Well, well, well. Surprise, surprise. Sam Harris would be proud. I couldn’t possibly give a shit.
Madonna couldn’t, either. That’s what I’ve grown to love about her, in spite of any of her faults. The woman’s got it going on. She understands. Even Camille Paglia gets it. So let me praise the former for a bit.
In spite of my previous dislike of her, and she is very dangerous to the Religious Right, Madonna was quite obviously not the flash in the pan we all suspected she would be. She built a media empire. She has two strengths, as I see it now, and singing isn’t one of them. (She sounds sharp when she sings live.)
You can’t study with Martha Graham if you don’t know what you’re doing. Having done so, Madonna is an expert choreographer, something she put to good use in what I consider to be the greatest music video of all time. That song, incidentally, had the remarkable ability to outlast its release by twenty years. I’m not just talking about the fact that people still download it or listen to it. That happens with The Beatles as well, and their music, while timeless in one way, is very dated, just like J.S. Bach. “Vogue,” on the other hand, still sounds like it could have been written last week. Madonna can’t take all the credit. Perhaps she deserves very little of the credit. From what I’ve heard of her lyrics, she should leave it to someone else to come up with what to say.
Beyond that, she also possesses tremendous business acumen. Unlike her protégé Britney Spears, she was not handled and repackaged by corporate businessmen. Everybody probably originally thought she was, but she couldn’t have lasted as long as she has in the business without knowing what she’s doing. Spears, whose career has been in a downslide, just gets up on stage and does whatever her choreographer tells her to, singing what her manager asks her to sing, wearing what the makeup and costuming departments deal her.
Madonna, on the other hand, conceived of the idea in her “Deeper and Deeper” video of having a bunch of girls sitting around in a basement, peeling bananas while a hunky male model posed for them in his underwear. Madonna is not a misandrist.
Nor is she a misapornist. I doubt she would have stood to applaud Sam Harris in that stupid TED video. How many magazine covers has she posed for, baring her alabaster skin and smiling seductively?
I get it now, after years of agony via false guilt for wanting to watch men have sex. She got it, thanks to an abusive father and a conservative religion that did nothing to stop the abuse, nor to stand up for little Madonna Ciccone. Gail Dines, the feminist writer of yet one more big fat blatant warning against the evils of exploitative pornography, will never get it, and now has clueless allies in the conservative arena. Then again, on this issue, they’ve always been allies, but only in the way the United States ruling elite were allies with the Soviet ruling elite during World War II. For them, the only enemy worth worrying about was the Nazi ruling elite. For feminists and conservatives, the enemy is pornography, hence the new word I’ve coined: misaporno.
They hate it, hate it, hate it. I used to “hate” my desire to see what a guy’s hiding behind his zipper. Shame on me. Shame on Madonna. Shame on the photographer who took the picture, the sleazebag who runs the magazine, the layout artist, the writer who types clever captions to go along with the picture of some girl (who also ought to be ashamed) who puts one finger on each side of her labia to open it up to the man who ought to be ashamed that he’s looking at it and getting hard. Shame on all of us.
The feminists want you straight men to be ashamed that you’re degrading women. The religious conservatives want you to be ashamed because you’re doing something immoral (and to feel really, really bad, if, like me, you find yourself totally gay). Unfortunately, for feminists and their polar-opposite allies, degradation and immorality, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.
How much skin before it’s degrading, Ms. Dines? Where should the man place his hands? Where should his eyes be directed? How hard is too hard? At what point is the picture that I’m getting off on immoral, Mr. Harden? When we see pubic hair? Can the man put his hand on her waist? Clothed or bare? Can I get a hardon? Can I masturbate? If I masturbate to an underwear model, does that make the picture immoral? What if he’s just modeling BVDs? In the picture I linked to (don’t worry, straight men), his penis appears to be causing the second-to-last and longest diagonal bulge. This may give me some idea of what’s behind. If I had no access to hardcore, this would probably get me off. So is he immoral, or just me?
Both Harden and Dines, in the article linked above, express dismay over pornography that apparently shows “one nightmarish scene after another, full of men punishing and humiliating women sexually on camera.” Not only that, but “[e]very sort of bodily waste and fluid, and every conceivable method by which a woman’s body can be pushed to the limit, often at the hands of two or three men at a time, is commonplace in today’s porn.”
Now, I’ve been a bad, bad boy for a long time. I have looked extensively for mostly male-centered porn online, fairly steadily for the last seven years. Before that, I would occasionally violate God’s laws with whatever gay porn magazines I could get my filthy hands on since I was 24. And prior to that, I had occasion to see mostly straight porn (thankfully with men also displayed) a few times beginning at about 12 or 13. Would Ms. Dines say this is the reason why I’m sad and shy? So it had nothing to do with the many miniscule ways that I was hurt as a child by my parents, or the abusive government school system where I quickly learned exactly where my place was, thanks to whatever Bully-of-the-Month was in charge?
So I started with pornography at about the same time as a lot of other boys who are apparently finding it: according to this article, at age 11. And according to the above quotes, these impressionable 11-year-old boys are seeing every conceivable bodily fluid and the punishment and humiliation of women.
Bullshit. As I already said, I have done extensive searches for dick online. In all that time, I have encountered child pornography once by accident, and immediately reported it. I have never encountered it again, and that was years ago.
Furthermore, I have only ever seen one trailer for one pornographic video where a woman was featured being severely punished. Yes, there are bondage videos, and I have to sidestep those on occasion, but then again, the men and women in those videos are volitionally participating, and they were far less severe than the trailer I saw. They are infrequent, and you have to be spending a lot of time to encounter one. Beyond that, you have to actually be interested in them to be aroused by it. I think it’s disgusting. I am reminded, however, that disgust is also in the eye of the beholder.
Which leads to the bodily fluid comment by “Mr.” Harden. As far as I know, there are six bodily fluids that can be “encountered” by an eleven-year-old who is curious about what a vagina looks like and how it’s used: blood, semen, vaginal lubricant, saliva, urine, and feces. In the vast world of online porn, vaginal lubricant, saliva and semen are abundant. Are these the “disgusting” fluids? Ms. Dines probably didn’t spend much time on those, because that would be arguing against her main point. She undoubtedly looked for, and “fortunately” found, some porn featuring men peeing on women, cutting them, and/or pooping on them. I have no idea where you would find most of that, and I’m not going to bother researching it. See how easy it is to avoid?
Please explain, Ms. Dines, how it is possible for me to spend seven years of my life looking for all sorts of raunchy stuff, and I never encountered, save that one time, blood being spilled, or anybody taking a dump. Now I certainly spent the majority of my time looking for gay-centered erotica, but in all my many, many searches for straight porn, I seldom saw a man peeing on a woman. In fact, I’m pretty sure that you have to go out of your way to look for it. I’m not going to come up with any scientific data on this, but based on my experiences and those that I’ve heard of from some of my disgusting man-friends, I’m almost positive that’s true.
