Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Making fun of religion; hey, I'm on board. Mocking rape victims... not so much.

Posted by: george.w | September 5, 2010 11:32 AM

Mocking rape victims... not so much.

Comprehension fail.

Posted by: SomeoneOrOther | September 5, 2010 12:03 PM

He wasn't mocking rape victims. If anything he was pointing out how rape is so often blamed on the victim.

Posted by: Doug Little | September 5, 2010 12:31 PM

The first two comments boggle my mind. "Mocking rape victims," wtf? Get over yourselves. Not every use of the word "rape" is mocking rape victims; the only thing Cross actually mocked there was the fascination with apparitions/religious pareidolia and people blaming rape victims for their rape.

Posted by: Wesley | September 5, 2010 1:21 PM

Later on, Cross touches on something that it took me an awful long time to figure out on my own -- the bit where Jesus couldn't wait to be crucified and get back to Heaven.

First of all, as Cross says, it was what he was there to do (so we're told), and second, given that he's supposed to be the only human being in history who knew with absolute certainty what was waiting for him on upon his death (being God and all) then why are we supposed to believe that there has been no greater sacrifice?

Any mother or father giving up their life to save their children---especially those who are non-believers and have no hope of a cushy afterlife--is making a far greater sacrifice than Jesus made on the cross.

In reality, there has been no greater snow job than creating the myth that Jesus sacrificed more than we could ever know by going to the cross, since he (supposedly) went into it willingly and with the full knowledge that he'd be up and about, good as new, three days later.

Posted by: tacitus | September 5, 2010 1:50 PM

tacitus @ 9:

In reality, there has been no greater snow job than creating the myth that Jesus sacrificed more than we could ever know by going to the cross, since he (supposedly) went into it willingly and with the full knowledge that he'd be up and about, good as new, three days later.

The argument is that the suffering wasn't so much what the Romans did to Jesus physically but instead that Jesus took upon himself the weight of all humanity's supposed sin where his father* also forsook him. It's been decades since I've read up on this topic so while I know there is a biblical claim that Jesus perceived his father forsook him for some time starting during the crucifixion, I'm not sure if there is a biblical claim that he suffered primarily by temporarily taking on the sins of the world though that is what is now argued. Since there is no evidence any of this happened nor can we measure the amount of suffering a person would experience going through such a claimed experience, its a simple task to simply claim it was unimaginably horrid.

*the father doing the forsaking here is the god that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship unless you believe David Heddle or Jack Chick where somehow they were worshipping him but now are not unless you are a trinitarian (or in the Muslims case, never did worship him).

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 5, 2010 2:54 PM

Tetlock on the psychology of enforcement of moral theology:

"Sacred/forbidden thinking entails having an idea of a transcendent good and protecting it. This means establishing boundaries and protecting them. According to Tetlock (2003) the protection of boundaries involves: expressing Moral outrage at transgressors, engaging in moral cleansing of transgressive thoughts, and avoiding contradicting information. Expressing moral outrage involves “harsh trait attributions to norm violators, anger and contempt, and enthusiastic support for norm and meta-norm enforcement (punishing both violators and those who shirk their fair share of the burdensome task of punishing violators for the public good)” (Tetlock, 2003). Moral cleansing involves having an aversion to and feeling disgusted about ideas which undermine the sacredness of the given values, in addition to engaging in ritualistic acts cleansing, when such ideas are encountered (Zhong, Liljenquis, 2006). Finally, avoiding contradicting information entails engaging in willful ignorance and being receptive to obfuscating rhetoric when one is not forced to confront contradictions, and then, when one is, attempting to reframe contradictions in terms of conflicting secular or conflicting sacred values, so as to prevent desacralization.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/311935/Tetlock-2003-Thinking-the-unthinkable-sacred-values-and-taboo-cognitions

It is to gratify their faith impulse and the desire to be perceived as morally superior that liberal humanists are seemingly hellbent on consigning the White race to genetic annihilation. Also of interest, notice the attention Tetlock draws to willful ignorance, obfuscatory rhetoric, harsh trait attribution to norm violators and refusal to confront contrary information on the part of faithists - things which I so often encounter here. In fact, that is all I encounter here. Which is what I mean when I refer to those here as emotional automatons who will not actually think.

What a pathetic faith liberal humanism is.

Posted by: Amalek | September 5, 2010 9:28 PM

Amalek -
1) Who is in your hypothetical white race?
2) What evidence do you have there is a 'white race'?
3) Why would preserving the 'white race' be a good thing?
4) What is it that threatens the 'white race'?
Dingo

Posted by: DingoJack | September 5, 2010 10:47 PM

Anallick:

What is it that makes it possible for a loser like you to feel superior to anything? Oh, yeah, that's right, you stroke your own ego just like you do the rest of your body. "Pathetic" would be a step up for you. What a sad, sad maroon.

