You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Religion’ tag.
How does one win an argument with another that doesn’t accept the basic tenets of reality. Recently over at Violet Wisp’s blog the religious element was once again taking the moral low road on abortion and left with trying to explain how their religion was explicitly “pro-life” when in fact their magic book is, in fact, pro-abortion. You can go over and read the thread yourself here, but I’ve screen captured the parts that I want to talk about.
Observe what is going on here. JZ is attempting to establish a coherence in what christian dogma demands and what its believers actually say. This of course won’t be pretty.
The hell? Just answer the damn the question. I mean this should be a slam dunk for a true believer – the bible is god’s word – this should be elementary stuff.
Oh, I see. Rather than admit your book is wrong, you obfuscate. Why all the smoke and mirrors? Here is my theory:once you admit one tenet of your religion is invalid the rest of the contradictory bullshit that you conveniently look past, will hit you squarely in the brainpan. Religious world view destroyed – welcome to atheism.
But it looks like CS has chosen Plan B: Evasively confabulate until you have to flounce from the thread because no one is accepting the rhetorical squirrel-farts that serve as the basis for your defence of your contradictory and indefensible arguments.
I think we can let John Stewart summarize the results….
Religion treats people like shit, the further away you are from the white male ideal, the shittier your deal will be. The recent anti-choice propaganda wave in the US caused enough whinging in wordpress blogosphere that I felt compelled to wrestle with the full-blown stupid that is the anti-choice position. .
.
I went to this saintly dudes page and left my usual inflamatory comments – women are people, they have rights et cetera – the mind-blowing stuff that makes the zealots wail and froth.
.
.
But rather than approve my comment, this dipstick emails a response to me because apparently, tainting his blog with reality is just a touch beyond the pale for his religiously addled sensibilities.
We’ll spend some time going over this condescending POS’s response.
.
.
“I offer a few responses (with the disclaimer that my words are not at all said with malice or ill-will, but with blunt plainness) to your comments, particularly the ones, that to me, seem to be emitting an abundance of hypocrisy:”
.
.
Oh you just know this is going to be good and chock-full of projection, and of course, Full Bonus Points for a mansplination of why teh abortion is the evils for the womenz.
.
“Any sex men or women engage in should be within the bounds of husband and wife, legally and lawfully married.”
LoL-forever. And all time spent by teenage boys on the internet is time spent listening to the heavenly music of the spheres and praying to god. Are there any other idealized states you’d like to discuss as if they were relevant to the topic at hand?
“Obviously there are additional purposes of sex than procreation alone, such as strengthening the relationship of husband of wife and expressing love within that marriage; however, procreation is certainly one of the main purposes of sex and that should not be taken lightly.”..
Ah yes, and in this ideal world men only wish to engage in sex to make babies. Why not? Unicorns also exist in this world, and fairies too!
.
.
“You seem to think people should be allowed to kill children that are unwanted simply because it is easier to let people do that than to teach them proper moral and values; I think you should put a little more effort into seeking the moral option and not the easy way out.”
Ah, there we go. Let the anti-choice false equivalency begin. It is so typical of the pro-slavery crowed to make this fundamental error and then proceed to base their entire ‘argument’ on it.
.
.
A fetus is a fetus, not a child. It has none of the rights we give to born children. So, let’s not go into hypotheticals because you are really terrible at making them jive with reality. (He will, of course, but first we need to be offended about his sky-daddy not being afforded the proper respect.)
.
.
Predictably, whiny-pissbaby gets all up in arms because I dismiss the patriarchal religious bullshite angle he goes for in his post. My comment first, then his.
[Me] “LOL. Religion has been oppressing women since its inception. Maybe citing a book that is famous for its murder, rape, and genocides isn’t the best source to strengthen your case?
Cherry picking your favourite bible verses to make a ‘point’ is about as useful as spitting into the wind, or pissing up a rope. Your choice.”
—–
“Again, I find it very hypocritical that you dare say I am ‘cherry-picking’ bible verses when you scoff and ‘lol’ at the very idea of religion. It couldn’t be more obvious that you haven’t read the bible or other religious text in any recent time, if ever at all; so you have no ground to stand on in saying I ‘cherry-pick’ verses”
Oh hey there cherry picking is what you fucking zealots do to justify your shitty claims about reality.
