You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Christianity’ tag.
Even Jebus thinks you are bug-frak crazy.
Christianity is the religion that keeps on giving. By “giving” I mean keeps on festering. Christianity exudes an oozing rancid pus that encrapulates and taints those exposed to its toxic effects. Dogmatic religious beliefs, like those espoused by Christian Patriarchy, are the putrefying ichor that rots modern secular society.
Pleasantries aside, this is probably one of the worst things you will read all day. I’m going to re-post a article from No Longer Quivering about Matt, a young patriarch in training, and his thoughts on the role of women in a traditional christian family. Trigger warnings for domestic violence, misogyny and homophobia are mandated for such piece.
The Red Pen O’ Snarky-Justice is raising an uproar that cannot be quelled, and thus, my commentary shall appear in red italics lightly treading on the wide trail of fail Matt leaves behind him.
“It’s possible that Matt is a troll and his comments should be ignored or deleted – but his arguments are not at all unlike the “biblical” beliefs which I heard taught/preached regularly during my Quiverfull days. I am assuming Matt is a young man based on his immaturity and know-it-all attitude – of course, given that patriarchs rarely grow up, it’s possible that he is an old man – maybe he’s the pastor of an IFB church.
So, without further ado – here’s Matt:
“I take it from your post that you are dead set on fornicating, although the Bible tells you not to do that.
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [and the bible, like all religious delusional nonsense, is full of shite]”
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.[Ownership of one human being by another is a fracking aberration. Claiming that it is endorsed in holy scripture doubles down on the bullshite and vile misogyny omnipresent in the bible.]”
“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.[translation: Smile while you take your abuse as the bible says its okay, hell, you should be thanking me for letting you fully enjoy your noble roles as incubator, house slave and fuck-toilet]”
You are mistaking voluntary submission with involuntary servitude. As a Christian lady you are commanded to be subject to your husband, it is asked of you to submit. It doesn’t say “men, oppress your woman to all costs!”[I command you to voluntarily submit – this like most christian apologia has a sickening circularity along with a dash of guilt – witness the next sentence]. As a Christian woman who claims to believe in the Word of God, which is inspired/breathed by God, your Creator, is it alright for you to dismiss what that Word says? [Because god is such a fair (ordering genocide) and noble (endorsing slavery) creature, we should trust this derranged lunatics words to the letter – you want to be a properly deluded christian right?]
Matt, if if smells like BS...
A woman surrenders to a man so easily when he takes charge [Being afraid of being beaten to death will do that]. That is the danger of having a matriarch with a man in subjection. The woman indeed is the weaker vessel, tossed to and fro, giving in to whims, and judges things according to her motherly instinct [**swoosh!!** Wow, did you hear that it was sound of women being dismissed as fully autonomous human beings possessing all the rights and freedoms men have, embrace being a second class ‘semi-person’ ; it can be fun because possessing as lady brain automatically makes you retarded] For instance, she would say sodomite couplings are lovely, because love is blind [Funny how woman = love = stupid]. A man who is not of God would say “I don’t care, to each their own”, but not mention love in the equation.
A man of God would not even let a sodomite in under his roof or in the vincinity of his children!![Except in church, because being buggered as an alter boy is a holy experience, praise the lard for that!] Let me tell you something, love is not blind![Wait, didn’t you just say it was like a sentence ago?] Even infatuation is not blind. But infatuation and love are two different things. Love is a choice. Hate is a choice [Word Salad is a Choice!]. I will hate the wicked and their deeds [some dude was saying something about turning the other cheek – ya know tolerance and stuff, but I digress, religious are fundamentally intolerant and Matt is doing just a spiffy-awesome job at being a douche-nozzle for jebus at the moment] Yes, hate.
Furthermore, sodomites hate God, and infiltrate churches to spit in God’s face [projection much?]. You might say, “sodomites love each other, so what’s wrong with that”? I love my siblings, does that mean I have sexual relations with them?![ah, the gentle conflation of incest with same sex relations *sigh*] I love men, as brothers. I love women, as sisters. But by God, there is only one person I take sexual pleasure in[mentioning the palm sisters in a godly rant, Matt really is all over the place on this one…]! Love is not sex. Learn it, woman.
