The Ten Commandments
A book by Joseph Lewis
The Seventh Commandment
... chapter continued from previous file ...
Adultery as a Taboo Based on Sympathetic Magic
As the Sixth Commandment was a taboo against shedding blood because of the fear of blood pollution, so we find this Commandment to be a taboo against the adulterous act based on sympathetic magic because of the fear of its detrimental influence on the pursuits of the husband. Beyond that, the authors of this Commandment did not have the slightest knowledge or understanding of proper sexual conduct, according to our present-day standards.
In the section headed "The Second Tables of Stone and a Forgotten Set of Commandments," [*169] we mentioned that the Tenth Commandment of that earlier Decalogue, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," would reveal the secret of the origin and meaning of the present Ten Commandments, and the fundamental basis of the religion of the Biblical Hebrews. We now come to that important matter. We emphatically state that the Commandment, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," and the Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," are fundamentally the same: both originated in the belief in sympathetic magic, which accounts for their inclusion in both Decalogues of the tribal Israelites.
The Commandment, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," offers indisputable evidence that morality was not the governing motive for these Commandments -- for what moral qualities are there in refraining from mixing meat and milk? There was an altogether different reason for such a prohibition, and its presence in the Decalogue, as taught today, only emphasizes the persistence of a superstition long after its origin has been lost and the uselessness of its continuance demonstrated. Despite its elimination from the currently accepted Decalogue, this Commandment is still regarded by orthodox Hebrews as one of the most important of their ritual observances, and has been handed down from generation to generation.
Why were the Biblical Hebrews so much concerned about "seething a kid in its mother's milk" as to make it one of the Commandments of the earlier Decalogues? Because it was the belief in sympathetic magic that if a calf was boiled in its mother's milk it would cause the cow's udder to dry up and develop a disease which would impair her usefulness and destroy her value as a means of subsistence. Since they did not understand the nature and cause of disease, they based their beliefs on superstitions with magical associations. The deceptive forces and manifestations of nature are constantly leading man into devious and false paths. If we are still subject to such delusions, one can understand the pitiful mental subjection which prevailed in primitive times. It was one of these delusive beliefs that led to the taboo of drinking milk and eating meat during the same meal. [**170]
The Hebrews were not the only primitive tribe that observed this superstitious belief in sympathetic magic. Its prevalence among other primitive tribes that had no contact with the Hebrews is proof that it did not originate with them but was current among peoples of the same cultural level as the Israelites. A like belief prevails among the primitive Banyoro tribes. They do not permit milk to be put in an iron or metal vessel for fear that "it would be injurious to the cattle." The Washamba of East Africa never drink milk and eat meat at the same meal; they believe that doing this would cause the death of the cow from which the milk was obtained. Among the Masai, who never allow milk to be boiled, it is considered a great offense to drink milk and eat meat at the same time; so for ten days the Masai lives exclusively on milk and for ten days exclusively on meat. So great is the aversion to bringing the two foods together that they take a strong emetic before changing from one food to the other.
Among the pastoral tribes in Africa at the present day, there is a deeply rooted aversion to boiling milk, based on the belief that a cow whose milk is boiled will yield no more milk and may die as a result. Cow's milk and butter form a large part of the diet of the Mohammedans of Sierra Leone, and therefore they never boil milk for fear of causing the cow to become dry. Nor will they sell their milk to those who boil it. The same belief, based on sympathetic magic, prevails among the Bolloms, who refuse to sell their oranges to those who throw the skins into the fire, "lest it occasion the unripe fruit to fall off."
The belief in sympathetic magic is so powerful among some tribes of Africans that they believe their cattle will become ill if women milk them; because women are subject to monthly "sickness," the cattle will likewise be affected. [*171]
The Mohammedans of Morocco believe that milk drawn from the cow retains such vital connection with the animal that any injury done to the milk will be sympathetically felt by the cow. Milk is never boiled by them in the same pot in which it has been drawn from the cow. They also believe that if milk boils over, the cow will have a diseased udder.
The Masai of East Africa, a pastoral tribe depending for their sustenance on their herds of cattle, consider boiling milk a heinous offense, because it would cause their cattle to cease giving milk. The same belief prevails among the Baganda of Central Africa. [*172] The Bahima of Central Africa are so obsessed with this superstition that they believe the heat used in boiling the milk will dry up the cow's udder. They tell stories of how certain cows refuse to give milk because their milk has been boiled. They also believe that if a European puts milk in his tea, it will kill the cow which gave the milk.