Ah, christianity, so moral, so ethical. Thank god for the bible…
Let’s take a peek at what the bible says:
“The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).”
Daaaaaamn son. You step back now and think about owning up to the bullshit in your magic book before you get all out of sorts about being called on your cherry-picking. Of course being held to a truthful standard is going to get more painful as this email continues…
“Also, try to remember that America is a Christian nation.”
Holy LoL-copters Batman! America is a secular nation and is founded on the belief that church and state should be two separate entities, although do feel free to keep pining for theocracy.
“Over 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so the scripture verses I quote mean a great deal to most people and greatly affects their decision-making processes.”
Billions of horseflies love eating shit, should we also embrace the luscious poo-banquet ideal just because so many do it? Bad ideas are bad ideas – how many people that endorse said (bad) ideas is irrelevant.
“It would be an extremely arrogant prospect to think that you are personally wiser than 86% of the world’s current inhabitants, as well as the billions of people who lived before now, that all came to the conclusion that there is most certainly a God.”
Most thought the earth was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe and knew fuck all about germ theory. Why I’m not accepting their ‘wisdom’ shouldn’t be that hard to piece together. What is more troublesome and more pertinent to the discussion is the fact that *you* do and you seem to be proud of that fact. This is officially Scary-Unhinged-Stuff to those of us who inhabit rational land.
“You appear to identify with the 2.4% of Americans who don’t believe in a God, or the 14% of the world who don’t believe in a God, and that is your choice, but don’t for a second assume that because you personally do not or have not found the value that scriptures hold or found a relationship with God, that others are also unable to find those things.”
Less than two-shits, I say, is all I care about identifying with other people when it comes to living a world based on rationality and evidence rather than superstition and myth. Hey it’s great you have a relationship with your sky-daddy, I hope he tucks you in and changes your nappy at night and gets you warm fucking milk – but believing in bronze age mysticism in the 21st century is no badge of honour. It is about as noble as admitting that yes indeed, you have fart-beans for brains and any coherence you manage to display is just a sad accident.
Dude finally gets back to why autonomy and women shouldn’t mix. Thank you, kind readership, for not glazing over yet the sheer amount of religious-wordfap is positively stultifying.
“According to bodily autonomy, a mother could not be judged harshly for smoking, drinking, doing coke, and going skydiving (hopefully not all in the same day) while 6 months pregnant. If you really believe that a woman’s body is autonomous — that she has absolute jurisdiction over it — then you must defend a mother who does things that could seriously harm her unborn child, even if she hasn’t chosen to abort it.”
Why yes. That thing with breasts and arms and a brain and stuff is not just a walking womb. It is almost like she is human being deserving full human rights and autonomy. But we should get on with your important reasons on why women should be brood-slaves.
“Most pro-aborts will not (vocally) defend abortion at 8 or 9 months. But — if bodily autonomy is your claim — you must. Is a woman’s body less autonomous when she’s been pregnant for 35 weeks? There is no way around it: bodily autonomy means that it is moral to kill a fully formed baby, at seven months, or eight months, or nine months. You say that our bodies cannot be ‘used’ without our ‘consent.’ “
If you believe that women are people then yes, it is her choice whether to remain pregnant or not. You may begin to clutch your pearls now.
“Why should this apply only to pregnancy and organ donations? Children, at any age, create profound demands on their parents’ bodies. Whether it’s waking up in the middle of the night for the crying baby, working long hours to pay for their food and clothing, carrying them around when they cannot walk, staying home when you’d like to go out, going out (to bring them to the doctor, or school, or soccer practice) when you’d like to stay in, etc, etc, etc, and so forth. “
Hmmm…well this might be a complicated answer for you, but when the fetus is in the woman’s body it is her choice whether to keep it or not. Once born, the exclusive use of a mother’s body is over and thus other external actors can care for the child. So yah, I hope you’re not going the false equivalence on top of a false equivalency argument. Let me review your first fail and append the second that I just bet you’re going for – because this is a long article –
1. A fetus is not a child
2. Before birth and after birth are functionally different states.
“An argument for absolute bodily autonomy means that it can’t be illegal, or considered immoral, for a parent to decline to do any of these things, so long as their decision was made in the name of bodily autonomy.”
