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

Christian Gobblydegook--Theologians are Full of It

What is written below is an excerpt from a book written by a Dutch Theologian named Herman Bavinck, titled, “The Doctrine of God”:

"Mystery is the vital element of Dogmatics. It is true that the term "mystery" in Scripture does not indicate abstract-supernatural truth in Romish sense; nevertheless, the idea that the believer would be able to understand and comprehend intellectually the revealed mysteries is equally unscriptural. On the contrary, the truth which God has revealed concerning himself in nature and in Scripture far surpasses human conception and comprehension. In that sense Dogmatics is concerned with nothing but mystery, for it does not deal with finite creatures, but from beginning to end raises itself above every creature to the Eternal and Endless One himself." p. 13

What was written above is a prime example of illogical gobblydegook written by, and promoted by many so-called “respected theologians.” So, what does it REALLY mean? Let's look at it logically to find out.

P1. If a mystery is revealed, then it would be understood.
P2 According to Bavinck, God's mysteries are “revealed.”
C. Therefore, God's mysteries are understood.

But that is not what Bavinck said. He said that what has been “revealed” surpasses human conception and comprehension, i.e., they CANNOT be understood. This then begs the question as to how a Christian can know ANYTHING about any so-called “mysteries,” if these mysteries surpasses their conception and comprehension. Again, let's look at it logically.

P1 If something surpasses human conception and comprehension, then it cannot be revealed to humans.
P2. God's mysteries surpass human conception and comprehension.
P3. Therefore, God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans.
P4. If God's “mysteries” cannot be revealed to humans, then humans have no method of verifying God's “mysteries” as being true.
P5. God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans.
C. Therefore, Christians have no justification for saying God's “mysteries” are true.”

Furthermore, if God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans, as they surpass our conception and comprehension, then we have no way of knowing anything about this god. We have no way of knowing if he is what Christians claim he is, i.e., whether or not he is an all-loving, all-knowing, all-good god, or whether he is a sadistic tyrant, because the Bible indicates that the Christian god is capable of being all of these things.

So much for "revealing" the "mysteries" of God.   Instead, what I have "revealed" is just another Christian theologian spreading illogical gobbledygook as his own version of "truth."

Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity - Part 2

This post is a follow up to my previous post,  Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity.  For clarification, I will restate my thesis from my previous post:

"One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it." The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism. I propose that there is a better explanation. My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary. Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular. My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality. Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. Jesus does that for them."

Why James Holmes' Rampage was the Result of the Teachings of Christianity

In times like this, when something horrendous happens, people tend to hypothesize as to the reasons why. As most everyone knows by now, the "nice Christian boy," James Holmes massacred 12 innocent people and wounded many more in his rampage in a Colorado movie theatre. One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it."  The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism.  I propose that there is a better explanation.  My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary.  Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular.  My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality.  Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior.  Jesus does that for them.

Why Paul Most Likely Started Christianity

History tells us that many people have claimed to have visions and religious experiences--so why was Paul's taken so seriously over those of so many others?  This short excerpt from Chapter 4 might shed some light on the reasons why Paul had such a "vision" which started the religion of Christianity in the first place.

Many mainstream Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus was the founder of their religion, and that he founded it when he told Peter to build his church on "this rock," (Matt. 16:18) but Catholics have admitted this is not the case, as the evidence points away from this belief.¹ It was not through Christ that Christianity came into being --it was through St. Paul. Paul is claimed to have come from the Greek city of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), and educated in Jerusalem by a rabbi named Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Prior to becoming a Christian, Paul was an active Pharisee who was devoted to the law, and was very much opposed to Jesus and his followers.

So why did Paul, who most likely began as a Mithra worshiper, become a Jew, and then ultimately reject Judaism in favor of Christ?--it could be because of a girl. The fourth century writer Epiphanius, makes reference to what the Ebionites thought of Paul, and how he became a Jew and was circumcised in order to marry the daughter of a Jewish priest. When the girl spurned him, he became angry and denounced Judaism and the law--and Christianity was born.² Paul being spurned could also explain why he spoke so disparagingly against marriage, and told his followers only to marry if they feel they "cannot exercise self control." (1 Cor. 7:8-9)


Christians believe that Paul's "conversion" apparently occurred on the road to Damascus, where he had a vision of Christ,³ but we know that many "con men" make similar type claims in order to woo people into their fold.  This is how a "cult" works, and Christianity can be defined as a cult.  For example, Joseph Smith had a similar type vision to Paul, and Mormonism was born. David Koresh, the leader of the Davidian cult in Waco Texas that saw 76  people die in an FBI firestorm (17 of which, were children), also had a vision that he was a modern day Cyrus.  There is no reason that we should take the vision of Paul any more seriously than the vision of any other person.     


