Mark Smith (1978, 1993,
Turd Burglars for Jesus
Seeking Cute Catholic Boys to Cum
Feel the Love of God Squirted Way Down Deep Inside.
Now Bend Over & Take it Like a Choir Boy!
The Roman Catholic Church, world’s largest Christian sect,
due to its historical fear, loathing and hatred of sexual intercourse, came up
with an entire theology to deal with the vagina of Jesus’ mother. No kidding! Anyway, they believe that enjoying sex is wrong, wrong and
wrong, and for anyone who doubts this, please look over Eunuchs For The
Kingdom of Heaven, by Uta Ranke-Heinemann, 1990, Penguin Books.
The Catholics, believing that having and/or enjoying sex is
sinful, suppose therefore that Mary got pregnant instead via
rape by the Holy Ghost. So let me get this straight… in the Catholic
world view, child abuse of an underage girl via rape by a supernatural being
resulting in a bastard child is preferable to normal enjoyable human
intercourse. And why is that? Who knows! They’re Catholics! They are the same
group that will excommunicate women who become priests but won’t excommunicate
priests who turd-burgle / rape little boys.
Anyway, it is taught that Mary got married to Joseph AFTER
having already gotten raped and knocked up by a ghost. Regarding this, I prefer
the late Sam Kinison’s version of things, in which Joseph didn’t quite buy the
story line, and warned Mary that this damn well better be the last
“son of God”, implying what most husbands would suspect, that their wife made
the whole thing up to hide her own hanky-panky. (This bit of comedy may indeed
have an historical basis: early critics of Christianity claimed that Jesus' real
father was a Roman legionnaire named Pantara.) The Catholics teach that
Mary never had sex her (except with ghosts) her whole life, and died a virgin,
as if being a virgin makes her a better woman.
The evidence for this crap is nowhere to be found between
the covers of the Bible, and is based on nothing more than pure wishful
speculation, of which Paul wrote,
Refuse foolish and ignorant
SPECULATIONS… (2 Tim 2:23)
Speculations are IGNORant because they IGNORE and go beyond
the available evidence as found within the Bible itself. The Bible clearly
condemns this when John wrote,
Any one who goes too far
and does not abide the teaching of Christ does not have God.
(2 John 9)
When the Catholics ignore their own Bible regarding Mary
and Jesus’ brothers, then upon their shoulders falls the burden of proof for
Burden of Proof:
The duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge. (Webster’s)
They say that Mary never had sex in her entire life, which
would make Jesus an only child- so let them try to prove it from their Bible.
The burden of proof is on their shoulders. They claim that Jesus did not have
any brothers, and offer up to you absolutely no evidence from their Bible. I say
that Jesus DID have brothers, and will quote to you eight (8) places in the
Bible to back up my claim.
The question for Catholics boils down to this:
Do you value your tradition more than your “holy scriptures”??? But
before you answer this, keep in mind what the Apostle Paul said about
See to it that no one takes you
captive through philosophy and empty deceptions, according to the
of men… (Col. 2:8)
A Sexless Marriage?
The hypocritical absurdity of the Catholic claim becomes
apparent when you examine marriage. According to their own Bible, people get
married to have a way to channel their own evil sexual desires that Biblegod (in
his haste?) placed within all normal adults. As the Apostle Paul wrote,
But I say to the unmarried… if they do not have
self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with
passion. (1 Cor. 7:8,9)
With this in mind, picture the young healthy couple of
Joseph and Mary. You know for a fact that Mary is a horndog, as according to the
Catholics, she is perfect, without any defects, so therefore she has a normal
healthy appetite for sex. Picture this married couple, sleeping next to each
other every night, enjoying each other’s nakedness, touching and caressing each
other from the head to the toes. Now try to picture the absurd claim by the
Catholics that this couple never had sex, never even once in all those years
together. No sex for the entirety of their lives. Now, the Catholics may claim
special powers of restraint for Mary, but no such claims are made for Joseph; so
how long do you think that Mary’s husband Joseph would put up with this lack of
sex, before this first century county hick just took what she wouldn’t give???
Exactly. Common sense itself refutes Catholic theories.
Of course, the Catholic priests who make up these wacky
theories about what happened (or better, didn’t happen) in that marriage bed,
never have been married themselves. Maybe if they could picture themselves in
bed, night after night, with a naked little boy, maybe they’d come up with a
different theory. As it is, their theory has the following: Both Mary and Joseph
abstained from sex, as it takes two to tango. Poor blue-balls Joseph, being JC’s
“dad”, really can’t be out messing around with the local village whore as
adultery is a sin; can’t be at home messing around with the eternal virgin wife;
can’t even be in the outhouse messing around with himself- for that is itself
yet another Catholic sin! No wonder Joseph, according to many theologians, died
before Jesus got too old.