So how did Ms. Dines find all this stuff, and beyond that, how did she miss the bestiality angle? Those videos are out there, too, you know. Shame on her for ignoring this horrible blight on our empire. When our boys head over to the Middle East to tear other people’s babies limb from limb via predator drone, they had better not have encountered any pornography where men and women volitionally fake being cut, or where anybody gets peed on. They are, after all, doing the Lord’s work.
Speaking of the Lord, what did he have to say about pornography? Absolutely nothing, if I remember correctly. Adultery and fornication are mentioned in the Bible, but much of that is in the Old Testament. Let’s go to the source Himself and see what He has to say.
The ancient Jewish leaders brought a woman condemned for adultery and demanded of Him what they should do. In His typical manner, Jesus simply put the issue right back into their hands, just like the rich man who asked Him about eternal life, and the hypocrites who asked Him about Caesar’s taxes. He won the argument by rightly pointing out that they all had their own faults and weaknesses, then simply told the woman, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). Notice He didn’t say, “Go and commit adultery no more,” nor did He infer, “Go and commit adultery, for thou shalt learn a great deal.” The issue for Jesus wasn’t adultery; it was what was in the hearts of the leaders who almost killed the woman, and what was in her heart as well.
He did this again with the question of adultery, setting it up for Himself in the Beatitudes: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5: 27-28). Once again, Jesus didn’t say what those who claim to follow Him think He said. He didn’t say, “Woe unto him who looketh on a woman to lust after her.” He is once again saying essentially that the question is not what you should do or should not do, but what is in your head? What’s going on with you?
He did this, as I explained earlier, with the rich man who wanted to know how to obtain eternal life. Jesus, probably already figuring this little dude out based on what he was wearing, and on the nature of the question itself, gave him a textbook response, assuming that’s all his feeble mind needed: “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother” (Luke 18:20). When the young oaf persisted, Jesus threw at him an impossible task, one that He knew full well the dufus wouldn’t get: “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me” (verse 22).
From a libertarian perspective, this makes no logical sense. If entering into the Kingdom of Heaven requires that you “sell all” that you have, then that means you are giving other people things they are going to need to sell. What if you sell something to someone who doesn’t have the opportunity to sell it to someone else before he dies? The item in question therefore becomes a hot potato, and the buying and selling of such items becomes a macabre game. Think about all the incredibly prescient things that are contained in the Four Gospels. Jesus doesn’t literally think you have to sell everything and live without possessions. It is impossible for humans to do this.
Jesus is, once again, showing us that the questions he receives from his inquirers are premised upon the wrong thoughts. This young man only claims to want to return to Heaven when he dies, but his mind is fixed upon earthly things. Jesus’s answer was to point this out to him. Like most people when confronted with what’s really going on in their heads, however, the young rich man went away sorrowing.
I’d like to know what’s in the head of an 11-year-old boy who goes out of his way, and I’m pretty sure that’s what would be required, to see a woman getting her tits sliced off with a lawnmower (the disgusting trailer I stumbled on), or a man peeing on a woman. Then again, I’d also like to know what’s going on in Ms. Dines’s head, and Mr. Harden’s as well.
I have a pretty good idea. For Ms. Dines, male sexuality is ape-like, purely animalistic, unthinking, uncaring, and needs to be safely guarded. As the woman, she’ll be in charge of that. For feminists (and even conservatives), this is the function of female sexuality. (Poor Madonna.) For Mr. Harden, sexuality in general is a necessary evil for procreation and, because we get it on from time to time for other reasons, barely acceptable. He may even be one of those people who insist on missionary position with eyes closed.
Maybe not, but I see no celebration or explanation of human sexuality in that article. There is rampant misandry, misanthropy, and even a little misogyny, as any female willing to have her bruises displayed is obviously a slut. Forget about the fact that she is living on a land mass that, for all its present difficulties, still has relatively easy and cheap access to education. But what is a girl who has been thoroughly dumbed down by the schools to which Ms. Dines and Mr. Harden send their own children supposed to do?
What’s in my head? As the years go by, I get more and more information about that, and as painful as it is sometimes, as a seeker of truth, I am grateful. Do I learn from the gay porn I buy? Hell, yeah. Do I love it? Fuck, yeah! Is Ms. Dines the least bit concerned with gay porn?
Hell, no! And why not? Well, it’s hardly exploitative of women, is it? Not a pussy in sight. The woman in a straight gang bang is simply replaced by a man. Now he’s the one taking two dicks in his hole, getting disgusting sperm dripped on his face, “demeaned,” “degraded,” “demoralized.” Makes you wonder why he even showed up for the shoot.
Sure there’s disgusting pornography out there. I’ve seen it, and guess what? I turned it off! No social sanction necessary. Neither Ms. Dines nor Mr. Harden is qualified to tell me what erotica is acceptable, if any.
You want a lesson in morality? The dresses that women currently wear, that are considered modest, would have been abominable at the turn of the twentieth century. You couldn’t show any ankle. Men went ape-shit for a little of that. Years ago, in my church, one of the leaders wrote a book in which he claimed that any movie that featured passionate kissing was pornographic. That means “The Lord of the Rings” is pornographic. Maybe the Dineses and Hardens of this world will eventually get it right, but not this week, mainly because the only thing they want is an end to the thing they dislike, for thoroughly different reasons.
Bestiality, homosexual sex, pedophilia, adultery, fornication, fellatio, cunnilingus, orgies, erotica, and pornography have been around for at least as long as humanity has created marriage and the innumerable laws that have surrounded the regulation of human sexuality. I see one death-oriented activity in that grouping, and I have already explained why. I see one more that causes me to seriously question, “What are you thinking when you do that?” Yet even with that (and I’m pretty sure you know which one I’m talking about), I see no reason to get up in arms about it and write a book. The wonderful counselor on individuality, Jesus, has given us the blueprint to handle that: What is in your heart? That doesn’t appear to be a question that either Ms. Dines or Mr. Harden care very much about. They’d rather spend a great deal of effort researching the most sensational stuff that a few men are hot for, and warn us all that men in general are headed that way.
Again, bullshit. The men in those weird videos go home after the shoot, and they’ve got bills lying on the table. The women in those “exploitative” movies have the possibility of going back to school on their minds. The boys, whose parents are still stupid enough at this late date not to even consider an amazing blocking software that is totally free, are probably going to occasionally be curious, continue to satisfy it with porn, until Mom and Dad wake the fuck up, and move on with the business of being indoctrinated all day long about how wonderful our president is. If we just enact the right laws, sponsored by misandristic feminists and misanthropic conservatives, the phenomenon of misaporno will sweep the land like purple mountains and amber waves of hair grain.