Nevertheless, Paul then went on as a self-proclaimed apostle, spreading the word to all who would listen to his schtick in various locales within the Hellenized world he was familiar with. He gained his converts by convincing them to give up their "dead pagan idols" in favor of the living God, and by preaching an apocalyptic message in which he told them the living God would return to judge them, and those who believed and worshipped the living God would be delivered, while those that did not would face his wrath. The belief that a living God would deliver them was a particularly strong message for those who had led lives of misery and persecution, as it offered them false hope and salvation in the afterlife when none was forthcoming in the lives they led on earth. This view is also the basis for "rapture theology" which many Christian denominations, such as the Pentecostals and Baptists believe in today.

1.Lives of the Popes, Richard McBrien, p. 25
2. Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, A. N. Wilson, p. 34
3.The New Testament-A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Bart Ehrman, 266; 268

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.

Chapter 1 Part 2 - What Good is Christianity??

In this second excerpt from Chapter 1, we examine so-called "Christian contributions" to society:

The ancient religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism have certainly influenced the Abrahamic faiths and their history, and it is through this history that we also come to understand why and how Christianity has became one of the most dominant faiths in our society, as opposed to any of the other religions. It is also important to note that many so-called "learned Christians" of today such as David Aikman, are blissfully unaware of the history of their religious beliefs, as they adamantly proclaim Christianity should be credited with promoting "tolerance" and "freedom of thought,"¹ when we have just pointed out that this is not the case at all. Christianity is not so much about freedom of thought and tolerance as it is about control and manipulation.

In reference to any so-called "contributions" to society Christianity may have made, most were mere tokenism, and other so-called contributions were made with another agenda in mind.

Consider what Dinesh D'Souza posits in his book, "What's So Great About Christianity" :

The "Dark Ages" were the consequence of Roman decadence and barbarian pillage. Slowly and surely, Christianity took this backward continent and gave it learning and order, stability and dignity. The monks copied and studied the manuscripts that preserved the learning of late antiquity. Christopher Dawson shows in "Religion of Western Culture" how the monasteries became the locus of productivity and learning throughout Europe. Where there was once wasteland, they produced hamlet, then towns and eventually commonwealths and cities. Through the years the savage barbarian warrior became a chivalric Christian knight, and new ideals of civility and manners and romance were formed that shape our society to this day." p. 43

In actuality, the people at that time were far from being "backwards." In fact, the some of the women were so adept at healing, the church found them to be a threat to their power  and persecuted them (i.e., the "witches"); the monks were busy writing only in Latin, so the general population would have no access to it (keeping the power in the hands of the clergy); and the so-called "chivalrous knights" were responsible for untold killing and torture during the Crusades and Inquistitions. This is not to say Christianity has not made any contributions to society. Some argue we would not have hosptials, orphanges, and universities if it were not for the Christians in the world--but at what cost? Was it worth it to murder all the medicine women so that men could take over their duties and create "hospitals" where millions more died of infection before they figured out they needed to wash their hands? (Something the medicine women already knew.) Was it worth it to create orphanages where children lived lives of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of priests and nuns? Was it worth it to teach only a select few in universities and keep the general populace ignorant for centuries? I do not think so. Christian contributions to society are minor in comparison to the misery it has caused.  In fact, if it were not for the supression of many artists, scientists, philosophers, healers, and others who went against church dogma and were either tortured or killed because their "contributions" threatened church hierarchy, we might be much further ahead today in the realms of science, medicine, art, and morality--were it not for Constantine and his cohorts.

1. The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, David Aikman, p. 40

The next post will be an excerpt from Chapter 2 - The Enigma Known as Yahweh

Chapter 1 - Why Christianity is Responsible for the Dark Ages

In the coming weeks we will be posting excerpts from our book, "Consequences of Christianity." This is an excerpt from Chapter 1.  In this chapter, after explaining the relationships between the various gods of the Middle East and Asia, we go on to explain how the library in Alexandria Egypt influenced Christianity. Enjoy!

 Reasons for the similarities between the various gods could be found at one time in the immense library located in Alexandria, Egypt. This is due to the fact that in ancient times before Christ, there was a great deal written and recorded on the various religions of the known world, and much of this knowledge was, at one time, stored in this library. It was a library built of marble, and it was said to be incredibly beautiful, with statues, and pictures everywhere; and was also said to contain an incredible 400,000 volumes of written work. In fact, it eventually grew so large, that an additional library was created in the temple of Serapia, which was said to contain an additional 300,000 volumes. The one time Hellenistic ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy Sotor (367-283 BC), and his son Philadelphius, founded this library with the purpose of the continued perpetuation, increase, and diffusion of knowledge. To do this, the chief librarian, at the king's expense, was ordered to buy as many books as possible. Any books brought into Egypt were then taken to the museum where they were meticulously copied by transcribers before being given back to the owners. After paying a fee to the book owner, these copies were then placed in the library.

