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

The Real Meaning of Christmas--It's a Capitalist Trick

Forgive our absence, we have had to deal with a loss that has taken a toll on us, but we are now making our way back into "the fold" so to speak, and this seems to be a good time to do so.

Christmas--what is it?  What does it mean?  When I wander the malls, all I see is stress in the eyes of shoppers who somehow believe that getting that perfect gift is all that matters.  Or maybe it's cooking that perfect Christmas dinner, or hosting that perfect Christmas party......   Interestingly, until a few years ago, I used to be one of those people that was always looking for the perfect gifts, and hoping to cook that perfect dinner, and host that perfect party.  That is, until I boycotted Christmas.

Sadly, Christmas for me had nothing to do with being jolly or happy.  It was, in fact, an exhausting time of year where I was responsible for all the cooking, cleaning, decorating, shopping, etc. etc.--which put me under a lot of stress.  So why did I do it?  Most would say I did it for my family--but when I think about it, that isn't completely true.  Certainly, I bought those gifts and cooked those meals for the people I cared about, but what prompted those actions in the first place?  Was it religion? Yes, but it's not that simple.  Christianity is part of  the capitalist matrix that promotes the excessiveness of the Christmas season--which I have boycotted.  Christianity within the matrix created the perversion that "Christmas" has become.

Now, most would believe that when anyone says that Christmas has become a perversion, this would mean that we have taken "Jesus" out of the equation, and turned it into a quest for more material goods.  But no, Christmas has ALWAYS been a perversion, and I will explain why.  Although I disagree with the excessive materialism which has become part of the "Christmas season", people should also realize that Christmas never really was about Jesus at all until the emperor Constantine made it so a long time ago.  Christmas in essence, is a pagan celebration--not a Christian one.  

To be honest, since I know the history, I shake my head when I see the pagan symbols intertwined with the Christian ones--knowing very few people understand how this came to be.  (Easter is very similar, but that is for another post some other time.)  Christmas is not really about Jesus, as no one knows IF he was ever born, and if he was, no one knows exactly when that might have taken place.  Most likely, if he had been a real person, it would have been in the spring as Luke 2:8 states that when Jesus was supposedly born:

 “... there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” 

As winters in Judea were cold and wet, sheep at that time would be placed in corrals and would not be in the fields.  Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time.  In spring however, shepherds would stay with their flocks night and day, tending new births.  They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall.

Furthermore, the Bible tells us that Mary and Joseph were on their way to pay taxes when Jesus was supposedly born, but Palestine is very cold in December, and it was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. 

So if Christmas isn't really about Jesus, what is it about then? Originally it was a pagan celebration based on "Saturnalia," which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.  The Roman Emperor Constantine created the Christian celebration known as Christmas during Saturnalia in order to make it easier to convert the pagans to this new religion. The first official "Christmas" celebration on December 25th was held in 336AD, and a few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on the 25th December.  Funny how a pope can decide when a so-called "god" was born--lol.  Really, I find that highly amusing. Constantine also paid people to be baptized into Christianity in order to gain new converts, which explained its growing popularity.  The gift giving, feasting, etc., which are integral to the "Christmas season" however, all have pagan origins, some based on Saturnalia. As wikipedia states:

Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honour of the deity Saturn held on December 17 of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through December 23. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn in the Roman Forum and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves.^[1] The poet Catullus called it "the best of days."^[2]
In Roman mythology, Saturn was an agricultural deity who reigned over the world in the Golden Age, when humans enjoyed the spontaneous bounty of the earth without labor in a state of social egalitarianism. The revelries of Saturnalia were supposed to reflect the conditions of the lost mythical age, not all of them desirable. The Greek equivalent was the Kronia.^[3]
Although probably the best-known Roman holiday, Saturnalia as a whole is not described from beginning to end in any single ancient source. Modern understanding of the festival is pieced together from several accounts dealing with various aspects.^[4] The Saturnalia was the dramatic setting of the multivolume work of that name by Macrobius, a Latin writer from late antiquity who is the major source for the holiday. In one of the interpretations in Macrobius's work, Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth.^[5] The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," on December 25.^[6]
The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, some of its customs may have influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year.^[7]

