Pharyngula

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2009 11:38 AM

At least it's reassuring that they willingly cut their troop strength in half by treating women as servile weaklings who might eat away their manhood.

Well, they're not cutting it in half if you consider that they're probably just going to sic them on the other half of the population. You know, the women.

Don't underestimate the tactic of passive aggression and playing the victim card.

Posted by: Dave Dell | November 18, 2009 11:42 AM

"I'm only doing this for your own spiritual good, sweetie."

Try that on your wife/girlfriend and see what happens.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 18, 2009 11:44 AM

Rejoice! For the One True Religion has admitted that it is singularly violent and hateful!

Posted by: ema | November 18, 2009 11:48 AM

A woman can manipulate, dominate and control a man to the point that his manhood is slowly eaten away like a cancer...

Good thing men are incapable of dominating and controlling women or there'd necrotic female genitalia strewn all over the place.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 18, 2009 11:51 AM

The godly men must protect the womenfolk from the secular world, lest they develop vagina dentata.

Posted by: Joel | November 18, 2009 11:56 AM

It's like they see Afghanistan as a model society or something.

I think I am going to shut my office door, turn out the lights, and spend a couple of hours weeping for humanity.

Posted by: RSA | November 18, 2009 12:02 PM

A woman can manipulate, dominate and control a man to the point that his manhood is slowly eaten away like a cancer...

So women = testicular cancer? Call the Centers for Disease Control!

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 18, 2009 12:07 PM

The godly men must protect the womenfolk from the secular world, lest they develop vagina dentata.

(... to the tune, such as it is, of Hakuna Matata...)

Vagina dentata!
Fear da womenfolk's deadly ways!
Vagina dentata!
'N rave endlessly 'bout the gheys!

It's our fact-free...
Philosophy...

Vagina dentata!
Yeah, that's one deadly grotto.
What's a grotto?
(Dunno. We ain't seen a lot-o.)

These two words are the source of all our problems.
That's right, take Brylcreem Jim here
Why, when he was a young warthog...

(Okay, he's still a young warthog.
The point is: fear them. They seek our precious fluids.)

He found his sermon lacked a certain appeal.
Collection plate empty after every spiel.
He's a noisy soul, screamin' 'bout how we sinned
Reliable source for endless hot wind
But oh, the shame. Who can ya blame?
When yer makin' nothin' weekly screamin' Jesus' name?

What do you do? I'll tell ya, friend
Same ole' tubthumpin' bit always brings it in the end:

Scream about the vagina dentata!
Vagina dentata!
What a profitable phrase...

...

Posted by: Lilith | November 18, 2009 12:16 PM

It's a bit hard to shield women from oppression when you're the one doing the oppressing.

I guess they really mean they want to shield women from even realising they are being oppressed.

Posted by: dutchdoc | November 18, 2009 12:18 PM

I wonder if Rusty, who "

... spreads a patriarchal vision to reclaim the masculine identity that has been neutered by the feminization of America

" (http://www.elijahmin.com/biography.htm), agrees with Pastor Steven L Anderson, that this country is in great danger, caused by men sitting down to pee? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo3o4nfiG7A&feature=player_embedded)

I think I'll have to email and ask Rusty about this!

Posted by: JarrodB | November 18, 2009 12:21 PM

Women cause manhood cancer? Staying gay for now. Further updates if events change.

Posted by: John C. Welch | November 18, 2009 12:24 PM

Or the alternate version from the now-defunct "Queen of Wands":

"Vagina Dentata, what a wonderful phrase!
Vagina Dentata, ain't no passin' phase!
It's a penis-free,
Girl cavity,
Vagina Dentata!"

Posted by: ckitching | November 18, 2009 12:26 PM

the function of true patriarchy is to protect, provide, and care for women and children. Biblical patriarchy is expressed as chivalry.

Kinda like the function of a true slaveholder is to protect, provide and care for the slaves in his charge. The bible is fairly clear on this, too.

Or am I not supposed to mention that?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 18, 2009 12:27 PM

Women cause manhood cancer?

No, no, no. Not all women. Only those women who are self-actualized with aspirations, ambition, and self-respect. You know, the ones that don't mind being treated like property. That's all.

