Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.



Sunday, February 19, 2012

This Sunday: DOUBLE RAINBOW has a whole new meaning!

Pulled from here..... hehehe! If you love this, and really WHO wouldn't, you can buy it in t-shirt form from a bunch of places. Just punch in saying. We see double and tripple rainbows all the time in the rainy season, AWE YEAH! You go Yahweh!




steve said...

So two of the big values for the homosexual community are fair treatment and tolerance. Lately this has been seen in the outcry against “hate crimes,” and that has lead to “hate speech.”

So as I read this post, I don’t really see it fitting into the stated values of the public face of the LBGT community.

Tolerance by definition is I may not agree with you, but I will choose to treat you with respect. I will be empathetic to your plight, even if I ultimately do not agree with your opinions or share your values.

Hate speech would be making statements to belittle or anger who has different values than your own. It is designed to be hurtful; the intent is to cause anguish or discomfort. It works against maintaining civility in conversation.

What do others think? Is this t-shirt slogan designed to anger a group of folks or is it respectful in treating others? It almost seems counterproductive to conveying love and acceptance, the whole notion of treat others as you would like to be treated.


Godless and Free said...

Soooooo is it the alluding to God having sex that hurts, belittles and/or angers you or is it the Gay sex part? Why is alluding to deities having gay sex Hate speech? Did you even read the rest of the original post that went with this image, or did you just jump in to convey how hurt, belittled or angry you are at the audacity of someone making a joke about your until proven otherwise fictional deity.

Brett said...

Steve, Steve, Steve.

I tolerate you, but I don't have to respect what you think or you say. That's something that should be earned. What's the saying: Best to keep quite and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it!

Not saying you are a fool but I think the saying applies. I respect you as a mostly nice guy, but I'm appalled by you beliefs. It's not my problem if your beliefs are so tied up into your self worth.

And this isn't even close to hate speech. It's a joke on it. On all the hate speech your god approves of. Hate speech involves hate. This is a joke one that you can't get because you have no humor when it comes to your religion.

It's funny, you hated Religulous but this type of thing was in it. It's hate speech to you because it offends you, anything that doesn't show your religion in a positive is hate speech.


To paraphrase H. Wallowitz, I hope you brought a napkin Steve, cause you just got served!



M.O.R said...

Whatever God does in his own time is his own business, not anyone else's. ;)

IF you don't want a possibly bisexual God, then it's time to start worshipping aliens-who don't have bisexual sex.
Either that or find a new religion.

Btw, why does this seem to be insulting God? For all we know, the creator of this image is a believer. Same as the guy who made Piss Christ.
They were just sick of one power mad shower of lunatics.

steve said...

Thanks “Godless and Free” for your input, I did in fact read the original post and did leave a comment there, not sure if the was moderator is running behind on proof reading posts or if it was simply not approved, some bloggers are funny about allowing for different opinions. But that is a good point, to always be careful to read the original post, especially if you are going to be in disagreement; give them a fair chance before jumping to conclusions.

Brett, my self-worth can not be harmed by a t-shirt, especially an ignorant one with zero truth, but I can still view it as offensive. I imagine it was meant to be humorous, but humor can be mean-spirited. Regardless if you or I find it humorous, it is in bad taste. It would be a calloused heart which did not get angered to see an insulting (and inaccurate) statement. So when something is offensive it is good to be offended and not humored. For the most part sexual statements of any sort do not belong on t-shirts, coarse joking definitely of this sort is inappropriate for public display.

I’m not sure what exactly you mean by referencing it is better to be silent than open your mouth and prove you are a fool. Are you saying it would be better to wear a blank black t-shirt than one with a foolish rude joke? I guess so, but that isn’t really the point I was making. Or were you saying anyone who disagrees with you is a fool? A little too egocentric of a position, so I hope that is not your implication.

Brett I think you may be thinking of respect incorrectly, it is variable; you can have little or much respect for someone (only the late Rodney Dangerfield got “no respect.”) I’m referencing common decency-the baseline for respect; all people are deserving of starting at least with a minimum of respect. A t-shirt which insults indiscriminately all people of a certain faith works against this notion, so your statements are self contradictory-unless you marginalize all Christians to being inherently undeserving of common respect and fair treatment.

