…and this is a 
The latest student outrage
Category: Academics • Godlessness
Posted on: August 26, 2008 5:05 PM, by PZ Myers
Bless their sacrilegious little hearts, the students are trickling back onto campuses everywhere, and doing their part to stir up freethinking mischief. Skatje and Collin are going to be recruiting for the UMM Freethinkers tonight, offering the incoming freshman cookies for their souls and handing out pamphlets. They're going to have to work harder to top the latest godless scandal at Lorain County Community College in Ohio, where students put up a provocative poster. People were very upset, for some reason, and the poster has since been taken down.
There are lots of comments from students who simply don't get it.
"You can't portray Jesus like that. He believes in matrimony, that relationships like that should be done inside matrimony," sophomore Brianna Holland said. She said she believes homosexuality is wrong because she is a Christian, but she also said she is proud that her religion teaches tolerance and acceptance.
Why can't you portray Jesus like that? Were there no gay people in the Middle East in the first century? I'm neither Christian nor homosexual, but I think the poster actually flatters their diety, making him out to be both human and hot. The story behind this encounter is terribly apocryphal, and about as reliable as the stories of loaves and fishes, but it doesn't say anything bad about Christianity.
The remarks from Ms Holland do, though. So she's proud of her tolerance and acceptance, and she just thinks homosexuality is wrong, eh? It's commendable that she doesn't spout hellfire at them, but there's something wrong here…
"I have a lot of homosexual friends. I'm not going to tell them they're going to hell. That's something they have to take care of between them and God," Holland said.
God is a useful bully. She doesn't have to condemn them, she just knows that God will take care of them…probably with the pokers and the lake of fire and the demons and the burning man-bosoms and all that.
Student aide Jessica Hodge said she felt the poster would "pollute the minds" of her children, ages 2 and 5, if they saw it. "It looks like soft-core pornography," she said. "I don't think they're making a statement at all. They just want to shock everyone."
Oh, dear. Should colleges all moderate their discourse so it is acceptable to a 2-year-old? Let's make the university look like a Baby Einstein ad, with lots of plushies and babies and colorful didies, and no controversy at all!
While I sympathize with wanting to shelter kids from the worst of the world until they're old enough to cope, this picture shows two men hugging — not gang rape, incest, or children being mauled by bears. It shows the kind of values I'd want my kids to absorb — that there is love in the world. It's a pretty good statement.
A Christian, Hodge said she doesn't try to force her opinions on others. Questioning religion is fine, but mocking it isn't, she said.
Man, what a line. Why shouldn't mocking bad ideas be fine? There's a long history of satire and comedy that's all about making fun of widely held ideas — you don't get much of it on Bob the Builder or Sesame Street, but hey, the college is a place for young adults. They can take it.
I'm all for good, loud, raucous mockery, especially of religion, but this isn't it. It's two men in an affectionate pose! How does it mock religion…unless of course, you're committed to the narrow dogmas of a sect and think any violation of your taboos is accusatory.
Sophomore Dejoune Grantham said the poster is libelous and blasphemous, and in her opinion it isn't protected by the First Amendment. "I don't want my children walking through here and seeing that. It's filthy," she said.
Again with the little kiddies defense! Now, who is being libeled? Jesus? Then he can come down and sue. What about the blasphemy? It's a victimless 'crime', you shouldn't just be able to shut down free speech because it violates your weird dogma, otherwise I'm going to start a religion that finds Republicans heretical and conservatives in general to be offenses against my god, the Dude, and silence Fox News and the Religious Right at last.
It's a theme. Here's another histrionic mommy hiding behind her children.
Another sophomore, Amber Cales, said the poster was in a public place, and it was easily seen by anyone who passed. She said that took away her right as a parent to shield her children from controversial ideas. She said she also felt the poster was just taking a pot-shot at Christianity instead of protesting all religious expression. "You know if it was something about Judaism or Islam, it wouldn't be tolerated," she said.
You knew the Fatwah Envy was coming. Listen, lady, you don't get to pretend that your faith makes you more tolerant than other faiths while making a passive-aggressive whine to suppress speech you dislike.