How many times in a single article can I say, “Bullshit”? Pardon me, but I need to get off now. When I spew after watching “straight” rugby players discover one another in an English locker room, I’m aiming for my keyboard: the D and the H.
Note to Ms. Dines: Penises are great.
B.R. Merrick writes for “Strike The Root” and “A Voice for Men,” lives in the Northeast, is proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes, and in spite of the poisonous nature of television, God Himself will have to pry his DVDs of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” out of his cold, dead hands, under threat of eternal damnation.
Tags: B.R. Merrick, Culture, Education, Family, Feminism, Feminists, Gay, Masculinity, Media, Men, Men's Issues, Men's Rights, Military, Miscellaneous, Psychology, Sex, sexual orientation, Uncategorized, Women
37 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
4thtroika:
Rad:
Roderick1268:
db917:
FarmCat:
how does jesus feel about you and your love for cock?
Who authored this?
Sorry, by_the_sword. This was written by me. I should have attached my bio at the end.
TnT, Jesus didn’t much bother with telling people how he felt about what they thought. He turned the questions back on them. How I feel about being gay is my business, for the most part, except what I am willing to share with others, like the hints I drop in these articles.
By the way, I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus any longer, but am willing to believe that the Four Gospels are based on an actual individual. Regardless, there is a great deal of wisdom in those four books, which is why I reference them here, as offensive as some Christians are probably going to find it. My personal opinion is that Christianity is in many ways quite separate from what Jesus actually said.
Hey B.C you like small cock or big cock?? you being gay is your buisness.but you brought it up in your article.what does you being gay have to do with this site? once you make your sexuality known and open to the public.It becomes other peoples buisness.So i have the right to question you on you being gay.just like you have the right to your gayness.I dont know if that is a real word “gayness” but im using it.
TnT, my being gay has very little to do with this site, except that it is evidence of my interest in men on one level. My interest is actually on many levels, and the main point of the article, lurid descriptions and gay references aside, is that this new book against pornography is ultimately one more slam against male sexuality in general, and that it is now openly endorsed by a political movement that is hostile towards gay men and human sexuality in general. You may not like my umpteenth reminder that I like guys, but it ties in somewhat to what I’m trying to convey to my straight brothers.
And the only part of any person’s sexuality that becomes anybody else’s business is that which has been revealed. It does not mean that there can be no more secrets or details withheld. What I keep to myself about my sexuality, or any of my other beliefs or feelings, is that which I keep to myself.
You�re quite the provocateur, I like your style. My eyes glaze over when I read the religious arguments, but I suppose I�m not your intended audience. I�ve had some interaction with these conservative feminists. Their evidence is based mostly on anecdotes from crack-hos who blame men for their situation.
They portray all porno as prostitution and oppression of women. I suppose it can be described as prostitution, simply because people are getting paid for sex. Yet, men are also being paid and I haven�t found any reasonable or convincing argument that if you accept the premise that porno is prostitution and oppressive, then that applies to both men and women. Male porno actors also get paid a lot less, so I think there is a greater argument that male porno actors are being discriminated against. I don�t understand the sympathy for independent adults who are oppressed with offers of money and have other options.
There is certainly a difference between American porn/prostitution and third world porn/prostitution. I�m sure there are cases of American women who are physically coerced into prostitution, although I don�t think there is any evidence to suggest that it is the norm. Extreme poverty is certainly not an issue with any American women. There is plenty of police and womyn�s shelters available to them, so that children of abuse can mingle with crack hos (sarc). I�ve noticed that many police departments are now leaving prostitutes alone and only arresting johns. Essentially, they are viewing prostitutes as the victims of men�s money. Are they adults or children?
There was one interesting study of violence in popular porno. Initially, I was a bit surprised at the prevalence of violence and extreme sex acts (subjective opinion I admit). There was one act of violence every ~1.5 minutes. Yet, on further examination of the study, violence also included every instance of a push, shove, hair pull, bum slap, cum on face, bondage, etc.) and the response of the �victims� were ~97% positive response (they enjoyed it).
The other conservative feminist criticism is that it is teaching people unhealthy sex roles and relationships. First, pornos do not represent relationships and I think any idiot can figure that out, they are sex only. For teaching unhealthy sex roles, I give this criticism some merit, but only for impressionable children. I learned the old fashioned way of having sex with regular girlfriends and discussing what is enjoyable and not. I can imagine that if I grew up being taught by modern porno, my adult perceptions could be quite different. As an adult, I�ve learned a few things from porno, but I don�t consider it to be normal and I don�t expect such performances from normal human beings. The Joy of Sex and Kama Sutra are more informative.
The essence of the conservative feminist argument is chauvinist, implying that women are not responsible adults capable of making decisions for themselves (sex, drugs, money, etc.)
The main problem I have with promoting victimhood, especially for drug addicts, is that it absolves people of their own personal responsibility for making positive changes in their lives. I would really like Paul�s opinion on this.
The libertarian argument is also persuasive, because you can not eliminate human�s natural desire for oxytocin. If government is to be involved in regulating human relationships and sex, it should only be to prosecute criminal violence, promote healthy relationships and protect children from normalizing adult excesses.
I have pondered how much easier life would be if I were gay. I wouldn�t have to deal with princesses with an eye on my wallet or discriminatory traditional gender roles. I would be popularized by the mass media and all of the feminist misandry would not apply. Yet, I�m just not attracted to male ass or penises. To each their own in finding their own personal happiness.
Good thoughts, Denis.
I forgot to add an anecdote in the article about when I worked at a video store a few years ago. You wouldn’t believe the number of conservative-looking mothers who would bring 8-year-old boys up to the counter to rent the most disgusting B-movie horror flicks. It happened again and again. Victimhood, as you say, is far easier than accepting consequences for actions.
The hysteria drummed up over books like the one I discuss would simply vanish if parents would download increasingly effective software to block unwanted material. There can be NO excuse when that software is free, and a lot more kids would have your experience, Denis, talking with girlfriends, rather than trying to act out what they don’t understand by watching material they are too young to watch.
Thanks again for your comments. I was worried that I was too provocative, forgetting most straight men’s stomachs for explicit gay references. I’ll try to curb that in the future. Maybe.
Also, Denis, you reminded me of another gay blogger (who shall remain nameless) that sang the praises of gay porn, right up until a female (re: feminist) reader contacted him to remind him of how “exploitative” porn was to women. He quickly changed his tune and became very deferential towards her point of view. That doesn’t fly with me. Exploitation in porn, or anywhere else for that matter, is entirely up to individual valuation. If gay men can have fun starring in porn, then so can straight women.
“how does jesus feel about you and your love for cock?”
