What Is a “Real Man,” According to the Bible?

What Is a “Real Man,” According to the Bible? November 20, 2018

What makes a “real man”? We’ve all seen light-hearted rules like real men don’t cry, real men don’t eat quiche, real men don’t let other men eat quiche, and so on. James Dobson’s Family Talk site has a page that claims to have God’s rules for how to be a true man of God. The author summarizes the goal this way: “My wife and kids need a real man, not some wimpy guy that rides the ever-changing cultural tides of our times.”

Here’s that list, built on the rock of the Bible.

God’s Real Man List

  1. Real men don’t leave their wives. See Ephesians 5:25-32, Mark 10:9, Job 31:1
  2. Real men honor their wives as co-heirs. See 1 Peter 3:7
  3. Real men teach their children God’s ways (both in word and in action). See Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Ephesians 6:4, Psalm 78:5-7
  4. Real men build into the lives of other men. See Proverbs 27:17
  5. Real men don’t use their words to demean others. See Ephesians 4:29
  6. Real men don’t let their anger get away from them. See James 1:19-20
  7. Real men lead best when they love most. See Ephesians 5:1-2; John 13:34-35
  8. Real men are sacrificial for the sake of their Lord, family, and others. See John 15:13
  9. Real men are servants. See Mark 10:45
  10. Real men can show their emotions (this includes crying). See John 11:35, Matthew 21:12, Matthew 9:36

 

But why this list? Don’t forget that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). You really can’t go wrong when pulling Iron Age biblical examples into the 21st century, amirite, Dr. Dobson?

So, with that wind of certitude filling our sails, let’s look further in the Bible to see what else it says and make a new list, 10 More Traits of Real Men.

1. Real men don’t get married

The list above has at least two rules about men’s relationship with their wives, but Paul had no use for marriage:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry (1 Corinthians 7:8–9).

You can rationalize this one away by saying that Paul wrongly thought that the End was coming soon, but what’s left of your faith when you must say that the books of the New Testament are seriously wrong?

2. Real men listen to God over common-sense morality

God made some crazy demands in the Bible. Christians, what would it take for God to convince you to accept a modern equivalent of these demands?

  • Abraham accepted God’s demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac (more).
  • After discovering the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf, Moses commanded the Levites to punish fellow Israelites: “Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor,” and 3000 were killed (Exodus 32:26–29).
  • God demanded human sacrifice: “The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal” (Exodus 13:2). More.
  • God demanded that Babylon be punished, with the Israelites as executioners: “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished” (Isaiah 13:15–16).
  • God demanded genocide. He said that within the tribes that must be destroyed, “you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16–18) and that, for the Amalekites, Israel should “put to death men and women, children and infants” (1 Samuel 15:2–3). More here, here, and here.

I realize that we’re made in God’s image and that our sense of morality should line up with God’s, but forget that. A real man does what God says, regardless of how it immoral it seems.

3. Real men know that daughters can be sacrificed

In his younger days, God wasn’t omniscient, so he had to send scouts to Sodom to verify the rumors he’d heard. Lot protected these angels from the angry mob eager to teach these strangers who’s boss by raping them. Lot is portrayed as a godly man, though he doesn’t look very godly after he offered his two virgin daughters to the mob as a rape substitute. More.

4. Real men throw the first stone if their friend or relative strays

Suppose a friend suggests that you worship another God. Now imagine that it’s your best friend, or that it’s a family member, maybe a child or your wife. How should you respond?

Forget that freedom of religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution; things work differently in the Bible’s little world.

Do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 13:6–11; see also Deut. 32:41–2, Exodus 22:20).

Concluded in part 2.

There have been nearly 3000 gods so far
but only yours actually exists.
The others are silly made up nonsense.
But not yours. Yours is real.
— Ricky Gervais

.

Image from Victor B., CC license
.

"How can he not get this?Delusions of adequacy."

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and ..."
"The problem is, the fuckwits believe what he was doing by bringing Jesus to the ..."

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: ..."
"Christians who evangelize to people of other faiths "aim" with conscious intent to destroy their ..."

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: ..."
"P.S. Forgot to tell you."YOU demonstrated? Wise ta fuck up."Not an argument. Try again. I ..."

Yeah, but Christianity Built Universities and ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cozmo the Magician

    The real irony is that by Dobson’s list, trumpy thinskin is ANYTHING but a ‘real man’. Or is dobbie one of those few fundies that has not sucked on donny’s toesies?

  • larry parker

    Real men don’t need imaginary friends.

  • Grimlock

    It ought to be said that those first ten rules really wasn’t as bad as I feared. I mean, they’re not great, but they definitely could’ve been worse.