The library not only contained thousands of volumes divided into the four faculties of literature, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, there were also botanical and zoological gardens used to facilitate the study of plants and animals, as well as an astronomical observatory containing globes, astrolabes, and other instruments that were then in use. The library also served as a place of instruction where lectures were held. Intellectuals and students from all over the known world would congregate there, and it is said that at one time there was no fewer than 14,000 people in attendance. Some of the most eminent fathers of the Christian church such as Origen and Athanasius were also familiar with the great library.¹

Many of these intellectuals who frequented the library became familiar with Buddha, Mithra, Krishna, Horus, and a host of other gods and goddesses who were worshiped by other known nations. Tragically, this magnificent library was burned during the siege of Alexandria (48 BCE) by Julius Caesar. To make amends for this action, Marc Antony, during his reign of the empire (40-30 BCE), presented Cleopatra with the second largest collection of works in the known world; the plundered library collection of Eumenes, King of Pergamus. It was not to last however, as in the year 391, Roman Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all non-christian temples, and the Christian patriarch Theophilus, gladly complied by destroying all pagan temples and the library at Serapia.² The destruction of this vast library by Christians was a death blow to free thought for more than a thousand years. To add insult to injury, a church was then built on the foundation of Serapia in honor of the “noble martyrs” (i.e. Christians) who never existed.³

The Christian “saint” (and I use the term loosely) Cyril who succeeded Theophilus, struck the final death blow to free thought when he had his monks and his assistant Peter the Reader, brutally murder the brilliant female philosopher/scientist Hypatia (350?-415 CE), who was the daughter of the mathematician and last curator of the Alexandrian library, Theon of Alexandria (335-405 CE). On her way to one of her lectures, Hypatia's chariot was mobbed by monks, and she was dragged into a church where she was killed by the club of Peter the Reader. Her corpse was then cut into pieces, the flesh scraped from her bones with shells, and the remnants thrown into the fire. Cyril was never called to account for this barbarism, as according to them the “ends justified the means,” and the “means” was to eradicate free thought in favor of religious indoctrination. By 414 CE, the intellectual “Dark Ages” was in full swing, culminating in the prohibition of teaching, and the closing of all schools in Athens by the emperor Justinian (529 CE).⁴

1. Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, TW Doane., p. 440;

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Decree_of_Theodosius.2C_destruction_by_Theophilus_in_391

3. Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, TW Doane, p. 440

4. Ibid., 441

The Tragedy of Christianity

As I continue to research and write, I sometimes find my eyes welling with tears at what I read.  I still find it difficult to believe the atrocities committed by men in the name of god.....but history tells me it is true.

But after all this time, I should not be too surprised, as the bible goes against every human right that has ever existed. It advocates rape, incest, murder, war mongering, among others, and most Christians, especially in the Capitalist matrix where selfishness and greed prevail, are not concerned with the rights of anyone except their own.

Take slavery for example. The bible advocates slavery, so Christians of course thought it was well and good to treat their fellow man as animals--all for the almighty dollar. Then they forced the religion that made Africans slaves--down their throats.  Blacks in America remain enslaved by Christianity, while their African roots are a far and distant memory...

The Inquisition demonized women who were spinsters (women who "spun" wool, and did not need a man to support them) and midwives. The church deemed their healing arts "witchcraft" and they were burned at the stake. The church did not like women to be knowlegable or independent of men, so they took that power away from them. When men took over the birthing of babies, women and children died by the thousands because they did not practice the same cleanliness techniques.

All this is not new to me.  I have been aware of the atrocities committed by Chrstians for a long time, but it still grieves my heart, and every time I read about it, it puts me in a sad, and strange frame of mind.   Today, I was reading David Stannard's "American Holocaust" and I cried when I read about the Spaniards who strung up the Indians in South America in groups of 13 to represent the "apostles and their "savior" and how they forced the surviving Indians to adopt Christianity or die a horrible horrible death.......  I don't understand how humans can treat each other this way.  Here is an excerpt to illustrate what I mean, as the author of "American Holocaust," David Stannard, quotes Las Casas retelling an incident he witnessed in South America:

"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties, the more cruel the better, with which to spill human blood. They build a long gibbet, low enough for the toes to touch the ground and prevent strangling, and ganged thirteen (natives) at a time in HONOR OF CHRIST OUR SAVIOR and the twelve Apostles. When the indians were thus alive and hanging, the Spaniards tested their strength and their blades against them, ripping chests open with one blow and exposing entrails, and there were those who did worse. Then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive. One man caught two children about two years old, pierced their throats with a dagger, then hurled them down a precipice." American Holocaust, David Stannard, p. 72

Christianity has proven itself to be an institution with an agenda, and its mandate is manipulation, power, control and greed--nothing more. What they do in the form of altruism--is merely tokenism, as they do what they must in order to fulfill their mandate. 

It truly is a sickening philosophy used in even more sickening ways......