Long answer: Part of their whole shtick is lying about what morality is and where it comes from. To admit that any god is unnecessary for morality would be to undermine their entire religion. To admit that their god can provide a shield for horrible people would be to admit that their rules for moral behavior are fundamentally flawed and actually immoral.
If you need the threat of eternal torture to keep you from being mean to other people, that doesnβt make you a better person than an atheist, it just means youβre a dog on a leash.
And itβs a threat that doesnβt even work! They are still vile and cruel in spite of the instilled fear of an eternity of burning in fire and brimstone. Itβs sad that hell isnβt real.
The Christian god is not good, and all you have to do is look at Yahweh's behavior in the Old Testament to confirm that. I suspect Christians ignore Yahweh's behavior because Jesus, but it's still there and it's still egregious.
Religion is often just the attribution bias on steroids, IMO. None of them walk around thinking they would rape and pillage if it weren't for hell, instead they think *their neighbor* would, so they must spread the word.
That's not unique to religion. The vast majority of people of all faiths and none have that same attribution bias - "The police aren't needed to stop ME from doing bad stuff, I wouldn't do it anway...they are needed to stop YOU from doing bad stuff." Religion just adds a supernaturally effective policeman.
Of course, you can develop a morality without reference to religion or God. However, I have to wonder what would it be like. Would it be utilitarian as in the greatest good for the greatest number of people? With issues of disagreement such as abortion, how would you resolve the differences? I'm also assuming that some kind of government involvement would be involved to punish those who didn't follow it. These aren't "gotcha" questions. As we become increasingly secularized, I don't want morality to simply become a matter of personal preference.
With issues such as the made up argument of abortion, which has been made up in my lifetime, that is easy. People have a right to bodily autonomy, and to do what is right for them. No one should be forced by someone else's nonsensical religion on an issue dating back to the early eighties, as means to get worldly power and get their voters to the polls.
It is primarily a religious fundamental thing, though, I would guarantee it is a hangover from religious teachings. Because biology and medical understanding give a different answer. Up until the late 70βs, protestants had no issue with abortion, and a conservative supreme court passed the Roe vs wade decision. Only the Catholics who were forced birthers for more converts, and tithings, since they made a deal with Napoleon were fundamentalists opposed to abortion. They are also stone age in their attitudes toward women in general. Patriarchal religion in general hurts society.
Look at the vast diversity within Christianity and argue that morality is not already a matter of personal preference. There are Christians who say god abhors homosexuality; there are Christians who say god sanctifies same sex marriage. You donβt think personal preference is involved?
All those Christians say they are relying on scripture. Iβm not calling any of them liars. I take them all at their word. Do you have a better explanation than personal preference in understanding scripture for how they are determining what is and is not moral?
Your comment brings up the whole subject of hermeunetics which deals with how to interpret written texts not just religious ones. There are entire books dedicated to the subject. I can't even scratch the surface but the intent is to try to understand the text in the way the author intended.
And which of the Christians interpreting their Scripture are deliberately doing it in a way that they think is other than what the author intended.
I still haven't seen you attempt to argue that biblical morality is anything other than personal preferences of what the bible says. Or you think people are lying.
"Of course, you can develop a morality without reference to religion or God"
Presumably, but not on this planet, not any time soon, if at all.
It seems to me that one of the major challenges for devising a moral system is trying to accommodate - to whatever extent - all of the various moral systems derived from all of the various religions.
Consuming alcohol is immoral.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Sex outside of marriage is immoral.
Working on the holy day is immoral.
Eating pork is immoral.
Eating any kind of meat is immoral.
Worshiping any other god is immoral.
That kinda thing.
IMHO, any secular moral system without some sort of answer for how to handle holy-book-based beliefs, and those that believe they should be generally followed, is bound to fail, at least for the foreseeable future.
That's certainly not the only issue a secular morality faces, but it's also certainly a substantial one.
His god (in the form of a bird) impregnated an underage girl who was not his wife. Adultery, bestiality and child sexual abuse, all rolled into one. And he did it all without giving the victim a choice.
Why should we expect anythng different from that god's followers?
He is just a variation of the over-compensating closet-case syndrome. I have an instinctive mistrust of people who use religion as a justification for their behavior. They always have something to hide. Things like this have come to be more expected than shocking.