I don’t think Jesus would appreciate you bringing up his name in an attempt to embarrass and shame someone. In fact, I’m pretty sure he would be far more disgusted with you than any so called “cock love” that takes place between two consenting adults. Obviously your intent was not to bring up Jesus out of love, but malice. I would seriously meditate on that. You used Jesus for an act of evil. Try to defend yourself instead of asking for forgiveness and you shall reveal your true nature.
“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
-Jesus Christ
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
-Jesus Christ
“Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. ”
Jesus Christ
“Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ”
God the Father
“Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, AS WE ARE. ” emphasis added
Jesus Christ
“Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ”
Jesus Christ – notice the go and SIN NO MORE part.
“Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
Jesus Christ
“2Ti 3:1-4 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; ”
Paul the Apostle
I put this up here not to judge but to teach. People don’t like being told that they are doing wrong. Don’t believe me? Ask the women of this country. You tell them their behavior is unacceptable and they will try any tactic in the book to avoid that little voice in the back of their heads from speaking. They spend years beating it into submission and don’t like us giving it new life.
So take this in the spirit it was intended and not the assault I’m sure many of you will see it as.
“Tit 2:11-14 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”
Joseph, how am I not supposed to take Leviticus 20:13 as an “assault”? This is a very popular scripture with the anti-gay marriage crowd, and states quite explicitly that I should be executed for liking and sucking dick.
As much of a fan of Jesus’s teachings (for the most part) as I am, as an individualist, your impressive scriptural knowledge does not convince me that The Bible is anything more than a collection of ancient Jewish stories, history, and myth, which it so obviously is.
When Christianity can explain what it can give to an ancient Chinese slave, whose life was spent in squalor, thousands of miles away from the nearest Jewish prophet, a slave that died long before Jesus ever arrived, or even another of “God’s children” that lived thousands of years before the existence of the first self-described Jew (and thousands of years before Adam and Eve), then your argument will have perhaps half an ounce more weight.
“Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. ”
Jesus Christ
Who is this directed to?
“Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ”
God the Father
Woh. Your quoting God? Did God tell this to you, or the bible? If you want to argue that the bible is the pure unsoiled word of God, then we need to step the debate back some before we can move forward.
“Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, AS WE ARE. ” emphasis added
Jesus Christ
So your saying the prior quote from God is really from Jesus? That means any word uttered in the Bible might as well have come from Jesus? Therefore the Bible is infaillible. Again, we need to step the debate back a few steps before we can even touch on the homosexual debate.
“Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ”
Jesus Christ – notice the go and SIN NO MORE part.
We would need to establish that homosexuality is a sin or any worse a sin than any of the many sins all people commit everyday?
“Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
Jesus Christ
Old Testament scriptures? Then we are fucked. He obviously wasn’t talking about the New Testament. He wouldn’t of known about them coming into existence or what they would say exactly. Or did Jesus predict the future with that one? Did he predict the future with such specificity in other parts of the Bible. I didn’t know he prophesized so much. Oh yeah, he didn’t.
“2Ti 3:1-4 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;”
Paul the Apostle
Paul ain’t Jesus. Fuck Paul. Who the fuck is Paul? Paul ain’t fucking Jesus. If it didn’t come from the mouth of Jesus then they are just words to me of no more value than if they had been said by my neighbor.
I put this up here not to judge but to teach. People don’t like being told that they are doing wrong. Don’t believe me? Ask the women of this country. You tell them their behavior is unacceptable and they will try any tactic in the book to avoid that little voice in the back of their heads from speaking. They spend years beating it into submission and don’t like us giving it new life.
So take this in the spirit it was intended and not the assault I’m sure many of you will see it as.
“Tit 2:11-14 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”
Are you arguing Homosexuality is a life beyond redemption or that we are judged by our good deeds and not our faults.
I’m confused by the overall message of your quotes. Maybe you could flesh them out more with your own words? What is the gist that you are getting at?
Teach me. I have a lot more questions.
Hey jabbermouth. “judge ye not.unless ye want to be judged.” dont be throwing out scriptures to me, mack.We are all sinners.and i questioned B.C on how jesus thought about his sexuality.I put it the way i put it.who are you jabberlips, to be prancing around preaching to people about their sinful ways.do you walk on water? I say not. as for jesus…what i know about jesus in the gospels..is he was the kind of person(god.if you believe in the divinity of jesus)who didnt judge.He didnt judge the women who was caught in adultry.He just reconized the flaws in her as well as the rest of man and gave them(mankind)a better way to live.He wasnt shy in telling people about their ways.If jesus is big enough.then he shouldnt be bothered by some petty remark that i said about him and cock.Only mankind would be so bummed out on something like that.and why are you defending B.C? are you both lovers?
Being an Atheist, I have, I suppose, a sort of detached perspective on scripture. But I am quite impressed with the story of Jesus, and his life and lessons. What strikes me most, however, was that Jesus spent almost all his time delivering a message that his followers failed to understand, which is why anything quoted from the apostles falls short of my attention by a good measure.
And what I find most interesting is that what most people do is listen to the apostles, quote them, rely on them. These are the same people that Jesus spent his whole ministry telling them that they didn’t understand jack shit.
People are funny, I guess.
And sometimes not. TnT, I started to delete your comment when it came up for approval, but I knew by letting it stand it would serve to teach a greater lesson.
So let me make something very clear. We don’t shame men here, not for being gay or straight or any other thing they choose to be, or were born to be as men.
Now, I agree that B.R.’s writing is provocative in a forum like this. And I even found myself cringing a couple of times. Still, had the submission just been a diatribe of gay sexuality without a cogent theme that is applicable to the struggles that all men face, then I would not have approved it.
The fact is that the shaming of our sexuality is a men’s issue, and I don’t see any need to confine that to just straights, though I don’t want to dwell on the lurid particulars.
I would like to ask you, TnT, if you like big pussies, or little pussies, smelly or fragrant, shaved or hairy. I would like to ask those things, but the truth is that I don’t give a flying fuck about your taste in pussies. And I don’t think your identifying as heterosexual should be considered a license for such moronic queries.
Lastly, you ever want to post here again, show some fucking respect. You don’t have to agree with people here, but I am going to insist that you don’t just fly in here like a seagull, flap around a lot, squawk, shit on people and then fly out.
And I could care less if you or Jesus likes it.
The last thing I am going to add is some more scripture, NLT version. It always seems to be left out when people use the bible to shame men for being gay.
God’s divine word on selling your daughter as a sex slave.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
More evidence of divine love
You are my battle-ax and sword,” says the LORD. “With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. “As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem,” says the LORD. “Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy,” says the LORD. “I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
If you want to toss God’s word at people, then let’s bring more of it and the explanations for it that should come with them.
But actually, I have a better idea, why don’t we respect our religious differences rather than use our beliefs to try to control the men here?
@ B.J.
