultimate reason for things, and if there is none, why should I be good if being bad, I get more things, more money and more pleasures?

Spirituality without religion is comparable to Buddhism, the path to enlightenment, an individualistic and selfish personal improvement that inevitably leads to a society of elites and castes that still prevails in the homeland of Buddhism. Religion calls spirituality to altruism, to say that we ought to love others as we love ourselves; that is, whatever good that we seek for ourselves, we ought to seek it in equal measure for others.

Conclusion: Since human beings are naturally religious, life in pure worldliness is a polytheistic religion that consists of the love of power, fame and pleasure and sees money as Zeus, the father of the gods.

Religion makes us free from attachment to material goods when we love God above all things; it gives us the joy of living when we love ourselves as God loves us, it builds a just and peaceful society when we love our neighbour as ourselves.  

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC