Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

John Loftus posted an article written by J.M. Green. Green starts out with a good unavoidable point that must be accepted in terms in light of scripture and then violently faceplants into error born from a desire to deny scripture and hold on to his atheism.

Johnnie Moore, vice president at Liberty University, writes of how he astounded his colleagues by suggesting that Jesus may have stopped to take a crap by the side of the road, on the way to Jerusalem. Granted, he didn’t use the word ‘crap’ but more provocatively, he also posited that Jesus may even have suffered the ravages of diarrhea. His article goes on to point out that Christians often don’t think of Jesus as fully human. I would heartily agree.

This is true. We often do not remember that Jesus is both fully human and fully God. However we must also see the truth that Jesus' humanity is not the same as our humanity. Jesus was not tainted by sin. None of us know what that feels like or what it is like to live like that.  Think about it. Every thought pure. Every action the right one. Jesus is perfect and without flaw. 

Now I suppose that Professor Moore’s musings might seem edgy and possibly even blasphemous to the average evangelical fundamentalist, but I would like to suggest that he is playing it way too safe. 

When Jesus took on human flesh, He submitted himself to the same biological limitations all of humanity have. Jesus got tired. Jesus had to sleep. Jesus had to eat. If a person has to eat, they most certainly have to excrete biological waste. No problem. 

If Christians truly believe that Jesus was 100% human (never mind that combining this with 100% God seems like somewhat sketchy math) then they must consider his sexuality. And there, believers find themselves skating on dangerously thin ice. So much fundy fervor is devoted to repressing and controlling sexuality that to think of their blessed Jesus as having a sex drive is simply too awful to bear.

Yes, let's discuss Jesus' sexuality. Nothing in the Bible is about repressing sexuality. The Bible does not teach that sex is evil and should be avoided. That was what stodgy old men and women did who wanted to control others. Anyone who reads the Song of Solomon and still thinks that God doesn't want humans to enjoy sex, they are an idiot. The issue is that God, who created sex, wants us to use His gift to us properly.  

If the good Professor wanted to truly be daring, then he should have asked: “Did Jesus ever have wet dreams?” Did he masturbate? Imagine Mary finding a soiled tunic and cornering Joseph. “Joe, he’s been at it again. You really need to have a talk with him about purity and not yielding to lustful thoughts.” 

Not getting into whether or not masturbation or having wet dreams are sins, I think Green is really asking a different question. Green thinks that they are sins. Therefore the Bible answers Green's questions.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God - 2 Corinthians 5:21

So in case you are missing the argument: Jesus had no sin so he would never sin sexually. 

And that’s just for starters. Did the Savior of the World ever play childhood games of doctor with the little girl who lived in the house next door? As an adolescent, did he ever get erections at embarrassingly inopportune moments? Did the woman at the well catch Jesus checking out her cleavage? Now it’s true that Jesus preached against looking at women lustfully, but, as we all know, many of those who publically rail against certain ‘sins’ often are privately indulging in those very things.

So if you want to know if Jesus would have done a certain action, you need to first figure out if that action is a sin. If so, then Jesus did not do it. The teaching of the Bible is not that sin is definitional of being human. Jesus came to free us from sin so we can be at our at our optimum. 

About now, any True Believers reading this probably have their eyes rolled back in their heads and are fainting like the heroine of a Victorian novel, but buckle your seatbelts, I’m not nearly done.

Green overestimates his arguments. 

When sexuality is such an integral part of the human experience, why is it that Jesus is portrayed in a sterile, sexless manner? What was his orientation - straight, gay, or bisexual? Was he asexual, or is that just the image presented to us because the gospel accounts have been neutered and sanitized?

Jesus is everything we are not. Jesus is not limited or controlled by lusts and passion.  That is what being a sinner is. Jesus was not married and fulfilled the Law perfectly.  This means that Jesus never sinned in His thoughts  or deeds. This isn't being neutered or unnatural. We  are the ones who are broken and messed up - not Jesus. That doesn't not mean that sex is evil but must be enjoyed in the correct the context. Jesus was not in that context so He did not. 

If anything, the evidence would point to a gay Jesus. It’s amazing how those who claim to take the Bible as literal and factual skip right past references to ‘the disciple who Jesus loved’ (John 20:2) and the fact that at the Last Supper, Jesus and John appeared to have had a bit of a cuddle party (John 13:23). Not to mention Judas kissing Jesus tenderly (Matthew 26:49 ISV). Could Judas have been a spurned lover who betrayed Jesus as an act of revenge? 

And here is the faceplant. Given that Jesus was a a first century Jew who observed and taught  Torah, all of Green's speculation is pointless. The text does not say that Judas kissed Jesus tenderly and Jesus and John were not cuddling at the table! The text does not give that. 

It is a curious thing that evangelicals who are so stridently anti-gay, sing the sappiest romantic love songs to Jesus in their worship services. Odder still, manly men of God are instructed by the Apostle Paul to view themselves as part of the ‘Bride of Christ.’ Hardly traditional marriage, but I digress…

The church is the "Bride of Christ" not or a single individual and there is no sexual  connotations implied or stated. 

So here’s a thought I pose to my Christian readers: If you want to ignore the evidence pointing towards a man-loving Jesus, then perhaps the ‘lost’ years of Jesus are your salvation. Maybe the portion of his life which is so conspicuously absent from the gospels has been censored because Jesus was in fact a skirt-chasing, card-carrying member of the hetero tribe. Were his juvenile records sealed by some ecclesiastical court? What if instead of being ‘about his Father’s business’, he was getting busy with Galilean hotties in the back seat of a chariot? As horrific as this idea might be to you, surely it is less traumatic than the idea that Jesus might have been… gay!

No, a gay lifestyle is no better or worse than a fornicating lifestyle. Adultery is just as bad as homosexuality. Having sex with anyone besides your heterosexual spouse is sin. Period. End of story. Premarital sex is not in God's good and perfect will. This is what scripture teaches. Jesus is without sin. Issue solved.

Now I know dear Christian reader that you will object to this lifeline I am holding out to you. 

Indignantly you will cry, “Jesus wasn’t a fornicator!” 

To which I will reply:

“Oh yeah? Prove that he didn’t have sex!”

I just did. You are welcomed. 

What’s that? Not a valid argument? Can’t prove a negative? Thanks, I’ll remember that next time I hear “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.”

Green's verbage is not a valid argument. It's a faceplant. 

Written for DC by J.M. Green

I'll be praying for J.M. Green. Is Jesus better him, you, and me? Yup!

Debunking Christianity: Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry

It amazes me how people confuse what the Bible says versus what people say the Bible says. There is a difference. Worse is when people choose to reject God based on those erroneous teaching. This particular post I am responding to does exactly this: Denying Christianity because of stupid things people who either pretended to be Christians taught or just got God wrong. In some cases, they were really Christians who just got the concept of sexuality wrong. Instead of just pointing out what is wrong here let us look at what the Bible really says.

For the most part, Christians have always felt uncomfortable with their sexuality. In this post, I will explain why this is so, and why the attitude Christian society has towards the human body and human sexuality has led to sex being viewed as something "dirty," and that the human body itself is "filthy."
The Christian view that humans are "born sinners" and that the body is filthy, and sex is "dirty" then leads people to act on their so-clalled "sinful nature"--which has inevitably contributed to the development of the porn industry.

 It does not follow that being a sinner is followed by sex being filthy and dirty. Just because church clergy tells you that sex is immoral and should not be enjoyed does not mean that the Bible says the same.This is why You need to know the Word of God for yourself.

"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” - Genesis 9:7

So how does it make sense that God would condemn sex when he told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. He even told Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply. The command to Noah was given after people were sinners. No where in the Bible does God tells us to go and sin. Also notice no where in the Torah do we see anything for sacrificing for the sin of having sex with your spouse.

How could this be you might ask? It all began with the "Eve whore" in Genesis --who is blamed for luring man into partaking of the forbidden fruit.

 The Bible does not blame Eve for our sin. It's Adam's fault.

¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  - 1 Timothy 2:13,14

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —

¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.- Romans 5:12-14
The forbidden fruit then became a metaphor for human sexuality, and sexuality then became to be viewed by Christians as an indulgence that is immoral and potentially dangerous. But why?

That is not what the Bible says. The metaphor does not hold and no way to substantiate it from the Bible.