Posted by: democommie | September 5, 2010 11:20 PM

@7: Not every use of the word "rape" is mocking rape victims;

LOL, so "David Cross is mocking rape victims"= "every use of the word 'rape' is mocking rape victims?" Whatever, Wesley.

Posted by: daniel rotter | September 6, 2010 3:00 AM

Joe 405:

WTF are you talking about?

Posted by: democommie | September 6, 2010 11:20 AM

Gretchen: "I didn't think Cross was making fun of rape victims so much as just not being funny."

Indeed. While Cross does get around to making fun of the "asking for it" crap, what he says before it was simply using as a source of humor the unexpected incongruity of the squeaky-clean Virgin Mary raping someone. I can't blame anyone for not finding that funny.

Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | September 6, 2010 12:16 PM

I wonder if Cross and his fans would enjoy castration jokes from some woman?

Posted by: Paen | September 6, 2010 4:49 PM

momkat:

"As a lily-white product of western European stock, I have yet to find anything to support his notion of my supposed superiority."

Why do you find the need to disparage what you are in an attempt to gain a footing of moral superiority? I know, you cannot begin to imagine your ancestry as being so decisive, and therefore not of much import, as to determining your selfhood. You like to conceive of your selfhood as authored more by socialization and emphasis on other than that as a kind of limitation, even enslavement, of your selfhood. And like done to others as a limitation and veritable enslavement of them, which you think a great evil. Well, that is delusional. Do not feel embarrassed that the above is over your head and that it sums up what are your essentially emotional responses to external stimuli as you have been conditioned to respond to said stimuli - with Pavlovian outrage. But, reality does have its way of crowding in and your behavior is no doubt at odds with your emotion-laden beliefs. You would not for an instant dream of sending your daughter into a negro ghetto at night alone. That is, if you are not a sociopath.

Posted by: Amalek | September 7, 2010 2:29 AM

Project much, Amalek? I can trade fifty cent words and obfuscatory sentence structure with you all day long, but neither of us will be changed by the exercise. I pick my battles, and one with you is pointless. Our world views are so far apart it would take my remaining lifetime to point out all the ways you are misguided. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: momkat | September 7, 2010 11:00 AM

"a) not a journal and not>not peer reviewed"

You read the abstract of the study I posted in the other thread. You read the scientists' description of the methodology by which they conducted their genetic testing. Either that methodology will yield the same results if repeated or it will not. If so, it is scientifically valid.

Of course you knew that already.

"b) speculations by the author to solve a problem with IQ tests, using other factors (such as nutrition) not on genetics at all"

You mean Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn is a real scientist and not a popularizer of Marxist quackery such as Stephen Gould. His area of expertise is not genetics but psychometrics. And as such, it should surprise little that he addresses the impact of proper nutrition on intellectual development; amongst other things. You asked for a reference to scholarship on differences in intelligence per race and I provided it. Lynn's books are available on Amazon. I suggest you acquire at least one and read it before complaining of the insufficiency of the man's work based upon one snippet thereof which as you say yourself only hits along the periphery of the central issues involved.

Also, as you must know, a psychometric approach to studying the genetic basis for intelligence is at this time indirect: a matter of correlation and controlling for, thereby ruling out to the degree the data indicate is appropriate, environmental factors. But then again so too is our affirmation of the reality of evolution based upon indirect evidence in that we do not live long enough to observe the process first hand.

"outside the field of expertise of the author (a psychologist)"

Don't be daft. It is a matter of synthesizing in your own mind the various pieces of the evidential puzzle. First it must be established that groups of shared ancestry are a genetic reality; a physical fact in the world. Only then can the interlocutor be prepared to consider that said real groups may be on average more intelligent or not. More than one academic discipline will be applicable.

"Once this was pointed out, the cite vanished 'without leaving a wrack behind'."

Citations abound in Lynn's books which are available on Amazon.

P.S. Coming through the looking glass can be trying. I was never a liberal in the sense that you are. In fact a bit of a neoconservative and philosemite. But basically no less committed to the globalist project than you. It was in considering the evidence, and reflecting upon the implications of a final end to the very being of that which I truly loved first but always took for granted: my own people. One world was lost to me as I gained another only to find the latter slipping away. Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone.

Posted by: Amalek | September 8, 2010 12:13 AM

Dingo, you must know at some level you are being incredibly obtuse. You read the genetic study I posted and understand what it had to say. Real evidence, and there is reams more of it, which contradicts what you have to say on the matter. You can no longer claim that human groups do not enjoy a genetically distinct existence. You simply must amend your perspective or dwell in ignorance. Full stop.

"Celts, various peoples in the Roman field of influence, Saxons, Normans"

"Amerindians? Northern Indians? Persians? Semitic peoples (yes including Jews)? Sammi?"