I’m afraid you may know less about Christianity than I gave you credit for, and you are definitely far from being the expert on Christian beliefs you claim to be. All Christians would find this shirt offensive, none would laugh along with the joke. The intent behind the shirt is not to get Christians to laugh along with the wearer, but it is to insult the true believer by defaming one of their central beliefs. Even if you disagree with someone else’s beliefs it is important to not be mean spirited or defamatory in your remarks. I frequently use humor, sarcasm, and word play in my responses to Brett. I try to disagree without being overly disagreeable, I’m not trying to just win an argument or prove my superior skills in rhetoric, I really seek to build a bridge of understanding.

Yes I did get served, but it was a slow high arching lob which barely made it over the net, not really the kind of delivery you should brag about. At least I got a free napkin out of the deal, it ain’t much but it is better than nothing I guess.

Brett said...


Yeah it might have been in poor taste to YOU but what about ALL that going to hell crap you guy CONSTANTLY throw out at your meetings and services, on TV and on billboards. It'a play on that but of course because YOU say it, its not hate speech, it's your 'religion' so it's OK.

What I ment is that this ISN'T hate speech. What you guys spout about homosexuals IS. When all that crap you say causes people to kill themselves, THAT'S hate speech. It's called hypocrisy and by opening your mouth about this and proving you don't understand what hate speech is you proved my point.

And WHAT THE HELL? (that's not anger, that'e bewilderment) Respect is something you EARN. You can't have a 'baseline' for it because everyone is different in how they use it. But again you prove the point that anything that offends YOU is wrong and bad. Could it be you are oversensitive? Cause that's what it looks like, any joke about YOUR religion is an offense. So you can make fun of the gay people and insult them but they can't say anything back... how very... pious of you.

I don't claim to be an expert on your religion but neither are you (you read into that what you will, half the time I don't agree with your interpretations but because you 'know' your right I don't bother with it. Half the time you seem to be making things up cause what you tell me is so unbelievable.) You can't see the hypocrisy. I stopped researching your religion because it isn't real, why waste my time with it.

I don't know Steve, M.O.R. thought it was OK, but he's not a real Christian right?

In fact I LOLed when Jess told it to me. I guess its OK to tell people they are evil and going to hell because they are gay but heaven forbid you even JOKE that god might have the gay sex!!!!! I guess your telling everyone they are evil isn't offensive to anyone!

Do you honestly think your a winning these arguments? WOW! Fatboy puts you in your place with every comment! Or is that your martyrdom talking again?

Love and kisses,


Godless and Free said...

So how exactly do know your God is an asexual being? and definitely not homosexual. Have you and your God had a heart to heart on the subject? If not the only other place you could have derived such information is the bible, and as far as that goes it doesn't say much on the subject and what is written was done so by "flawed", "sinful" humans. What it does say though is that your God created Angels and even being holy,perfect creations,and very close to god. They still lusted after human females and had sex with them, even got them pregnant. Your God created Humans in his image and we are completely sexual beings. Sooo again, where exactly are you getting your info on God's sexuality from?
As far as your beliefs being can be offended all you want, that's your right. But to sit there and decree that sexual statements of any kind don't belong on T-shirts or in public is simply your opinion, based off of growing up and living in a sexually repressed(Because of Christian beliefs)society. Damn near every life form on the planet has sex in one way or another.So almost everyone does it, it's a natural "God" created function so why can't words about it be publicly displayed on a T-shirt? Would you be offended if someone had a shirt displaying Human cells dividing? Or maybe Amoebae reproducing through mitosis or cytokinesis? Or is it just the penis,vagina,rectum thing? I would just like to know where you stand on that issue. If someone suggested that God reproduced asexually would that be acceptable? I look forward to your informed reply. :D

Godless and Free said...