 Saturnalia--a solstice celebration, in honor of the coming of the new "sun." (son?)  Sound familiar?  It should. The birth of many other "sun/son" gods such as Mithra were also worshiped at this time.  The notion that Jesus too was supposedly born at this time as the "son" of God has, for our world today, created a perversion on top of a perversion.  That is, a so-called god, who is said to come for all, is instead celebrated by some via gluttony and exorbitance, while millions of "believers" and others starve to death without proper clothing or shelter.  But remember, these so-called "Christians" who indulge in these "Christmas celebrations" are not honoring their god, but the pagan gods, Saturn, Mithra, etc. In fact, Christmas does not honor Jesus at all, and Jesus, according to the Bible, would NOT be pleased with all the excess that has become a part of the "Christmas season".  The Bible quotes him saying as such to a rich man looking for a way into heaven:

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mark 10:21

In other words, what so-called "Christians" celebrate as "Christmas" today are nothing but perversions, on top of perversions, on top of perversions, and they are all promoted via the Capitalist matrix we all live in.......which brings me to the tree.

Many times, I have seen Christmas trees in churches. Why, my mother used to take me to what is known as "The Singing Christmas Tree" which was a concert held in a Pentacostal church.  There, the carolers were tiered up to look like an actual tree!  It was quite beautiful, but it had nothing to do with their so-called Jesus, and really, should be considered "sacrilegious"--lol.  I can't help but to laugh when I think about that tree now. In fact, the Christmas tree has pagan origins. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime."

So no, I do not set up a tree (when I used to have a real tree, a nativity scene {how bizarre!!} lights, and everything else) and I do not exchange gifts. I do not participate in a "celebration" co-opted by Christians in order to promote their own agenda.  I do not participate in a "celebration" which is promoted by the system in order to generate a larger cash flow for the capitalists.  Instead, I give money to certain charities, and have a nice relaxing dinner with a good bottle of wine, because, as Tony's grandmother once wisely said, "Every day should be like Christmas day."  In other words, we should treat our fellow human beings every day with the same love and respect many show only at Christmas time.    For us, Christmas means the love of family and friends, no headaches, no hangovers, and no excessive bills to pay.  That is the BEST Christmas of all....:) Cheers!!

Humpty Dumpty Meets Reductio ad Absurdum--How Christian Rabbits Morph into Mad Hatters

This post is a followup to my previous post, “What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods.” 

When I wrote the post, I was setting up a snare to catch Christian rabbits, as they take the bait and travel further down the rabbit hole. In doing so, they are “hoisted by their own petard” as they try to explain away problematic Biblical passages—in this case, Genesis 6:1-4. The Christians claim that Jesus is the only son of god, but then Genesis 6:1-4 states there are “sons of gods” --meaning there are many gods, and many sons of gods! It also implies there are goddesses as well, and that gods and goddesses have sex. This is where Humpty Dumpty semantics comes in, as I want them to admit that the words don't mean what they say they mean—literally. In doing so, they get entangled in a Humpty Dumpty semantic snare, as their explanations can then be turned against them, because now they have provided weight to these explanations that can now be used against them in the case of the Trinity. It leads to an absurd position for the Trinity doctrine and the historic Christian faith as a whole.

Why Would Death be Pleasing to a God in that he Requires a Living Blood Sacrifice, When he is Said to Love “Living” Beings?

This is from a series of twenty questions at the back of the book I am almost finished (editing is taking longer than I thought)  The answers come from a rational as well as a Christian perspective, and are meant to be though provoking, as well as offering better rationalizations.

Did Jesus Ever Sin?--YES!