Among the Somali of East Africa, who are dependent on the camel for their sustenance, "camel's milk is never heated for fear of bewitching the animal." The same belief in sympathetic magic prevails among the Eskimos. During the salmon fishery, no water must be boiled in the house, because "it is bad for the fisher."
The Damaras or Herero of Southwestern Africa, who are dependent on the cow for food, never cleanse the milk vessels out of which they drink or eat for fear the cow will cease to give milk. They believe that by washing out the remains of the milk from the pot, the cow's udders will also be drained. [*173]
But what connection, it might be asked, is there between the Commandment, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," and the Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"? Both Commandments are founded on the same superstitious belief and are identical in intent and purpose.
The same sympathetic connection that was supposed to exist between the cow and her milk was believed to prevail between husband and wife; disloyalty on the part of one would affect the welfare of the other. Under this superstition, it was believed that the unfaithfulness of the wife would prove injurious to the husband's welfare, and adultery therefore became a taboo; hence, the inclusion of a prohibition against it in the Decalogue.
Just as we found parallel beliefs among primitive tribes similar to the Hebrews who observed the taboos regarding the mixing of meat and milk, so we find them regarding the evil results to the husband and the clan if the wife were to be guilty of unfaithfulness.
Many of the indigenous tribes of the Sarawak are firmly persuaded that were the wives to commit adultery while their husbands were searching for camphor in the jungle, the camphor obtained by the men would evaporate.
When a Borneo Dyak is out head-hunting, his wife must wear a sword day and night in order that he may always think of his weapons, and she must not sleep during the day or go to bed before early morning lest her husband be surprised in his sleep by an enemy. In Madagascar, it is the belief that when the husband is at war, he will be wounded or killed if his wife should be having an intrigue with another man in his absence.
Elephant hunters in East Africa believe that if their wives prove unfaithful in their absence, this gives the elephant power over his pursuer, who will accordingly be killed or severely wounded. Hence, if a hunter hears of his wife's misconduct, he abandons the chase and returns home. If a Wagogo hunter is unsuccessful or is attacked by a lion, he attributes it to his wife's misbehavior at home and returns in great wrath. While he is away hunting, she must not let anyone pass behind her or stand in front of her as she sits; and she must lie on her face in bed! [**174] The Moxos Indians of Bolivia thought that if a hunter's wife were unfaithful to him in his absence, he would be bitten by a serpent or a jaguar. Accordingly, if such an accident happened to him, it was sure to entail the punishment, and often the death, of the woman, whether she was actually guilty or innocent. An Aleutian hunter of sea otters thinks that he cannot kill a single animal if during his absence from home his wife is unfaithful or his sister unchaste. [*175]
The Wayao and Mang'anja tribes of Lake Nyassa believe that the food prepared by an unfaithful wife will poison the husband who eats it. The Ashanti believed that they would cease to be prolific if adultery existed among them. Various Negro tribes attribute drought and famine to the adulterous acts of their wives. [*176]
If the husband commits adultery while the wife is pregnant, the Bahuana believes that it will have a fatal influence on the child. [*177] The Southern Bambala in the Congo maintain that adultery is generally the cause of the death of infants. The Thong in Southeastern Africa fear terrible complications at the birth of a child born of an adulterous union. If a woman suffered extreme labor and difficulty in giving birth to a child, it was proof, according to the general belief, that the child was not legitimate. [*178]
Even in other phases of the sexual realm, sympathetic magic has its definite influence. In British East Africa it is strictly forbidden to have sexual relations while cattle are at pasture for fear that the act would have a deleterious effect on the cattle. [*179] It is also believed that if a man cohabits while he is away on a journey, ill luck will come to the village. [*180] In New Caledonia, both before and after planting, cohabitation is forbidden.
In primitive times, and among some tribes today, only unmarried men were sent to battle. It was the belief that married men had become weakened by their close relationship with women. If the unmarried men had had sexual relations, they had to be "purified" before going to battle. This took many forms. Some were not allowed to eat food cooked by women. Others must not use weapons women had touched. In Noessa Laut, it is the belief that those who remain continent are invulnerable in war.