Oh and before you come back with the God abhors homosexuality thing. I think(and my opinion on the subject really is as good as anyone elses)
that maybe the people that wrote that statement were closeted Homosexuals and were trying to draw fire away from themselves and felt their God should act in the same manner.
Ever heard the phrase "Me thinks thou doth protest too much"

Brett said...


I believe that one the authors of the Hate the Gays part of the bible was a Greek. It's been postulated that he might have been raised in the Greek way (teenage boys take a male lover until they marry a woman.) And that the author didn't like this, thus saying it's bad in the bible cause it's, you know the WORD of god.

Or were you referring to all those Rethuglicans/ religious leaders who say gays are bad and evil yet can't wait to drop there pants or tap there feet for one in a 'private' setting? Do as I say, not as I do!

Democratic affair: "Who is she?"

Republican affair: "Who is he?"

I'm just hoping we'll get to meet Santorum's BF before this is all over! He's already got that hypocrisy thing DOWN!



Godless and Free said...


I was referring to the portion of the bible that states God abhors homosexuality. But I do find it VERY amusing that the ones who are most adamant against homosexuality seem to be the ones always getting caught, pants down with the same sex.
As far as Santorum goes apparently hypocrisy is the least of his flaws. Haven't you seen the commercials? He voted to increase the debt limit 5 times, supported spending billions in wasteful pork, Voted for the bridge to nowhere and he EVEN voted with Hillary Clinton to let convicted felons...GASP...VOTE! ;)

M.O.R said...

Brett, Steve and anyone else who cares or is open to new information. Again, I have to reiterate, that I am not 'preaching' just providing information.
I would never tell someone what to believe, but I would try and give them both sides of the argument. I think one is better served when they understand one anothers differing viewpoints, without necessarily agreeing with them.

The bible does not condemn homsexuality, in fact, even Jesus himself never condemned homosexuality. Unfortunately, the translations of the bible are not just poor, in some cases, they are downright lazy. And if one thinks that this is something which no longer continues to this day, then look at how JRR Tolkien's estate have been correcting certain misprints or misspellings in the works to this day.

The bible does not condemn sexual orientation, but rather certain 'homosexual'acts (again, they may not have had the correct translation for the acts, like paedophilia or pederasty). These would include prostitution and the use of children for one's sexual pleasures.

Secondly, Abomination, as a word, has evolved to give a far more sinister meaning. Similar to how the words 'gay' and 'queer'used to mean 'happy' and 'strange', now Abomination seems to imply something deviant, and heinous. When in fact it actually meant Against tradition, like eating meat on a Friday in the old Catholic tradition.

Secondly, Jesus never condemned homsexuality, nor any sexual orientation. See quotes below.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

OR this one.

'You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.' (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

So why condemn people who have done nothing to harm anyeone. And how do we know that God does not enjoy Gay sex? He's God, he can do what he likes.
And if one follows the Mormon teachings, then there are other Gods on other planets to fornicate with.

Brett said...


Santorum is insane! He basically says he wants to cut funding to college cause they make people smarter and smart people leave or at least modify there religion to a more liberal opinion. Knowledge is the real power and the people like Santorum are scared of it! See, School House Rock was right!

I haven't seen any commercials for him yet, but that guy is not just crazy he's fricken stupid! It is nice that his lies are so thinly veiled!


I'm of 2 minds on this. I'm SURE some of the translations are wrong, it HAS to happen, we humans are a fallible people;) But there is still a lot that is the same, the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm this. It's hard to say what is original text and what was changed from BEFORE the DSS though. Plus there were all those texts not included in the Bible which to me are far more interesting reads. But I'm sure some of peoples own ideas crept in as well. Why wouldn't they use it as the tool it is/was.

That Revilations book is INSANE, but so cool for movies and stories! I know it comes across as me disliking religion, but I'm a big fan of mythology and the Christians and Jews have some cool shit in there for stories! I have several story ideas involving the Christian mythos.

Personally I think people have made to much of a big deal about sex. It's built up to this pinacle of importance that has been manipulated to mean only one thing to some people. Sure it's for kids, but it's also for pair bonding and even for that dreaded fun. Anything holy can't be that noisy or messy;P

I fail to see why anal sex is so shocking and horrible to some people. Aren't men trying to always do that with women as well? Much ado about nothing to me.