Why is it so hard to agree on some basic principles as regards human sexuality? Would it be really so bad if we all held the following principles that everything regarding sex is ok IF ALL the participants are adult and consenting?
Damn right we should come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who engages in anything which involves people who are not adult and/or not consenting, but everyone else should just be left alone to enjoy their proclivities!
Why? Because there are people out there who want simple answers to complex questions, and those answers very often do not obtain, ESPECIALLY as it comes to human behavior and ESPECIALLY human sexuality. On top of that, there are human behaviors that make them VERY UNCOMFORTABLE for various reasons, chief among them the possibility that they see such potential in themselves and THEY DON'T LIKE THAT.
Again, there's a simple answer: If something makes you uncomfortable, then don't do it. There's no requirement for everyone to swing from the chandeliers while engaging in orgies, just stay at home playing Scrabble with a hot cup of cocoa if you prefer that,. As regards everyone else, live and let live is an excellent mantra. ('Adult and Consenting' applies!)
Keep up exposing these immoral trash people. The more widely known what they really are, the sooner they can be treated as the threat they are by the general public.
My most important takeaway: "What does it say about....conservative Christianity, and the belief that thereβs a link between religion and morality that a professor they bragged about in press releasesβa man with 10 childrenβmay have committed the most heinous of crimes? Will anyone there admit that perhaps you donβt need the Christian God to be good, or that God can often provide a shield for the worst people?"
This is a maxim which needs to be applied universally anytime we see this kind of behavior, to wit: Don't pay attention to what they SAY. Pay attention to WHAT THEY DO.
I think the problem is what would be the alternative. I think that we might be able to come up with some moral axioms but would other parts of the world go along with them once you go beyond the basics like you shouldn't murder other people?
I just automatically assume that all folks in the highest orders of a religion and more than enough in all the lower orders are morally corrupt and intend to use religion as cover for their deplorable behavior. Whether religion is corrupting or the corrupt just have found it useful is irrelevant, it is corrupt to its core now. You donβt need the Christian god to be immoral but he sure helps you get away with it.
This article is so run of the mill it's like there's someone out there using find and replace software on the same story over and over.
Honestly, there are items around for people who have problems keeping their reproductive organs to themselves. I mean really, if you're having that much trouble keeping your hands and other bits to yourself, the sensible thing to do is find ways of dealing appropriately with the issue, not forcing others to deal with you. Yet somehow, these Christians always seem to wind up on the wrong side of the law instead; articles like this one are why I honestly think that Christians never want men to ever be responsible for sex. We'll see this one again, like we have so often in the past.
Honestly, women should just stay away from Christian men, it's pretty clear that a disconcerting number of them have zero self control.
They seem to forget the words of their boss from Matthew 18:8-9, "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."
'If I had a dollar for every sermon I heard that blamed Eve for the fall of humanity..."
If I had a freaking nickel for that, I'd be able to buy Twitter back from that Musky guy.
I've observed before that it sure seems like half the problem Christians have with the gay community is simply that it's sex they can't blame on a woman. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone really, to try and argue the point with me; you'll note I'm not holding my breath on it.
I don't remember masturbation in the Bible, but there was a very obscene yet funny comedian in the 70s who said the nuns told them that they had to stop masturbating because they were killing "millions of potential Catholics"!!
Onanism takes it name from Onan, son of Judah, who refused to impregnate the widow of his brother and practiced coitus interruptus with her. This later became associated with masturbation. See Genesis chapter 38 for the story of Onan).
Which is absolutely true. According to ancient code, he had to marry and impregnate his brotherβs widow. Onan refused to do so.
ZAP!
Rules aside, what if Onan despised his brotherβs widow? That happens with fair frequency.
Iβve seen ultra-fundamentalist Christians use Genesis 19:30-38 as "Biblical justification" for incest:
30Β Lot and his two daughters left ZoarΒ and settled in the mountains,Β for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.Β 31Β One day the older daughter said to the younger, βOur father is old, and there is no man around here to give us childrenβas is the custom all over the earth.Β 32Β Letβs get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family lineΒ through our father.β
33Β That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34Β The next day the older daughter said to the younger, βLast night I slept with my father. Letβs get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.βΒ 35Β So they got their father to drink wineΒ that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36Β So both of Lotβs daughters became pregnant by their father.Β 37Β The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab;Β he is the father of the MoabitesΒ of today.Β 38Β The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the AmmonitesΒ of today.
Footnotes
1. Genesis 19:37Β MoabΒ sounds like the Hebrew forΒ from father.
2. Genesis 19:38Β Ben-AmmiΒ meansΒ son of my fatherβs people.
3. Genesis 19:38Β HebrewΒ Bene-Ammon
We all know ultra-fundamentalists who will say, "The Bible said it; I believe it; and THAT'S THAT" to justify things that are frankly immoral, e.g. incest, spousal abuse, domestic violence, beating their children, βBiblical slaveryβ, killing abortion providers, killing gay people, and genocide.
This might sound strange, but the Bible was never intended to be a βmoral rule book" or a handbook on morality. The Bible is replete with examples of people whom we would consider seriously flawed doing very good things (think: Rahab the prostitute; King Cyrus). It also includes people whom we regard to saints doing frankly awful things (King David, St. Peter, who abandoned Jesus before his trial in front of Pontius Pilate).
We cannot make any conclusion that βone cannot be good without God". A careful reading of Scripture shows there are plenty of people in the Bible who were βgood without God", and lots of Godly people who did despicable things. We all know so β called True Christiansβ’ who are absolutely despicable people; and we all know non-Christians and atheists who, in every sense of the word, are saints.
βRules aside, what if Onan despised his brotherβs widow? That happens with fair frequency.β
Orβ¦ and hear me out, what if the widow wasnβt interested in being passed around like a fucking object?
I swear to god! (Full offense to whatever god takes it) I do not understand why any woman would ever worship this god. Or any other, as just an atheist point of view. But seriously. I donβt even envy the treatment of Mary mother of god, in their fairytales. There is nothing good for women in that entire worldview and women eat it up like itβs candy. Pick me behavior since forever, I guess. It has never once protected a single woman.
Especially with regards to the treatment of women/gays and lesbians/slaves and indentured servants: what "worked" (?) 2000-3000 years ago in all probability doesn't work today.
After I read the whole thing I felt the same I mean there is maybe one lesbian in it who loves another woman, and a some sex poetry, but most of it is pure nastiness, violence, wars, raping and killing women, infants, and young children, taking slaves and how to beat them. The old testament should never be connected to the new as they are so opposite.
Not to mention the Monk who translated that victim-blaming nonsense (since dear old dad knew civilization hadn't ended and had been boning them from the beginning) didn't understand whiskey-dick, If he was that old and that drunk, no way could he get it up! So the monk blamed the victims, typical patriarchal nonsense from woman-haters.
Hemant, I simply donβt understand how you could leave out the very best part of this! HOW COULD YOU!!!!???
according to the Roys report, the indictment included the allegation that at least one of the victims was HIS OWN CHILD. So, to complete the roster of sexual ethics he violated, we have fornication, lust, adultery, sexual assault, millstone-worthy child molestation, andβ¦wait for itβ¦
INCEST!
As the French say, IN-CβEST SI BON!!!!!
And as St. Jim-bob-billy-joe Duggar observed, the family that preys together, stays together, at least until they cart daddy off to to jail.
But wait!!! THereβs more!* there is this: β They added that their βunderstanding is that these charges do not involve anyone Dr. Tarwater met or interacted with as a University professor.β Very careful with their weasel words, these weasels are. So, LETβS GO WEASEL-WORDING!
βWe donβt know nuthinβ about birthinβ no babies!β And we had absolutely nothing to do with this. nuthinβ, I tells ya. Please donβt sue us. And keep those donations cumminβ.
Amd maybe, just maybe, if you had only used your right hand to honor god, YOU WOULDNβT HAVE BEEN COMMITTING FORNICATION, LUST, ADULTERY, SEXUAL ASSAULT, CHILD MOLESTATION AND INCEST.
I think he figured that as long as he kept pointing fingers at other people, no one would be pointing any fingers at him. And isnβt that the whole point of specks and beams
When I need to feel sane or grounded (literally) I come back to this simple concept:
If you place all value on an βafterlifeβ and little to none on your actual life here on earth, these are the types of outcomes we can continue to expect. The lack of empathy. The disregard for nature. The disregard for βothersβ. The utter contempt for those of us who dance despite our suffering, sighβ¦Iβm tired.
Men like this push βsexual morality through biblegodβ because they can never, ever control themselves, they need some oversight to keep others safe in their proximity. They think they can control themselves if they think god is watching them, but that trick never works, mostly because they know he isnβt actually real. But they also project their weaknesses and criminality on others because they cannot believe they are alone in their desires, or even a minority. Unfortunately, the patriarchy has been feeding men like this victims for millennia, giving them excuses, providing cover, pretending this is human nature, and eliminating anyone (men only of course, women arenβt people) who doesnβt accept their proclivities. Yeah, biblegod doesnβt like it, but if itβs natural for men to prey on children, itβs normal to sin this way, you can ask for forgiveness and marry your victims and everything is all better. Nowadays a lot of the propaganda comes with an βevolutionβ label when men want to be perverts and predators without the god/religion label (since itβs not as popular socially to be outwardly religious outside of religious bubbles nowadays) to convince their victims they are not really victims. The excuse just fills in the biblegod with the invisible hand of evolution. Itβs not true.
Sorry, ranting.
Glad the university did the right thing, but this isnβt new or surprising. Just as folks say the most homophobic are most likely to be closeted, the folks most vociferous against sexual variances are generally the worst perpetrators of sexual crimes.
This. Folks like this guy talk incessantly about other people's sex lives because they are afraid someone might do unto their family members what they are doing unto others.
Especially, when you may be treated as damaged goods by fellow believers. I still recall a couple who were engaged but got pregnant before they got married. I supported them but much of their old group gave them the treatment.
ππππ πππ¦πππ π‘βπππ πππππ‘ π‘βππ‘ πππβπππ π¦ππ’ πππβπ‘ ππππ π‘βπ πΆβπππ π‘πππ πΊππ π‘π ππ ππππ, ππ π‘βππ‘ πΊππ πππ πππ‘ππ ππππ£πππ π π βππππ πππ π‘βπ π€πππ π‘ ππππππ?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: Part of their whole shtick is lying about what morality is and where it comes from. To admit that any god is unnecessary for morality would be to undermine their entire religion. To admit that their god can provide a shield for horrible people would be to admit that their rules for moral behavior are fundamentally flawed and actually immoral.
If you need the threat of eternal torture to keep you from being mean to other people, that doesnβt make you a better person than an atheist, it just means youβre a dog on a leash.
And itβs a threat that doesnβt even work! They are still vile and cruel in spite of the instilled fear of an eternity of burning in fire and brimstone. Itβs sad that hell isnβt real.
The Christian god is not good, and all you have to do is look at Yahweh's behavior in the Old Testament to confirm that. I suspect Christians ignore Yahweh's behavior because Jesus, but it's still there and it's still egregious.
Seems to me that many conservatives are forgetting Jesus and deciding Yahweh is THEIR GUY. Screw the new rules!!
Listen to Hegseth, who sounds like he's managing the Crusades.
And that is because the Yahweh of the Old Testament is actually the god of metallurgy and warfare from the pre-Judaism Canaanites.
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2018-04-11/ty-article-magazine/.premium/jewish-god-yahweh-originated-in-canaanite-vulcan-says-new-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000
They only ignore his behavior in their speech. Otherwise, they try to emulate it.
Religion is often just the attribution bias on steroids, IMO. None of them walk around thinking they would rape and pillage if it weren't for hell, instead they think *their neighbor* would, so they must spread the word.
That's not unique to religion. The vast majority of people of all faiths and none have that same attribution bias - "The police aren't needed to stop ME from doing bad stuff, I wouldn't do it anway...they are needed to stop YOU from doing bad stuff." Religion just adds a supernaturally effective policeman.
That sure jives with the way they practice their religion, βrules for thee not for meβ and all that. Even protections for me and not for thee.
Of course, you can develop a morality without reference to religion or God. However, I have to wonder what would it be like. Would it be utilitarian as in the greatest good for the greatest number of people? With issues of disagreement such as abortion, how would you resolve the differences? I'm also assuming that some kind of government involvement would be involved to punish those who didn't follow it. These aren't "gotcha" questions. As we become increasingly secularized, I don't want morality to simply become a matter of personal preference.