The president of the atheist group at LCCC, Aaron Weaver, has a good explanation of their intent.
"The purpose of the poster is to get students to see something they haven't seen before," he said. "The chances are it challenges them to challenge something they thought they knew." Sure, the poster was attention-seeking, but ultimately Weaver said he just wanted to create enough buzz to get people debating and thinking about why they believe what they believe.
"I understand that people will be offended. People will sometimes be offended for the most ridiculous of reasons," he said. He said his fellow students have the right to practice their religions and to express themselves in any way they choose.
Right on. When you're fighting dogma, the only way to accomplish anything is to shake people up and make them think. It's an excellent poster for making students think about both religion and homosexuality — and it wouldn't be as effective if there weren't so many people ready to be offended. Offend away!
Well, if the university will let you.
He said he was shocked to learn the college had a policy that bans students from mocking religion, or any idea, for that matter. The policy is a clear violation of the First Amendment, Weaver said.
These pernicious speech codes are a blight on the American university. A rule that says you can't mock religious belief is absurd and unenforceable, but greatly desired by the feeble Christians who fear that their faith is eminently mockable.
Here's something to make Amber happy. Somebody provided the death threats for her (these things always boil down to death threats from someone in the religions of peace and love crowd).
And Weaver said he didn't just take a shot at Christianity. On Wednesday, he put up a picture of the prophet Mohammed -- an act strictly forbidden in the Islamic faith. He said that about 2:20 p.m. Wednesday, he received a death threat in response to the picture, which read, "With love and missiles." He took the picture down, turned over the note to campus security officers and went home.
"I put myself at risk, but I do so freely. I don't let fear or the threat of death stop me from speaking my mind freely," he said.
Good for Aaron! Over the last few years, I've been wondering where all the bold college activists had gone to — they're reemerging in campus freethought groups.
Not to diminish his efforts, but I'd appreciate it if vocal, aggressive college activists would also speak up in student Democrat organizations and peace parties. There are lots of places at universities where progressive rational voices ought to be shouting out loudly.
Education & Careers
Comments
Posted by: caveat | August 26, 2008 5:09 PM
Would this be a good time to introduce my new frozen confection, Jenius-on-a-Stick?
Or not?
Posted by: Bert Chadick | August 26, 2008 5:12 PM
All religion is totally gay, and I mean that in a bad way.
Posted by: Kobra | August 26, 2008 5:14 PM
Wow. That would be an awesome picture.
Posted by: SteveM | August 26, 2008 5:16 PM
Did she just say that Jesus supports gay marriage?
Posted by: Ann | August 26, 2008 5:18 PM
Does "offering cookies for their souls" mean "offering cookies in exchange for their souls"?
Does that work?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 26, 2008 5:19 PM
Is God male? If so, is there (or was there ever) a Mrs. God? No? Well, in that case, how can we then assign any gender to God? God must be either pangenderous, or agenderous. Jesus is God, so Jesus is also either pangenderous or agenderous. Jesus is therefore incapable of having a homosexual relationship with either a human male or a human female. Ergo, there's nothing wrong with Jesus getting it on with either a human male or a human female.
So what's all the fuss?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 26, 2008 5:19 PM
Where did they get the image? Is it a recent original, a classic art work, or a pastiche based on a classical work?
Posted by: Laelaps | August 26, 2008 5:19 PM
This reminds me of when a student-run newspaper here at Rutgers called The Medium ran an issue that literally depicted Jesus effin' Christ on the cover.
Posted by: Holbach | August 26, 2008 5:19 PM
How could jeebus be gay when he never existed? I don't think this will bode well for us right now, especially after the crackergate. I wonder if Mary Magdalen was substituted would the outcry be as vociferous. One wonders on both accounts.
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 26, 2008 5:20 PM
"Skatje and Collin are going to be recruiting for the UMM Freethinkers tonight, offering the incoming freshman cookies for their souls and handing out pamphlets."