God's a big boy, I'm sure he can take a joke... well not some people's god;P



M.O.R said...

@Godless and Free

I think I need to clarify some things, and you may have to think outside the box for a minute or two. 'Homosexual Acts' committed by an individual does not necessarily mean that said individual is a homosexual. And when I speak of homosexual acts, I am talking about homosexual rape, which can include minors as seen with paedophilia, and other sexual assaults against the same sex. There is no consent given, nor is there consent asked for. That is what I am talking about when I said 'certain homosexual acts'. Looking at the reverse, one could also be homosexual, and go on to commit heterosexual rape. It is all about dominance, violation and breaking down the individual. You have to remember that at the time the book was written, it was not uncommon for an army to rape the defeated soldiers.
The bible condones consent between individuals to have as many predilections as they want within a loving relationship. There is no talk of remaining chaste or virtuous. That was something you may have observed, but I never said anything, I feel, to give that impression. Alot of this is explained at the link I provided, even if there are elements that I disagree with in that link.

Again, the word abomination, as I have said before, has evolved from what it used to mean. Sadly, this evolution was completely far more sinister to what those who used it centuries ago intended it. Think about how all the words that we use today can mean something far more, or far less, different to what they used to mean. I mean, centuries ago, a faggot meant a bundle of sticks. Nowadays, what does it mean? A vicious slur, used against those who are homosexual. To even call a straight person the F word means they are evil, and abhorrent, and should be ashamed by the word.
In many ways, Abomination has become an abomination of what the word used to mean (I use that in the modern day interpretation). I am genuinely not trying to confuse anyone, just trying to explain my point.

As I said before, shellfish is also called an abomination in the same page as homosexuality. But an abomination, in the bible, and also at the time of writing, meant against tradition. Like eating meat on a Friday if one was Catholic. OR if a Jewish person eats pork, it is against tradition. That is not to say it is wrong, but rather that it is different.
Not the usual. Like people having two differently coloured eyes could be called the same. But if we were to travel back two thousand years ago, that would not be an insult.

Yes, the religions of the world consider homosexuality a sin, and one of the most heinous, but again, all three major ones take a massive misinterpretation of certain so-called religious texts. To put it bluntly, they are wrong.

Yes, they are condemning people for loving someone like them, but that is why so many are flocking away from religion, despite retaining a belief in a deity. I too am sick of people preaching hate, especially where no message of hate was intended.
Also note how JC never, ever, condemned ones sexuality. He never even mentioned it. But what he condemn was when one has little to no respect for theirs or another's body. The prostitution and sexual abuse that I mentioned above being the main condemnations.

Godless and Free said...


I see what your saying, and I appreciate your open minded views. I wish we had more Christians in Washington that thought like you.
The link you provided did give some new and interesting info but for all of it's enlightening info, as I read further the author slid right back into some of the same old Christian B.S. He came right out and said that Homosexual tendencies are not wrong but that acting on them are. That these acts are still a sin, just not unforgivable and as a Christian it is their duty to help "fix" the situation. It also states that Homosexuals must realize that these feelings might be just a "passing phase" REALLY? I ask every absolute heterosexual who reads this, is your sexuality a passing phase? have you ever once thought "Eh...This liking the opposite sex thing might just be a phase I'm going through. It'll probably pass if I really try at it, and then I can move on to what I'm really like.
I agree that as young person a Homosexual might feel confused, but that I feel is from societal norms of heterosexuality being shoved down their throat and not from being a passing phase.
Also you are correct that the Character of Jesus never definitively said anything about Homosexuality. He did though preach against sexual immorality and for all anyone knew at the time that included homosexuality.
In my opinion as long as this country and this world keep looking to their dusty, old, obsolete religious tomes for wisdom and moral guidance instead of taking a fresh, modern look at the reality they're living in, and start caring about and actually respecting people, nothing is ever going to change.

M.O.R said...

@Godless and Free

Yeah, the parts you disagreed with were the parts I also hated.

