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

Yahweh is Proven to be a Pernicious, Lofty, and Fickle God

This is an excerpt from a book that we have written which is near completion, and was inspired by a heated online conversation we had with a well known Christian. In this excerpt, it will be proven that Yahweh, touted as the “ultimate and only true god,” is nothing short of a fickle, and pernicious god, with an added air of loftiness about him when it concerns the subjects of knowledge and wisdom. To prove this, I can show where in the Bible Yahweh views wisdom as being good, and also views it as being bad.

Chapter 2 - Why Yahweh is Not Against Abortion

This is a short excerpt from Chapter 2 dealing with abortion.  The chapter goes into much greater detail to explain why the Christian god is not against abortion at all.  The following is just one of many explanations:

If we consider that according to Christianity, the Christian god is all knowing, then the Christian god knows if a fetus will grow into an evil monster. Perhaps then the same reasoning Christians apply to the biblical slaughters of pregnant mothers and their fetuses (Deuteronomy 20:16-18) can be applied to aborted fetuses as well. i.e., The Christian explanation for the slaughter of the Canaanite fetuses is that they could have grown to be evil monsters if they were allowed to live, so the Christian god orchestrated their termination because, as Christians tell me, God knows best "in the larger sense." So just like the Canaanite children could have grown to be evil monsters if they were allowed to live--which is why Yahweh allowed them to be slaughtered--so could the aborted fetuses of today have grown to be evil monsters, and therefore, the Christian god did not allow them to be born. Furthermore, if we take into consideration the above Christian explanation of the slaughter of the Canaanite children, the question then arises as to why the Christian god allowed "evil monsters" such as Hitler to be born in the first place--who then went on to kill more than 6 million of his "chosen people" (Jews) in the Holocaust of WWII. It makes no logical sense that an all-good, all knowing, and all powerful god would kill an entire group of "potentially evil" people in the Bible, but fail to eliminate the fetus of one of the worst mass murderers in human history--the murderer of his own so-called "chosen" people. 

If Yahweh exists, he would know, and since he knows, why would he not get rid of someone like Hitler? Since the Bible tells us that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33), this would be his will--according to what the Bible tells us. According to the Bible, everything is determined by God, i.e, allowing evil monsters to live (instead of killing the potentially evil fetus) and abortion.  Ironically, Christians claim abortion to be the murder of the innocents--making Yahweh a murderer of the innocents.

Christian Blogger Wintery Knight Illustrates That the Christian God is Egotistical and Sadistic!

 

I had been meaning to post this earlier, but I got caught up in responding to comments made by "anonymous" on this blog. Now that that is done, time to move on.

In this blog post, I will show that Wintery Knight's attempt to answer the problem of evil fails, and that in fact, he shows us that if the Christian god exists, then he is egotistical and sadistic. Once again, the Wintery Knight has written a post in which his lack of thinking skills "hurts my brain." Ouch!! Let me illustrate. This is the conclusion he drew from a paper on the problem of evil:

What the atheist has to show is that God could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness. I.e. - the atheist has to show how a dentist can fill a cavity without using a drill, (or even using air abrasion). That's the burden of proof on the atheist, and Alston claims that the atheist is not in a position to know that. It's not enough to say "I don't see why dentists would have to resort to letting me suffer". The atheist has to prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering. He has to show that you can get the same good result without losing the good that allowing the suffering achieved.
Remember that on the Christian view, the good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life, regardless of their knowledge, wisdom and character. That's what atheists think, though. They think that God, if he exists, is obligated to make them feel happy all the time and not to be actively involved in forming their knowledge, wisdom and character without harming their free will. God has a purpose - to work in the world so that everyone who can freely respond to him will respond to him. The Bible says that allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY. Who is the atheist to question whether God could get all the people who will respond to him to respond with less suffering? How would the atheist know that?
But as I said before, atheist confuse the purpose of life. They think that the purpose of life is to have happy feelings, and they wonder "how could allowing me to suffer create MORE happy feelings?" And that's where the problem arises. They can't get past the idea that God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs.