Thought you might find this interesting.
http://www.bibleprobe.com/chinese.htm
There are several site dedicated just to this topic. I can look up more later if you are interested.
@ Jaber
Very basic premise. Jesus claimed to be God. Which means it’s Jesus’ finger that wrote the ten commandments and Jesus told Moses to write down that little something from Leviticus. Jesus didn’t approve of homosexuality. God called it an abomination and Jesus claimed to be God, so we can infer the same from him. There’s a baseline on what Jesus thought of this particular sin.
Secondly, you assume that all sins are treated equally. While it is true that any (and I do mean any) sin can separate you from God, at no point in scripture does it say that all sins are equal, just that they all lead to death.
Third point, the law was not that homosexuality was wrong (that was just reality), the law was that we have to stone those people for it. There were two sets of laws in the Old Testament, one was arc welded by God’s own finger onto two tablets of stone (this was Jesus if you take him seriously, I do), and the rest was transcribed by Moses into a book after hearing God speak it (again Jesus by his own admission). Read Colossians 2:14 and here it says that the handwriting was removed by Jesus. The book of Leviticus is no longer law according to Colossians (written by Paul who was chosen by Jesus). The ten commandments stand, but the book was removed. Therefore, we no longer have to stone homosexuals. God will deal with their punishment, not us. That however does not change the fact that a punishment is coming (again if you take Jesus seriously, which I do).
“Are you arguing Homosexuality is a life beyond redemption or that we are judged by our good deeds and not our faults. ”
My intent with the above passages is to show you that Jesus, by claiming to be God, considers homosexuality to be an abomination and a sin by default. The trick EVERYONE seems to miss is that Jesus will forgive IF YOU REPENT. That means you ask for forgiveness and go and SIN NO MORE. I don’t want B.J. to be condemned by God, and God will forgive him, but he can’t live in sin and have forgiveness. He has to walk away from it. The whole have your cake and eat it too syndrome. This is the process of salvation that you read about in scripture. You can screw up, but you have to ask for forgiveness for it and mean it! Go look at David for a great example of this. Constantly sinning, but genuinely repenting and walking away from it when he did.
Fourth, Jesus chose Paul to preach in his name. Just go read Acts. Paul met the guy. You’ll get the jist.
“Try to defend yourself instead of asking for forgiveness and you shall reveal your true nature.”
Walked right into that one, didn’t you.
@ Paul
Please don’t take this as some sort of hate speech on my part. B.J. makes an open declaration of his lifestyle here and I intend to do the same.
Also, I have some thoughts on the NLT, that’s why you’ll only see me quote from the KJV on here.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Suffice it to say that God has no problem with slavery as long as the slaves are treated with respect. We on the other hand do have a problem with slavery. That says more about us than about God as far as I’m concerned.
You are my battle-ax and sword,” says the LORD. “With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. “As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem,” says the LORD. “Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy,” says the LORD. “I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
Exodus 20:1 and following. God pulled himself a people to call His own out of Egypt. He treated them differently. He gave them special accord and loved them above other nations. He makes no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. That gift has been offered freely to all after Jesus came.
Also, if you decided to live among the Israelites and worship their God, then you were welcomed among them.
Leviticus 19:33,34 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It’s open to all. I am just here to make sure that you all hear it.
@ Jaber
Walked into nothing. Your arguments are as empty as your faith. White wash on a wall of sand.
You obviously don’t get it and don’t want to. I’ll be sure to ignore all you say from this point forward on the subject. What good is a gold ring in the snout of a pig? As proverbs says.
“…which is why anything quoted from the apostles falls short of my attention by a good measure.” Same here, Paul. (Not the apostle, the Elam.)
And Joseph, I’m so very glad that God decided to stop stoning us. I promise that I’ll start believing in Jesus again next year, when I’m done having fun. And I find this quote interesting: “That gift [God's special preference] has been offered freely to all after Jesus came.” So what about the millions who lived before Jesus came?
Your link to the Chinese characters is very interesting (bit of a Sinophile here), but part of what’s important is this: “Yet the Chinese language — predating the Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written by at least 700 years — records this fact [sic] in perfect detail.” There is a slight possibility that this means the biblical history of the world is true, but only very slight. It is far more likely, given the difference of 700 years, that the ancient Jews modified existing myths from neighboring areas to their own religious purposes. There is just as much evidence that this is the case:
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Jewish_mythology#Contrasts_with_pagan_mythology
@ B.R.
Read what I just posted to Paul E above. God chose a people for himself. Offered salvation to them and any who would join them. It was His choice not mine. I just took Him up on his offer to me. As for you, I earnestly hope you do. I’m not here to condemn you, but according to what I believe your blood would be on my hands if I didn’t say something.
Well, then, Good Lord, Joseph, it’s a good thing you said something! I’m glad my future stint in hell won’t be your responsibility.
@ Joseph,
For the record, I do not view your words as hate speech. What I do think, though, is that any attempt to judge other men, indeed all of mankind, based on the standard of how you personally interpret scripture is not the same thing as just asserting your lifestyle.
I look at it this way. Often here, we confront feminists with demonstrable facts in the face of their lies. As a result, most of them have the good sense to scurry, like a cockroach into the shadows when the lights are turned on. For the ones that stay and repeat drivel, refusing to acknowledge facts presented to them, we have the FAM page for banishment.
But the whole thing is predicated on our reliance on empiricism, and their reliance on dogma.
Religion is much more about dogma than empiricism. That does not make it bad, IMO. And I have often taken issue with other atheists who spend their time bashing Christians just for believing what they believe. But like some other atheists, I some times take issue with people holding out scripture like it was taken from and M.I.T. text, as though anyone is wrong for not believing it.
When that happens, I have essentially the same reaction that I do when someone spouts feminist doctrine and acts like I am deficient for not being a “believer.”
Religion is a personal choice, and one that brings fulfillment to many good people, but it is not, in my opinion, a universal “how to” on life that should be used to tell people that they are wrong for thinking or believing differently.
It is a pointless division, just like being “anti-gay” in a world of men who already have too many divisions.
That, respectfully, is my two cents worth, but continue on as you please.
@ Paul E
Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Jesus Christ to the Apostles
Like I told B.R. you guys can do what you want to. I can’t stop you, but If I’m right, there will be trouble for it later. And that’s straight from Jesus’ mouth.
@ Paul E
I certainly understand your points above. You don’t have to believe as I do. I’m just putting it out there for guys like Jaber and B.R.
@ B.R.
You won’t be in hell for forever. The Bible doesn’t teach that regardless of what most Christians believe. It simply says you will be consumed in the fire and then no more. I know that doesn’t help, but it won’t be eternal torment, contrary to popular belief.
Thank God! That one had me perplexed. The chocolate chip cookie I was eating almost dropped out of my mouth!
@ B.R.