The Wagiriami of British East Africa believe that if men cohabit with their wives during wartime they will be unable to kill their enemies, and that if they receive a trifling wound it will prove fatal. Others believe that their eyesight will be impaired and they will not be able to shoot properly. [*181] This taboo evidently prevented Uriah from visiting Bathsheba, when he was recalled by David before being sent to the forefront of the battle to die so that David could commit adultery with his wife.
Among the Nagas of Maniour, when the men are in special danger, they must refrain from sexual intercourse; and also when they set out or return from a raid. The Sia of New Mexico are continent four days before going hunting. The Huichols of Mexico must abstain from sexual relations when engaged on a hunting trip. They believe that if a snare is put up by a man in love, the animal will not be caught.
As far as the Decalogue is concerned, it would not have made the slightest difference, from the point of view of morality, if the listing of these two Commandments had been reversed, since the reason for the inclusion of the one is identical with the reason for the presence of the other. If the Tenth Commandment of the "forgotten set" of Commandments, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," were the seventh in the present Decalogue, and the Seventh Commandment as we know it, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," were the tenth in the forgotten set of Commandments, the only difference would be that instead of talking about adultery, we would be practicing the primitive superstitious custom of not mixing meat and milk at the same meal! Christians would in all probability be using two sets of dishes like Orthodox Hebrews, and the clergy would not have an excuse to refer to the Seventh Commandment as the one they "rarely mention." They would be shouting that "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" was a God-given command and would portend disastrous results, such as the breakdown of all morality, law and civilization, and the widespread prevalence of crime, as the consequence of its violation. They would also contend, as they now do with the taboos of the other Commandments, that the violation of this one would provoke the Bible Deity to vent his anger on the people, and that they would suffer the consequences for committing so dire a sin as mixing meat and milk at the same meal. For it is the law of all religions that "he who truly fears God will observe his laws without inquiry into the reasons for them." [*182]
One thing is certain: if this prohibition of mixing meat and milk were the Seventh Commandment of the present Decalogue, this taboo would be observed with greater fidelity than the one mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.
Additional Evidence of the Prevalence of Sympathetic Magic among the Biblical Hebrews
Not only was the belief in sympathetic magic deeply rooted in primitive Hebrew thought, but the use of magical formulas based on this belief became an integral part of their daily lives.
There is abundant Biblical evidence for the superstitious belief in magic; we need but mention the following instance recorded in Genesis of the bargaining between Jacob and his father-in-law, Laban, as to the compensation Jacob should receive for his years of labor. It was decided that Laban give him cattle and goats. The division of the cattle was to be determined by the number of "brown among the sheep" and the "speckled and spotted among the goats." To increase one over the other, this was the method Jacob used. I quote Genesis, Chapter 30, verses 37 to 41:
37. And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chestnut tree; and pilled white streaks in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ring-streaked, speckled, and spotted.
40. And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ring-streaked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
All so simple! It is regrettable that Gregor Mendel, the geneticist, spent so many years in scientific research to determine the law of inherited characteristics, when all he had to do was to consult his Bible for this great biological secret!
As a result of this Bible story which is based on the belief in sympathetic magic, there arose the superstition that if a child is born with a birthmark, it is because the mother, while pregnant, saw some object resembling the mark on the child. For instance, if a child is born with a long, discolored mark, it is explained that the mother was frightened by a mouse; if a small red mark appears on the child's body, it is explained that the mother had seen or eaten a strawberry. No matter what "mark" the child bore, the superstitious found an explanation for it in some object which a lively imagination considered it resembled, even though the mother might never have seen such an object during her period of gestation. What about the countless mothers who pass through frightful experiences, yet whose children are born without the slightest blemish?