Game, set and Match?? Hmmm… Apparently you are that fucking dense. Way to try and compare apples to octopuses. Parental responsibilities to their children (because they are born now, separate entities) are not the same as a woman’s pregnancy. [meta thought: The fact that this needs to explained is troubling.] [meta-meta thought: Arguing with the religiously deluded is like trying get a close shave with a banana.]
“If I can ‘do what I want with my body,’ then it becomes very difficult to launch a salient moral or legal attack against a man who chooses to sit in a playground in front of children and pleasure his own body. I’m often accused of oversimplifying, but I’ve never oversimplified to the extent of you bodily autonomy proponents.”
This shit is rock-solid argumentative GOLD! If you ignore context. And reality. And the structure of good arguments…
“Once we’ve considered every complexity and nuance, we can rightly say that our bodies are autonomous in some ways, and in some circumstances, but not in others. We cannot say that they are absolutely autonomous, and I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that.”
Because apparently fapping in public is the same issue as whether a woman is a incubator slave or not. OH religion! You are sooo silly when you try and talk all rational and stuff.
Here comes some amazing reasoning. Just let it wash over you, like toddler up-chuck.
“Any claim or responsibility placed on me, automatically includes a claim and responsibility on my body. Everything I do involves my body. I am my body. CS Lewis would say that I am my soul and I have a body. I agree with him, but for our purposes in this discussion, leaving souls and spirits aside, we are our bodies. Whether we are expected to pay taxes or drive the speed limit or provide a safe and sanitary home for our children, we are using our bodies to meet these expectations. We experience and participate in life with our bodies. Absolute bodily autonomy is inexorably linked with personal autonomy. If my body is autonomous, my person must be autonomous, and if my person is autonomous, then my very existence is autonomous, and if my very existence is autonomous, then it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.”
1.*Le Sigh* – CS Lewis.
2. Taxes and driving the speed limit – social constructs not autonomous obligations.
3. “ it is simply unacceptable and (by your logic) immoral for anyone to expect me to do anything for anyone at any point for any reason.” – Free will; what the fuck is it?!?!?
This argument seems a little to pat to be coming from your typical anti-choice zealot. The ‘gotcha’ at the end is, on the surface, compelling, but only if don’t worry about the little things – burden of proof, arguing charitably, et cetra.
“If you concede that we ought to be expected or even required to do certain things, then you are placing limits on our bodily autonomy. If you place limits on our bodily autonomy, then you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy. If you are admitting that limits can be placed on our bodily autonomy, then you must consider whether abortion falls within or outside of those limits. And here’s the rub: if you contend that abortion falls within the limits on bodily autonomy, you must justify that belief beyond simply reasserting our right to bodily autonomy.”
Wow. The knock down argument of the day….*sigh* This ‘argument’ was lifted from another anti-choice douche – Matt Walsh. Of course, it is bullshit and refuted in full here. I’ll reproduce the conclusion – meeting copypasta with copypasta. The next quote from the Daily Kos article:
“And again, Matt’s got his burden of proof all wrong. It’s not up to pro-choicers to prove that a woman should be able to decide when and if she will be pregnant. It’s up to pro-lifers to prove that she shouldn’t – because that’s their position. When people say that a person’s right to free speech should be curbed in relation to inciting mass panics, we can (and have) present(ed) good reasons as to why this is the case. When we say that a person’s right to bear arms can be curbed if that person is a violent felon, good reasons have been provided. When we tell Matt’s masturbating man to stay away from playgrounds, we have good reasons for limiting that use of bodily autonomy or expression. But Matt is alleging that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy should be limited inside of pregnancy; and every bit of evidence he provided for that is nonsense that crumbles under the slightest honest scrutiny.
I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to limit my free speech; the person trying to do the limiting has to prove why it’s right. I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to take away my ability to make my own medical decisions; the person trying to take that power from me has to prove that it’s right. I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to incarcerate me; the person attempting to do so has to prove that it’s the right choice. And I don’t have to prove that it’s wrong to limit my choice to be pregnant or not; that falls to the person trying to do the limiting.
Though the burden of proof is on him, Matt didn’t prove his case.”
So, my religiously-deluded-christian-pro-patriarchy-hack, funtime is almost over. The christian fart-beans you shat out – cheekily masquarading as arguments – have been humanely put down and thus, the religious shit-show is concluding…
“I mean you no ill-will and I fully support your right to an opinion, I simply hope that my comments have shed some light on the weak foundation your current opinion stands. I wish you the best and hope you will come to see truth in its proper light.”