Cookies, or do you really mean like magic frackin' crackers? You know, the ones where a biology prof. intones the magic words, & the cookies become the incarnate flesh of Darwin, by evolution, of course.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | August 26, 2008 5:22 PM
This is great. They should have had a series of posters depicting various biblical figures in compromising positions. One could have Moses being in some kind of S & M pose on top of a mountain. They could have Mohammed sitting on a toilet (believe me, just the act of having a picture of the guy would be enough, but the toilet would be a great addition to the caricature). Well, why stop there? We can do the same for any number of prophets/deities/sacred religious people/meaningless dribble, and of course our overlord, the FSM. Maybe he could be using his noodly appendages for some sexually deviant acts.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 26, 2008 5:23 PM
What right is that? Could someone please point me to the appropriate constitutional amendment so I can read up on that right?Posted by: gdlchmst | August 26, 2008 5:23 PM
Yes, but there was never a Mrs. God, per se. God kinda just impregnated a virgin without her consent. In some parts of the world, that's considered rape...
Posted by: Rik. | August 26, 2008 5:25 PM
I don't get it. Why would anyone even bother being offended by this? It's a poster. If someone started a Christian sect based on the assumption that Jesus had a homesexual relationship (I have no idea with who that would be...Judas, probably, for extra drama), and put up something like this, as a promotional action, what would the response be?
Well, other than 'your religion is Wrong and Evil', because that's what Christians already think of all other religions anyways.
I really don't understand Christians so someone enlighten me?
Posted by: Aphrodine | August 26, 2008 5:28 PM
From what I'm gathering from the complaints, a hell of a lot of five year olds attend college now. Good for them!
Posted by: Nicole | August 26, 2008 5:28 PM
Kseniya, I remember a religion teacher in college talking about a "Mrs. Yahweh" of sorts in early Judaism, where some sects worshipped a Goddess along with God. Clearly, this polytheistic belief was stamped out by the religious officials at the time. Sorry, I wish I had more info on that, just a tidbit that I remember!
So, was Jesus really supposed to have been celibate all his life, even though he didn't begin his ministry until he was 30? Wouldn't an unmarried man at that age at that time be kind of a bad thing? I can imagine Mary ranting at him, "Why can't you just find a nice girl and settle down!"
Posted by: Fergy | August 26, 2008 5:30 PM
... ...You really never know when you're going to accidently stumble across something controversial, so I think these people should invest in some good quality blindfolds and soundproof earpads for when they take their children out in public. Problem solved!
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | August 26, 2008 5:30 PM
There is scriptural..., well, "evidence" isn't something that I would ascribe to scriptures, but it'll do... There is scriptural evidence for Jesus being in a homosexual relationship with the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved" who had a "special relationship" with the Messiah.
And, of course, according to Mark 14:51-52, when the Romans came to arrest Jesus there is a "certain young man" wearing only a linen cloth who runs away naked when the arrest is made. (It's in the Bible, folks, so it's gotta be true!)
As a friend of mine once said: Hey, I used live in the city. I know what it means when then cops go to arrest guys out in the park at night with naked boys...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 26, 2008 5:33 PM
oh noes! Homosexual pornography!
Posted by: True Bob | August 26, 2008 5:33 PM
Wait, so now cheeses only loves girls? I thought everyone was saved by cheeses love. Damn fickle gods.
Posted by: SteveM | August 26, 2008 5:34 PM
This compliments a hypothesis I have about DaVinci's "Last Supper". As shown in The DaVinci Code Dan Brown (and others before him) have taken the feminine appearance of John to actually be a portrait of Mary Magdelene. There is a scene in the movie where they cut out the John portrait and overlay it onto Jesus and it looks like a perfect loving embrace. Scholars however insist that it is John, not Mary.
Well, I think that the scholars are correct, it is actually John but, since DaVinci is well known to be a "flaming homo" atheist, this was his way of secretly sticking it the Church by implying a homosexual relationship between Jesus and John. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus was a self portrait and John a portrait of his "apprentice".
Posted by: ubi dubius | August 26, 2008 5:34 PM
Why would anyone even bother being offended by this? It's just frackin' poster!
