spared it is only the law working:  God is not interfering in that small matter, either against the one man or in favor of the other.

I cannot see how eternal punishment hereafter could accomplish any good end, therefore I am not able to believe in it.  To chasten a man in order to perfect him might be reasonable enough; to annihilate him when he shall have proved himself incapable of reaching perfection might be reasonable enough; but to roast him forever for the mere satisfaction of seeing him roast would not be reasonable—­even the atrocious God imagined by the Jews would tire of the spectacle eventually.

There may be a hereafter and there may not be.  I am wholly indifferent about it.  If I am appointed to live again I feel sure it will be for some more sane and useful purpose than to flounder about for ages in a lake of fire and brimstone for having violated a confusion of ill-defined and contradictory rules said (but not evidenced) to be of divine institution.  If annihilation is to follow death I shall not be aware of the annihilation, and therefore shall not care a straw about it.

I believe that the world’s moral laws are the outcome of the world’s experience.  It needed no God to come down out of heaven to tell men that murder and theft and the other immoralities were bad, both for the individual who commits them and for society which suffers from them.

If I break all these moral laws I cannot see how I injure God by it, for He is beyond the reach of injury from me—­I could as easily injure a planet by throwing mud at it.  It seems to me that my misconduct could only injure me and other men.  I cannot benefit God by obeying these moral laws—­I could as easily benefit the planet by withholding my mud. (Let these sentences be read in the light of the fact that I believe I have received moral laws only from man —­none whatever from God.) Consequently I do not see why I should be either punished or rewarded hereafter for the deeds I do here.

If the tragedies of life shook his faith in the goodness and justice and the mercy of God as manifested toward himself, he at any rate never questioned that the wider scheme of the universe was attuned to the immutable law which contemplates nothing less than absolute harmony.  I never knew him to refer to this particular document; but he never destroyed it and never amended it, nor is it likely that he would have done either had it been presented to him for consideration even during the last year of his life.

He was never intentionally dogmatic.  In a memorandum on a fly-leaf of Moncure D. Conway’s Sacred Anthology he wrote: 

Religion

The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also. 
Mark Twain, 19th Cent.  A.D.

And in another note: 

I would not interfere with any one’s religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it.  I am not able to believe one’s religion can affect his hereafter one way or the other, no matter what that religion maybe.  But it may easily be a great comfort to him in this life hence it is a valuable possession to him.