Umm…your comments had shed light on where your arguments are coming from: straight out of your ass.
The authors here at DWR have a mean atheistic streak. There is no denying that. I mean we have a whole day of postings that deal specifically with religion and the goofiness that ensues when you allow magical thinking into your wheelhouse. My readership mostly knows that believing in religion is seen by most rational people, a character flaw at best and a reason to make funny and derisive comments at worst. It is obvious how toxic religion is to critical thinking, progress (social and otherwise) and advancement of the human condition (see the religion/patriarchal ‘love-in’ for instance).
We Atheist types know this.
We have the truth on our side (*grins*), yet it matters not a whit to those firmly cocooned in the oily grasp of religion. Explaining exactly where their belief system fails and importantly, why it fails, consistently fails to provoke the ‘ah-ha’ moment of realization in many believers.
It would seem that some truths are more inconvenient than others and thus are easily ignored, talked around, and even outright dismissed when arguing.
I know the justification for continuing the pwnage of the religious and their arguments – the lurkers following the arguments might get an opportunity to see a point of view outside their faith and the thin sliver of doubt might creep into their consciousness and the process of embracing living life in this world can begin. Woo-haa!
We can chalk up another win for Atheism!
But how come it almost never feels like a win in situ? I’ve spent a great deal of keystrokes arguing with the religious – mostly charitably, sometimes not so charitably, but the local outcome is almost always the same. Thanks for your opinion and the neat arguments – excuse me while I catch up on my prayers to jebus now.
Meh.
I think there is a bigger problem that religion. Religion has its moments of putting all of humanity at risk (looking at you nuclear Middle East solutions) but you know what is really killing us? State supported neo-liberal capitalism and the “fuck you, I’ve got mine” ethic that goes along with it. This ideology is systematically grinding societies, the climate, and ultimately our future into dust. Is being the last to draw breath on a ruined planet that much of a privilege? I mean the elites that run our system our well insulated from the reality that they create for the rest of us, but eventually, they too will have to bow before the forces they have unleashed.
Knowing that elite will also suffocate in the shithole they’ve created is a cold Pyrrhic victory – it is the only assured outcome if the status-quo remains the same.
*sigh*
Maybe I need to focus on the christians that espouse the prosperity gospel – two birds with one stone and whut not.
I was going to preface this post with a Captain Stupid character but I found that the outright level of stupid going on here required a (much) higher rank in the Hurr-Durr Legion to properly accommodate the conditions being described. The leaders of the ulta-orthodox Belz sect in North London eminently qualify for Admiralty in the Legion. These antediluvian bags of douche recently deployed a fatwah against women who have the audacity to drive cars with the “immodest” goal of… it is almost nigh unspeakable… yet intone it I must… (*screwing courage to the sticking place*) – taking their children to school!!!! (!).
“The Belz, who originated in Ukraine in the early 19th Century, are an ultra-Orthodox sect who follow Haredi Judaism.
Leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Belz sect in north London wrote to parents saying “no child will be allowed to learn in our school” if their mother drives.
Women driving “goes against the laws of modesty within our society”, it said.”
Furthermore:
“The letter, which was signed from the “spiritual management” of Belz institutions, said: “There has been an increase in incidences of mothers of our students who have begun driving cars, something that goes against the laws of modesty within our society.”
Well, well, well. Here we have, once again, patriarchal religious bullshit fucking up women’s lives. Ostensibly in the pursuit of modesty women, already tasked with r
aising their children and domestic duties because it is their god mandated role, can’t do the car thing because that might give them airs about independence or freedom; certainly anything that detracts from their roles as broodmares and domestic servants must be against God.
I knew this was going to be a pithy article when I saw the Ultra-Orthodox in the title because as soon as the religious attach the word ‘Orthodox’ to their particular school of magic – you know horrendous things are on the way. On the downside, treating women as chattel is only Level One in their quest to construct a broken religious society.
These regressive dolts embrace ignorance with the mightiest of aplomb.
“An emphasis on studying the Torah has led to concerns that Haredi boys are leaving school with few qualifications.
Men often continue with their prayer studies after marriage, rather than seek work, and those who do have employment have been affected by changes in traditional occupations, like textiles.
