How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken

Marriage is still viewed as a sacred institution in our society.  Christians view it as a "gift from god," or a"spiritual representation" of their relationship with God.   Truth be told however, the institution of marriage came about for economic reasons, and not out of love for a god, or the love for a potential mate.

Marriage has been defined differently by different cultures four thousands of years, and not solely in the realm of Christian societies. In many cases, arrangements were made, dowries were paid, children were born, and people worked together to provide the necessities of life.  Marriage was a contract.  Marriages have also not always been monogamous.  In fact, approximately one in six of the 1,195 societies surveyed in the largest anthropological dataset have been defined as being monogamous,* making monogamy something of an enigma.

Biblically, marriage was also a form of contract that had little or nothing to do with love, and in many cases, if not most, these marriages were polygamous.  Historically, the wealthier one was, the more wives one tended to have. (Consider King Solomon and his 700 wives and his 300 concubines.)  Polygamy was most certainly a permitted practice. Although the Romans and Greeks are said to have practiced monogamy--which some say influenced Western Societies to adopt this practice--their version of monogamy was something of a sham.  Roman men who were married could and did have relations with their wives and their slaves, and this was not considered adultery, as slaves were possessions--not people.   Furthermore, the practice of pederasty (in which a man "passed his knowledge" to a young male protege via homosexual sex) was also considered normal in Roman society, and was not a form of adultery.  The normalcy of this practice is made mention of in the Bible, although not directly.  In Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus was asked by a Roman centurion to heal his "pais" (male slave), and made no mention of any sins being committed.  Logically speaking, if pederasty itself was considered sinful, then it would make sense that he would have denigrated a practice that was widely practiced in the Hellenized world that he lived in--but he did not.  But I digress.  Not only did Jesus not speak out against pederasty, niether he nor Paul spoke much on the subject of marriage.  What Jesus did say however, was in reference to a question of divorce.  When Jesus told his disciples man could only divorce when adultery was committed, they decided maybe it was better not to marry.  Jesus concurred by saying some men became eunuchs to avoid marriage, and the "sins" of the flesh.  Note also that Jesus contradicted himself when he said "Therefore, what God has joined together, let NO ONE separate," but then goes on say that well, it is ok to separate if one has committed adultery:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”  Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom  of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”  Matt. 19:3-12

Neither Jesus nor Paul put much stock in the institution of marriage. Paul  made it known that marriage is for those that "can't help themselves" and it would be better if they did not marry (1 Cor. 7:8-9) as they would be better able to "serve the Lord" without the distraction of "lust."  (Although, this tactic hasn't worked out too well for the priesthood.)  Furthermore, as late as 393 CE, the Roman state forbade Jews to ‘enter into several matrimonies at the same time’ (Justinian Code1.9.7)** which illustrates that polygamy was routinely practiced by the Jews who worship the same god the so-called monogamous Christians do.  Therefore, we can say that marriage is not well defined by the Abrahamic god and his "writings."  More importantly, this illustrates that the "absolute" laws of Yahweh, are not so absolute at all, when Moses said it IS possible to divorce, and Jesus said it was not (i.e., let NO ONE separate {a universal term})--and then when he was challenged on this mistake by the Pharisees, Jesus added the ad hoc exception to the rule--making him less than perfect.  Jesus seems to imply that Yahweh created his laws based on  how people feel at that given time.  (They were "hard hearted" at the time of Moses.) The implication of Jesus' statement is that the laws are NOT absolute, and they change based on social conditions.

That being said, even in Christian societies the rules and regulations concerning marriage has changed significantly. Governance of marriage proceedings only became an institution of the church in approximately the 13th century.  Before that time, those speaking for their God pretty much kept their noses out of the business of marriage.  Since then however, the church has felt the need to tell people what defines marriage and who they can and cannot marry--when they themselves have no consistent Biblical doctrines which uphold their views. (The more the church infiltrated the lives of their flocks after all, the more power they had over them.) Church fathers did, and continue to this day to instill their OWN bigoted views on homosexuality and gay marriage, interracial marriages, and interfaith marriages on their flocks, to the detriment of the happiness of those involved.  Again--due strictly to their own bigoted views.  How shameful.  If Jesus did exist in the person most Christians describe--I know he would not be pleased.
  
 

*http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf 
** Ibid.

Please see the following post for more information on "Absolute Laws."
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.ca/2011/08/on-question-of-virtues-vices-and.html

It IS Possible to be Perfect!! - Jehovah's Witnesses Proved it Today

After a difficult year, we have decided to continue our efforts in promoting critical thought and exposing Christianity as a bane to civilization.  Walking the dog in this case couldn't have come at a better time.  As we walked the dog today, we happened upon a group of lively Jehovah's Witnesses, and we couldn't resist stopping to chat with them, which inspired us to create this post.  The conversation was very one-sided however, as all they could do was repeat their mantra "We are all born sinners!"