 In the story of Adam and Eve, Yahweh told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit--but they did anyway. After they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they then realized they were naked, and shamefully covered themselves with leaves they had "sewn" together. (How they knew how to sew, and where they got the needle and thread from is not explained in the story.) Through Augustine, this instigated the view that somehow the human body is dirty and shameful and should be covered, and sex is somehow an immoral act. However, this is not main context of this story at all, as I note in another post --it is a red herring. The original authors of this story, and theologians of the past and present would have us think the "shame of nakedness" and the "original sin" of partaking of the "forbidden fruit" were the focus of this story--but they are not. The real focus of this story is the transition from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one, which allows the demonization of women, as traditionally, Eve is blamed for the "Fall of Man."

Augustine was a great theologian and I admire the way God used him, but St Augustine is wrong if he did indeed teach that the human body is shameful. The Bible does not tells us that sex is immoral. The Bible says you should not engage in immoral sex. God does not hold Eve responsible for the sin compromising the whole human race. That was on Adam. Re-Read Romans 5. Of course men have tried to pass the buck. Even Adam tried to blame Eve, but God would not have it.

That Eve was scapegoated and women were vilified by the Abrahamic faiths is explained by one of my favorite philosophers, Mary Daly, who was a feminist and theologian who taught at Boston College. In her book "Gyn/Ecology, she explains how an "all male homosexual trinity" claimed to be responsible for all of creation; and the "Virgin Mary," who was but a vessel that could only be validated by a man, has helped lead society to where it is today concerning attitudes towards sex and women. It was through these myths that the Bible writers sought to eliminate the goddess. Men, jealous of the creators of life, sought to vilify women, thereby elevating their own status--and they did so via such myths. Unfortunately, this vilification has led those in Christian society--whether they claim to be Christian or not--to view sex and women as immoral and dirty.

 Imaginative. But hogwash just the same. So why have some Christians and others in  Abrahamic faiths vilify women and blame them for their own lack of self control. The Bible tells us. Men love darkness rather than light and would rather blame women rather than take responsibility. Really sad.

Most people believe that this is how it has always been--but this is not the case at all. In fact, in Africa, before the introduction of Christianity, women walked around half naked, or completely naked, and nobody paid any mind. They were not lusted after as "Eve whores,"--as their body and their sex was completely natural for them. It was through the Abrahamic faiths that the natural act of sex became something unnatural. This then leads down a rabbit hole, where men blame their own urges on the "Eve whore" as they themselves believe that everything from masturbation to sexual enjoyment in general is "dirty"--making women the scapegoats.

Yup some people have thought this way and continue to think this way but that is not what the Bible tells us is true. The Bible tells a man to enjoy his wife. Love her. Satisfy her. And for a wife to do the same for her husbands.

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
    running water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs overflow in the streets,
    your streams of water in the public squares?
¹⁷ Let them be yours alone,
    never to be shared with strangers.
¹⁸ May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
¹⁹ A loving doe, a graceful deer —
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love. - Proverbs 5:15-19

¹³ Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. ¹⁴ You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

¹⁵ Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.^[a] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

¹⁶ “The man who hates and divorces his wife, ” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”^[b] says the Lord Almighty.

So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful. - Malachi 2:13-15

.

This view of the "Eve-whore" was then promulgated throughout our society in general--resulting in perverted views of human sexuality. It is our antecedent beliefs that influence how we "see" things, and it is the results of these beliefs that has not only suppressed women, but has also promoted the view of women as dirty "Eve-whores." (Note, that there are no derogatory terms--at least I do not know of one--that denigrates men for participating in sexual acts--but there are MANY such derogatory terms for women.)

Agreed our society does have perverted views of human sexuality but those views do not match the one the Bible admonished us to have. That is the problem.  The Bible does have derogatory terms for men who engage in sexual acts outside monogamous marriage like  "fornicator", "adulterer", "sinner", and others. Why don't these come up anymore? Simple instead of our society being ashamed of such evil, we revel in it. We celebrate it. We display it. Our society's condemnation is well-deserved.

I do not view sex as something "dirty," nor am I a hedonist.

Neither does the Bible.