So picture poor Joseph, poor horny Joseph, stuck being
married to the ultimate ice queen. He is constantly being aroused yet unable to
do anything about it (he probably stayed indoors a lot). What exactly did Joseph
do with all those nighttime hard-ons banging into Mary night after night??? Why,
of course he abstained! He never once messed up and just slipped it in by
accident. Oh yeah, that’s believable, isn’t it? Oh, the joys of Christianity!!!
He got to sleep with his young bride every night, in a bed with a theological
electric barb-wire fence down the middle.
This kind of a marriage would not be tolerated by any man,
nor by few women. This kind of a marriage isn’t even a marriage. Failure to
consummate nullifies marriage in many cultures. Even the Bible goes against this
blatant disregard for basic healthy human nature. Paul writes,
Let the husband fulfill his duty
to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does NOT
have authority over her own body, but the husband does… Stop depriving one
another. (1 Cor. 7: 3-5)
Right here would be Joseph’s blank check to cash in on
Mary’s vagina any time he wanted to. Again, the Catholics claim no special
powers for Joseph, so given the above first century middle-eastern mindset, you
can damn well bet that Mary was no virgin, sleeping next to Joseph night after
Evidence That Jesus Was Not An Only Child
And she brought forth her
son--the first-born. (Young’s)
She gave birth to her first
child, a son. (Philip’s)
Matthew 12: 46, 47
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren
stood without desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy
mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 13: 54-56
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue,
insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this
wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not
his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and
Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this
all these things?
NOTE: This passage not only admits that Jesus had brothers, it even
names these brothers, AND throws in his having sisters for good
There came then his
and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the
multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy
without seek for thee.
Is not this the carpenter, the
son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are
not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
John 7: 2-10
Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His
therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples
also may see the works that thou doest. For there
is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to
be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For
neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time
is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me
it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up
unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full
come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast,
not openly, but as it were in secret.
NOTE: This passage should kill off any theory that the word
“brother” is referring to a “brother in the faith” as these
brothers here do NOT have faith in Jesus.
These all continued with one
accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus,
and with his brethren.
1 Corinthians 9:5
Have we not power to lead about a
sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of
the Lord, and Cephas?
It should be mentioned in passing that this passage not only mentions
that Jesus had brothers, it ALSO mentions, for you Catholics, that Peter (your
first pope) had a wife.
But other of the apostles saw I
none, save James the Lord's brother.
Matthew 1: 24,25
New American Standard
And Joseph… kept her a virgin
she gave birth…
Concordant Literal N.T.}
He knew her not TILL
she brought forth a son…
Today’s English Version
But he had no sexual relations with her
she gave birth to her son.
New World Translation
But he had no intercourse with her
she gave birth to a son.
New English Bible
…had no intercourse with her
her son was born…
Revised Standard Version
…but knew her not
she had borne a son…
New International Version
But he had no union with her
she gave birth.
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the word “until” as meaning:
until, till, till the time when.
The Interpreter’s Bible
In the section on Matthew (page 406 in some editions) it
Many Christians of the third and forth centuries
chose to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and therefore ASSUMED
That the brothers were sons of Joseph by a former marriage- the theory of
Epiphanius and others. Or…
That they were cousins, the sons of another Mary- the theory of Jerome.
Such theories are derived from PURE SPECULATION,
and the gospel record gives no support to them. According to John, the brothers
did not believe in Jesus, but we know from other sources that they were active
in the affairs of the early church. (1 Cor 9:5).
I have offered much evidence which shows beyond a
reasonable doubt that Jesus had brothers- even sisters! Therefore the doctrine
of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a bunch of anti-sexual Catholic crap.
Victims of Religion
|"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free" (Jesus, John 8:32)
For as much bragging as Christians do about "The Truth", they sure go
out of their way to stop "The Truth" if and when "The Truth" isn't "The
Truth" they want made public. For example, the Roman Catholic Cardinal
of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, has done everything he can to block "The
Truth" about him and his pedophilic priests from ever seeing the
light of day. You see, for years Mahony has persistently professed to
want to get to the bottom of the "Priest Problem" among his employees,
to get the truth out to the public, yet persistently behind the scenes
he has done the
exact opposite, kicking and screaming and playing tug of
war with the L.A. courts every time they request what he's already
publicly promised them: full access by the courts to employee
records. So when it comes to good pro-life Christians like the
Catholics, "ye shall know the truth", but only if people
like Roger Mahony fail in their legal efforts to stop it. Funny how the
only "Truth" Christians want to arrogantly wave in front of everybody's
face is their version of "The Truth" and only after they
get done censoring it. When it comes to REAL truth, as Jack Nicholson
said, they can't handle The Truth.
NOTICE: Any and all emails sent to SET FREE become the
property of SET FREE to be used or displayed upon the web site of
SET FREE however SET FREE decides, but don't worry, your email
address will probably be deleted. Views contained in SET FREE
represent the views of the authors. No implicit approval by SET FREE
is to be assumed.