Like I said, I know it doesn’t help, but we all got our choices to make. You obviously made yours, so I’ll leave you alone with it.
Yeah, I am familiar with the threat.
Here is a piece of my own scripture.
I would rather burn in hell than worship a petty, vain, shithead of a god that would create such a place and send people there for what was in their minds.
@ Paul
Like I said, we all got our choices to make.
@ anybody
“Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ”
Does this apply to prison rape victims? Anybody?
@ keith
lol, no. Consensual is the problem.
Yes, Joseph, and since anyone writing or commenting here has not likely been living under a rock their whole lives I think we can fairly assume that they have heard the “believe like I do or suffer hell” routine about a thousand times.
I can only hope that most of the Christians that visit here don’t decide that everyone who says something not meeting their personal religious standards needs a pious and condescending lecture, or worse, a shopworn threat about damnation.
“as he lieth with a woman”, doesn’t imply a state of marriage
doesn’t imply consent by the woman, could imply seduction, could imply rape
could imply that the seduction of males in a submissive role is wrong
could imply that raping a man is wrong
@ Jaber
“Very basic premise.”
-Things are always best when they are left simple. Lets see if you stick to that.
“Jesus claimed to be God.”
-Jesus claimed to be one with God. Everything is one with God. God is everything. Does that make me God? I’m very familiar with the passages you are referring to, but I’m not going to do your work in a debate, so please show them to the audience so that I can respond directly to them and not your interpretation of them.
“Which means it’s Jesus’ finger that wrote the ten commandments and Jesus told Moses to write down that little something from Leviticus. Jesus didn’t approve of homosexuality. God called it an abomination and Jesus claimed to be God, so we can infer the same from him. There’s a baseline on what Jesus thought of this particular sin.”
-Wow. That’s a bold statement to say that Jesus is God and God was the direct author of the Old Testament, thus Jesus was the direct author of the Old Testament word for word. I never heard Jesus claim to have written the Old Testament. Are you sure you’re not just putting words in Jesus’s mouth. Jesus probably wouldn’t like that very much, but I’m sure he forgives you. If its true what you say, then Jesus must be contradicting himself then when he goes on to say…….
Matthew 22:37–39 (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Matthew 22:40 (NIV)
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
“All the law and the prophets “HANG” on these two commandments.”
-Does “hang” imply supersede, or cede to and submit. Surely if the Old Testament’s laws are infaillible Jesus wouldn’t have expounded and added to them during the Sermon of the Mount. I mean, they were already perfect beforehand right? Like when Jesus wrote them… the… FIRST? time by your logic. But wait, if Jesus wrote them the first time, why didn’t he make them perfect then? Are you saying that Jesus makes mistakes?
“Secondly, you assume that all sins are treated equally.”
-No I do not. You assume that I assume that all sins are equal. Jesus did prioritize his laws. Let me see where he said that….Oh yeah……
When someone asks Jesus, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” (verse 36), He replies, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment” (verses 37-38). The most important thing we can ever do is to love God completely.
“While it is true that any (and I do mean any) sin can separate you from God, at no point in scripture does it say that all sins are equal, just that they all lead to death.”
-So the result is equal, even though the sins aren’t? Man the bible is confusing. I wonder if Jesus meant for it to be confusing? What do you think “teacher”?
“Third point, the law was not that homosexuality was wrong (that was just reality),”
-Now you are defining reality to me. So humble, so Christ like. Reality changes.
“the law was that we have to stone those people for it.”
-Shit, with laws like those, why’d we ever need Jesus?
“There were two sets of laws in the Old Testament,”
-I thought we were keeping this simple? Why not just one set. Is God not capable of being concise?
“one was arc welded by God’s own finger onto two tablets of stone”
-That’s not what Santa Claus told me. Seriously, miracles!? Your “evidence”, your “logic”, your debate tactic is to throw a miracle at me?! Well shit, speaking of miracles, Jesus appeared to me just this morning and said I would be debating a bible thumping, self-righteous poopy-head later today. My miracle beats your miracle.
“(this was Jesus if you take him seriously, I do),”
-I don’t think you do. Not even close.
“and the rest was transcribed by Moses into a book after hearing God speak it”
-Did God’s finger get tired? Sooo many questions I have.
“(again Jesus by his own admission).”
-Quote please. Don’t be lazy, this is Jesus your trying to speak for.
“Read Colossians 2:14″
-Done.
“and here it says that the handwriting was removed by Jesus. The book of Leviticus is no longer law according to Colossians (written by Paul who was chosen by Jesus).”
-Woh, Woh, Woh! This is getting complicated. Good thing you are here to walk me through it. So what you are saying is that some stuff in the bible overrides other stuff in the bible? The word of God/Jesus, or can I just call him Gosus, wouldn’t contradict itself, would it? How could perfection be wrong? Man, my brain hurts.
“The ten commandments stand, but the book was removed. Therefore, we no longer have to stone homosexuals. God will deal with their punishment, not us.”
-So why are you doing God’s work for him. Does he need your help. I’m pretty sure your just fucking things up for him. I’m pretty sure people reading this will be less religious than before, but you’re the teacher.
“That however does not change the fact that a punishment is coming (again if you take Jesus seriously, which I do).”
-Spooky. Jesus scares the shit out of me. Is that his intent, since you seem to understand his intent so well. I mean, your making me look like an idiot, and I’ve never even read the bible all the way through, just the good parts. Gosus gets long winded sometimes. You’d think the master of parables would have kept shit more simple for us common folk to understand.
“Are you arguing Homosexuality is a life beyond redemption or that we are judged by our good deeds and not our faults. ”
“My intent with the above passages is to show you that Jesus, by claiming to be God, considers homosexuality to be an abomination”
-Abomination? Ouch. Gosus must have really been asleep at the wheel to allow such an abomination as gays to transpire (or he has a really weird sense of humor. I’m betting Gosus is funny as hell…..he’d probably like my jokes if I believed in him.
“and a sin by default.”
-Default. Why did he not address this “abomination of a sin” directly. Time constraints? Why didn’t he just make an 11th commandment to clear this all up for us? Oh yeah, his finger got tired.
“The trick EVERYONE seems to miss is that Jesus will forgive IF YOU REPENT. That means you ask for forgiveness and go and SIN NO MORE. I don’t want B.J. to be condemned by God, and God will forgive him, but he can’t live in sin and have forgiveness.”
- How does one intend to not be something that they were born to be? Or do just the ones who choose to be gay burn in hell for all eternity. (Jesus is ruthless. I guess he doesn’t have to turn the other cheek.) Fine, gays who were born gay don’t need to repent then. BR, are you choosing to be gay, or did God make you that way?
“He has to walk away from it. The whole have your cake and eat it too syndrome.”
-That is the worst use of a colloquialism I’ve heard all day.