    • Otto

      I thought the first 2 were decent…and then it kind of went off the rails.

  • epicurus

    The photo for this post is the horniest viking I’ve ever seen!

    • And I have no idea what that dude is doing.

      • ThaneOfDrones

        Lassoing a fire-breathing dragon.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Vikings didn’t wear horny hats…that nonsense is as mythical as Thor.

      • epicurus

        Yeah, I’ve always heard a Wagnerian opera singer started the notion. Here is a Ripley’s article discussing some possibilities.

        • epicurus
        • Ignorant Amos

          Not quite…

          There is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that Viking warriors wore any type of horns or wings on their helmets. What we do have is one single piece of evidence, the ninth century Oseberg tapestry, suggesting a rare ceremonial use (the relevant figure on the tapestry may even be that of a god, rather than representative of real Vikings) and plenty of evidence for plain conical/domed helmets made mainly of leather.

          It would seem that ancient cultures did indeed have helmets adorned with ornaments like horns, antlers, and wings, but they were not Scandinavian. The idea that it was the Vikings is a result of a misidentification of a bronze figurine as being of a Swede.

          But you are quite right in the idea that the depiction of the Norse god Brunhilde in Wagner’s Norse interpretation of the ancient Germanic poem of Nibelungenlied exacerbated the myth.

          Perhaps the greatest step on the way to the ubiquity of the horn was in the late nineteenth century, when costume designers for Wagner’s Nibelungenlied created horned helmets because, as Roberta Frank puts it, “humanist scholarship, misunderstood archaeological finds, heraldic origin fantasies and the Great God Wish…had worked their magic” (Frank, ‘The Invention…’, 2000). Within just a few decades, the headwear had become synonymous with Vikings, enough to become shorthand for them in advertising. Wagner can be blamed for a lot, and this is one instance.

          Who would’ve thought such a thing possible…eh? //s

  • William

    Isn’t he violating #5 on his own list right in the intro?

    • Otto

      That was my thought too. But he has God on his side so he can ignore that one.

    • Like in calling the rest of us “wimpy guys”? I guess that’d be a problem if hypocrisy were a new thing to Christian arguments.

  • Starlady

    By my reckoning, trump fails 7 out of 10 on ames Dobson’s list

    • Greg G.

      I am not sure what a co-heir really means but I doubt tRump would be on board with that. I don’t see any others that tRump meets.

      • TheBookOfDavid

        I looked it up in context. The preceding text is about how a wife should be totally submissive and kill him with kindness in order to keep her husband on the straight and narrow. 1 Peter 3:7 is the “separate but equal” clause.

      • Kevin K

        Co-heir would mean marriage without a pre-nup. Can’t imagine Mango Mussolini would be in favor of that.

    • But doncha know that God can mold even a piece of crap like Trump into … well, I guess some different shape made of crap.

  • JBSchmidt

    “Real man don’t get married”

    -The verse is both out of context with Corinthians Chapter 7 and fails to account for the questions that Paul is addressing when he wrote chapter 7.

    “Real man listen to God over common-sense morality”

    -What is your standard of “common-sense” morality? We kill millions of unborn humans yearly and you are ok with that. The people of Israel would have been horrified at that act. Is abortion outside of “common-sense” morality?(PS. Exodus 13:2 has nothing to do with sacrifice)

    “Real men know that daughters can be sacrificed”

    -Your story makes no sense based on your statement. Did God authorize the sacrificing of daughters?

    “Real men throw the first stone if their friend or relative strays”

    -Those are hard passages to read. I put myself in the position of an Israelite at that time. You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues. You witnessed Moses raise his hands and part the Red Sea, until he lowered them and the water engulfed the Egyptian army. Then while wandering the desert a pillar of smoke lead your way by day and a pillar of fire by night. They received food from heaven and watched Moses strike a rock that then produced water. You just heard the voice of God come from Mt. Sinai and Moses, face glowing white with God’s glory, returns with 10 commandments.

    I have heard it said that “if God would only reveals himself to me, I would believe” The Israelites lived this revelation and were expected to follow God’s commands. God also knew that false gods would destroy the nation if they were allowed to creep in. A truth that repeated itself throughout Israel’s Biblical history. God was protecting his people from punishment by enacting this law.

    The difference between the Old Testament rules and New Testament rules is Christ. His death severed ties with those cultural rules. In faith, our sins have been wiped clean. However, the punishment still exists, it is just reserved for God’s final judgement. See Matthew 18:6-7.

    -You can deny what I have written or challenge it, but this is the Christian belief. Your challenges fall outside what Christians believe and are straw man arguments against the list presented by James Dobson. Do you have a challenge to Dobson’s list or just uneducated challenges to things that have nothing to do with the list.