Good one Rik.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 26, 2008 5:36 PM
I like how people ignored the question mark at the end of the sentence. It's like they are looking to be offended.
Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2008 5:38 PM
I still don't understand. Has this woman never seen a poster on a college campus? Most of them are, well, not geared towards toddlers. I understand that there are times that people have to bring their kids on campus, but they can't set the tone for the entire place.
Posted by: Matt H. | August 26, 2008 5:40 PM
"Not to diminish his efforts, but I'd appreciate it if vocal, aggressive college activists would also speak up in student Democrat organizations and peace parties. There are lots of places at universities where progressive rational voices ought to be shouting out loudly."
Heh, one of our more active members is the in some kind of leadership position with the campus democrats at our school and he was told specifically not to mention his atheism at their events.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | August 26, 2008 5:40 PM
In others, it's called tradition. ;-)
Posted by: Larry | August 26, 2008 5:42 PM
Cue the death threads in 3... 2... 1...
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 26, 2008 5:43 PM
Oh, no, you're right, MAJeff. I have invited the wrath of an unknown multitude down upon me now.
At least you're off the hook this time!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 26, 2008 5:44 PM
I like Jesus's straw hat - I've got one a bit like it. I guess you'd need one in a hot place like Galilee.
Posted by: windy, OM | August 26, 2008 5:45 PM
That was Asherah. Had a bad breakup with Yahweh later, apparently.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 26, 2008 5:45 PM
Right...somebody tell Bill Donohue.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2008 5:50 PM
...probably with the pokers and the lake of fire and the demons and the burning man-bosoms and all that.
hmm, isn't that the second mention of man-titties today?
Did I miss the memo?
should I be celebrating my own cleavage today?
Posted by: The Chemist | August 26, 2008 5:52 PM
Is it a state school? Don't get me wrong, but if it's happening on a private campus, they can limit student speech without repercussion as I understand it.
I'm tired of Islam envy. It's the right wing remedy: Blame the Muslims. It doesn't matter how or in what context. Somehow Muslims can be invoked for anything these days. Except maybe presidential elec- oh never mind.
I've never really thought shock and offense were good strategies to make a point though. It tends to be short-lived, since after a while people learn to ignore you. Sure, the first time it's, "OH MY GOD!" But the 577,823rd time, it becomes, "Huh? Oh, those silly atheists."
Posted by: Rick R | August 26, 2008 5:53 PM
Gag! God spam!
Posted by: chigurh | August 26, 2008 5:53 PM
"I'm going to start a religion that finds Republicans heretical and conservatives in general to be offenses against my god, the Dude, and silence Fox News and the Religious Right at last."
Is that a Big Lebowski reference?
Posted by: travc | August 26, 2008 5:54 PM
"Cookies for their souls"... no no no... It should be "Cake or Death!"
That would make a great poster IMO.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 26, 2008 5:54 PM
Pilot. You asshole. Crash please.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | August 26, 2008 5:55 PM
"With love and missiles."
I love that band! Of course, Bauhaus was much cooler...
Oh, what? It was Love and Rockets? Oops. Never mind, then.
Posted by: Holbach | August 26, 2008 5:56 PM
How the hell did that mindless drivel @ 33 get through?
Posted by: chigurh | August 26, 2008 5:56 PM
there's gotta be a bible quote that condemns copying and pasting...
Posted by: tsig | August 26, 2008 5:58 PM
How many kids have these christian ladies had by now? Or are they speaking for the invisible again?
Posted by: Amar | August 26, 2008 5:59 PM
Nicole # 16 said;
"I can imagine Mary ranting at him, "Why can't you just find a nice girl and settle down!"
Nail, meet head. except for one tiny detail ... what she really would have said was "Why can't you just find a nice Jewish girl and settle down! Oy Veh!"
Posted by: CJO | August 26, 2008 5:59 PM
Will you goat rustlers cut it out with all that bandit yodelling? I can't hear myself think.