I believe that sex is completely natural and is an expression of love that should not be taken lightly. I also believe that when people commit to each other, they can have a fabulous sex life. Christians however, with their perverted view of sex, do not see it that way. Not only is sex in marriage no longer a "forbidden fruit" for many Christians, (i.e.,boring) but wives themselves are viewed as somehow "pure," so quite naturally, this then leads to adultery where the "born sinners" seek out the "Eve-whores" to satisfy their "sinful" urges.

What? You mean men are not capable of controlling those urges and give themselves to one individual woman? You mean they need the help of God to change how they think and to best treat their wives in and out of the bedroom? Exactly the point the Bible is making. It's the most fabulous sex life you can have - God's way. It is isn't the Bible's depiction of sex that is perverted, it is human beings that have perverted and some of them were in the church when they perverted it.

  (They could never do that with their wives they say.)--which has also been a contributing factor to the development of the porn industry. Unfortunately, women, who believe they are now liberated from the bondage of men, are also now participating in the same way that men are--but that is a subject for another post.

The following doesn't refer to just homosexuality but to all who wanna do this their way:

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:28-32


Therefore, the perverted views of sex resulting from the influences of Christianity has been a contributing factor to the development of the porn industry. So Christians who whine about the sexual immorality in society should take a look in the mirror.....
_______________
Cathy Cooper

Twice she make a point that teaching people that sex is dirt and immoral although we are all hardwired to need it contributed to sexual immorality and porn in our society but fails to make it stick. I mean after all historically goddess worship always seems to include some kinds ritual sex or orgies. An awful lot like some of the porn we have today. If she was correct you wouldn't see anything like that until Christianity had become a major religion had it been a major contributing factor. Further the problem with sexual immorality in our society is indeed due to us. Many "Christians" will preach against gay people having sex but won't say a word about people living together and having sex as long as they are a man and woman. This is no less a sin. 

On the other side, I think that anyone who would argue that God hates sex and expects us to hate it too never really read the Bible. The book Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) is full of erotic imagery and language. Hot stuff it is but this failed argument it isn't.

Debunking Christianity: Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry

Video: “I Have Sex” « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

I find it amazing that we now live in a culture that not only condones extra-marital sexual activity but literally glories in it. Part of the problem is that for centuries, the Christian church taught people to be ashamed of their sexuality while there is no Biblical teaching that endorses such a view. It seems that in protesting that, people have gone to the other extreme of thinking that almost everything is permissible and correct. Like everything else, why would there not be inadvisable sexual behavior? The Bible does not condemn sex. Sex inside of monogamous relationships between a single man and a single woman in a life-long commitment under-girded by mutual respect and love is what is commanded. The amazing thing is that most people admit that these Biblical relationship are the most healthy sexual relationships and what most people seem to crave no matter what culture or time they are from. Women are best protected and have the most control over their lives in these kinds of relationships. People live longer and more fulfilled lives. When people turn their backs on keeping sex within marriage, they turn their backs on what is best for them. God is not trying to be a kill-joy or ruin our fun or keep us from pleasure. God has revealed what is best for us. Considering that God made us and gave us the gift of sex, would God not know how to get the most out of it? Yes, God would. And given that God has revealed this as God's desire for us, it follows that God will give you a spouse suitable for you so that you can live the way God has commanded.

Everyone sins and falls short of the ideal standard God has given us - in multiple ways. This is why forgiveness is given to us. God knows that the standards for how we exercise our sexuality is steep and God does not expect us to view sexual desire as sin - in and of itself. Desiring sex is not an evil thing. The problem is what people do to fulfill those desires. We can fall into sinful action to satisfy those feelings. Thank God, for giving us all the tools and things we need to live the lives He has purposed for us.




Video: “I Have Sex” « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

Related articles

• On Monogamy, Happiness, and Adultery (psychologytoday.com)
• The Aftermath of Childhood Sexual Abuse (everydayhealth.com)
• What Is Asexuality? (brainz.org)
• Crushable Books: 'Sometimes I Feel Like A Nut' By Jill Kargman (Pt. 2) (crushable.com)
• Bridges to Sexual Desire (psychologytoday.com)
• Guidelines for Revitalizing and Maintaining Sexual Desire (psychologytoday.com)
• Society for Human Sexuality (socyberty.com)

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible and Sex

I have found that people are constantly misrepresenting what God says about our sexuality. Part of that is the Church's fault making people ashamed of the gifts that God has given us to be expressed in the context of marriage. I really enjoyed this post by Dr. Mariottini. In a very short amount of space he takes three arguments made by Jennifer Wright Knust in her book Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011). He pointed out that:

Knust, who is an ordained American Baptist minister and Assistant Professor of Religion at Boston University has written the most radical, revisionist book on what the Bible says and teaches about sex.