Let me explain how this came about, as what we pointed out to them is one of the BEST arguments against Christianity.  When we first happened upon them, they offered us a tract, as Jehovah's Witnesses so often do, and Tony took this as an opportunity to ask these lovely ladies whether or not it was possible to be perfect.  Now, most Christians (and others who are not Christian, but have been brainwashed by the Christian system into believing we, as humans are somehow born "imperfect") would say that no, it is NOT possible to be perfect.  But here's the trick.  Tony did not ask if it was possible to be perfect from the day we are born, he asked if it was possible to be perfect!  Note the difference.

What we mean by this, is that Christians believe it is not possible to be perfect--even just for a moment!  This means Christians believe they sin 24-7.  But is this the case?  We asked the lovely ladies if they had done anything, or thought anything "sinful" during the time we spoke with them, and they were reluctant to say anything, so Tony asked them if they were thinking "dirty thoughts" or had done anything evil in the few minutes we had been speaking with them, and they said "no."  So of course, Tony told them, that they proved it IS possible to be perfect, as they had been "perfect" and had committed no "sin" during their conversation with us!  This is when they began repeating their mantra, "We are all born sinners."  But of course, we had just proven them wrong, so we took their tract, and continued our walk--with smiles on our faces.

We glanced through the tract when we arrived home, and I had to laugh when I came across and interview with a retired environmental consultant who happened to be a Jehovah's Witness who was "convinced that life was designed by god."  Think about this for a moment, as this would mean God "designed" the lives of children who were molested, tortured, and starved to death--making him a sadist of epic proportions.  Surely--not a god worthy of worship, but a god worthy of contempt.

Why Jesus (if he existed) Ain't Comin' Back -The Bible Version.

Most Christians believe that Jesus will return one day to save them from us godless heathens and "take them up into the clouds"--but if they actually read their bibles they would realize that it ain't gonna happen.  Nope, never.  See the following excerpt from our book which explains why:

"Although Christianity was practiced shortly after the supposed “death” of Jesus Christ, in the Roman Empire it only became a driving force via the influence of the Roman Emperor, Constantine I (272-337 CE), and those that came after him. Before Constantine in the first century CE, there is little written record of those who practiced Christianity. The reasons why probably stem from the fact that the few followers of Christ at that time believed that Jesus would return "within their lifetimes," as Jesus said he would:

“When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Matthew 10:23

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16:27-28

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Matthew 24:34

If the followers of Jesus believed he would return within their lifetimes and they would soon be entering the Kingdom of Heaven, then they had no reason to record anything, or paint pretty pictures. Most likely it is for this reason that the first century CE gives us almost no evidence of Christian art, history, or literature. This was a 30-40 year gap in time where virtually nothing was recorded until the gospel of Mark, and this makes sense if believers in Jesus believed his return was imminent. Instead of writing and painting pretty pictures, believers probably spent their time getting themselves ready for Jesus' supposed imminent return.

Christian Apologists attempt to explain the above passages from Matthew by claiming that Jesus was explaining events that "had not yet happened." This is true of course, but the scriptures make it clear that these events that "had not yet happened" were supposed to have happened within the lifetimes of the apostles. Apologist explanations fail, as their claims that events "not happened yet" could happen at any time, and "no one knows the day or the hour" (Matt 25:36), do not take into consideration that Jesus is speaking only in the context of "THEM," i.e., his disciples. Jesus also says in the text to, "Watch out that no one deceives YOU." (Matt 24:4), which is ironic, as Jesus fails to include all future generations in this warning. Why? Because there was no need to do so, as Jesus believed he would return within the generation of his disciples. As Matthew 24 continues, Jesus made this clear in a way most won't recognize, when he stated that when he returned:

"Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." Matt 24:41

In these passages, Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles and in the context of his society, which is very important to recognize if one considers the above passage to be a prophetic message--which many do. The above passage speaks of primitive hand mills which are not used in the modern world except perhaps in remote areas of Africa, which leads us, via Ockham's Razor, to the best conclusion concerning this narrative. Considering his language, and to whom he was speaking, and the prophetic signs he made of his return, it is clear that Jesus expected to return within the generation of his disciples as he said he would, but he did not know exactly what time that would be. (Although, since he is claimed to be one with God, which means he would have been all-knowing, his time of return SHOULD have been known to him.) In the Bible, as in the dictionary, a generation is a generation after all--not 2000 or more years. Therefore, the time for the supposed return of Jesus Christ has long passed, and is a "failed prophecy."

So there you go--Biblical proof that Jesus ain't comin' back. 

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/270873