Posted by: The chemist | August 26, 2008 5:59 PM
OMG, Bible spam. I never thought I'd live long enough.
Posted by: JoJo | August 26, 2008 6:00 PM
I just did a "kill" on Psalm Pilot. The size of the thread shrank dramatically.
Posted by: Annick | August 26, 2008 6:00 PM
All religion is totally gay, and I mean that in a bad way.
No, no it's not. That's insulting to my sexuality. There is no bad way to be gay.
Unless you're sleeping with the opposite sex. Bad gay. BAAAAD !!!!
Posted by: John Pieret | August 26, 2008 6:00 PM
Now therein lies an interesting legal issue. Defamation actions die with the person supposedly libeled. Another way to put it is you can't libel the dead. And, as far as I know, there is no exception for (allegedly) coming back to life.
Posted by: Didac | August 26, 2008 6:01 PM
"They should have had a series of posters depicting various biblical figures in compromising positions"
Lot with his daughters, for example. Or Cam with his naked father, Noah. Or David gazing at a naked Bethsabe. The history of Judah and Tamar. Nudity, incest, etc. Words like sodomy or onanism are taken from the Genesis. There are more Answers in Genesis that you even dare to ask!!!
Posted by: Joshua BA | August 26, 2008 6:02 PM
Oh come on, everyone knows that the Asherah virus was practically wiped out by the Tower of Babel anti-virus program written by Enki. Lets not go confusing history here :)Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | August 26, 2008 6:02 PM
Somehow I would have expected an atheist organisation to be making claims more along the line that they have the ability to prove that Abrahamic gods don't exist, or maybe that no-one can prove that any god exists.
Seems they know best how to get a rise out of the fools. Good for them.
Given that men have been much more equal than women for most of the history of churches, mosques and synagogues, wouldn't it be expected that most of their god's love was reserved for men?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2008 6:02 PM
@#33:
from the posting rules for this site.
bye.
Posted by: rebelest | August 26, 2008 6:02 PM
The poster reminds me of Gore Vidal's novel "Live from Golgotha" wherein Jesus is an obese gay man. The premise is that a modern TV network has developed technology that allows them to televise the "crucifiction."
Posted by: raven | August 26, 2008 6:03 PM
According to the Mormons, god is not only male but he is married. To an unknown but large number of women. They mate a lot and we are their literal children. If you do the math, god is getting laid a few million times a year at least.
According to the OT, god was married at one time. Her name was Asheroth, a goddess. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that monotheistic gods couldn't be married to goddesses anymore and they edited her out. But missed a few references.
Posted by: Amar | August 26, 2008 6:04 PM
Prof Myers,
Could you please delete 'psalms'! i think we all know where we can find them if we really have a need to feel like shooting ourselves in the head.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 26, 2008 6:04 PM
#33: TLDR
Posted by: Divalent | August 26, 2008 6:05 PM
Whoa! that was interesting! I did catch this (which might explain the relevance):
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock."
(Or from the New International Version: "... who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.")
I'm guessing they must have been gay little ones.
Posted by: JHS | August 26, 2008 6:09 PM
Terrence McNally's play "Corpus Christi" deals with the homoerotic aspects of Jesus and the apostles and was met with similar paroxysms of outrage from the usual suspects when it premiered in 98'.
Posted by: Carlie | August 26, 2008 6:09 PM
I'm guessing they must have been gay little ones.
Well, the gay ones taste a little sweeter, so stands to reason they'd slaughter and cook them up first.
Posted by: I am so wise | August 26, 2008 6:10 PM
What's next a conference on whether Jesus Christ was a top or Bottom?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | August 26, 2008 6:11 PM
But how do you know which little ones are gay, before you slaughter and cook them? Is there a test that works on little ones?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2008 6:12 PM
Well, the gay ones taste a little sweeter, so stands to reason they'd slaughter and cook them up first.
yeah, but at only 10% of the population, they do tend to cost more.
still, worth it if you can find 'em.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | August 26, 2008 6:16 PM
Did anyone actually READ #33? I'm going to guess, no.