So, if you’re a Christian woman, your God that you supposedly love, tells you to submit and be in subject to your husband in every thing[huh, god was a 
misogynist asshat too, colour me shocked]. Am I a jealous man? Every man of God should be jealous! Just as God is jealous, and wants us only to worship him[my goodness you are a special snowflake aren’t you cupcake, you get to be a jealous abuser because god says so, convenient].
And why am I jealous? Because the woman is the weaker vessel[citation needed, and ‘god says so’ is his magic book does not count], and evil men who have acknowledged this takes advantage, to defile you [because explicitly calling women inferior and infantilizing them isn’t defiling them at all].
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.[whoa shields up! Unfounded pontificating incoming!] 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; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth [I’m going to assume that Douche-twaddle is referring to men that are not patriarchal misogynists who don’t actually want to enslave women].”
I’m telling you, there’s a lot of weak vessels, silly women, out there, who ungodly men lie in wait for. Am I controlling for keeping my woman away from these evil men? Then so be it. Yes, I am in control, but I love my woman enough to grant her freedom of thought and expression[as long as it completely agrees with my frakked up shite filled point of view; there fixed for ya]. She is as intelligent as I am, but still the weaker vessel, due to her willingness to surrender and submit to a man who takes charge [so she’s evil if she does not submit and then she is also evil because she does submit, this like the rest of your circular bullcookery is half-baked, nutty-rotten religious hatred of women].
Matt says pretty fracked-up-shite here and needs a photo to break the wall of text and add luminosity to Matt's solemn pronouncements.
Ask yourself, how many men adopt the interests and beliefs of their wives [just the ones that care about their partners thoughts and feelings and want to share as opposed to dominate their lives]? None. How many women adopts the interests and beliefs of their husbands? They are in abundance[because you beat the ones that don’t submit, you dastardly fuck]. It is clear that a woman submits to a man who rules her, even to the point of abuse, I’m sad to say[the christian Dark Ages are calling, they miss you]. Therefore a Christian man is told to love his woman as himself. What man would abuse himself[most patriarchs don’t; they save the beatings and abuse for their wife and children, duh?]? He may abuse drugs or alcohol but not himself.”
Wow. Deep-breath….*whew*. You’ll need a shower after immersing yourself in the rectum-orious musings of ass-spittle like Matt. Religion is an ugly piece of work and of course as mentioned around here from time to time, rotten to the core. The sheer amount of hate for women turns ones guts sour.
Christian patriarchy, like all fundamentalist wack-a-loon religious fappery, is fundamentally anti-woman, anti-child and anti-modern (anti-civilization, while we are at it) paternalistic bullshite. This branch of the christian death-cult ranks up there with the crazy Muslim sects that demand the burka and female genital mutilation from their woman-folk (cultural artifacts/religiously backed…your choice, it is still patently wrong).
How we let the religiously sponsored abuse of Women continue to exist in the so called civilized West is beyond me.
By far the most awesome depiction of christian moral values/struggle - featuring oversimplification, binary thinking and mythical figures .
For a group that so often harps on (and on and on) about having access to an – pardon me, “the” – objective moral standard, christians have some pretty outrageous double standards when it comes to ethical behaviour. What the christian god does, and is called all good/loving for, would be considered monstrous if done by anyone else.
Some believers may claim that god is a special case, that because of his infinite nature, the same rules don’t apply. Those rules are only for us mere mortals. It’s as if those who use this claim don’t really understand what ‘objective’ means.
If the morality of an action applies differently depending on context – whether Entity A does it or Entity B does it (god vs human), whether it was done in Time X or in Time Y (old testament era vs new testament era), etc. – then it is NOT an objective moral rule. It is a relative rule.
Anytime theists say something like “that was OLD testament, things are different now because of Jebus,” they are admitting that their “god given ethics” are really the worst kind of moral relativism with a little Hocus-Pocus sprinkled on top.
Alternatively, some christians say instead that nothing their god does could possibly be considered monstrous, and
Christian Morality: a hearty thumbs up to Slavery but no to HomoSex, how divine.
the best thing any person could do is emulate the fantastic yummy goodness that is their deity, as much as is possible by us finite beings. My immediate reaction is to rant about the million and one things attributed to the christian god that are about as far from ‘good’ as one can get (examples 1 2 3). This will usually result in the believer switching to the first position addressed in this post (claiming relativism), or dodging the issue by pointing out some happy part of their text (which is dealt with here).