Also from this primitive belief has grown the superstition that a prospective mother who desires to have a beautiful child should look intently at a beautiful object! That this has been the cause of much mental agony is only too well known. Fortunately, however, educated people today no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or in the influence of the mother's impressions on the unborn. But there are still many who believe in these superstitions, as reported by Dr. H. F. Kilander, Dean of the Panzer, New Jersey, College of Physical Education and Hygiene, who made a three-year survey. He said: "Forty per cent of the students and adults felt that a prospective mother could make her child more musical if she listened to good music. About the same number believed 'various marks of disfiguration on the newborn child are due to fright of the mother during pregnancy.'" [*183]
Among some orthodox Hebrews, as soon as a woman begins to have labor pains, all the female inmates of the house loosen their hair, believing that it will loosen the child and facilitate its birth. Among Polish Jews, as a help in easing birth, all knots in the women's clothing are untied. [*184] On the cradle of an infant, in Biblical days, the Children of Israel hung bells and other amulets to guard the child against demons. Rocking an empty cradle is forbidden in the belief that a child in the house will die and the cradle indeed will be empty. When the birth of a child is expected, nothing is permitted to be taken out of the house for fear that the child will die and be taken out of the house. If an infant laughs in its sleep, you must lightly tap its lips, as it is supposed to be playing with the angel of death. [*185]
If someone steps over a child or it walks between the legs of another person, it will cause its growth to be stunted, is another belief. [*186]
The influence of sympathetic magic still prevails in the observance of Rosh Hashonah, the Jewish New Year, by the orthodox Hebrew. During the ritual ceremony, honey is set on the table and bread is dipped in it, while the head of the house pronounces the words: "May it be His will that this year be a sweet one." The special loaves of white bread and the manner in which they are baked is additional evidence of this influence. The bread is formed round and smooth as a symbol of the desire that the New Year be likewise round and smooth. [*187]
Even at the present time the superstitious custom of the Tashlich, the "casting off" of sins, is observed by the extremely orthodox. This is the ceremony performed by the entire congregation: When the afternoon services on the first day of Rosh Hashonah are over, the worshipers go to the edge of the river or any other body of flowing water and recite the following ritual: "May God cast our sins into the depths of the sea." The men then shake the ends of their coat sleeves as though brushing off their sins. [*188]
Another instance of sympathetic magic is the custom of "Kapporos." This ritual first consisted in killing a lamb, but a chicken is now used instead. Each person could lay his sins on the head of the fowl by swinging the chicken above his head three times and reciting: "The chicken is my substitute and my ransom, and shall be killed that I may survive for a long and peaceful life." White chickens are preferably used because white symbolizes purity and innocence! [*189] Women select hens and men select roosters in this idiotic ceremony.
Another ceremony performed by the orthodox based on the belief in sympathetic magic deals with the scapegoat and takes place during the observance of the Day of Atonement, "Yom Kippur." In Biblical times the Jewish high priest laid both hands on the head of a live goat, confessed over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and, having thereby transferred the sins of the people to the beast, sent it away into the wilderness. [**190] For the Biblical passage and authority dealing with this superstitious practice, I quote Leviticus, Chapter 16, verses 21 end 22:
21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
The idea of the scapegoat as a means of protection comes from the savage belief that as actual burdens can be shifted from one back to another, pains and sorrows as well as sins can also be shifted! [*191]
The early Christians, in performing an identically similar ceremony, used as a scapegoat the sacrificial lamb. That is why in its early days the symbol of Christianity was a lamb. Today, however, Christians celebrate this ceremony on Ascension Day to commemorate the ascent of the supercolossal scapegoat in the figure of Jesus Christ, who is supposed to have died for the sins of all mankind! The Brahmans transfer the sins of their people to sacred cows. [*192] How far removed are the Hebrews, the Christians and the Brahmans from the Matse Negroes of Togoland, who think that the river Awo has the power to carry away the sins and sorrows of all the people? [*193]
Complementary Examples of Sympathetic Magic
The belief in sympathetic magic was so widespread among primitive peoples that it influenced nearly all phases of their conduct. A few illustrations will show the prevalence of this belief, its domination over the minds of primitive peoples, and its persistence even in our own times.
Some of us may remember from childhood days that when a button was to be sewed on a garment being worn, we were told to chew a piece of thread while the button was being attached, or our brains would also be sewed up. This particular superstition in sympathetic magic evidently survives from the belief still prevalent among the Saghalien. A pregnant woman may not spin or twist ropes for two months before her delivery because they think that if she did so, the child's intestines might become entangled like a thread. It is still a Hebrew superstition that a pregnant woman should not step over a rope or the umbilical cord will twine around the child's neck and strangle it.