Wintery Knight's argument does not even get off the ground, because first he must prove a god exists before anyone could show that god could prevent any evil. Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove that claim. It is only when he can show his all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god exists that he can say atheists must show that God "could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness." What an atheist has to show in this case however, is that the type of god Christians claims exists, i.e. an all-powerful, all good, all knowing god, is inconsistent with a world of suffering--THIS is the problem of evil. If Yahweh is all powerful, and all knowing he could accomplish any of his tasks without the need for suffering--or he would not be all powerful and all knowing. If he was all good, he would want to create a world without any pain and suffering, since it would be within his power and knowledge to do so. But clearly we have pain and suffering. Therefore, Yahweh is not all knowing, all good, or all powerful.

Wintery Knight's analogy in this case does not rid us of the problem of evil--in fact it supports the problem of evil!  Of course, the dentists cannot do their jobs without some pain and suffering, because they are not all good, all knowing and all powerful--they do not have the power and knowledge to do their jobs without some pain and suffering. Now it could be the case that there is no other way to do it given the way our world is, that is, according to the laws of nature. But then, that just goes to show that the dentist is not all powerful--that he is subject to the laws of nature. Likewise, it would also be the case then, that if Yahweh could not create a world without suffering because it is not possible to do so, then he is not all knowing and not all powerful--as there is something he cannot do. Note, some religions, such as Taoism claim that the Tao came before the universe and gods/goddesses. Thus, it makes sense in this case that any such gods and goddesses are not subject to the problem of evil, as the universe and the laws of nature were not created by them, and so, it follows that there may be things that they cannot do given the nature of the universe. However, the Christian god is claimed to have created everything, and therefore, as the bible tells us, is responsible for it all, as it states in Proverbs 16:33 and various other places that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." Given this scenario, the Christians claimed he created the universe and the laws of nature. Thus, if he were all knowing and all powerful, then he could have created a universe without pain and suffering, and still have satisfied his needs--but he chose not to. This makes the best explanation for Yahweh is that he is egotistical and sadistic, or he did not create the universe and the laws of nature, and he is not all powerful, or all knowing.

The Christians face another dilemma. According to the Christian eschatological view, our pain and suffering is the result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. But could not Yahweh have created a world where Adam and Eve were free, and chose not to sin? If he could have created such a world and chose not to, then the best explanation for our pain and suffering is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist. Since Yahweh is said to have created heaven without pain and suffering, but not our world, this further illustrates that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.  If Yahweh created a heaven where people are happy and "sinless,"Yahweh could have also created earth in the same manner--but chose to have his children be inflicted by pain and suffering instead. Surely--the actions of an egotistical and sadistic god. Christian apologists have been asked, "How can we be free in heaven and not sin?" Their answer has been that man does retain his free will in heaven, but loses the capacity to sin.  How does this work? We are told by the Christian apologists that the Christian god gives humans a new "godly nature" when they become "saved." They are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and given a new nature. 2 Peter 1:4 states "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature." So, we see that those who are saved are given a nature that is radically different than the fallen nature that is said to be inherited from Adam and Eve. This claim is based on Augustine's conception of original sin. Supposedly, this new nature is godly, agreeing with all the precepts and laws of God, and since they completely obey all God's laws, they would be sinless, as Jesus was said to be without sin, and therefore, he was perfect. (2 Cor. 3:21;Matt 5:17) Now, for our purposes, and with reference to the problem of evil, the most significant point is that this "nature" that is given to humans by god means that they will not sin, but yet, they are still considered to be "free." This hammers home the point that Yahweh could have created us in such a way that we were free, and yet never sinned in the first place--thus, avoiding pain and suffering. He could have created us with a "godly" nature in the first place, but obviously, according to Christians and the bible, he chose not to. Again, the best explanation for this, is that if Yahweh existed as depicted by Christians and the bible, then he is a egotistical and sadistic god because, as Wintery Knight tells us, Yahweh chose to make this world to satisfy HIS needs. He NEEDS to experience the pain and suffering of his children to satisfy some needs that he has. What needs could these be, other than sadistic needs, given the fact he could have created a world without pain and suffering, one in which love and respect is absolute?? All the pain and suffering could have been avoided if Yahweh had created a world in which humans had a godly nature, and thus had free will and no sin in the first place. Truly--a sadistic god.