Most Christians will adamantly claim that Jesus was without sin, as the Bible makes reference to his so-called "sinless nature" on many occasions such as 2Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1Peter 2:21-22; 1John 3:5.  However, Jesus himself notes that only God is "good" (Mark 10:17-18)--thereby implying that he is not "sinless" and not "god" either! The passages below indicate that if Jesus existed, then he was not lying when he implied that he was not "good" as he himself broke the laws, and under his direction laws were broken. In Luke, he forgoes the law by healing people on the Sabbath:

The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Most Christians believe they have no laws to follow, since according to Paul, Jesus died to save them from the laws--so where does their "ethical code" come from then? Not the 10 commandments, because they were part and parcel of the "laws" that Jesus died to revoke. (It was MEN that separated them into categories later.) Jesus however, said "ALL the laws, and ALL the prophets MUST be followed until heaven and earth disappear. (Matt 5:18) So do Christians even have a moral code, and if so, where does it come from? Do Christians follow Jesus, or do they follow Paul? The answer is--Paul. Let me explain.

The belief that Christians do not have to follow the laws came from Paul. According to Paul, Christians are in essence, "lawless. " This makes "sin" something of a paradox because a sin is defined as a transgression against God's laws--but there are no laws! This was evident when Paul first began preaching, as his followers began having orgies, and participating in all sorts of debauchery--because they believed they had no laws--so he had to backtrack a bit and tell the Corinthinas that well, you can do anything, but not everything will be good for you. (1Cor. 10:23) Hmmm..... Unfortunately, even if there were "laws" to break, they would be redundant anyway, when anything can be forgiven as long as a believer sincerely "repents." There is no punishment for the "sinner" (as long as they don't get caught by the "secular" police!!) and no compensation for the victims under the Christian system either--making "sins" virtually meaningless. This is why Christianiy in and of itself is immoral and unjust.

Unfortunately, today we live in a society full of these "born sinners"--people who believe they were born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things--which explains the chaos. However, if Christians cannot help but to sin, do they really have "free will??" Not according to the Bible--but that is for another post. To explain the insidiousness of Christianity and their lack of real ethics and morality, take into consideration this wee bit of Socratic dialogue. In a conversation between a Christian and Jesus--according to Paul's version of Christianity:

Sinner: "Jesus, I know I shouldn't, but I really want to have sex with my neighbor's daughter. She's only 6, but I want her so bad."

Jesus: "You know that would wrong, but we both know you are a born sinner. So we both know it would be wrong to rape that little girl, but your sinful nature will compel you to rape her anyway, so go ahead. I have your back. When you are done with her, just come back and see me. Explain to me what you have done, and tell me how sorry you are for doing it, and I will forgive you. It will be like nothing happened at all, and you will still get to live with me in paradise forever."

Sinner: "Thanks Jesus! I'll be coming back to talk to you in a few hours! I gotta go, she'll be getting out of school right away, and I don't want to miss her!"

Yes people, THIS is Christian ethics and morality. I don't even have words to explain how sick this philosophy is.....

I often wonder what society would be like if people were taught they could be "perfect" in their choices, and that yes, they CAN make the right choices. What if they did not have a "fall guy" to take the blame for them? What if they had to take responsibility for their OWN actions? I doubt I will find out within my lifetime, but maybe someday...........

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

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 3 - The Real Meaning of Love

This is the third part of a three part series of posts in response to a commenter at the blog post below:
A Critique of Richard Dawkins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You asked me if I knew what love is--and I believe I do. Love is honor, respect, caring, teaching, and nurturing. I have all of these in my life, and I am grateful for that. There is no reason to love anyone if you know you will not be loved in return. "Loving your enemies" as Christians claim to do, will most likely end in tragedy.   Christians may claim to love their enemies, but for most Christians, this aphorism is quite meaningless, as they have tortured and burned literally millions of their so-called "enemies"--including the innocent medicine women, vilified by the church as "witches." What would America be like if the President "loved his enemies"??--most likely it would not be the America we know today. Loving ones enemies is a trick the power mongers use in order to manipulate the masses into conforming to their will. Love the master=love the enemy. No--loving ones enemy will do nothing to make the world a better place to be.

It is the Capitalist/Christian matrix which promotes such ridiculous paradigms--this needs to change in order for humanity to survive. My goal is not to increase the hate--it is to make those who deserve to be hated take responsibility for their actions. My goal is, as you say to "rid the world of the Christian menace," as I have already explained that the Christian doctrine of salvation leads to moral laxity, and a corrupt society. People such as Harris, Dawkins, myself and others are not espousing despair and hatred, nor are we promoting it. As Shirley Phelps might say, "To what end?" To what end would someone like myself want to promote hatred and despair? Your conclusion on this point makes no logical sense. I promote living, as Jesus said, a "perfect" life. He himself said to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect."--meaning do what is right the FIRST time, and do not choose to lie, steal, commit adultery etc, because, well, you believe you were "born bad" and can't help but be that way. This is total nonsense, and is a philosophy that yes, I want eliminated. If society was taught they are born perfect, and can choose right--the world would be a much better place for us all. There is a great deal of meaning in living a life in which you can make it better for those that follow you. This is what I do. In the near future I will be publishing a post dealing with the subject of perfection, and the Christian misconception of it.

I have no interest in humility.  As I have already mentioned, humility, like loving ones' enemies, makes one vulnerable to someone else's manipulations. I have pride in myself, and in my words and actions. Pride, after all, is not a vice--but is, according to Aristotle, the means between humble and arrogant. Pride is having the proper amount of self-respect, and if you have self -respect, you will be less likely to be led to do things that are improper and/or dangerous. There is no such thing as having too much pride if pride is having the proper amount of self-respect. Yes, I have pride, and I am proud of that...;) For more information on why pride is not a vice, but a virtue, see the following blog posts:

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 2 

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 3 

You go on to say:

" At the moment, you are the enemy and someone like Craig is only going to debate someone with enough listeners that it would matter for eternity. You don’t have enough of an audience to matter right now. That’s not taking a shot, it’s just that only a handful of people have big enough names to warrant attention in this realm right now. "

I would philosophize with anyone, even a homeless hobo who had no connections with anybody, as I am only concerned with the arguments. If however, WL Craig is only looking for the fame and fortune of debating well known atheists, well--that says a great deal about his character. I would debate him anonymously, as I do not care for "fame and fortune." All I care about is the arguments, and getting people to see how absurd Christian dogma truly is in order to reduce moral laxity and avoid more suffering.

Oh, and if I am your "enemy" as you say--how much do you love me?--lol. I had to laugh..... All the more reason, according to your Christian beliefs, to spend time arguing/debating with me. In philosophy, an argument is a set of premises from which a conclusion can be deduced logically. I am more than willing to spend time arguing/debating with theists--whom I do not even claim to love!

You claim I do not admit when I am wrong--and you are wrong. I put forth arguments and it is up to anyone who disagrees to offer their counter arguments and rebuttals. If they are not successful, that is not my fault. Like in this case, you have not refuted any of my arguments, but have merely tried to dissuade me via a personal attack--which is irrelevant to the arguments. I have no problem admitting when I was wrong, or if I do not know something. I have no idea how the universe was created for instance, but if all we have are theories, I will hold to the "best explanation" until proven otherwise, and the supernatural is always going to be the LEAST likely explanation for any type of phenomena. What I do know are via my experiences, and I know that I get great joy in helping people view the world in a different light. By viewing this life and the earth as being precious, and by promoting an altruistic lifestyle, the only life we may ever know becomes that much better.

And I will never "knock it off" as you so desperately want me to. I will continue to inform as many people as I can of the arguments, contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible, and how Christian dogma leads to moral laxity, and how it promotes suffering in the world.

Again, my thanks for the great fodder. Please feel free to comment anytime, and I will respond in kind.