As a result, poverty and deprivation tend to hit Haredi households hard, and there’s evidence that Haredi areas in Hackney, for example, receive higher than average rates of means-tested benefits.”
So the focus of their education for dudes is to think-fap on their magic book until they are useless to themselves and the rest of society. Care to guess who has to work in the real world and make real money aaaaand still be the domestic servant? And of course, living in a secular society means that the rest of the population has to pay for their religious bridge-to-nowhere-educmacational-bollocks-regime. Never, not even for one minute, should you consider religion to be a positive force in society, these yahoos exemplify the bulk-stupid that most religions bring to the societal table.
“[…] from the Belz community, a spokesman said it never intended to “stigmatise or discriminate against children or their parents”.
It said: “We are proud of what we stand for and we do not feel the need to excuse ourselves for our deeply held beliefs and staunchly maintained way of life.
“It has withstood the test of time and is not prone to the vagaries of passing fads.”
Counterexample time!
It was not our intent to stigmatize colour children by giving them their own drinking fountain and forbidding them to use the one labelled ‘Whites Only’ – because intent, like their religiously-addled ‘declarations’, are fucking magical.
I cast a cynical eye toward a belief system that is evaluated and venerated on the single condition of being ‘long-lived’. The Bubonic plague has withstood the test of time as well – checkmarks of goodness to be dispensed for all…
The extra-sad take away from this is that these religious misogynists, by enforcing the ban on women driving their kids to school, has created a what is essentially a nightmare scenario for British legislators.
“This goes to the heart of what is a fantastically difficult problem now facing the government in drafting a counter-extremism bill that protects against extremism, but also safeguards religious freedom.
Earlier this year, Home Secretary Theresa May defined extremism as “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
It throws up the question, is a religious ban on women driving active opposition to the British value of individual liberty? And how do you square that with the other British value of mutual respect and tolerance for different faiths and beliefs?”
The above is worth an entire post unto itself just to document the outrageous pretzel-bends secular lawmakers are undertaking in attempting to deal with this religious foolishness. Invoking the religious tolerance idea for misogynistic practices that are clearly antithetical to a secular society seems misguided to me. But that, as stated, is another debate.
Let’s close instead with a statement from the high-admiral shitlords themselves:
“The statement continued: “In an effort to formulate these guidelines the issue of women driving cars became conflated with broader issues which we intended to address. “
They know.
You don’t release baffle-gab press releases like the above without not knowing.
How could they not know that the stupid shit they are imposing on women and children stinks all the way up to their imaginary heaven. Once their nuclear-grade stupid hit the Press and the rest of secular society, it was rightly called out for being pure Dumbonium, their only recourse is to hide behind the thin mantle of ‘religious tolerance’ and hope the attention of the public wanes from their self-created sewer of misguided religious tomfoolery.
And there we have it folks – religion once again attempting to lead society away from civilization and modernity.
Many thanks to Intransigentia for bringing this lovely story to my attention.
It’s been so long since Theramintress graced us with one of his well reasoned, BS busting videos. Sit back and enjoy 22 minutes of erudite commentary that, as usual, demolishes arguments believers have about their very important magical beliefs.
Usually we get to watch loopy christians say loopy stuff in support of their sincere belief in magic here on the the Disservice. Not so much fun today as we are going to look at how belief in magic can warp the moral fibre of people into condoning rape and the abuse of women. Let’s visit our new shitstain friend over at Christian Husbands.
[ed. I’m almost done and I really need to put a trigger warning on this post because this depraved example of humanity has written a how-to manual on how to dominate and rape your wife all the while being at one with with the loving christian god. This dude plumbs the depths of atrocious human behaviour and morality with the robotic smiley certainty that only absolute religious belief can bring about. Consider yourself warned.]
“As Christians who embrace God’s Word as the guide for our lives, we know that the Bible condones sex ONLY within the bounds of marriage.”
For an all powerful being god sure seems to be obsessed with sex and sexuality. I’m thinking the all-father has no fracks to give about human procreation, priests and clergy though, do have a rather large stiffy when it comes to controlling their flock.
“Our culture’s acceptance of pre-marital sex has been one of the major contributing factors to the decline in marriage, and the rise in cohabitation rates.”