Now, Christians might claim that if we do not experience pain and suffering, then we would have no knowledge of "good." The first point is that if this was the case, then Yahweh would not be all-knowing and all-powerful, as clearly he could have created us with a godly nature, and the knowledge of good, without having to experience pain and suffering, as this would be something he could not do. Thus, how is it that god knows the difference between good and evil, when according to Christians, he has this knowledge, but has not sinned? How did Yahweh have the knowledge of pain and suffering before the "Fall of Man"? He would have had no experience of pain and suffering, but yet, he knew what it was, and since he is said to be the creator of all things, he created pain and suffering. Thus, he could have created us with a godly nature, and knowledge of pain and suffering and good and evil, without having to have us experience it.

Wintery Knight claims that the "...good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life." According to Wintery Knight then, Yahweh is not about giving human beings happy feelings in this life. Now, based on the stories of the bible, and what we have experienced in this world throughout history, it confirms that Wintery Knight is at least right on this one point. It is clear that Yahweh is definitely not about giving human beings happy feelings! In fact, the bible tells us that Yahweh is responsible for misery! (I mean, he did create evil after all, and admits it in Isaiah 45:7) Assume this is true. If this is true, then given the pain and suffering depicted in the bible, and the pain and suffering we experience in our world, it would support the conclusion that Yahweh has no interest in the happiness of humanity. The best explanation for this behavior is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.

Wintery Knight goes on to say that "...allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he (Yahweh) gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY." According to Wintery Knight, people will respond FREELY to Yahweh when inflicted with pain and suffering--this is despicable. The use of pain and suffering in order to make someone "respond" to you is a form a coercion. (Just as the Christians did to the so-called witches" when they tortured them for crimes they had not committed until they FREELY "confessed") As I have shown above, Yahweh could have created a world where people respond to him as a result of their "godly nature." Instead, Yahweh could have created a world in which there would be no need for any coercion of any type--but he CHOSE to use pain and suffering in order to FREELY(?) ALLOW(?) us to respond to him--these, dear Wintery Knight, are the manipulations and actions of an egotistical sadist. Even if Yahweh had not made us with this "godly nature," your god could choose to whisper in our ears, or give us any number of signs--but no, he chose pain and suffering. How bizarre. Not only is it bizarre, but it is contradictory for a so-called "all-loving god" to manipulate his "children" this way. If he were an earthly father who was  abusing and torturing his children in order to bring them "closer" to him--he would be put him in jail. As mentioned in an earlierpost, Christians seem to believe that pain and suffering go hand in hand with love--which had lead to untold amounts of abuse at the hands of people that "love" us. Again--how bizarre, and sad at the same time.

Finally he says that, "...God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs." What right does Yahweh have to inflict, as I have shown above, unnecessary pain and suffering on humans, because he is god? Is Wintery Knight suggesting that "might makes right"?? Is it the case that something is right because god says it is right, or is it right because it IS right? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right.  If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good."  Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.   However, there is a positive reason to suppose that moral notions, even if brought into existence by God, apply independently from God's judgement once they exist. As such, Wintery Knight's claim that Yahweh has a right to form our character by any means necessary would be wrong, as Yahweh would also be subject to the same standards of right and wrong that we are. Otherwise, it would be the case that Yahweh brings moral facts into existence by his judgement. What this amounts to is, is that Yahweh has judged of himself that he is good. Christians however, want to say that it is Yahweh himself that is good--and not that he is good by his own self-judgement. For if it is just a mere self-judgement, Yahweh could be just like the entity that Christians claim is evil-- one whose goal is to create pain and suffering. This entity who is evil and creates this pain and suffering does not become good by a "self-pronouncement" or because someone like Wintery Knight claims this entity has a right to cause pain and suffering. To avoid this absurdity, we need to reject the claim that Yahweh has a right to do whatever he pleases, and that whatever he pleases becomes right. No, there is no such right that makes causing unnecessary pain and suffering "good" by mere self-pronouncement by an egotistical and sadistic god! Yahweh cannot avoid the problem of evil by mere "self-pronouncement"!!!

Wintery Knight says Yahweh "orchestrates a world that meets his needs." Yes, ACCORDING TO WINTERY KNIGHT, YAHWEH NEEDS TO HAVE LITTLE CHILDREN RAPED AND MURDERED.  HE NEEDS TO HAVE WOMEN BEATEN TO DEATH BY THEIR HUSBANDS, ETC. Again, those are not the actions of a loving god, but the actions of an egotistical sadistic god.  I have shown above that the atheist has no need to prove that there is a way to, as Wintery Knight says, "prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering."  For as I have shown above, this is the case according to Christians and the Bible--Yahweh could have choose to make the cavity go away without any suffering--but chose not to.  Yahweh could have prevented every instance of evil, pain and suffering without losing any overall goodness. Otherwise Yahweh is not all knowing, all powerful, or all good!