#48 I meant that in the "South Park" way. Gay when modified by the term "totally" means, well silly. Transcendentally silly.
Posted by: Fred Nurke | August 26, 2008 6:17 PM
Thanks to Psalm Pilot for reminding us about David. There is no way, despite all the incredibly twisted arguments raised against it by the Xians, that the relationship between David and Jonathan wasn't homosexual.
cheers,
Fred
Posted by: Didac | August 26, 2008 6:18 PM
Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock."
The little ones are the little ones from Babylon (=Iraq). So, perhaps, the 2004 US invasion of Iraq was biblically inspired after all.
Posted by: pubcat | August 26, 2008 6:19 PM
When one of the Godbot groups on our campus held Jesus week, we (sadly being the Mediaeval society, not the campus secular freethinkers) held a concurrent 'Odin week'
We had a survey on peoples realtionships with the Gods, and a free lollipop, witty t-shirts like, "Thor Loves You", "Odin is Watching" and "What Would Loki Do?" And had pamphlets on what the Norse Gods' had to say about pertinant topics like gay marriage.
In Australia, we go to alot of trouble to thouroughly mock dumb ideas :)
Posted by: Nightsky | August 26, 2008 6:19 PM
Is this the thread for Bible slashfic?
Posted by: PM | August 26, 2008 6:22 PM
There actually is a bit of controversy among Biblical scholars (the sort who read old Greek manuscripts) about whether Jesus was gay. You can get a start on this by reading about the late Dr. Morton Smith at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Smith
You can Google his name and the "Secret Gospel of Mark" and find all sorts of fascinating stuff -- even if you think all of Scripture is hogwash (as I do) this is still a fascinating detective story. There are reputable scholars on both sides of the issue. There are also scholars who have set out to disprove the "heresy." Those are easily spotted -- you can see the mouth foam in the text.
Bart Ehrman, the now-atheistic theology prof at UNC, was originally a disbeliever in the Morton Smith hypothesis, but in a recent book said he now is not sure. It turns out that the controversial text in question has "disappeared" thanks to the church librarians. So, no one can date the original letter to see if it is genuine, or a Morton Smith forgery.
We do know from actual scripture that there is an undressed young man with Christ the night before he died, one that fled from the authorities. And the so-called missing part of Mark nicely plugs some actual gaps in what is thought to be the Gospel of Mark. (Bible scholars also now conclude that the last lines of Mark were tacked on to provide an ending consistent with the other gospels, but that's another topic entirely.)
I hope some of you are familiar with Ehrman's story, a fundamentalist bible scholar who studied the origins of the bible and concluded it was a fabrication -- to the extent that he lost his faith entirely. He still retains his reputation as a Biblical scholar, because he just digs deeper than most.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 26, 2008 6:23 PM
Apple-cheeked whackjob Jack Van Impe said on last week's show (see it at JVIM.com, go to Aug 20 TV show, at 18:30-19:30 minutes) that Muslims know how to protect their prophet from ridicule, then referred to how Salman Rushdie found that out the hard way by having his life threatened. He said that when people insult Mohamed, their lives are in danger, and he wishes Christians would take a similar stand. I doubt it's what he meant consciously, but by implication, Van Impe was calling for death threats against people who criticize Jesus or Christianity, to be carried out by Christians. And the show is rated "G," by the way, because, you know...wholesome religious programming.
Posted by: PM | August 26, 2008 6:23 PM
There actually is a bit of controversy among Biblical scholars (the sort who read old Greek manuscripts) about whether Jesus was gay. You can get a start on this by reading about the late Dr. Morton Smith at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Smith
You can Google his name and the "Secret Gospel of Mark" and find all sorts of fascinating stuff -- even if you think all of Scripture is hogwash (as I do) this is still a fascinating detective story. There are reputable scholars on both sides of the issue. There are also scholars who have set out to disprove the "heresy." Those are easily spotted -- you can see the mouth foam in the text.