You see, my dear fuck-witted christian misogynist, that is a load of shit. Dudes have been procuring copious amounts of sex from women outside the godly bounds of marriage both before and after the “sexual revolution”. So your problem isn’t premarital sex or cohabitation, it is the unseemly idea that women have choice and free will when it comes to choosing a relationship and their mates.
You know, sort of exercising the type of freedom men have had since day one. This sort of base level expression of female humanity and autonomy – fucks with your shit – and now I sense you’re going to attempt to justify how awesome it was in the good ole days when men were people – and women were not.
“Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”
Or why get angry and frustrated by vapid christian stupidity when there plenty of other worthwhile causes to spend one’s mental resources on?
Good question, but usually it is the unseemly mix of ignorance, callous piety, and genuine disregard for ethical behaviour that flips enough switches for your moral homunculi to say ‘jumping frog guts, batman! – this amount of aberrant stupid is intolerable – battlestations!
Let’s get this front and centre. Women are not chattel nor are they animals in the sense that they can be bought and sold. Women possess the same level of humanity and autonomy that men do. Our society is sloooooooowly starting to get the idea that we don’t have a second class of people (women). Retrograde biblical shit-lords like BiblicalGenderRoles (BGR) want nothing to do with respecting women and autonomy; especially women outside of their patriarchally approved gender prison.
“I can hear it now – “What about those boys! This is not fair that all the pressure is on the women”. Yes the Scriptures command BOTH men and women to not engage in sex before marriage, and yes they did speak to us as young men about being godly men of integrity, about being gentlemen. However, if you examine the Scriptures closely, you will see that God places the greater burden on the woman to refuse the man. “
The first rule of misogyny is to blame women for the crummy behaviour of men. Quelle surprise! BGR is already going there, let’s watch and see.
“In the Old Testament law, a woman could be executed for not being a virgin when she was married, whereas there was no such punishment for a man that was not a virgin. I realize this goes against our modern “gender equality” ideas, but the Bible supports no such notion.”
Well, looky here! My magic book supports my misogyny because 2000 years ago people treated eachother horribly. We should replicate those norms because they happen to benefit me! Of course…Shitlord goes for broke and continues with the bovine/human female comparison…
“But once you have bought the cow, you ARE supposed to get the milk for free
One of the problems we face today in the Christian community (but it certainly is not limited to Christians) is that often times, even after we have waited, and “bought the cow” (married our wives), our wives expect us to “buy the milk” as well. I recently wrote a post responding to a Christian teacher’s false belief, that in marriage men do in fact have to “buy the milk”(earn sex), even after “buying the cow”(marrying a woman).”
BGR is all about the marital rape. We will now turn to his ugly rape apologia backed up, of course, by those sterling ethical standards found in the bible, for the rest of this episode. If you were ever wavering on the idea that ‘religion poisons everything’ please continue reading and your doubts will be assiduously quelled.
“A quick word on the “cow analogy” before we continue – in no way am I meaning disrespect toward women, or saying that cows are somehow equal to women, or that women are less human than men.”
What is truly abhorrent is that BGR, the High Christian Shitlord of Asstainistan, is aware that he is making an odious comparison. He has enough comprehension and remains of a moral compass to see what he is saying is wrong and hurtful to others. Watch what happens in the next sentence.
“But Biblically speaking, a wife does belong to her husband (men paid a “bride price” and one the terms for husband in the original languages of the Bible is “baal” which means “owner or master” (e.g. Proverbs 31). I Peter 3 says “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord[master]“.
Did you see that?
Right there.
Right Fucking There.
That is how toxic religion is to ethical behaviour. I respect women, but my magical religious supersede any moral compuntions I might have and therefore she is not human and not equal, but rather she is property and thus should be treated as such.
(A small break while I gather my words and my amygdala calms down, lets look at some kittehs.)
Kitteh’s wonder how this dude can be so evil.
We’re always pointing out how crazy and terrible ISIL is with their savage acts against humanity, yet we have the exact same suspension of moral rectitude happening here for the exact same reason. Religious belief. It cannot be more starkly clear than what just happened above.
But hey, we need to get back to more biblical justification for immoral actions! Wheee!
“The fact is, in marriage, neither the husband, nor the wife, should have to earn sex. While husband’s denying their wives sexually is a problem sometimes, the vast majority of the time it is the wife denying her husband. Ask any pastor (and I have many pastor friends) and they will confirm this. Ask any marriage counselor, and they will confirm this as well.”