Despite these theistic tactics being flawed, they still distract from the actual topic at hand, allowing the believer to forget their arguments have been obliterated. Then the dance starts all over again.
So instead, today I would like to highlight a more fundamental part of christian dogma, one not so easily shrugged off. Here is yet another fantastic video from DarkMatter2525 showing what it would be like if firefighters “saved” people the same way Jebus does.
Inconsistent standards disqualify christianity from any claim to objectivity, while burning/torturing/killing “not saving” non believers disqualifies it from any claim to morality. This “god” is nothing but an evil and fickle tyrant.
All too frequently when the horrible/insane/incoherant practices/beliefes/consequences of religious dogma are pointed out, one hears responses that try to dodge the point rather than address it directly. One of the most common of these dodges takes this approximate shape: “Why do you even bother? It’s not like religious people ever do anything harmful in this day and age. And if they do, those harmful actions are never based on their religious beliefs. You’re obviously just full of hate for people not like you, so I now get to disregard your point.” Typically, believers will also throw in a reference to some other part of their religion’s teachings which sounds nice and lovey dovey. Can’t have a problem with lovey dovey, can you?
First, I want to stress that this IS a dodge. It doesn’t matter if I happen to be the most hateful person on the planet or if the idea I’m attacking isn’t currently held by anyone alive today. Nor does it matter that Belief Y is a good one, if we are discussing Belief X. In rational discussions, one must challenge the actual points presented. It is meaningless to quibble over the context around them or to focus on something else. Plunging your head into the sand is not a valid reasoning technique.
Alternatively, one could concede the point and admit that said dogma/practice/belief is indeed horrible/insane/incoherent. Then you could start a second discussion to try to argue that the dogma’s despicable nature doesn’t influence the world in any meaningful way. While this would be acceptable, it’s rare that a theist is will allow that any of their core religious ideas are either loathsome or inconsequential, much less both.
Much more likely, the theist will refuse to return to the main topic until this non-sequitor is dealt with. In either event, I would like to share ProportionalResponse’s reaction. The suggestion that religion today is harmless would be laughable, if it wasn’t so spirit-crushingly sad. Here is a link to the full image, should you wish to study it more carefully.
This dodge neither reflects reality nor addresses the topic actually under discussion. It’s a cheap diversionary tactic of the desperate and/or lazy. Users of this dodge may leave, give their heads a shake, and come back when they’re ready to say something meaningful.
Theramin Trees a youtube author made a series of videos in response to the following questions.
This three-part series looks at:
1. What I believed when I was a theist
2. Concepts for gods I affirmatively believe do not exist
3. Concepts for god I believe to be unknowable
The first video, a trek into the author’s beliefs is fascinating as it is a tour of how his conception of the christian god evolved over time and where TT came to the conclusion that there was no God and that was the most reasonable hypothesis to hold given the current information.
Stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow. :)
Not so much of the unveiled hate we’re used to this disservice, but more of an exploration of the hoops people will jump through to keep their chosen godhead happy. This video is about growing up in a fundamentalist christian household and the demonstrably evil toys that were not allowed stain one persons childhood. One can never be too careful as we all know that Care-bears are the direct line to Satan.
My Little Pony is apparently hell on wheels as well. Behold!
Finding out that many religions are paradoxical is like making the discovery that there happens to be chlorine in salt. Looking at the basis of the christian god it is obvious that not one, but several paradoxes are required to make sense of who or what he/she happens to be.
Like many religious arguments that end with, “I feel it in my heart” or “I believe it to be true” the following needs be added to the lexicon of say nothing evasive responses -“OH, its supernatural…” Watch darkmatter 2525 probe the depths of this topic.
Why all the hate on christianity? We get often get that question here at DWR. Here is a little sampling of why we take christianity and religion in general to task. Short version: religion is bad for you and those around you.
I’m feeling a bit under the weather, and brevity will be the theme of the upcoming posts, but then I stumbled on this gem of a video from the Living Dinosaur. Seeing that it would fit in nicely with today’s theme of how repulsive religion actually is please enjoy TLD’s take down of a popular creationist nutbar Casey Luskin. It’s long, but entirely worth your time.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…