Dear Anonymous Part 2: Why Your God is NOT Love, and Why Hate Can be a Virtue

This is the second part of a series I am writing in response to a commenter on this blog post:
A Critique of Richard Dawikins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You claim I am "mad"--which I am not. My job is to educate, which is why I am here. As you say, you are "stuck" trying to make sense out of something written in the OT that is difficult to make sense of.  I am here to help you and others "make sense out of it". My education provided me with multiple explanations for biblical passages--something lay people are unaware of, as their pastors/priests usually only provide them with one, perhaps two explanations. I am here to make sense out of the nonsense by exposing it for what it is, and provide people with alternate explanations, and the knowledge of my religious studies. The bible is what you claim the Quran and the Mormon bible is--stories made up and handed down--which makes it possible that the battles, and many other events depicted in the bible never ever took place. Besides the fact that the Jews are well known for embellishing their texts and have admitted to doing so, the archeological evidence shows that the best explanation is that the battles depicted in the bible never happened. (See The Bible Unearthed) Unfortunately for Christians, this then puts the entire book into question.

If the OT is difficult to understand, and includes events that are difficult to explain as you say, and if we consider that the millions of Christians around the world cannot even agree as to the meaning of the text, your god, if he was real, certainly has not done a very good job of "revealing" himself to his followers. Remember, the Jews were enslaved by other groups of more powerful people, and had learned the attributes of their gods. When they were finally freed, they embellished the attributes of the gods they were familiar with, and created their own based on the gods of their captors.  This is why there are so many striking similarities between the stories of the Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian gods--and the stories of the Abrahamic gods, and contradictions and inconsistencies.  Add to that the New Testament--and what a mess!!  The fact that the stories are a mish mash of different gods from different cultures is a large part of the reason why the bible is so difficult to understand.

You claim I am a hater, so I would also like to explain that hate is not always a vice. Hate can be beneficial to survival. If we hate our enemies, we are more likely to survive being assaulted by them. If women hated their abusive husbands, they would be more likely to leave them, as opposed to staying with them and sometimes dying in the process. Hate can protect us, and yes, I do hate the molesters of little children, the abusers of women and others that intentionally hurt people, and I hate the Christian philosophy that promotes this type of behavior. I hate the Christian philosophy of believing we are "born sinners," and I hate the philosophy of "unconditional love" and "forgiveness" for any heinous deed--as heinous deeds do not deserve to be forgiven, and love is something that should be earned, and not just given to anyone. Unconditional love and forgiveness is why so many women are murdered every year by their "loving husbands"--because they kept forgiving them over and over again. People that love each other, do not beat them to death, and the women should not forgive them for beating them--they should hate them--and leave them for a better life.  Hate does not have to consume a person.  It is possible to hate someone and be quite logical at the same time.  I do not believe that suffering is necessary to learn anything or, as you and Mother Teresa seem to believe, to bring one "closer" to god. That is utter nonsense. What suffering does do however, is create false hope, in that somehow a magical man in the sky will make things better for them. This is why religion is popular with the oppressed. It gives them "false hope."  It is also contradictory to consider that your god is the cause of suffering (as EVERY decision is from the Lord, {Prov 16:33} and the Lord created evil {Isaiah 45:7}) and is also "all-loving"--how bizarre.  This idea promotes the view that abuse can coexist with love--which is not only false, it has resulted in too many people suffering needlessly.  If you love someone, then you do not abuse them.  The Christian concept of love is bizarre!

Furthermore, contrary to what most Christians believe, their god does not advocate "unconditional love. " In Deuteronomy 7:12, Yahweh makes it clear that he will only love his people, IF they follow all his laws and commandments. This is a CONDITIONAL statement. His love is CONDITIONAL to following his laws.  Therefore, even according to the Christian god, love is conditional.  However, Christians claim that love is unconditional--which is another inconsistency and contradiction in the bible. 

 What's more, according to the bible writers, they cannot keep straight what love is or what it means in the first place. Logic, when applied to the text reveals a god that is love, and not love at the same time--another contradiction.  For according to the text:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

But then they go on to say:

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"  Exodus 20:5

Which is a contradiction.  In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:

IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous.  Therefore god is NOT love.
Therefore, according to the bible writers, god is love, and god is not love--a contradiction.