The fuck? You mean that woman are not machines you put kindness coins into until sex comes out? Unpossible!!! !!!
“But there is a difference between flat out denial, which some wives are guilty of, and a woman making her husband earn sex (but both are equally wrong). I once knew a Christian couple, where the only way the man got sex from his wife was when he did the dishes and picked up the house. For other men, it might be buying flowers for your wife, or taking her out to dinner. Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think it wrong for a husband to do these kinds of things for his wife, but these things should NEVER be a prerequisite to sex.”
Shitlord honestly believes that women should be subordinate to his penis. You fucking cave dwelling toad – women including your wife owe you exactly jackshit when it comes to sex or anything else. Your insidious world view precludes the idea that women are human beings that have say as to what happens to them. You don’t want a wife you want an obedient fuck-toy to take care of you and your important man-problems and now that women are realizing that submissive rape-toy is not their only role in life you are throwing a herculean mantrum because your ‘peen haz a sad.
You, DGR, are a pathetic, immoral, excuse of a human being, deserving of nothing but scorn and disdain. I happen to have lots of both on tap Shitlord, so lucky for us and bully for you.
“The sinful sexual pattern of modern women
Husbands listen to me, engaged men please hear me. There is a pattern that takes place in a lot of Christian marriages (and non-Christian marriages). At the beginning of the sexual relationship between a man and woman (which should begin after marriage, but sometimes it sinfully starts before marriage), women will give their husbands all the “free milk” they want. She lets him “taste the goods” so to speak.”
Oh, here we go speaking of patterns we’re about to set up the blame women for my important man problems (again).
“But not long into the marriage, the milk is no longer free of charge, it now comes at a cost. That cost looks very different from woman to woman, but there is a cost of some sort. For some Christian men, it might simply be household chores, for others it is buying jewelry or other gifts. For other husbands, it is making a decision the way their wife wants it, but they do not think is best.”
You mean that she probably has your children and house to tend to now and doesn’t have the energy for yoursexy times any more? Completely shocking that she has no energy after dealing with the kids and then going to work, and then coming home to the second shift, that she has no gas left in the tank to worship your ‘peen.
Breaks are required.
BGR you are a regressive antediluvian ass-clam. Access to pussy is not a fucking human right. Look down. You see that weird dongle at the end of your right arm – its your hand and magically, if you need to release your sexual desires it is just a rum-tug-tuggle away; as a special bonus you don’t need an oppressed class of people to help you do that (unless you are categorically pants-on-head retarded, which I suspect is the case).
How BGR writes is a special treat because he always says something absolutely terrible and then manages in the next paragraph to say something even worse. It must be a special power granted only to those of the Christian Shitlord persuasion.
“What all these different prerequisites have in common is, they require a man to transfer his God given authority over his home, his children, and his wife and yes even his wife’s body to his wife. Only if they do the bidding of their wife, will she give them “the goods”.
Repeat after me Shitlord – “My wife is not my property, she is not my fuck-toilet, she is a human being who has the same rights and bodily autonomy that I do, she “owes” me NOTHING”. In the paragraph above you are contemplating that fact that if you treat your wife as a human being you can’t dominate her and own her like slave. Not having a slave is making you and your ‘peen sad.
From the rest of us who still retain their moral compass: You, Shitlord, are a monster. Know that.
“How to stop this wicked pattern
For you engaged men, or newlywed husbands it will be much easier if you spot this change in your wife and nip it in the bud right away. If you allow this pattern to go on for years of marriage, it only becomes harder (but not impossible) to break. Whether you have been married 6 months, or 6 years, the fix is still the same.”
Shorter Shitlord: How to crush my wife’s spirit and humanity (this was so much easier when it was okay to beat women into submisson) and turn her into the fuck toilet you deserve. (Spoiler: The bible says its okay!!!)
“When your wife tells you “If you do ___________ for me, then I will do that for you”, you need to sit down and take out the Word of God. You must see this as God sees it, as an act of rebellion against your authority over her (and her body), and by extension as an act of rebellion against God himself, because he has given her to you. You need to rebuke your wife’s sinful behavior.”
I can’t even… Women are people, your failure to recognize this fact illustrates the huge gap in your ethics and your reasoning. You have no ‘authority’ over anyone. You are invoking you magic book to justify oppressing another human being. This is past heart of darkness level of depravity and evil. BGR, you need to seek help because you are failing at basic humanity and empathy.