All these groups are genetically distinguishable. And as such, why is it you feel entitled to diminish this fact merely by attempting to put your preferred verbal spin on it? Because it must not be so, because it must not be so. Because then your cherished belief system crumbles. As I implied above, coming to accept this no longer deniable truth is the camel's nose under the tent, which is why you resist it so vociferously - in vain.

Posted by: Amalek | September 9, 2010 1:49 AM

"Richard Lynn is a real scientist and not a popularizer of Marxist quackery such as Stephen Gould. His area of expertise is not genetics but psychometrics".

Well, well. Stephen J. Gould was a Marxist? I think the world owes amaloon a debt of gratitude for that dazzling piece of enlightenment. I mean, who would have thought it? Paleontology and evolution are Marxist quackery? I am sooo thankful that has been cleared up.

As for Professor Lynn, he is best regarded as controversial at best, and as a lying racist scoundrel at worst. His various published works have been discredited, and the only people who rely on him are people who equally lack credibility - card carrying racists, in other words.

Besides, as amaloon has hinmself pointed out, Lynn has no expertise in the field of population genetics. Why he thinks that quoting Lynn buttresses his case escapes logical analysis.

Posted by: MacTurk | September 9, 2010 5:27 AM

Hi.
I found your Web Site by Google
And I wish you the best you can get,
the peace of God through Jesus Christ.

Welcome to read my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM

How to be prepared for Jesus’ coming?

We shall obey the command of the Lord in Rev. 18:4, and do as
he says. Many who call Jesus the Lord do not take a notice of what
he says. This command of the Lord in Rev. 18:4 is the strongest
and the largest revival message we can find in the Bible. This ought
to has been preached and well known everywhere among all Christians.

Yet, the preachers who are speaking about the great Babylon, they
convey the truth only partly because they do not understand that their
own church also belongs to the great Babylon. They cannot se the
difference between the church and the Assembly of God.

In the time of the apostles any church did not exist, and therefore
the word "church" occurs not at all in the Bible. Everywhere in
your English Bible where you see the word "church", it is a
translation error, it ought to be "assembly". Jesus did not build
any church.

I have five Bible translations in Swedish, (the oldest from 1703,
translated from the same original bible text as KJV). Nowhere in
these Bibles we can find the word "church" (kyrka). Nowhere in
the Bible we can find any hint of that the Assembly of God is
constituted of church systems and many religious organizations.

It is at least two Bible translations in English without the word
'church', (WEB) and (KJ3). Perhaps there are more such
translations, I do not know.

The Assembly of God is no Pentecostal church. Please, consider
what this expression "the Assembly of God" in the reality implies.
The Assembly of God must be the same as the Greek word
"ekklesia", and the Body of Christ. 1 Cor. 12:12-31.

Then it is easy to understand that this has nothing to do with the
Pentecostal Movement. Pentecostal churches have existed about
100 years, but the Assembly of God has existed ever since Jesus
baptized his first disciples by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit
gave them the new life in Christ so that they became born anew.
Then the Assembly of God was born. Since then, the Assembly
of God has lived here on the earth generation after generation.

The establishment of the first church took place in connection with
the great falling away. 2 Thess. 2:3. Since then, God's people have
lived in slavery under Satan's false doctrine about the Assembly of
God. We cannot use the word 'church' when we mean the Assembly
of God. Still to day, most Christians cannot see the difference between
the Assembly of God and the Church of Satan.

All churches have come into existence through religious fornication.
People have mixed God's word with false doctrines of evil spirits,
and so new churches appear.

Revival is the releasing of all Christians from all churches and
denominations, the exodus of all God’s people from the great Babylon.
Rev. 18:4. The worst obstacle to revival is Satan’s false assembly
doctrine, which says that churches and denominations are God’s
assemblies. This false doctrine is accepted and believed everywhere
in all churches and denominations.

Belief on this false doctrine leads to spiritual blindness, so that people
cannot see the difference between the Assembly of God and the
churches. This false doctrine hinders them to understand God’s word.

It is very urgent that people get the knowledge of the Assembly of God,
but because they believe on a false assembly doctrine, they want not to
read or hear the warning message of the Lord. They do not know that
the devil uses the churches and denominations to hold the Christians in
religious slavery.

Where is Jesus' church?
Where is the church that Jesus built?
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/PREPARE.HTM#Where

In the free churches the world around
there are thousands of preachers
and bible teachers, but none can explain
what the Assembly of God is
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/EXPLAIN.HTM#thousands

The condition of the Assembly of God
is now much worse than in the assemblies
in Ephesus, Sardis and Laodicea
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/SARDIS.HTM#condition

Restoration of the Assembly of God
after the great falling away
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/PREPARE.HTM#restoration

God is the Love
But God's love does not hinder us to study God's word
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/LOVE.HTM

To whom did Jesus make the payment?
www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/PAYMENT.HTM#payment

Posted by: Allan Svensson | October 9, 2010 11:14 AM