With issues such as the made up argument of abortion, which has been made up in my lifetime, that is easy. People have a right to bodily autonomy, and to do what is right for them. No one should be forced by someone else's nonsensical religion on an issue dating back to the early eighties, as means to get worldly power and get their voters to the polls.
https://texaschristians.org/Bible/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
And yet, I know atheists who consider abortion to be murder. It's not something limited to just the religious right.
It is primarily a religious fundamental thing, though, I would guarantee it is a hangover from religious teachings. Because biology and medical understanding give a different answer. Up until the late 70βs, protestants had no issue with abortion, and a conservative supreme court passed the Roe vs wade decision. Only the Catholics who were forced birthers for more converts, and tithings, since they made a deal with Napoleon were fundamentalists opposed to abortion. They are also stone age in their attitudes toward women in general. Patriarchal religion in general hurts society.
Look at the vast diversity within Christianity and argue that morality is not already a matter of personal preference. There are Christians who say god abhors homosexuality; there are Christians who say god sanctifies same sex marriage. You donβt think personal preference is involved?
It must sure seem that way to outsiders. Once you decide to move away from scripture then it's all up for grabs.
All those Christians say they are relying on scripture. Iβm not calling any of them liars. I take them all at their word. Do you have a better explanation than personal preference in understanding scripture for how they are determining what is and is not moral?
He hasn't.
Your comment brings up the whole subject of hermeunetics which deals with how to interpret written texts not just religious ones. There are entire books dedicated to the subject. I can't even scratch the surface but the intent is to try to understand the text in the way the author intended.
And which of the Christians interpreting their Scripture are deliberately doing it in a way that they think is other than what the author intended.
I still haven't seen you attempt to argue that biblical morality is anything other than personal preferences of what the bible says. Or you think people are lying.
"Of course, you can develop a morality without reference to religion or God"
Presumably, but not on this planet, not any time soon, if at all.
It seems to me that one of the major challenges for devising a moral system is trying to accommodate - to whatever extent - all of the various moral systems derived from all of the various religions.
Consuming alcohol is immoral.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Sex outside of marriage is immoral.
Working on the holy day is immoral.
Eating pork is immoral.
Eating any kind of meat is immoral.
Worshiping any other god is immoral.
That kinda thing.
IMHO, any secular moral system without some sort of answer for how to handle holy-book-based beliefs, and those that believe they should be generally followed, is bound to fail, at least for the foreseeable future.
That's certainly not the only issue a secular morality faces, but it's also certainly a substantial one.
Not. A. Drag .Queen. (Obligatory remark before reading article.)
Reddit.com/r/notadragqueen
Ouch!
His god (in the form of a bird) impregnated an underage girl who was not his wife. Adultery, bestiality and child sexual abuse, all rolled into one. And he did it all without giving the victim a choice.
Why should we expect anythng different from that god's followers?
Christmas- Because even abstinence isn't 100% effective. :)
It's really says something about Christians when that sentiment makes 'em so mad. Funny, too.
He is just a variation of the over-compensating closet-case syndrome. I have an instinctive mistrust of people who use religion as a justification for their behavior. They always have something to hide. Things like this have come to be more expected than shocking.
And they are creepy, with wandering hands, I soon learned to run away from them.
Why is it so hard to agree on some basic principles as regards human sexuality? Would it be really so bad if we all held the following principles that everything regarding sex is ok IF ALL the participants are adult and consenting?
Damn right we should come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who engages in anything which involves people who are not adult and/or not consenting, but everyone else should just be left alone to enjoy their proclivities!
Why? Because there are people out there who want simple answers to complex questions, and those answers very often do not obtain, ESPECIALLY as it comes to human behavior and ESPECIALLY human sexuality. On top of that, there are human behaviors that make them VERY UNCOMFORTABLE for various reasons, chief among them the possibility that they see such potential in themselves and THEY DON'T LIKE THAT.
Again, there's a simple answer: If something makes you uncomfortable, then don't do it. There's no requirement for everyone to swing from the chandeliers while engaging in orgies, just stay at home playing Scrabble with a hot cup of cocoa if you prefer that,. As regards everyone else, live and let live is an excellent mantra. ('Adult and Consenting' applies!)
But-but-but ... they don't LIKE it! And they don't want ANYONE ELSE to DO IT! Because it's ICKY!!! EEEEWWWWWWW!
Consent assumes my property has rights independent of mine. Which is where you lose conservatives.