Bart Ehrman, the now-atheistic theology prof at UNC, was originally a disbeliever in the Morton Smith hypothesis, but in a recent book said he now is not sure. It turns out that the controversial text in question has "disappeared" thanks to the church librarians. So, no one can date the original letter to see if it is genuine, or a Morton Smith forgery.
We do know from actual scripture that there is an undressed young man with Christ the night before he died, one that fled from the authorities. And the so-called missing part of Mark nicely plugs some actual gaps in what is thought to be the Gospel of Mark. (Bible scholars also now conclude that the last lines of Mark were tacked on to provide an ending consistent with the other gospels, but that's another topic entirely.)
I hope some of you are familiar with Ehrman's story, a fundamentalist bible scholar who studied the origins of the bible and concluded it was a fabrication -- to the extent that he lost his faith entirely. He still retains his reputation as a Biblical scholar, because he just digs deeper than most.
Posted by: Mariana | August 26, 2008 6:24 PM
*delurks* Hello all.
Scroll down, scroll down, scroll down, psalm 8495069, scrooooll dooooown...Ok, I LOL'd.
Also, is no one here a fan of slash fiction? I remember reading God/Lucifer slash, and recently someone pointed me to Jesus/Judas yaoi. Actually, I can totally see Jesus/Judas being very...hot and angsty. In the Biblical sense.
Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | August 26, 2008 6:27 PM
Hey Psalm Pilot, you forgot Psalm 151....
Psalm 151
151:1 Praise Yahweh!
151.2 For Yahweh pleasures his men.
He crowns the humble knob with salivation.
151:3 Let the taints rejoice in honor.
Let them sing for joy on their beds.
151.4 May the high juices of God be in their mouths,
and a two-edged banana in their hand.
151.5 To bind their kings with chains,
and their nobles with fetters of iron; for Yahweh
sometimes feels a little kinky!
151.6 Praise him in his heavens for his acts of gayity!
151.7 Praise him for his mighty penis and pecs!
Praise him accordingly for his excellent head!
151:8 Praise him with the sounding his trumpet!
Praise him with stringed instruments and skin flute!
151:9 Let everything that has cum breath praise Yah!
Praise Yah!
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | August 26, 2008 6:28 PM
"She said that took away her right as a parent to shield her children from controversial ideas..."
Right, because it's in her children's best interest to put them in a protective bubble, where they never have to encounter anything controversial or potentially troublesome, until she can throw them out into the world psychologically immature, intellectually starved, and emotionally stunted. That's the SMART, GROWN-UP thing to do.
Heaven forbid that she exercise some doggam parental responsibility here and try to meet this challenge head-on, giving her children coping skills and other tools for dealing with ideas, cultures, and value systems they are not familiar with.
And Psalm Pilot? Fark off, you blithering, copy-pasting, mindless turdbucket.
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | August 26, 2008 6:29 PM
"I'm neither Christian nor homosexual, but I think the poster actually flatters their diety, making him out to be both human and hot."
"diety"? I guess that frickin' cracker isn't behind you just yet, PZ? When it is......why not ask for a reach around?
Posted by: miller | August 26, 2008 6:31 PM
Frankly, I think this is horrifying. I wouldn't even want to be associated with such an atheist group. It seems they have confused "rocking the boat" with "offending people". This will only confirm what people think about atheists: that they're bitter about religion, and have made a sport out of mocking it. They are assisting their delusions. They are also scaring away potential members for their club.
Anyways, I heard that the source of the "Jesus is gay" story is from the "Secret Gospel of Mark", which I understand was some sort of hoax. So they're endorsing pseudohistory? Non-skeptical atheists make me shudder.
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | August 26, 2008 6:31 PM
And Voltaire Kinison? I say unto you, verily:
Gaaaaaaay-men!
That was freakin' hilarious. Ought to be posted in every church on Easter Sunday.
Posted by: SisterCoyote | August 26, 2008 6:31 PM
Hm. I'm thinking that perhaps a length limit is needed on comments with people like the banned PsalmPilot running around.
So what did the Norse Gods say about same-sex marriage, pubcat?
Also, while it is homoerotic in tone, I would have looked at that poster and thought: Oh, Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss. And done a double-take when the text sank in.