Posted by: realinterrobang | November 18, 2009 12:32 PM

Mmh, if the guy who wants to "protect" me is a drooling religious escapee from a psych ward, I'll go without, thank you. (I shudder to think what "cover" is supposed to mean -- in the context in which I'm most familiar with that term, it implies something I don't even want to think about juxtaposed with "drooling religious escapee from a mental ward." DO NOT WANT!)

Besides which, everyone knows the only reason men put women on pedestals is so that they can get an unrestricted view up their skirts. Fortunately, I always wear pants. And I kick. :)

Posted by: dutchdoc | November 18, 2009 12:35 PM

PZ said "How barbarically bloody-minded".

Ah! But THAT, my friends, is, ultimately, atheism's fault: (from http://www.elijahmin.com/biography.htm )

Being brought up in an atheistic home, Rusty tasted what the world had to offer at a very young age. Street-fighting and drug addiction as a means of survival and escape soon became a way of life.

I mean, what ELSE do we expect from a street-fighter and drug addict? (read: someone coming from an atheist home).

Posted by: Brock | November 18, 2009 12:45 PM

[blockquote]A woman can manipulate, dominate and control a man[/quote]

Thank you, ma'am; may I have another? :D

Oh wait, the creepy reverend is probably more like Ted Haggard and privately enjoys the XY prostitutes...

Posted by: Pixelfish | November 18, 2009 12:49 PM

An atheistIC home? Oh my!

90% of the time, when born-agains and fundies break out the "I used to be atheist" line, all they really mean is nobody in their family went to church and they couldn't be arsed to figure out what their beliefs were.

Posted by: dutchdoc | November 18, 2009 12:50 PM

Oh NOW I see... street-fighter, a professional actor, and Justice Roy Moore is his hero! The guy simply has a Chuck Norris fettish! He even LOOKS like Chuck Norris! No, REALLY! Go look!

Posted by: F | November 18, 2009 12:56 PM

"Biblical patriarchy is expressed as chivalry."

Well, no it isn't, but maybe, sort of, in the sense that "men are in charge" isn't too widely variable.

But "Biblical patriarchy and chivalry" - what a pair of wonderful systems.

Posted by: Sara | November 18, 2009 12:57 PM

A patriarch is a family ruler. He is the man in charge. Biblical manhood demands men … defend and shield or cover women from injury, evil or oppression.

When normal people, like me, want to feel they're defending people from evil, they buy video games.

But no, not the fundies. They always want to get the real deal. Pah.

Posted by: Nastasie | November 18, 2009 12:58 PM

I love this new trend of "I used to be an atheist". It's like they think it grants more validity to their stance because they have been delivered from the dark side (well, they're missing out on all the cookies. 'Cause it's where the cookies are at, just ask Darth Vader the atheist).

Or maybe it's an old thing and I've just recently noticed it. Anyway, I laugh at your feebleness, god botherers.

Posted by: robert Madewell | November 18, 2009 12:59 PM

defend and shield or cover women from injury, evil or oppression.

Maybe they think women should wear these.

Posted by: tim Rowledge | November 18, 2009 1:06 PM

Can anyone explain to me how this idiot's calls for war and bloodshed are not direct support for terrorism? How do they differ from Islamic mullahs demanding death for the West? Damnit, they even claim the same source as justification.

Posted by: shatfat | November 18, 2009 1:06 PM

*nod* Some of the worst misogynists are closet cases.

The rest are on a power trip, or pissy because women reject them.

Posted by: F | November 18, 2009 1:10 PM

realinterrobang @ 30 for teh WIN.

Posted by: Lynna | November 18, 2009 1:29 PM

I posted most of this over on the endless thread, but since we're talking about armed patriots/patriarchs, it may be more appropriate here:

More info about militias, Aryan Nation types, ultra conservative Christians, and mormons: Research should include W. Cleon Skousen (Glenn Beck's darling), former Salt Lake City police chief, founder of the Freemen institute which was later named the Center for Constitutional Studies. According to authors Thomas Robbins and Susan J. Palmer ("Millennium, messiahs, and mayhem"), Skousen was a prolific author of doctrinal books on Mormon eschatology and prophecy, but is not an advocate of violence. However, many of his followers are associated with militia movements, and this includes non-mormon christian fundamentalists.

There's a bit more about the unholy nexus of patriotism and religions in the discussion on the "The goggles! They do nothing! thread from October 6, 2009

Robbins and Palmer note that Skousen and other ultra conservatives belong to the mainline mormon church and have no desire to leave it. (See Paul Mero for a current example, and my comment #245 on the endless thread). "Most of them advocate a pastiche of antigovernment sentiment and apocalyptic oldtime Mormonism."