Nailed it! They'll cheat, but put their wife up on stage to be shamed, if she tries to find some satisfaction.
Keep up exposing these immoral trash people. The more widely known what they really are, the sooner they can be treated as the threat they are by the general public.
My most important takeaway: "What does it say about....conservative Christianity, and the belief that thereβs a link between religion and morality that a professor they bragged about in press releasesβa man with 10 childrenβmay have committed the most heinous of crimes? Will anyone there admit that perhaps you donβt need the Christian God to be good, or that God can often provide a shield for the worst people?"
This is a maxim which needs to be applied universally anytime we see this kind of behavior, to wit: Don't pay attention to what they SAY. Pay attention to WHAT THEY DO.
But, but, but...that would DESTROY most religion!! /s/
Would iit, really? And the problem is ... what? π
I think the problem is what would be the alternative. I think that we might be able to come up with some moral axioms but would other parts of the world go along with them once you go beyond the basics like you shouldn't murder other people?
Because religion has done such a bang-up job of keeping people from harming each other throughout history.
I just automatically assume that all folks in the highest orders of a religion and more than enough in all the lower orders are morally corrupt and intend to use religion as cover for their deplorable behavior. Whether religion is corrupting or the corrupt just have found it useful is irrelevant, it is corrupt to its core now. You donβt need the Christian god to be immoral but he sure helps you get away with it.
ππππ―
Itβs always those who scream the loudest! Always. Deep personal hatred.
Every accusation is a confession.
This article is so run of the mill it's like there's someone out there using find and replace software on the same story over and over.
Honestly, there are items around for people who have problems keeping their reproductive organs to themselves. I mean really, if you're having that much trouble keeping your hands and other bits to yourself, the sensible thing to do is find ways of dealing appropriately with the issue, not forcing others to deal with you. Yet somehow, these Christians always seem to wind up on the wrong side of the law instead; articles like this one are why I honestly think that Christians never want men to ever be responsible for sex. We'll see this one again, like we have so often in the past.
Honestly, women should just stay away from Christian men, it's pretty clear that a disconcerting number of them have zero self control.
They seem to forget the words of their boss from Matthew 18:8-9, "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."
Someone get Professor Tarwater a sharp knife.
Well, shoot- this is all I could find. Guess it'll have to do!
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-20b20frsxz/images/stencil/800x800/uploaded_images/istockphoto-1253073586-612x612.jpg
The knife doesnβt have to be sharp.
A spoon perhaps...
Or rust-free.
Reading that book cover to cover did not, by itself, make me atheist. But it sure didnβt strengthen my faith.
'If I had a dollar for every sermon I heard that blamed Eve for the fall of humanity..."
If I had a freaking nickel for that, I'd be able to buy Twitter back from that Musky guy.
I've observed before that it sure seems like half the problem Christians have with the gay community is simply that it's sex they can't blame on a woman. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone really, to try and argue the point with me; you'll note I'm not holding my breath on it.
;)
I don't remember masturbation in the Bible, but there was a very obscene yet funny comedian in the 70s who said the nuns told them that they had to stop masturbating because they were killing "millions of potential Catholics"!!
From Google:
Onanism takes it name from Onan, son of Judah, who refused to impregnate the widow of his brother and practiced coitus interruptus with her. This later became associated with masturbation. See Genesis chapter 38 for the story of Onan).
Screwy, but that's the bible for you!
Onan was given a lightning bolt enema because he disobeyed his god. Unlike what xtians believe, it had zero to do with masturbation.
And when believers can't distinguish between masturbation and coitus, it illustrates what sort of damage religion does to the intellect.
Which is absolutely true. According to ancient code, he had to marry and impregnate his brotherβs widow. Onan refused to do so.
ZAP!
Rules aside, what if Onan despised his brotherβs widow? That happens with fair frequency.
Iβve seen ultra-fundamentalist Christians use Genesis 19:30-38 as "Biblical justification" for incest:
30Β Lot and his two daughters left ZoarΒ and settled in the mountains,Β for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.Β 31Β One day the older daughter said to the younger, βOur father is old, and there is no man around here to give us childrenβas is the custom all over the earth.Β 32Β Letβs get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family lineΒ through our father.β
33Β That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34Β The next day the older daughter said to the younger, βLast night I slept with my father. Letβs get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.βΒ 35Β So they got their father to drink wineΒ that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36Β So both of Lotβs daughters became pregnant by their father.Β 37Β The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab;Β he is the father of the MoabitesΒ of today.Β 38Β The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the AmmonitesΒ of today.