“This is the process of salvation that you read about in scripture. You can screw up, but you have to ask for forgiveness for it and mean it!”
-Yes, Jesus is the great “Get out of hell card” we’ve all been waiting for. BR, you might want to repent on your death bed. Since you’ll be scared shitless of actually dying, you’ll probably mean it. Thats when I plan on repenting.
“Go look at David for a great example of this. Constantly sinning, but genuinely repenting and walking away from it when he did.”
-If he was genuine, why’d he fuck up so much. Fuck David to. I don’t think anyone in the bible stacks up to Jesus, but thats just my opinion. What’s yours?
“Fourth, Jesus chose Paul to preach in his name. Just go read Acts. Paul met the guy. You’ll get the jist.”
-Its probably a test to weed out all the literalist who would rather trust the words of a faillible man who claims to speak for Jesus written down 2,000 years ago by another faillible man (Luke was it) than trust in their own heart and soul and the common sense that God gave them. I mean, the bible has got to be true because it says its true, right? Do you really think Jesus is terribly worried about a bunch of men who are born with some crossed wires in their brain that makes them want to have sex with each other, or is he more concerned about the pain and suffering that good intentions inflict upon the poor, meek, and downtrodden?
If people knew 2,000 years ago what we know now, being gay would not have been condemned by the culture and it sure as hell wouldn’t have been condemned by Jesus himself. Use some common sense. Jesus wouldn’t hate someone for the way they were born. But maybe I just don’t get it.
“Joseph
August 26th, 2010 – 01:09
@ Jaber
Walked into nothing. Your arguments are as empty as your faith. White wash on a wall of sand. You obviously don’t get it and don’t want to. I’ll be sure to ignore all you say from this point forward on the subject. What good is a gold ring in the snout of a pig? As proverbs says.”
That wasn’t directed at you, the above post was, but thanks for the Christ like insults. He’d be proud of you blindly lashing out like that.
“Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
-Matthew wouldn’t have any self-serving reasons to say that Jesus said that, would he? I’m sure the Apostles never pulled the I speak for Jesus line in all there debates. Not once. They must be perfect just like Jesus! They are Jesus! It ain’t the holy trilogy, its the holy dodecagon! Now that’s simple!
Jaber on. Jaber on.
Jabberwocky, you’ve got your man on the canvas, his nose thoroughly bloodied. Time to let him up. You won.
I’ll be here for the long haul. Jesus would want me to figure this stuff out. My soul is on the line. What’s a curious mind that seeks the truth to do? I just have so many questions. I hope Jesus will forgive me for wanting evidence and proof that the bible is 100% true. I am such a horrible person. Maybe even evil. I’m definitely a smart ass. I wonder what level of hell is for the smart asses.
Sorry.
@jabber (not a direct quote but close enough to the idea)
Christ said to his disciples, go into the towns and villages and speak the word of God. But lord what shall we say?
Don’t worry about screwing it up there will be a book and brochures to follow.
Jabber I agree to the extent that scripture inspires more questions than answers about myself. I’m not about to serve condemnation to anyone, it’s not in my job description. Jesus said so.
@ B.R.
“Jabberwocky, you’ve got your man on the canvas, his nose thoroughly bloodied. Time to let him up. You won.”
Right, I stated above. Jabber isn’t worth the time. I’m not sure you guys even read the post.
@ anyone
When did I ever say that Jesus wouldn’t forgive you? It’s not me condemning you, it’s you. Jabber has read only enough scripture to get confused. As for evidence, I suggest you start with a man named Ron Wyatt. Lots of good stuff there, like chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea.
@ Jabber
If you read what I wrote earlier, there are no levels to hell. It’s a one time event and then you are gone. Done. No more Jabberwocky unless you want to repent. That’s between you and God. I’m not even part of the equation. I’m just here to let you know where to look. You claim to want truth, Jesus said he was the truth, and if you look for him you will find him. You obviously aren’t looking very hard.
I wonder what level of hell is for the smart asses.
The same one I’ll be sent to. Good to know I’ll be in good company Jabber. I’ll pack extra goodies in my hand basket.
Kidding aside, giving the Bible a true read does raise more questions than provide answers as does simply researching church history. How many schisms have happened? How many different denominations exist? How wild are the differences between this denomination and that?! And the many theological questions as well. Christianity made perfect sense to me until I dared to ask questions , read through the Bible myself for the first time, and also read beyond what was published by fundamentalist and evangelical publishers. Then the questions came, the sorts no clergy will answer but instead just tell you to believe and have faith, to trust the Bible not the “flawed human mind”.
@ Hestia
What questions? I’m curious to see what they are.
As for church history, I would highly recommend a man named Walter Veith. It’s very interesting.
@Joseph- I’m not willing to share any of the deeper, more personal questions but will offer two:
Why does God care more about the length of American Christian womens hair and the fact that women are to wear skirts/dresses only while He lets thousands of Christian children in the Third World die from preventable diseases and starvation every day?
Why is is supposedly more biblical for me, as a woman, to sit at home and scrub the toilets yet again when the food bank downtown is in desperate need of volunteers? Will I really have to account for my volunteer work as if it were a sin and poor use of time after I die?
“Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ”
I think the problem is in the translation. When the book says “lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman” are we talking lie as in lie down in bed or lie as in “No baby, your ass does not look fat in that dress.” Because the second exampe is a bit of an abomination in itself.
@ hestia
Fair enough – no prying
1) While it is important (from a Christian perspective) for women to realize they were made for man and not the other way around 1 Corinthians 11:7, and that a woman should covet her body 1 Timothy 2:9. It is not more important than those children, but important none the less. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a nit-wit. The question is really do you believe God is just going to let it go on forever and not set it right one day, or do you believe he will set it right and you should work on what he has given you control over? The diseases and starvation are entirely preventable even from a human stand point. Legislation, greed, hatred, desire for power have led to all these things and God will make them right. He has promised to wipe every tear from the eyes of His people after this evil has reached the end of it’s appointed time Revelation 21:4.
2) What moron told you this? Both are worthwhile causes as long as you are working with all your heart for God Colossians 3:23. Any Christian man worth his salt would encourage you to help the homeless/poor, but it’s up to you to decide where the line should be drawn. Both are Godly endeavors if done for God. Plain and simple.
Sure is a lot of God bothering going on in this here thread Today.
I’m sorry I thought this was Men Rights, Do we need a God bothering page like the Feminist-Mangina one we currently have?