Mariottini explained in really good detail why she is mistaken in the conclusion she draws that premarital sex, prostitution, and homosexuality were all okay in certain contexts in the Bible. What I really liked about how Dr. Mariottini answered this was his total honesty and concreteness. Many times Christians beat around the bush and try not to be very direct. Mariottin as really direct and clear!

Jennifer Knust offers a radical revisionist interpretation of the biblical texts dealing with the matters of sex and sexuality. Her interpretation departs, not only from the traditional ways those texts are interpreted, but also from the true meaning of what the texts actually say.

In her interview with Prothero, Knust concluded: “Some biblical passages can support my point of view. Others do not. So, as firmly as I believe that ‘love your neighbor’ can capture God’s point of view, I cannot be certain that I am right.”

Ms. Knust, I can help you: you are not right.

AMEN!!


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible and Sex

Answering Muslims: Fifteen-Year-Old Hena Begum Dies after Receiving 100 Lashes

David Wood has posted an article that troubles me. Apparently a 15 year-old girl was sentenced to receive 100 lashes for having sex with her married cousin. First...Ew! Second, I thin that people who believe with the Bible must agree with the Qur'an as far as extra-marital church being a sin, however Christians do not agree with the punishment of adultery and fornication. The Qur'an is quoted in the article:

Qur'an 24:2—(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

Yes, it is similar to the laws given to us through Moses

“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10

I think it's important to point something out about both texts. Even if you disagree that extra-marital sex should be punished this severely you must also recognize that both participants - men and women should bear responsibility. Not just the woman. There is a lot of information missing in Hena Begum's case. Was she raped? From what I can tell about the part of the world, it wold not have mattered if she was raped or wanted it. Another source says she was raped by her cousin who is 40 years old. Was her cousin also given the same penalty of 100 lashes? I don't think that she deserved what happened to her. Nor do I think that she deserved to die even if she chose to be in the act freely. The thing I want to call attention to is that adultery and fornication are wrong because of how it damages the people who engage in it. God prohibited sex outside of marriage because it is better for us not because he doesn't want us to enjoy sex. It was illegal according to both the Qur'an and the Books of Moses to punish adultery only by punishing the woman. This is why Jesus did not condemn the woman who was brought to him who was caught in adultery. The religious leaders who brought her was only interested in trapping Jesus into either breaking the Law or stoning her. He turned the tables and although he didn't condemn her, Jesus told her to sin no more. This is what Jesus came for and we are all like that woman. We deserve to be stoned and to die in our sins, but Jesus came that we can live - not that we can keep sinning.

² At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ³ The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴ and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” ⁶ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” ⁸ Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
¹¹ “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” - John 8:2-11

I think this is the best was of dealing with such situations. Love the sinner and shun the sin - not ignoring it.


Answering Muslims: Fifteen-Year-Old Hena Begum Dies after Receiving 100 Lashes
Bangladeshi teen dies from sharia lashing after reportedly being raped

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: "Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)

I don't understand why John Loftus thinks that enjoying sex is antithetical to Christianity. I mean really? Why?

Such a guilt producing message! Okay, Okay, sexual addictions can be very serious, but WTF is this! What's wrong with masturbation? Anyone? Anyone? Will it make you go blind or something? And what's wrong with lust? It's biology baby. Christians will forever have problems with sex. They don't know what to do with it except deny, deny, deny. I've written about this before.

Looking at history, yes, the church has denied sexual fulfillment of people and making it seem that God does not want people to be sexual fulfilled although he gave us those desires. This is not the same thing as "lust". Isn't sex supposed to be more than just fulfilling biology? Although the church has done a disservice on teaching on sex for years - making it seem like sex is dirty and immoral in and of itself, this is not the picture that the Bible gives us for the place sex should be in our lives. God isn't against sex, he just wants us to truly enjoy it in its fullness. Since he gave them to us, wouldn't it make sense that God would know what we should do our feelings so we don't destroy ourselves and each other? All I am calling for is some common sense applied consistently.