Footnotes
1. Genesis 19:37Β MoabΒ sounds like the Hebrew forΒ from father.
2. Genesis 19:38Β Ben-AmmiΒ meansΒ son of my fatherβs people.
3. Genesis 19:38Β HebrewΒ Bene-Ammon
We all know ultra-fundamentalists who will say, "The Bible said it; I believe it; and THAT'S THAT" to justify things that are frankly immoral, e.g. incest, spousal abuse, domestic violence, beating their children, βBiblical slaveryβ, killing abortion providers, killing gay people, and genocide.
This might sound strange, but the Bible was never intended to be a βmoral rule book" or a handbook on morality. The Bible is replete with examples of people whom we would consider seriously flawed doing very good things (think: Rahab the prostitute; King Cyrus). It also includes people whom we regard to saints doing frankly awful things (King David, St. Peter, who abandoned Jesus before his trial in front of Pontius Pilate).
We cannot make any conclusion that βone cannot be good without God". A careful reading of Scripture shows there are plenty of people in the Bible who were βgood without God", and lots of Godly people who did despicable things. We all know so β called True Christiansβ’ who are absolutely despicable people; and we all know non-Christians and atheists who, in every sense of the word, are saints.
βRules aside, what if Onan despised his brotherβs widow? That happens with fair frequency.β
Orβ¦ and hear me out, what if the widow wasnβt interested in being passed around like a fucking object?
I swear to god! (Full offense to whatever god takes it) I do not understand why any woman would ever worship this god. Or any other, as just an atheist point of view. But seriously. I donβt even envy the treatment of Mary mother of god, in their fairytales. There is nothing good for women in that entire worldview and women eat it up like itβs candy. Pick me behavior since forever, I guess. It has never once protected a single woman.
"what if the widow wasnβt interested"
Like she's allowed to have an opinion.
"...what if the widow wasnβt interested in being passed around like a fucking object?"
That pun is absolutely the stuff of legend. Just wow.
I was hoping someone would catch it.
Especially with regards to the treatment of women/gays and lesbians/slaves and indentured servants: what "worked" (?) 2000-3000 years ago in all probability doesn't work today.
After I read the whole thing I felt the same I mean there is maybe one lesbian in it who loves another woman, and a some sex poetry, but most of it is pure nastiness, violence, wars, raping and killing women, infants, and young children, taking slaves and how to beat them. The old testament should never be connected to the new as they are so opposite.
Not to mention the Monk who translated that victim-blaming nonsense (since dear old dad knew civilization hadn't ended and had been boning them from the beginning) didn't understand whiskey-dick, If he was that old and that drunk, no way could he get it up! So the monk blamed the victims, typical patriarchal nonsense from woman-haters.
Let alone the moral pickle you are in when you gush into your infertile sex partner
Onam spilled his seed, rather than impregnating Tamar. Ergo, masturbation is the deliberate spilling of seed which is also forbidden.
(Of course, girls don't spill their seed so we are free to masturbate as much as we want.)
And parents demanded children and teens to read the Bible while forcing them to not watch TV shows and Movies due to violent/sexual content... sheesh!
Good old Google sucks these days, doesn't it? I'm looking for a new search engine if anyone has suggestions.
But do you think that people 2000+ years ago knew what sperm was and how women got pregnant?
Considering it was the 17th century when they discovered sperms...
Duckduckgo:
https://duckduckgo.com/about
Here's Billy Connolly's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yr4CBkeZws
They are confused about oral sex and sodomy, too.
That was Chris Rush, if I remember correctly. Super funny guy!
YES!!! Thank you for remembering his name. Someone gave me one of his albums for a 13th b-day present, and I howled.
Then my Dad heard it and banned it from the house. :D
I think you will love this - Billy Connolly on masturbation, celibacy, the rhythm method .... it's hilarious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yr4CBkeZws
I love Billy!! Will watch after the dog walk, thank you!
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Absolutely!! ;D
The louder the hate, the guiltier the hater.