Research should also include N. Samuel Sherwood, a mormon who is "perhaps one of the most high-profile militia advocates in the United States" -- he founded the Constitutional Militia Association in Idaho, then later disbanded it. He said he was non-violent, and then out of the other side of his mouth he advocated the death penalty for homosexuals.

Research should include Colonel Bo Gritz, a convert to mormonism. This guy ran for president (Populist Party) in 1992 and received 28,602 votes in Utah. He bought 228 acres of land in northern Idaho, near Kamiah, with the idea that he would build a mormon millenarian community. Gritz left the mormon church in 1994 after church leaders told him to obey the laws of the land.

Mormon and Christian millennialism are seeds around which militias form. But most of these groups splinter off from the main churches.

The videos and news reports to which boygenius provided links on the endless thread feature Paul Mallet of the Aryan Nations. This guy tries to distance himself from the LDS Church, but makes a point that he is still very religious and that the group holds services every Sunday.

The religious/patriarchal/patriotic fringe that is preparing for bloodshed is several layers deep.

Posted by: the_fishiologist | November 18, 2009 1:32 PM

Beginning with God slaying the animals to cover Adam and Eve after the fall…to the final sacrifice by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, one theme rings true. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

I'm pretty sure that if you scrawled that on a bathroom stall, the police would be all over you in no time..

Posted by: Lynna | November 18, 2009 1:42 PM

This Rachel Maddow segment (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34004795 ) includes a discussion with Frank Shaeffer about the "blood impulse of the fifty American states" exemplified by the far right. About the first nine minutes of the segment discusses other issues, then examples of extremism and threats from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, the Psalm 109.8 merchandise, etc. begins.

Shaeffer: "Branding Obama as Hitler ... not a real American ... joining the ranks of unjust Kings that should be slayed if not by god, then by just men... trawling for assassins"

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 18, 2009 1:47 PM

One of these things is not like the other.

the function of true patriarchy is to protect, provide, and care for women and children. Biblical patriarchy is expressed as chivalry.

And then we have:

A woman can manipulate, dominate and control a man to the point that his manhood is slowly eaten away like a cancer

Let me see if I can reconcile these two statements.

*thinks*

Gimme a mo' here...

What I think they're trying to say is...

*needs some more time*

Wait, I think I've got it:

"Christian men are scared shitless of women because they aren't nearly as clueless as they seem on TV, so men don't feel safe in life unless they're in a position to treat women like helpless children. Then they pat themselves on the back for keeping those dangerous succubi like talking pets."

I think that's closer to what he's thinking.

Posted by: Nastasie | November 18, 2009 1:51 PM

PixelFish @ 51

That is certainly a more charitable explanation than my impression that it's just all barefaced lies. And it does make sense. I guess there are so many instances of their Lying for Jesus that my immediate reaction is to suspect those assertions.

Though I do believe that some of them are doing just that, Lying for Jesus.

Posted by: Hank Fox | November 18, 2009 1:52 PM

"... his manhood is slowly eaten away like a cancer ..."

Jon Stewart was right! Some women give men boner cancer!

Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 18, 2009 1:56 PM

@JackC (#7)

I thought that maybe Rusty's middle name was John.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 18, 2009 2:01 PM

So it was chivalrous for Lot to offer his two daughters up to be raped by the men of Sodom?

And it was chivalrous for Jephthah to offer his daughter as sacrifice?

And it was totally chivalrous of Abraham to pretend to be his wife's brother instead of her husband and let an Egyptian pharaoh take her off to be married?

And it was pretty chivalrous of David to have Bathsheba's husband sent to the front lines to get killed.

And Barak was only being chivalrous and trying to make sure Deborah had the best view of the battle.

And it's so VERY chivalrous to make your wife be considered unclean for twice as long for giving birth to a girl. (66 days of purification are needed for wimmin children, but half that for boychildren.)

That Bible! Full of chivalry!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 18, 2009 2:15 PM

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

I'm sure no one would mind you shedding your own blood, Rusty.

Posted by: kopd | November 18, 2009 2:20 PM

Too many women seek value by trying to become men, lead as men, and be aggressive as men.