Jesus preaching against sexual immorality may have included the child brides or the multiple marriages, or selling one's body for sex. He walked around with 12 guys all the time, I doubt he would have been the one to start condemning folks for hanging around with the same gender, or going farther than he did. Remember, he was the one who told his followers to treat the sick lepers. Actually one of the things that makes me hate the current pope, is back when he was Ratzinger, the Pope's right hand man, during the AIDS crisis of the 80's and 90's, he publicly told his followers 'Don't help those with AIDS or HIV', they are being punished by God. Great, what an A-hole. Of course, many people disobeyed him, and did offer help, and comfort, to those who were dying, no matter their sexuality. Personally, I believe that if JC had been alive, he would have been the first person to help treat the sick and the dying, no matter how they got the disease. So how the Catholic church claim they preach the word of God, or claim they are the representatives of Jesus Christ, is beyond me.

As for being a Christian, I don't know if I really am. I define myself more as a theist, or deist. I feel that being a Christian, or claiming to be one, carries negative connotations, as well as the notion that one must follow 'rules' rather than just trying to be a nice person, and doing good for one's own reasons.

M.O.R said...

Not that I am saying the sick lepers are those who are gay, I just muddled up that point there.
I was trying to make the AIDS being the modern version of lepresy, in a way, example, but kind of muddled it up.

steve said...

Brett, as always, thanks for listening to views that differ from yours. Even though you seldom agree with me, I really do appreciate you allowing me to speak my mind.

I have asked in the past that you keep a couple things in mind, which usually get ignored, but for those reading along at home it might be helpful.

1.) True Christians are not people who only go to church or call themselves Christian, moral, Republicans, spiritual, religious, Catholics, Baptist, right wing, pro-life, Creationists, etc. A true Christian isn’t even someone who merely says the Bible is true or believes in God. To be a true Christian you die to your self and live a new selfless life centered around Jesus Christ who gives you a new life through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. The proof is in how your life begins to conform to the ideal perfect person Jesus the Christ. Since Christ saves jacked up people and then begins a life long process of changing them to be more holy and more loving you should expect to see Christians constantly growing and occasionally stumbling. Christians aren’t perfect, they sin as much or more (since now they have a reason not to) than other folks.

2.) Jesus came to save the lost, those who did not care about morality or God AND he also came to confront self-righteous religious folks who were trusting in their own religious beliefs, upbringing, or moral performance for maintaining a relationship with God. Both the openly sinful and the religiously pious are lost and distant from God.

That is true Christianity, not my brand, not my interpretation, not my particular flavor.

A lot of Brett’s arguments fail because of these two points. He argues against religious hypocrites as if that is counter to what the Bible teaches. All people are hypocrites, the Bible says religious folks are the worse sort. The Bible does say though Christians should admit when wrong and ask for forgiveness.

Is Godless and Free the same person as Fatboy? A bit confused on that one.

Also in terms of sex it is helpful to remember the Bible’s stance is sex is for marriage, marriage is a man and a woman. So anything which doesn’t fit inside that picture is outside of the Bible’s supported view of sex (there is one exception given which no one ever seems to mention). Also Jesus restated that principal (Matt. 19:4). By stating what sex is to be, it eliminates the need to constantly update the list of what doesn’t fit. Homosexuality fails because it is not a man and a woman, and it is also outside of marriage. Just can’t make it fit with that view.

steve said...


You seem to know your Bible, could you tell me the meaning of the passages you quoted? I’m thinking in particular of the “not judge” verse? How do you read it contextually with the rest of the passage, especially with the fact in the same section of Matthew 7 Jesus tells people to judge who is a dog and a swine? Do you subscribe to the long standing scholarly interpretation that Jesus is warning against self-righteous judging; that is using yourself and your own performance as the standard rather than God’s moral law as the standard? Or do you prefer the currently culturally popular but wholly undefendable position that Jesus is saying ignore the majority of the Bible, ignore all the laws, all the commandments, and the rest of God’s words (in fact huge sections of Jesus’ own teachings), and instead just tolerate all and any moral value system without ever “judging”?