Posted by: Moggie | August 26, 2008 6:32 PM
Hiding behind children, indeed.
You know, she might have a point. Young kids tend to be intellectually unsophisticated, emotionally vulnerable, and gullible enough to believe anything, whereas adult Christians are... oh. It's not really about the kids at all, is it?
Posted by: Sophist FCD | August 26, 2008 6:34 PM
10,000 words of copypasta? We'll, I'm convinced. Praise Jay-uh-sus!, et cetera, et cetera.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 26, 2008 6:35 PM
This will only [self-]confirm what
people think[you already had mistakenly concluded] about atheistsfixed.
Posted by: Shadow | August 26, 2008 6:36 PM
*Scrolls and scrolls and scrolls*
Jesus. I mean, er -
making him out to be both human and hot
I always used to feel a little guilty whenever I'd happen across a Biblementary that had Jesus played by some unshaven, long-haired pretty-boy.
Then I discovered anime, and more importantly, yaoi. And let me tell you, if that was a well-drawn doujinshi, my scanner would be on overdrive about now. It's my duty to spread the love!
Posted by: Arthur | August 26, 2008 6:42 PM
Since when did Jesus believe in matrimony? Are there some words from Jesus that I haven't read (not that the words we have are actually from Jesus, but never mind). The New Testament's position on marriage, if there is one, is from Paul, found in 1 Corinthians 7. "Paul maintains that married couples should not pretend that they already live as angels, 'who neither marry nor are given in marriage' (to quote another famous person; see Mark 12:25). Sexual temptations are great in this age, and marriage is a legitimate way to overcome them in God's eyes. Spouses should therefore grant one another their conjugal rights. Those who are able to withstand such temptations, however - like Paul himself, who says that he has the 'gift'- should not go to the trouble of becoming married in the first place. In Paul's view, his generation is living at the very end of time, and much work needs to be done before Christ returns. Those who are married are obligated to take time for their spouses and tend to their needs; those who are not can be fully committed to Christ. Thus, it is better to remain single, but if one cannot stand the heat, it is better to marry than to burn." -- The New Testament: A Historial Introduction, by Bart Ehrman
Posted by: SC | August 26, 2008 6:43 PM
This will only confirm what people think about atheists: that they're bitter about religion, and have made a sport out of mocking it.
Well, some games, anyway:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/bingo_every_time.php
They are assisting their delusions. They are also scaring away potential members for their club.
G5!
Posted by: miller | August 26, 2008 6:44 PM
Ichthyic (#81)
You misunderstand. That's exactly what I meant in the first place. The Jesus poster causes people to self-confirm their previous woefully mistaken delusions about atheists being uniformly angry and hateful. Is that what they wanted, to confirm delusions?
Posted by: windy | August 26, 2008 6:48 PM
What is angry about the poster? Where's the hate?
Posted by: Doug | August 26, 2008 6:51 PM
I work for the post office and one piece of mail coming from a church had the message, "Gone fishing...for men." Now tell me that doesn't sound gay.
Posted by: jpf | August 26, 2008 6:52 PM
I understand that during the cracker incident it was decided to use "Fatwah Envy" for the common "you'd never say anything bad about a Muslim because they'd kill you" trope among Christians, and it may be too late to change the mob consensus, but it really should be "Jihad Envy". A Fatwah is merely a pronouncement of religious legality by a cleric, and can be on any subject and not necessarily involve calling for violence. Christians aren't envious of fatwahs since they have their own equivalent in Catholic encyclicals or the ravings of the local pastor. A "Jihad", however, implies the sort of violent, "don't fuck with us" untouchablity that some Christians are envious of.
Posted by: ndt | August 26, 2008 6:53 PM
Why would hypothesizing that Jesus is gay be angry and hateful? What's angry and hateful about homosexuality?
Posted by: kestrien | August 26, 2008 6:53 PM
Does anyone recognize the image used in the poster? It seems reminescent of classic painting - it'd be funny if the crazy christians were condemning a little-known DaVinci masterpiece