“Take her to I Corinthians and read the Word of God to her:
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” – I Corinthians 7:3-5(KJV)”
Scare tactics, shame, threats of violence are all considered abuse in this modern secular age. I suggest you get with the fucking program, despite the ‘wisdom’ of your magic book.
“The Bible places absolutely NO preconditions on sex between a husband and wife within the bounds of marriage (contrary to what many Christian books and teachers teach today). In fact the only mutual agreement a couple is called to is, when they STOP having sex for a given period.”
My magic book says that rape is okay, therefore rape is okay and should be encouraged… I’m going to start skipping some stuff as really, the theme that god says its okay to rape women is being done to death.
“After you confront your wife’s rebellion (not only towards God’s command to her, but by extension the authority he has given you) – she is not exactly going to be in the mood, if you know what I mean. It may feel as though you have been unloving to her, but you are in fact loving your wife when you call out her sin, and call her to repentance, just as God calls to all of us.”
After you berate and threaten your wife she might not be in the mood, go figure, you pernicious fuck. See how Patriarchy is interwoven into the very core of religion? See how tightly they collude to force women into submission. The House in Vegas is envious of this system that so effectively combats women’s status as human beings.
“Your wife’s rebellion against your sexual authority over her body is by definition “unrighteousness”. You would in essence, be “unloving” to your wife, from God’s perspective, if you allowed her sinful attitude to go unchecked.”
Gaa… Sexual authority? How about this, go fuck you and your ‘sexual authority’ sideways with the cacti of your choice.
“But should you still have relations with your wife after such a confrontation?
I believe the answer is yes, if she yields to you (even with the wrong attitude). When I first had to confront my wife with these types of issues, I would confront her, and then just leave the sex to happen another night, because after all, I like most men don’t prefer to have sex with my wife when she acts grumpy about it.
Holy fuck – you are advocating raping your wife.
But I realized that the sex still needs to occur, that sex is not about being in the mood, and it is not about feelings, it is about doing what is right. I agree whole heartedly that the best sex a Christian couple can have is when they are spiritually, emotionally and physically connected all at once. But the truth is there will be many times when we don’t have all that in place, but we must still have sex. God wants us to do the right thing, even when we don’t feel like it.”
You are a rapist. The authorities should be notified immediately.
“This probably won’t be a onetime thing
As a Christian husband, and really just as a Christian, we must realize that we all from time to time slip back into patterns of sinful behavior. Please don’t think that if your wife seems to submit to your sexual authority over her body after confronting her with the truth of God’s Word, that this rebellion will never seep back up again in her life. This has definitely not been a onetime thing with my wife, and I have also talked with other Christian men who have told me it is the same with their wives as well.”
This also abuse. Saying no to a sexual advance is NEVER sinful behaviour. Never ever. You are in this paragraph admitting that you are regularly raping your wife and using the bible to justify your criminal behaviour. I hear ISIL is looking for a few good men and let me assure you, you fit their qualifications admirably.
“Can my Christian wife ever say no to my sexual advances?
This is the logical question you as a Christian husband (or engaged man) might ask after everything we have just looked at. The answer to this question is a Christian wife should never give her husband a flat no, BUT she can humbly and gently ask for a delay. There may be legitimate physical or other issues that might prompt your wife to ask you for a delay. But this must be done humbly and respectfully, and always with the attitude in mind that her body does belong to her husband. But a Christian wife should ALWAYS make good on her “rainchecks” with her husband. Also these “delay requests” from wives should be the exception, and not the normal response to a husband’s sexual advances.”
Oh how beneficent is this? The sex slave can ask for a temporary halt to the rape train – how fucking convivial.
This person and their thoughts sicken me. This sort of attitude toward women has no place in a civilized society. This sick fuck should be in prison, end of story.
For more hilarity(?), see Violet Wisp’s take-down of this rapist’s post.
A kitteh pick me up before you go. See you soon. :)
This is old teleological hat with regards to anyone who has participated in debates with the religious. I like the video though because, even though it rehashes the old themes, it does so in a way that separates and insulates one against some of the white hot emotion that can and does go into debating the religious view of reality. It’s a clean, thoughtful presentation through and through.
On the whole, a very nice thought experiment put forward by DarkMatter2525.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…