Perhaps because men like this asshat make too many women feel like they don't already have value. But really they aren't trying to become men and lead as men. They are leading as women, and I applaud them.

Posted by: Wedge | November 18, 2009 2:21 PM

Another sad point is the poor boys who believe this shit. They are taught that their manhood is dependent on protecting and defending their helpless, silly women. And if their wimmenfolk don't need their protection and can think for themselves, they can only see themselves as useless, diminished. They grow up rabidly determined to shove women down, so that they can be real men.

And the cycle continues...

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | November 18, 2009 3:30 PM

That Bible! Full of chivalry!

Well, it's full of something.

[New complementary close under construction],

Robert

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 18, 2009 4:36 PM

Rusty spends his time bumping around the country with his family (humbly called the Thomas Nation) and firing off an endless series of emails about their adventures for Jesus (and kindly includes me on the list).

Before they were the Kingdom etc, they operated as the Godarchy Line (good name for a band, if it's a lousy band).

It's all very exciting, as you might well imagine. Last week the Creator of the Universe absolutely insisted that they all go to Fort Hood to exploit the media console the troops there.

Donations (of money and vehicles) are accepted in the Spirit of the Lord (no, I dunno what it means either).

Posted by: Lynna | November 18, 2009 4:56 PM

truthspeaker @71. Paul Mullet, leader of the Aryan Nation in northern Idaho makes a point of saying they are not associated with the LDS Church. However, they sound like a combination of an offshoot of the LDS Church married to the Methodist Church.

We believe that Adam-man of Genesis is the placing of the white race upon this earth. Not all people descend from Adam. Adam is the father of the white race ONLY. Adam in the original Hebrew is translated "to show blood in ones face, turn rosy" (Gen. 2:7, 8) Therefore, we know and understand that the true literal children of the bible are the 12 tribes of Isreal. Scattered throughout the world and now known as the Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and kindred people of this world.

The Church of Jesus Christ Christian was founded in 1946 by Methodist minister Dr. Wesley Swift. Upon his passing away, the Church was handed down to his stalwart student, Pastor Richard G. Butler. Pastor Butler's vision of the Church becoming a community & a witnessing tool led him to north Idaho to give birth to "Aryan Nations", the political arm of the Church. Both entities were intended to complement each other. It was to be a Christian Identity organization that was part of a Christian Identity Church.

Brigham Young taught the Adam-God doctrine.

Brigham Young's doctrine of the godhead is one of the best-kept secrets of Mormonism. Most Mormons, if they have even heard of it, think that it is a distortion by anti-Mormons. A modern Mormon who teaches the doctrine that Adam is God is likely to be threatened with excommunication. Only in private do modern Mormon authorities admit that, indeed, Brigham Young did teach this doctrine. - Richard Packham

Mormons also used to teach that white skin equalled goodness and black skin was a sign of sin. Furthermore, if a dark-skinned person converted to mormonism, they would slowly become light-skinned. This doctrine was first quietly shoved to the back rooms, then officially changed. Even the wording of the Book of Mormon has been changed to be less offensive in this regard.

You can see Mormon, Methodist, and other fundamentalist christian doctrines in the Aryan Nation's church (not to mention the Nazi influence with it's strange incorporation of some pagan beliefs, some Catholic symbolism, and a very warped version of evolutionary theory).

Posted by: F | November 18, 2009 5:05 PM

Eleanor of Aquitaine

I believe that would be Courtney Manners Courtney Love Courtly love.

Posted by: Notagod | November 18, 2009 6:28 PM

So, after all is said and done, the debil is the christian's god-idea.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 18, 2009 6:52 PM

For some interesting stories about women leaving the patriarchal "quiverfull" movement, this blog is quite interesting.

http://nolongerquivering.com/

Posted by: sailor1031 | November 18, 2009 7:15 PM

Does anyone remember who defined chivalry as "the impulse of a man to protect a woman from every man but himself?" Oh well, the patriarchs can always go back to whizzing on the walls to prove their manhood..