@ BR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
Why are you attacking me paul.I wasnt the one who brought up jesus and the bible.it was jabberhead.why dont you say the same thing to jabbathehut about his jesus preaching. and to correct you on your LONG ASSS!!!!! comment.I am not here to attack any of the men here.I asked a question to B.C about his sexuality in his article.You sure came to his defence when it came to his sexuality.makes me wonder… I have comb your site for awhile before i made any comment.once i made a comment about B.C,you were there to write your fancy little letter telling me all about myself.you got a hard on for me.is there anyone else in here you want to complain to about cracks they make.just leave it alone.Im asking questions.if this is a mens site.then we can ask men anything.cause men can take it.women are the one that act all huffy when you ask them a question.But paul,your acting like those women.Unless i asked you a question,that got your panties in a bind,then you got no room to be poking your little head into this.were men,RIGHT!!! we can vent here.ask questions heres.fuck with each other.have fun.right??
I guess what paul elam is saying…THIS IS A WOMEN BASHING SITE!!! NOT A GAY BASHING SITE OR RELIGOUS SITE!!!!! cry!! cry!! cry!! I love bashing women.because i have been taught to respect them.But there are other groups that i have been told to respect.So i bashed them too.Like that sean moor guy said in one of his comments…”men arent perfect either” Sorry i hurt your feelings paul.sorry you had to pick me out OF everyone else,to “school” me on how to respect men.I am sorry.so sorry.(not as a humen)
How about just sticking to the topic, without making personal attacks on people because of their religion or sexual preferences.
This topic is about “porno” and conservative opposition. Religious arguments are only relevant to believers.
Funny bits, keith!
Joseph-
We may not understand each other, but we are on the same side. I’m sure this will not be the only time we encounter each other. Eternity is a long time not to cross paths again. We’ll compare notes then. Jesus liked to debate scripture as well after all. Thanks for your….purity of intent. Thats what counts in my book…. well, I don’t have a book…but you know what I’m saying.
Sencerely,
Jabber the Hut (I’m stealing that TnT. I always wanted a slave Leia.)
Go right ahead,jabby.steal it.I am not bothered one bit.I too want a slave leia
@ Jaber
No offense was taken last night. I just decided you and I weren’t talking from the same dictionary and decided it would be best to let it go as any mutual understanding on this subject would not be a reality. You appear to follow some combination of gnostic and panentheistic teaching so I just called the game before it got going. As far as men’s rights issues go, you and I are just about level on that subject.
Peace (I too would like a slave leia)
@Joseph- I appreciate you taking a moment to share your thoughts on those two questions.
The very fact that you are yet another person sharing in wildly divergent interpretation of Scripture only affirms much of what is troubling with Sola scriptura. (I mean that in a pleasant way, not snarky. Hard to tell online!) The people who taught me the above lessons shouldn’t be insulted or thought poorly of but are looking at Scripture and coming to different conclusions. Take the hair as covering issue. Some say women can’t cut their hair. Others say that a headcovering must be work. Some more liberal Christians say that was a verse that no longer applies and should instead be left in time and place during which Paul shared the teaching. The first two views can easily be justified by Scripture, so who is right? A purely rhetorical question as I do not wish to hijack this thread further than has already been done.
As for #2, Titus 2 is where such a teaching can be found, the talk of the “keeper at home”. Many fundamentalist and IFB churches in particular take this verse to mean women must stay in the home and forgo both paid employment and volunteer work out in the world. Some take this a step further and teach that women mustn’t earn any income, even from home enterprises, despite the very contrary examples given in the passage about the virtuous wife of Prov31. (FWIW 1 Timothy 2:9 offers guidelines that are also against Prov31 when you consider the virtuous wife was clothed in tapestry, silk, and purple.)
I sincerely doubt there will answers found for most of my questions in this lifetime but that’s okay as the journey is more important anyway.
I look forward to “seeing” you around in the future.
I too wanted to f@#k leia
Ah yes, the right is righteous because they have god, the left is righteous because they have no god, but you are the most self righteous because you have the middle ground. Do I about sum up your thinking?
Cassie, I’d say you were off by about a mile. I would explain in this reply, but I’ve already explained it far better in the article itself.
@ Cassie,
To sum up anything around here you would have to be able to add two and two- and get four. And I can tell from the flurry of your posts here this morning that this would be too much of a stretch for you.
I have approved all your comments, but I now refer you to the Feminist and Mangina page. I do my best not to censor here, but I do want the drivel posts in the drivel department. Please confine any future statements you might have to that page.
The rest of the site is for those that can practice intellectual honesty.
After reading this article.I am reminded of that scence in “animal house”.where kevon bacon is getting paddled on his ass. where he is being converted in the clan,screaming…”THANK YOU,SIR.MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!?! THANK YOU,SIR.MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!?!”
“You appear to follow some combination of gnostic and panentheistic teaching so I just called the game before it got going.”
Very nice! I knew I liked you. That very much nails me (throw in evolution as the engine/hand of God and bake at 350 and we’re done). I’m impressed so much I’m smiling. Did you get that just from this debate or have you read some of my God rants before over at The-Spearhead? The fact that you pulled out my Gnostic understandings is most impressive as I didn’t really get into that at all. Now I don’t want to stop talking with you. Oh well, I’m sure God will come up here again later.
Sorry, TnT, I don’t go in for spankings. Contrary to what you presume, this article was the most difficult one yet for me to submit, knowing that straights have a lower tolerance level for explicit gay references, and that a great many politically correct or religiously conservative types might read it. All in all, I’m thus far satisfied with the results regardless.
I have no interest in being part of any fraternity that would insist on humiliating me first.
I didnt mention anything about my sexuality.Are you presuming im straight? You sure jumped quick to hammer this to the straights.You got an inferior complex? you have a negative outlook on straight people?
Sean,
I’ve yet to see any attempt at an intelligent argument from you. You jump to conclusions and insults without even bothering to explain yourself.
That is intellectually dishonest.
I give more credit to most of the feminists that have put forth arguments here.
“I didnt mention anything about my sexuality.” Neither did I, TnT. I was referring to the majority of men who visit the website. And I am not talking about feelings of inferiority, I am talking about the sometimes difficult process of standing up for what I believe in the face of opposition, but thus far, on this article, knocking down opposing arguments has been easier than knocking down dandelions.
@ Jabber
Sometimes you just know what is going on inside a person without them telling you anything. The panentheism was plainly obvious, and the gnostic was an assumption I made about your inquisitive nature. All gnostics are very curious people. They spend their lives searching and more often than not only do it because they enjoy the journey of learning. I got that impression off of you and just threw it out there.
@ Paul
You really are just attempting to insult me based on…yup nothing. I really am sorry, you came close to getting your point across with me but undermined it with inconsistencies, that are without a doubt intellectual dishonesties.
Also telling somebody that disagrees with you that obviously must be stupid is so overdone I don’t know who it would bother.
Seeya
Thankfully pornography is too big a business to be troubled by feminists and the religious right.
When I first started looking at porn, I loved it because I got to see naked women in the comfort of my home. Now I love it because it pisses off feminists.