A Christian Dared ask These Questions on Gay Marriage--so I Answered Them

Recently, I came upon this web page that asks Christians to ask themselves the hard questions (excuse the bad pun) concerning homosexual marriage, so I thought I would answer them from the viewpoint of someone that doesn't share their belief system. 

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

All unions between consenting loving adults should be celebrated. What loving, consenting adults do in private is none of my business.

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

The fulfillment passages of Matthew 5:17-20 states that all the laws must be obeyed until heaven and earth pass away. Nowhere does Jesus differentiate between dietary, moral, or legal laws, and he makes it clear that his followers are to follow ALL  of these laws if they want to see heaven. Christians twisted his words using Humpty Dumpty semantics to get out of that responsibility, but Jesus was clear. Jesus said ALL of them were to be obeyed by his followers until heaven and earth pass away, and if believers 'relax' on even the least of these laws--they are out of luck.  Therefore, Christians need to follow all of the laws, or abandon their religion altogether, because according to Jesus, a Christian won't likely go to heaven anyway if they eat shrimp or wear clothing made of various fibres, or lie with a man, etc,--interesting that it says nothing about women lying together in the OT. Note that Jesus said, "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished".  This doesn't mean only some of laws --it means ALL of them.  According to the Bible, Christians can't pick and choose which laws to obey and which no long apply because their god told them ALL of them apply--even the least of them.

 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  tTherefore whoever relaxes uone of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least vin the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great vin the kingdom of heaven.(Matt 5-18-19)

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, even when confronted by a Roman who asked him to heal his 'pais' (male slave). This is significant because pederasty was still practiced at that time, and men kept boys and spread their 'knowledge' via male on male sex. If he found anything wrong with this practice, I am sure he would have spoken against it. Perhaps, Jesus himself was a homosexual as passages of the Bible seem to indicate.  Polygamy was also practiced in Biblical times and long after. The 'rules' we practice today, came much later when church wanted to wrest more control over its flock. Before that, marriage was more of a civil union. See this post for details.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

Luke 6:31 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

According to the Bible, Jesus doesn't differentiate between hetero and homosexual love. Any kind of love is good. Love is love.

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

Jesus said nothing against homosexual love, and I won't put words in his mouth. In fact, he may have been homosexual or bisexual himself as the Bible itself alludes to. Biblical references to Jesus being in the company of "naked boys"  appear in the scriptures of Mark when he is in the Garden of Gethsemane. It is in this Garden that Jesus is arrested by the Romans after supposedly being betrayed by Judas, and it is in this Garden that we also find a young, naked, unnamed boy. This boy was "a young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment," and “was following Jesus." When the Romans seized Jesus, the young boy "fled naked, leaving his garment behind" (Mark 14:51). Apologists attempt to claim that this boy was Mark himself, and elaborate on the shame he must have felt at abandoning his Lord, but this cannot be the case as Mark was not written by the apostle Mark. Mark's author is unknown. A better explanation via Ockham's razor, would be that Jesus could have been indulging in the practice of pederasty, and the unknown Greek who actually wrote the gospel thought nothing of it because pederasty was considered normal, so he included it in his narrative.

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

There was no mention of 'marriage' in the Garden of Eden. There is only a union joined by God, and if God is everywhere as Christians tell us, then he is with the gay couples that are being married as well. Marriage, after all, had always been a civil agreement, and not a religious one until about the 13th century. In fact, within the entire Old Testament polygamy was a normal practice all the way from Kings (said to be the oldest book of the Bible) to the New Testament and beyond. Marriage as an entity isn't spoken of very often in the Bible, and many times it is spoken of disparagingly (As when Paul mentions you should only get married if you can't control your own lust) In the New Testament (Matthew 19:1-12 ) Jesus was approached with a question concerning divorce, but these questions were in reference to the Old Testament, in which  polygamy was allowed. He did not condemn the practice of polygamy, just like he did not condemn the practice of homosexuality.

7. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

I think about the long history of persecution where homosexuals were tortured, killed, and their properties confiscated by the church. This is what was promulgated from the doctrines of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Luther. This is also how the church became so extremely wealthy. This is not love. I don't think Jesus would approve.

8. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

I would argue that the changing doctrines of the Bible itself have been 'culturally conditioned' as the Biblical laws have been changed by  Christians over the centuries. Until only recently, women couldn't become pastors, or even vote because of how the Bible views women. Women of course, changed all of that, and at long last, we are now making changes that gives everyone equal rights under the law to be married regardless of their sexual orientation.  Christians claim they no longer have to follow the laws, as Jesus redeemed them from laws of the OT --which isn't true as stated above in the passages of Matthew 5:17-20.  According to these Christians however, all you need is love, and if two people love each other, that is all that matters. If they think otherwise, they would be hypocrites.

9. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

It's a free country. Christians have the right of free speech to voice their opinion and practice their religion--without fear of persecution and without persecuting others who do not share their beliefs. Other people who do not have those same beliefs should also have the right to exercise their beliefs without fear of persecution and without persecuting others. What Christians do NOT have however, is the right to tell two consenting adults how to live their life according to THEIR beliefs. As mentioned above, marriage was a civil arrangement until the church became involved in about the 13th century or so. Since there are thousands of different religions, and different customs associated with these religions-- legal marriage is a CIVIL practice. After all, church and state are SEPARATE entities--let's keep it that way.

10. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

As an Ignostic Atheist, I would speak up for anyone that is being persecuted for what they believe in--Christian, homosexuals, women, Muslims, etc. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe, but if those beliefs are shown to be contradictory, and causes harm, then believers would be wise to accept the valid arguments against them and change their beliefs. I see no harm in a loving homosexual marriage. 

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

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