Posted by: Mack | November 18, 2009 7:22 PM

The tradition of the chivalric "knight in shining armor" may be traceable back to the Arabs, with notable pre-Islamic figures like the Bedouin knight Antar The Lion (580 AD). Charles Reginald Haines noted traits "such as loyalty, courtesy, munificence...are found in eminent degree among the Arabs." Medieval Spain, which he calls the "cradle of chivalry", could bear that pre-modern title, due to the direct impact of Arab civilization in Al-Andalus. "Piety, courtesy, prowess in war, the gift of eloquence, the art of poetry, skill on horseback, dexterity with sword, lance, and bow" was expected of the elite Moorish knight. Christianity had a modifying influence on the virtues of chivalry. The Peace and Truce of God in the 10th century was one such example, with limits placed on knights to protect and honor the weaker members of society and also help the church maintain peace. At the same time the church became more tolerant of war in the defense of faith, espousing theories of the just war; and liturgies were introduced which blessed a knight's sword, and a bath of chivalric purification. These concepts of "religious chivalry" were further elaborated in the era of the Crusades, with the Crusades themselves often being seen as a chivalrous enterprise.[2] Their ideas of chivalry were also further influenced by Saladin, who was viewed as a chivalrous knight by medieval Christian writers.

So he's talking about the chivalry the Muslims exhibited? Or maybe the chivalry exhibited by knights during the Crusades?
Well, I guess the Crusades would fit into his ideas of needing to shed blood to force his nasty bloody patriarchy down people's throats...

Posted by: nopoetlaureate | November 18, 2009 7:49 PM

jesus biscuits should be labeled thus:

WARNING: this product may cause religious delusion and may increase the effects of underlying sexual disturbances. If affected, do not attempt to engage in intelligent conversation or blog.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 18, 2009 8:24 PM

I assume #91 is a Poe. The stoopid just stacks up a little too well.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 18, 2009 8:33 PM

I assume #91 is a Poe. The stoopid just stacks up a little too well.

Hmmm...No gratuitous caps, complete sentences, appears grammatical to me, and no obvious misspellings. Definitely Poe. Whoever it is needs to work on the details of religious madness.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 18, 2009 10:36 PM

#91 UNenlightened

He is right though. If women are allowed to do whatever they want than they could go around having multiple children and degrading society. Not to mention they put themself at risk for rape and harrasment. Look at the increase in rape against. Patriarchy is in the best interest of women not against them.
But it seems atheist wants women, gays, and heathens do what ever they want even if it hurts them.

Yes, 'cause, Golly Gee, the only people who should be allowed to "do what they want" are white, male, hetero, Xians. And only white, male, hetero, Xians should be allowed to decide what everyone else should want. It's not like women, gays, and heathens are actually human beings who might want to decide for them selves what they want? Hell, no. That might be so inconvenient, so emotionally troublesome for the only human beings who really count - the white, male, hetero, Xians.
There would be far fewer rapes, multiple births, unmarried mothers and "social degradement", if all them white, male, hetero, Xians (& non-white, male, hetero, Muslims) actually lived up to the moral standards they hold for others.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 18, 2009 10:48 PM

Please report to Remedial Composition Classroom A first thing in the morning!

*hangs head in shame*

Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2009 12:46 AM

[meta]

Good thread.

I single out Alyson Miers @60 as my favourite, so far.

Posted by: F | November 19, 2009 3:04 AM

Elizabeth @ 86

I wish I could have skipped to the end of the story I was reading, to the part where the woman escaped and saved herself. Such histories are terribly, viscerally painful for me to read or hear.

But thank you, nonetheless.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 19, 2009 6:00 AM

Biblical patriarchy is expressed as chivalry.

First of all, chivalry does not mean what you think it means. Chivalry is the obligation of a knight to serve his lord, and the code of honour to which they must adhere. Examples include the Japanese Bushido code. Since the patriarchal despotism of the bible pre-dates feudalism by several millennia, you can't really compare the two. The most important aspect people often miss about chivalry is that it only applied between equals. A knight was not expected to be cautious to those below his station (peasants, serfs and women obviously). It was basically a sort of Geneva Convention that only applied to nobles, so they could go to war with relative safety.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat." - The Communist Manifesto. It's odd how someone who shares so many things in common with communists, despises them so much.

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | November 19, 2009 10:18 AM

I have often been struck by the authoritarian attitudes withing politics and the family among certain sects of right wing asshat Christians. They are obsessed with this idea that the family must be ruled by one man. All decisions are made by the man, the ruler of the family. Any disagreement is not seen as an honest diference of opinion, but rather as a rebellion against the god(s)-created order: child/woman is to man as man is to god(s).