Debunking Christianity: "Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)

Richard Dawkins vs. The Pope | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a link to an article about Richard Dawkins calling for an investigation in order to determine how much the Pope knew about the flood of sexual misconduct of Roman catholic priests. I haven't got a problem with that. but I've got to wonder why Richard Dawkins is outraged. I mean is it on;y wrong when clergy do it? Mariano said:

Now, is the outrage and call for arrest really coming from the very same Richard Dawkins who argues that some are merely “gentle pedophiles” and that too much is made of some cases of pedophilia??

I agree with Mariano. I hate double standards. Raping children is wrong no matter who does it and under all circumstances.

Richard Dawkins vs. The Pope | True Freethinker

The Human Sexes (Part One) - Different But Equal

I found this interesting documentary on google. Here is the summary:

Written and presented by Desmond Morris (1997). Will boys always be boys and girls always be girls? Will we ever really understand each other? You may be shocked by your conclusions. Prepare yourself for an intimate, erotic examination of physical differences between the sexes, from body fat to brain power. See Turkish men demonstrate their suitability as mates by wrestling in olive oil. Celebrate Mardi Gras in New Orleans, where women bare their breasts to entice men to reward them with strings of beads. Observe women who flaunt their femininity as exotic dancers, and female body builders who develop their muscles to the point of masculinity. Examine brain scans that show that men and women even think differently about the same problems. 'Different But Equal' explores whether the amazing differences between men and women are based on biology or history.

The Human Sexes (Part One) - Different But Equal

Good Sex, Bad Sex - Mark Driscoll

I heard about this sermon, but I never saw it until now. Mark Driscoll has gotten a lot of flack for choosing to preach on sex. He had been accused of using "Sex" to feel his pew. I wondered if that was true or if he was truly giving a word from God. Of course God has something to say to us about sex. So I listened to the sermon below. I disagree with the criticisms. The problem is that he really hammers what the Bible says in no uncertain terms. Things that need to be said but no one want to hear or say.





Good Sex, Bad Sex - Mark Driscoll

When sex doesn't sell: Slew of bad ads backfire in the blogosphere -- DailyFinance

Everyone agrees that sex sells! When they work - meaning that advertisements  influence people to buy the product being advertised - they work well. People remember the product. This particular article is great. It points out that people remember advertised products either because they were awestruck or horrified. If you are horrified, you will remember the product but you might not buy it! The article points out 4 advertisements that are recent and shocking that use sexuality to sell their products. The article is right, you may find something humorous that offends another. I find the same thing in these examples. By and large many people were offended.

Example 1:  Halls commercial - mother and roommate eat a halls and it is so good that the middle-aged woman and the roommate make humming sounds of  satisfaction while looking into each others' eyes. I found this funny not offensive because neither person was doing anything wrong...it just looked awkward.



Example 2: Beer ad from Australia....no words. I'm offended because this goes under "things you can't unsee". Snow White has happy, innocent memories for me...sullied for ever.

Example 3: Mrs Clause cheating on Santa. Scary. Somethings just shouldn't be done.



Example 4: Cashing in on Sarah Palin's family problems. Remember Levi? He is the father of Palin's grandson. This ad is not just offensive...it's bad taste. How is this kid going to feel about this when he grows up?




When sex doesn't sell: Slew of bad ads backfire in the blogosphere -- DailyFinance

Atheism is Dead: Too Sexy for My Theology? On the New Atheist Obsession with Sex

Mariano has written another brilliant piece. This one is about the charge some atheists use that no one has the right to tell them what is right and wrong use of human sexuality. I think that their issue boils down to the same thing as all their charges: The desire to rebel against the one we are all ultimately accountable to - God. They refuse to submit to the one we must all submit to. Mariano does a great job of showing that there is no such thing as a sex-act between two consenting adults that does not affect other people. This one (just like all he writes) is a must read!

Atheism is Dead: Too Sexy for My Theology? On the New Atheist Obsession with Sex