Hemant, I simply donβt understand how you could leave out the very best part of this! HOW COULD YOU!!!!???
according to the Roys report, the indictment included the allegation that at least one of the victims was HIS OWN CHILD. So, to complete the roster of sexual ethics he violated, we have fornication, lust, adultery, sexual assault, millstone-worthy child molestation, andβ¦wait for itβ¦
INCEST!
As the French say, IN-CβEST SI BON!!!!!
And as St. Jim-bob-billy-joe Duggar observed, the family that preys together, stays together, at least until they cart daddy off to to jail.
But wait!!! THereβs more!* there is this: β They added that their βunderstanding is that these charges do not involve anyone Dr. Tarwater met or interacted with as a University professor.β Very careful with their weasel words, these weasels are. So, LETβS GO WEASEL-WORDING!
βWe donβt know nuthinβ about birthinβ no babies!β And we had absolutely nothing to do with this. nuthinβ, I tells ya. Please donβt sue us. And keep those donations cumminβ.
Amd maybe, just maybe, if you had only used your right hand to honor god, YOU WOULDNβT HAVE BEEN COMMITTING FORNICATION, LUST, ADULTERY, SEXUAL ASSAULT, CHILD MOLESTATION AND INCEST.
Maybe.
*There is always more. always.
Was Tarwater trying to get a blackout in Fundie Degeneracy Bingo? What a piece of work he is!
I think he figured that as long as he kept pointing fingers at other people, no one would be pointing any fingers at him. And isnβt that the whole point of specks and beams
When I need to feel sane or grounded (literally) I come back to this simple concept:
If you place all value on an βafterlifeβ and little to none on your actual life here on earth, these are the types of outcomes we can continue to expect. The lack of empathy. The disregard for nature. The disregard for βothersβ. The utter contempt for those of us who dance despite our suffering, sighβ¦Iβm tired.
Men like this push βsexual morality through biblegodβ because they can never, ever control themselves, they need some oversight to keep others safe in their proximity. They think they can control themselves if they think god is watching them, but that trick never works, mostly because they know he isnβt actually real. But they also project their weaknesses and criminality on others because they cannot believe they are alone in their desires, or even a minority. Unfortunately, the patriarchy has been feeding men like this victims for millennia, giving them excuses, providing cover, pretending this is human nature, and eliminating anyone (men only of course, women arenβt people) who doesnβt accept their proclivities. Yeah, biblegod doesnβt like it, but if itβs natural for men to prey on children, itβs normal to sin this way, you can ask for forgiveness and marry your victims and everything is all better. Nowadays a lot of the propaganda comes with an βevolutionβ label when men want to be perverts and predators without the god/religion label (since itβs not as popular socially to be outwardly religious outside of religious bubbles nowadays) to convince their victims they are not really victims. The excuse just fills in the biblegod with the invisible hand of evolution. Itβs not true.
Sorry, ranting.
Glad the university did the right thing, but this isnβt new or surprising. Just as folks say the most homophobic are most likely to be closeted, the folks most vociferous against sexual variances are generally the worst perpetrators of sexual crimes.
π‘βππ¦ πππ π πππππππ‘ π‘βπππ π€ππππππ π ππ πππ ππππππππππ‘π¦ ππ ππ‘βπππ πππππ’π π π‘βππ¦ ππππππ‘ ππππππ£π π‘βππ¦ πππ πππππ ππ π‘βπππ πππ ππππ
This. Folks like this guy talk incessantly about other people's sex lives because they are afraid someone might do unto their family members what they are doing unto others.
πβππ πππ π€ππ π πππ‘ππ ππ₯ππππ‘ ππ π ππ₯ πππ ππ‘βπππ πππ π½ππ π’π β¦ πππ π π π¦ππ’ ππππ€ ππ₯πππ‘ππ¦ π€βπππ π‘βππ π π‘πππ¦ ππ πππππ.
The only variations to this story seem to be the number of victims who have come forward.
Itβs never just one, is it? And one is one too many.
That's a sucker bet. You are guaranteed to be correct.
Especially, when you may be treated as damaged goods by fellow believers. I still recall a couple who were engaged but got pregnant before they got married. I supported them but much of their old group gave them the treatment.
we conclude masturbation can never be a God-honoring behavior.... Obviously you're doing it wrong.
βOh, god!β