According to you, Jesus loved "flawlessly," but Jesus did not love flawlessly when he told his followers to abandon their families to follow him. No--that is not love. He did not love flawlessly when he had his feet anointed with oil--when the money gained from selling that oil could have been used to feed a starving family. No--that is not "flawless" love either.  And if Jesus is Yahweh, then killing innocent babies and fetuses (as explained in this post) is not love either. There are many occasions when Jesus does not love flawlessly, but considering that according to the bible, god is not love and is love at the same time, this is one thing that is consistent with the text--and not consistent with the text at the same time.....how bizarre.

I am enjoying responding to your comments very much, and I hope that they will enlighten you and others, and turn you away from a bad philosophy that promotes moral laxity,  but I must go now. Stay tuned for part 3.

Did Jesus Give Man Authority Over Yahweh?

Recently, I asked the question, "Did Jesus give man authority over Yahweh?" on Yahoo Answers.  It was asked in order to provoke thought into the meaning of the passages below, which are taken from Matthew:

"And I say to thee, thou art Peter (petrus) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed in Heaven."  Matthew 16:18-19

In these passages, Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and unbind whatever he wants. In other words, whatever Peter says becomes law on earth AND in heaven. If this is the case however, then Jesus made a man higher and more powerful than Yahweh!  So, Jesus made Peter--god!

Roman Catholic teaching says this power, now known as the Petrine Guarantee, is passed on to succeeding bishops. While St. Peter was not officially a pope, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Peter as the first pope, and they claim that the pope is considered to be carrying on the power that Jesus granted Peter; and medieval popes claimed to be in this direct line of inheritance from Jesus himself. Clearly, Peter had the authority to pass this power onto a successor, as the passage says, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in Heaven," and this power was given to him by Jesus!

I received only a few answers, and those that I did receive tried to use Humpty Dumpty semantics for the meaning of what Jesus supposedly said in the above passage. One of the claims made was that Jesus is the rock, and not Peter, but this is NOT what Jesus supposedly said.  According to the above passage, Jesus said that:

"....thou art Peter (petrus)* and upon this rock (petra)...."

 Jesus is making reference to Peter (petrus) and not himself.

  The part being:

"....whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed in Heaven. "

Which would mean anything Peter said became law on earth AND in Heaven. This would make Peter the law maker and giver-- and NOT Jesus  nor Yahweh!  It does not say, 'whatsoever I shalt bind,' It says, 'whatsoever THOU shalt bind.' Therefore, according to this passage, Jesus is making reference to Peter, and not himself.  Whatsoever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, and whatsoever Peter loose on earth it shall be loosed in Heaven.

I also received a response claiming that:

"... Jesus didn't just give the power to Peter - he also promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit for His church. That's what the phrase "and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" means (among other places in the Bible). That's the basis for understanding papal infallibility - the understanding that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to protect His church so that Peter wouldn't "bind and loosen" what shouldn't be bound and loosen. So the power isn't Peter's - it's the Holy Spirit's."

This is mere Humpty Dumpty semantics, as there is no mention of any "holy spirit" in  the passages from Matthew 16.  Jesus specifically gave Peter the power to bind and unbind anything on earth AND in heaven.   Saying that the "gates of Hell" shall not prevail is a weak use of semantics in an attempt to rationalize the meaning of what Jesus supposedly said to the presupposed beliefs held by Christians.  Other Christians claim it means when the Son of God is heard, then the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and the grave shall not have power to retain its captives, as Christ holds the keys to death and hell.

But read it again, because clearly it is not making reference to Jesus or Yahweh--it is making reference to Peter, and WHATSOEVER Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. 

...."and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" -- means exactly what it says; the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. AND:

"I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and WHATSOEVER thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth it shall be loosed in Heaven."

So the Church shall prevail AND Peter is the law maker and giver on earth and in heaven--Peter, a mere man, was Master!  Again--the bible illustrates just how impotent the Christian god is.

* Supposedly, Peter's original name was Simon; If Jesus was speaking in Aramaic when he  gave Peter another name, it would have been 'Cephas', an Aramaic word meaning "rock." There is some debate as to whether Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek.