Atheists Concerned for America: Illuminating the TRUTH about what God did to Mary
Atheists Concerned for America: Illuminating the TRUTH about what God did to Mary!



"Mary, Joseph, and the Early Years of Jesus: a Romanticized Tale of an Abusing God's Compassionless Neglect"

By Jordan "BluntJoey" Adorno

 Within the New Testament of the Christian bible exist four gospels allegedly retelling the life of Jesus Christ, who is declared to be the prophesied Messiah. And in spite of their countless inconsistencies when compared to each other (see "The Real Jesus" for numerous examples of paramount contradictions between the Gospels' text), Christianity - the biggest world religion with over two billion followers across the globe (sourceReligious Population Worldwide Data) - holds these documents are the "sacred words of God" and thereby, too, fully credible historical records. Therefore, the Gospels can be appropriately used to scrutinize the Christian deity for, hence, their texts are "perfect" (supposedly). By that same token, none of the inflammatory content within the Gospels can be reconciled or desensitized as "less accurate" in the slightest. So thus forth, in analyzing circumstances relating to the conception, birth, and early years of their alleged messiah, let it be inexplicably noted that it is adequate for the Gospels to be judged under the pretext that they are "divinely perfect", hence, just as Christians allege.

That said, let us start our academic dissection forthright at what generally deems the very beginning of the overall Gospel story. Uniformly undisputed, any theologian or Bible reader otherwise could easily highlight among the texts' early events a precise, obvious-handed exception, what is in fact Christianity's perhaps most epic scene for which its standby believers must all allowably glorify; the ONE paramount incident above all else which serves singular as the definite source that starts it all "biographically speaking" (pre-supposedly, anyway, as in limelight of a given accurate juxtapose or comparison, drawn there is only but a straight line of glaring inconsistence within the full Gospel text): at the beginning thus, when, so each Gospel basically promulgates, an angel from Heaven suddenly appears before Mary, a young maiden, in the middle of the night to notify her that the son of God grows inside her womb (Luke 1:26-56). Worthily noted, though the different Gospels basically imply her unwed state, only two of the four clarify that Mary was a virgin no less; see, supernaturally instead, yes, pretty universally the Christian doctrine claims God actually impregnated Mary with the future Messiah miraculously (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38). [Noteworthy enough, though, this precise god according to Christians' "Holy Trinity" doctrine (later detailed) is however - while he himself, self-coined "Father" and the fully omnipotent deity - also as well mutually existent in humanhood form, as the live incarnation of Jesus Christ precisely; yet despite the said unison (which is thirded by the "Holy Spirit" as well), God the "Father" inexplicably refers to Jesus, his supposed human form, in third-person as His own "Son"/predestined messiah, the topic of whom we discuss.]

As events would follow, Mary's pregnancy made her appear to have lost her virginity prior to marriage, an offense which could have had her ostracized. Ultimately in need of a refuge, this problematic situation leads Mary and her much older fiancée, Joseph (who would indeed go on to marry her and act as Jesus' father on Earth), to his hometown of Bethlehem. Then, in the poor conditions of, incredibly, a stable, Mary accordingly gave birth to Jesus Christ, the very figure who Christians would eventually hail the Messiah and "son of God" (Luke 2:1-20).

Yet insight into all these salacious details within the astonishingly immoral Gospel story - consideration to the devastation committed by God, who, remarkably, most of all left Mary, Joseph and even Jesus to suffer worse and worse continually - are left overwhelmingly unmentioned. And even in the rare case that the detestable social aspects to the tale are brought up, Christian apologists jump to cite the historical era to write off the inconvenient, unsubtle obscenities in just this small beginning portion of the Gospels. Nevertheless, considering my complaint pertains mostly to the pivotal actions of God, specifically whom Christians describe as the sole "All-Perfect", "All-Powerful" and "All-Knowing", THE omniscient, such an excuse has no merit here. The overbearing truth is that NOTHING in the story shows the Christian deity as being "loving" or "moral". NONE of his actions within the canonical Gospels fulfill that description as painted by Christian disciples. Substantially weakening the case for Christianity, along the way, is how absolutely NOTHING justifies this character description, continuously less so in fact.
[Nor do the Gospels' texts make much sense of the "Holy Trinity": the idea that Jesus (Son), God (Father), and the Holy Spirit are together in essence the component of just one supreme, All-powerful being; Though there remains certainly still an utmost paradox about the doctrinal concept (and for centuries-argued too, no doubt, and into today) Christian churches staunchly stand by the conviction that they are MONOTHEISTS (worshipers of but one god).]

Personally, my central bone of contention mainly rests with the vicious fact that no one acknowledges God's CRUELTY in FORCING an (approximately) thirteen-year-old girl to carry and raise a child who she had no fault in making. Christians have the audacity to say Mary said "yes", but what good would saying "no" have done for her when she was already pregnant?! None, obviously. In addition, as will would be done, in counterpart Jesus would be raised by Joseph, the in fact much older man who Mary is without choice fated to marry by God. (Not surprisingly, Joseph would inevitably be sainted by the Catholic Church for his "altruistic" roles as a spouse to Mary and an adoptive father to Jesus.) Nevertheless, the reality still remains that the man was pure toxic, and that his romanticized status is wholly inaccurate. Yes, in truth, "saintly" Joseph actually played a much more sinister role:

Joseph was Mary's statutory rapist.  
 This MUST be at last acknowledged by the masses! After all, as stated by all, God exists, according to Christians, as our supreme moral authority, THE driving force for people to be good. He is both omniscient and omnipresent, again the great "All-Powerful Creator" who controls all things in the Universe. The Bible even goes on to explicitly note that He knows exactly what will happen to everything and everyone in the future! (As a side-note, doesn't that essentially prove He himself predestines the vast majority of His own creations to Hell?) Thus, God himself DIRECTLY made endless hardship fall upon Mary, Joseph and, eventually, his 'son'. Even if God hadn't directly caused such events himself - an argument that is ultimately a fallacy either way - why not prevent them from happening?! Surely that would be within the power of all his mightiness. How could the welfare of the mother to His son (and technically his own self, too, given the Christians' central Holy Trinity concept already mentioned above) be anything less than this (pre-supposedly, anyway) "All-Loving" god's BIGGEST PRIORITY?!

  JUST FACE IT: Accept it or not, but Mary and Jesus are truly but victims of God's cruelness. At least within the texts of the canonical Gospels (but arguably also the whole Bible), without a doubt the alleged "'Virgin' Mary" remains the most forgotten victim of God's apathy. All things aside, this is in truth just insane considering just ONE half-thorough perusal through the Gospels proves this irrefutably. Therefore, such compassionless disregard is far from acceptable and must be redacted for the sheer sake of accuracy.