This has also become a very strong streak within political conservatism. Any disagreement with George W. was met with cries of heresy and treason. George W. (and Dick) tried to rule the United States in much the same way that preachers like Rusty Lee Thomas insist that a husband/father rule the home. For eight years. And now, as Obama tries to shovel up after the circus elephants, it is suddenly just peachy to object strenuously and violently.

The problem is, it does not work. Sarah Palin insisted that the parents must rule (which, I guess, would make Mr. Palin a demasculated (?) masticated male (so my comparison falls down a little here)), that children should not be taught how to make a decision. Which explains her current grandmotherhood. Here approach to ruling Alaska was along the same lines -- she did not govern the state (which is sloppy, but works), rather, she tried to rule the state (which starts out neat and clean, but quickly descends into chaos).

Modern conservatives see the American public as childlike (in bibblespeak, that would be feminine). Apparently, we need to be ruled, just as a woman is supposed to be ruled in the house.

And, if I tried any of that shit at home, it would not work very well. (((Wife))) is quite her own woman.

Sorry for the long post. It's an occupational hazard for me.

Posted by: the_fishiologist | November 19, 2009 1:01 PM

He is right though. If women are allowed to do whatever they want than they could go around having multiple children and degrading society.Not to mention they put themself at risk for rape and harrasment.

omfb. Who exactly are those people that are going to rape and harass any independent women?? oh riiight, it'll be people like you. Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in Infidel about how shocked she was to arrive in the Netherlands and be able to walk down the street in pants and without a headscarf and not have men harass her. In Somalia, she would have been treated as a whore, publicly ridiculed and possibly attacked. The reason was that the men in Somalia were taught (by their teachers, imams, fathers, etc..) that any woman who wore pants or left her head uncovered deserved to be raped and/or ridiculed.

The only way that a woman's independence will attract harassment and assault is when the men are taught that harassment and assault are appropriate measures to "keep the women in line". The problem is not with the women, it is with the patriarchal, misogynistic teachings of religion.

Posted by: Bible Man | November 19, 2009 9:31 PM

I don't get it. What's all the fuss about?

This man is right. The Bible teaches EXACTLY what Mr. Thomas is preaching. Apparently most of you have never attended a Southern Baptist Church anytime in your life. This type sermon is a regularly heard thing.

In order for the remissions of sin, there had to a be sacrifice made. The death penalty was given unto man for bringing sin into the world. Instead of eternal death and seperatio from God, Jesus becuase our substitute and died on our behalf. He became the sacrifice.

Until Jesus came, animals were still sacrificed. That ended when Jesus came.

This sermon is nothing out of the ordinary - even in an elementary age sunday school lesson.

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— Romans 3:21-25

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 19, 2009 10:15 PM

Instead of eternal death and seperatio from God, Jesus becuase our substitute and died on our behalf. He became the sacrifice.

Yawn, repeating your boring myth doesn't make it truth. It just means you repeat lies, like you babble isn't a book of fiction and myth. You think it means something Lie 1.

Until Jesus came, animals were still sacrificed. That ended when Jesus came.

Lie 2.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Lie 3, the babble is not an authority on anything, and to pretend such a hacked together piece of fiction (I've read it twice so I know) is and authority means you are a three strikes you're out delusional fool. Show real physical evidence otherwise. You belief is irrelevant.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 19, 2009 10:35 PM

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

... The wise one shouts it from the rooftops.

(/Actually, revising that, the wisest one writes it down, gets a book deal, does a promotional tour, and gets on Letterman.)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 19, 2009 10:59 PM

The Biggest LIE of them all: "There is no god."

Really?

OK, I'll bite, where is god? If god loves me then why did he kill my husband? Come Bible Man, explain this to me.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 19, 2009 11:07 PM

You are an evidenceless fool.

Hey now, Red, he does too have evidence... See, he's got this book right here that sez it was written by his god. Since his god sez in the book he wrote it, and the book also sez god is perfect and does not lie, well, proof! QED!

See... hold on... (counts on fingers)... cos the god sez in the book that the god doesn't lie and that he wrote the book and since the book sez ... umm... the god sez in the book the god is honest and he wrote the book and he wouldn't make this stuff up and... since... umm... Jeremiah was a bullfrog... Or a bullshitter... Can't remember which... Anyway... The god wrote the book which sez the god wrote the b...

Oh, fuck it. Gonna have to stop there. Getting a bit dizzy, anyway...