In Saibai, one of the islands of the Torres Straits, it is the custom for a woman who wants a male child to press a fruit resembling the male organ of generation to her abdomen, and then pass it to another woman who has borne only boys. [*194]
The Galeareese think that spitting on a pebble establishes a homeopathic connection between them and the pebble which will make their teeth as hard and durable as stone. On the other hand, a child's hair should not be combed before it has teethed, or its teeth will be separated from each other like those of a comb.
Children should not look into sieves, or they will suffer from a skin disease and will have as many sores on their bodies as there are holes in the sieve. In Samarkand, women give a baby sugar candy to suck, and put glue in the palm of its hand, in order that when the child grows up his words may be sweet, and that precious things may stick to its hands as if they were glued. [**195]
The animistic superstition that the soul of an animal becomes absorbed by the person who eats its flesh is also current in nearly all primitive tribes. Many of the food prejudices of savage tribes derive from this conviction. It accounts for the Biblical Hebrew's proscription against eating the flesh of a pig or hog. It was believed that the one who ate the flesh of the pig would acquire his characteristics. The Tyrolese wears the tuft of the eagle's down in his hat, believing that it will give him the eagle's keen sight and courage.
Among the Dyaks, young men abstain from eating the flesh of deer for fear that it will make them shy and timid, and before a pig hunt, they avoid oil lest the game should slip through their fingers. The warriors of South America avoid eating the flesh of slow-moving and cowardly animals, while they feast on the meat of tigers, stags and boars to give them courage and speed. The story is told of an English merchant in Shanghai who, at the time of the Taeping attack, found that his Chinese servant had brought home a human heart. The Englishman asked him what he was going to do with it. The servant replied that it was the heart of a rebel which he intended to eat in order to gain courage. [*196]
When a Maori war party is about to start, the priests set up sticks in the ground to represent the warriors, and he whose stick is blown down is sure to fall in battle. [*197]
In New Zealand, when a male child has been baptized in the native manner and has received its name, small pebbles the size of a large pinhead are thrust down his throat to make his heart callous, hard and incapable of pity.
Round the neck of a Basuto child in South Africa is hung a kite's foot to give swiftness, a lion's paw for security, or an iron ring to give it iron resistance.
The American Indian hunter wears as ornaments the claws of the grizzly bear that he may be endowed with its courage and ferocity. [*198] When the natives of Australia give a dance, they make a grass figure of a kangaroo. This is believed to give them the power of the real kangaroo in a hunt.
Equally related is the belief among the Huzuls of the Carpathians. The wife of the hunter may not spin while her husband is hunting, or the game will wind like a spindle, and the hunter will be unable to hit it. In Loas, when an elephant hunter is starting for the chase, he warns his wife not to cut her hair or oil her body in his absence. If she cuts her hair, the elephant will burst the toils; if she oils herself, it would slip through them.
Based on sympathetic magic, tattooing came into existence. It was the belief that if a person was tattooed with the image of a protective animal, it would protect the person from harm. In the Easter Island, a young married man tattooed the vulva of his wife on his chest as a sign that he was married, and evidently with the thought that as long as he had his wife's vulva with him, no one could make use of it. [*199]
There are still many present-day carry-overs of these superstitious beliefs. In the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library at Hyde Park, New York, there is a miniature pearl-handled knife in one of the showcases. The legend on the attached card says: "Given to the President by Sir Robert A. Hodfield of London in return for the customary copper cent to avoid the 'Cutting of Friendship.'" The giving of any sharp instrument is believed by many to cause a severance of friendship unless counteracted by the exchange of some object, preferably a coin. Such is the tenacity of superstitious belief even among otherwise intelligent people.
The Child and This Commandment
If ministers tell us that this Commandment is rarely mentioned before adult congregations because of the delicate nature of its subject, one can well imagine how discussions about it would affect the minds of the impressionable and the adolescent.
If a child is told that one of the Ten Commandments of God is not to commit adultery, he is entitled to know the meaning of what he is admonished not to do. Obviously, he cannot refrain from performing any act unless he knows exactly what it is. This Commandment, as part of the Decalogue, acts as a reminder which continuously arouses the dormant curiosity of the adolescent child. Lacking the proper knowledge of sex, this Commandment stimulates the child's desire for information as to what actually happens when adultery is committed. Of what value is the inculcation of this Commandment in the mind of a child of tender age who not only has not the remotest intention of committing adultery, but has not even the slightest conception of what it means?