... but... wait! Apart from all that, I have a new revelation coming in right now! Gawd is talking to me, and now he sez (you ready? Like, sitting down? 'Cos dudes, these are doozies)...

a) The bit in the earlier book about false prophets? Totally false. Sorry. Typo, somewhere in the memo to the angel that passed it on... That was supposed to say falsetto prophets...

Yes, you read that right. Michael Jackson cannot be trusted. Also, many disco era backup singers are agents of satan.

b) Priests of the lord are now required to wear their underpants on their head. Thus spake the lord! Glory! Also, same goes for persons witnessing to the unsaved on atheist blogs. Get to it, 'Bible dude'... Wait'll you get your Hanes on you...

c) Oh, also, 'Gawd' sez 'Bible Man' blows goats.

... and, of course d) you know all this is true because the god sez in this post he really said this, and you know the god wouldn't like 'cos he says so, and he wrote this, and you know that 'cos... umm... okay... dizzy again...

(/Disclaimer: this revelation is really totally of a piece with stuff they say in Southern Baptist churches... And in Sunday schools... And by closeted, psychotic ministers when snorting crack off gay prostitutes' chests... Or at least not substantially nuttier. But then, we all knew that already, I guess.)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 19, 2009 11:17 PM

Bible Man blows goats...

See there you naughty ones go, right back to the depths of bible thumping Enumclaw's animal farm. *snort*

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 19, 2009 11:24 PM

God did not kill your husband.

Another lie. God kills everybody, but you can't acknowledge it. The lies just keep on coming.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 19, 2009 11:27 PM

Show me real physical evident of your beliefs in evolution

I have a lot of physical evidence of my "belief" in evolution. For starters, I have several books on the matter. Secondly I've spent a lot of time on this site and on my blog advocating evolution. The evidence is there, if only you would look...

...oh, you mean physical evidence for evolution. Okay, first place to go is the book Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters by Donald Prothero, it gives a nice account of the fossil record and the relationship to evolutionary theory. After that: Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, which is a great look at some of the morphological adaptations seen in the animal kingdom that only make sense in light of evolution. After those, read Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne. Between them, you should have a good primer on the physical evidence for evolution.

But if you want something that isn't so, you know, wordy and informative, just check this out.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 19, 2009 11:32 PM

God did not kill your husband.

'Kay. But just so you know, before you continue with this line of testimony to this court, sir, that so far, the accused's alibis haven't held up terribly well so far...

And the fact is, I think he's gonna have a real hard time beating this rap...

I mean, sure, his mistress--that little Jewish girl he knocked up some two millenia back--sez she saw him in Palestine... And Benny Hinn sez he was with him the whole time...

But neither helps much when the word is you're omnipresent.

(/Yes, my child, the place where you see only one set of footprints on the sand... That was after the vic was dead and He was looking for somewhere to stash the body.)

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | November 19, 2009 11:39 PM

This can only be absolutely and certainly true if God does not exist in the first place.

Aww, fuck!

(/'Kay... let's go check Cheney's alibi...)

Posted by: 386sx | November 20, 2009 12:02 AM

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Psalm 53:1

Major quote-minage. Here's the whole thing...

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Practically all Bible thumpers are completely oblivious to how egregious that quote-mine is. (If we believe the first verse, then we have to believe the other two. That would mean that the quote miner would be filthy and doeth no good, no, not one, not even the quote miner.)

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 20, 2009 6:44 AM

Either god exists and he has caused untold suffering upon the earth and in hell far out of proportion to any good works(from our point of view and lets face it, thats the view that matters to us)...or he doesn't exist.

Your choice Bible Man. And no, god saying that murder and rape is good does not make it good. It merely makes god bad for allowing, condoning and doing it.

A morality that changes on a gods whim is not morality. It's enslavement to a cruel master.

Posted by: apple | November 20, 2009 1:33 PM

Bible Man,

Please site scientific sources showing evolution as false and your Bible as true. And using the phrase "it's God's word" is not evidence. It's poor circular reasoning.

I'm willing to bet most of the story in that archaic text isn't backed up by any physical evidence.

Posted by: cam balkon | November 21, 2009 10:27 AM

who came to visit? I think, if I remember right, two such stories. One where they were sacrificed to protect angels (2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:8), and another just for protection of another man (judges 19:22-30). Oh, is this the way Christian men protect their women?