If knowledge of an adulterous act arouses the curiosity of adults and stimulates them to seek information about the minutest details, what can we expect of children whose curiosity is keener and whose imagination is more vivid? While an adult can generally take the details of adultery as a matter of fact, the mind of the child becomes tainted and corrupted; it becomes acquainted with sex through a medium of deception, duplicity and the other objectionable factors always present in the act of adultery.
Those misguided people who protest against the imparting of scientific sexual knowledge to our school children by competent teachers should pay a little more attention to the harm done by the teaching of the Decalogue. If they are so solicitous about what books children read they should become aware of the harm done by this Commandment. As a rule, those religious people who protest loudest against scientific sexual knowledge being imparted to our school children are the very ones who corrupt their minds in the matter of sex by approaching the subject through the channel of the very worst phase of sexual conduct.
You cannot get results by planting seeds in corrupted soil, and you cannot get a high sense of morality from a mind imbued with lurid thoughts of sexual conduct. How morality can be taught to a child by admonishing him not to "commit adultery" is more than I can understand.
Imparting sex knowledge and explaining proper sexual conduct is not an easy task. It is the most difficult function of education, and one of the most important. To guide a child through the adolescent period into adulthood, to teach him to fit himself for a happy married life, is the highest function of education. But to teach him this Commandment, which deals with the very act that is destructive of marriage, is a perversion of education. If marriage is our ideal and we strive to surround it with lofty and beautiful sentiments, it is a strange religion that is bent on acquainting future partners of such a union with the very method by which it is contaminated and destroyed.
At home, in school, in church, the child hears repeated over and over again that one of the commands of God is "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The consequences are that the child soon learns that adultery is associated with lust, passion, seduction, debauchery, sexual depravity, obscenity, deception, faithlessness and the whole vocabulary of offensive and repulsive acts in the realm of sex. Before the child is old enough to receive the simplest instruction in sexual matters, he is already, through overstimulation produced by the words of this Commandment, contaminated and polluted by the nasty side of sex.
Children need instruction in sexual matters; it is vital to their welfare and development. But it must be knowledge that their young, sensitive minds can comprehend and absorb, and it must be imparted in a manner that will not shock their delicate sensibilities. Will anyone have the effrontery to say that shouting the words "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to a child is the proper method of teaching sex in order to enable him to lead a healthy, normal life as well as to avoid possible future tragedies resulting from ignorance about sex? That educators are now becoming cognizant of this fact is evidenced by the statement of the British Board of Education. After stressing the importance of discouraging the old-fashioned fairy tales about birth -- "the proverbial gooseberry bush, stork and doctor's bag" -- it urged the following method of sex education: "A simple but sound maxim is: Whatever the age of the child and whatever the question he asks, answer him to the fullest extent that he is capable of understanding at that stage." [*200]
The pernicious influence of this Commandment on the mentality of the child is alone sufficient to condemn it as a corrupting force in the realm of sexual behavior.
If the Bible were a moral guide, it should contain the most detailed information and knowledge of the complicated mechanism of the body, its functions and its uses. Within its pages should be found the proper method of imparting to children the correct mode of conduct during their years of growth, particularly to fortify them with knowledge during their critical adolescent period.
If only it contained the proper sex guidance for adults, half the misery of the world would be avoided. It is the pitiful ignorance of man within the sexual realm that is responsible for so many tragedies.
Instead of the Bible being the most authoritative source of sexual knowledge, its pages reek with sexual misconduct of the most revolting nature. Is it any wonder? Throughout the Bible's eleven hundred pages, the words "adultery," "fornication," "whore" and "whoredom" are mentioned more than 500 times, while the word "morality" is not mentioned once!
The e-text conversion and critical editing of this book is copyright ©1998 by Cliff Walker. The text is watermarked. If you intend to commercialize on this book in any way, please do your own e-text conversion work. This is a labor of love, honoring the role that the works of Joseph Lewis have played in my life and in the hope that the unique presentation of Joseph Lewis's works, available only on Positive Atheism, will bring the dignity to the Positive Atheism project that only this unique presentation of the writings of Joseph Lewis can bring. We hope that our readers, supporters, friends, and others can understand and appreciate the role that this -- privilege -- of being able to present the Joseph Lewis material brings to the people who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to make Positive Atheism's online presentation possible.