    • Greg G.

      “Real man don’t get married”

      -The verse is both out of context with Corinthians Chapter 7 and fails to account for the questions that Paul is addressing when he wrote chapter 7.

      The point of the verse does not change when it is taken out of context. That is just a knee-jerk reaction Christians cannot help but say when a verse they keep skipping over is laid out in front of them.

      Paul thought the Messiah was coming any minute. He always used the first person plural when talking about those who would be alive at that point and the third person plural for those who would be raised from the dead. He saw no point in starting a family since he didn’t expect the next generation to grow up. He thought folks should concentrate on preparing for the Messiah. Paul thought the only reason to get married would be to have “legitimate” sex if they just couldn’t help themselves.

      Paul was wrong.

      “Real man listen to God over common-sense morality”

      -What is your standard of “common-sense” morality? We kill millions of unborn humans yearly and you are ok with that. The people of Israel would have been horrified at that act. Is abortion outside of “common-sense” morality?(PS. Exodus 13:2 has nothing to do with sacrifice)

      Those unborn humans you speak of are occupying another person’s body without consent and against the will of the owner of the uterus.

      “Real men know that daughters can be sacrificed”

      -Your story makes no sense based on your statement. Did God authorize the sacrificing of daughters?

      Look up Jephthah and his vow in Judges.

      “Real men throw the first stone if their friend or relative strays”

      -Those are hard passages to read. I put myself in the position of an Israelite at that time. You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues. You witnessed Moses raise his hands and part the Red Sea, until he lowered them and the water engulfed the Egyptian army. Then while wandering the desert a pillar of smoke lead your way by day and a pillar of fire by night. They received food from heaven and watched Moses strike a rock that then produced water. You just heard the voice of God come from Mt. Sinai and Moses, face glowing white with God’s glory, returns with 10 commandments.

      Why do you think you would be the hard ass instead of one who got smoked? Remember that there was no Exodus. They wrote a fictional story about all of that stuff.

      • Kevin K

        Paul was wrong.

        QFT.

    • “Real man don’t get married”
      -The verse is both out of context with Corinthians Chapter 7 and fails to account for the questions that Paul is addressing when he wrote chapter 7.

      Where’s the problem? Show me.

      “Real man listen to God over common-sense morality”
      -What is your standard of “common-sense” morality?

      It’s not the same as yours?

      We kill millions of unborn humans yearly and you are ok with that.

      Sure. When they’re a single cell, they’re not much of a person.

      The people of Israel would have been horrified at that act.

      Nope. God is A-OK with abortion. Read the Ordeal of Bitter Waters in Numbers 5.

      (PS. Exodus 13:2 has nothing to do with sacrifice)

      I’m just letting the Bible speak for itself: “Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.” God luvs human sacrifice.

      “Real men know that daughters can be sacrificed”
      -Your story makes no sense based on your statement. Did God authorize the sacrificing of daughters?

      Was Lot punished for wanting to throw his daughters out to the mob? Nope—he’s shown in a positive light for the lengths he will go to to protect his guests.

      “Real men throw the first stone if their friend or relative strays”
      -Those are hard passages to read.

      But you bite down hard and push through? I wonder why “those are hard passages” never prompts you to reconsider what this passages tell you about the all-too-human origins of the Bible.

      I put myself in the position of an Israelite at that time. You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues. You witnessed Moses raise his hands and part the Red Sea, until he lowered them and the water engulfed the Egyptian army. Then while wandering the desert a pillar of smoke lead your way by day and a pillar of fire by night. They received food from heaven and watched Moses strike a rock that then produced water. You just heard the voice of God come from Mt. Sinai and Moses, face glowing white with God’s glory, returns with 10 commandments.

      It’s a story. It’s just words on paper. They could just as easily have been different words on paper, and there’s no reason to imagine the words we have as being heaven-sent.

      I have heard it said that “if God would only reveals himself to me, I would believe”

      Yes, God’s hiddenness is an enormous problem—IMO, the biggest.

      God also knew that false gods would destroy the nation if they were allowed to creep in.

      Or: the priests knew that they had to remain the gatekeepers, and they’d lose that position if some other god became ascendant and his priests became the gatekeepers.

      The difference between the Old Testament rules and New Testament rules is Christ.

      Ever wonder why Jesus wasn’t introduced on page 1? If he was the path to salvation, one wonders why he was introduced so late in the story.

      You can deny what I have written or challenge it, but this is the Christian belief.

      It’s easy to make the Bible and Christian teachings look ridiculous, which also makes the whole thing look manmade. If you have any defense, you’re welcome to introduce that. So far, I see nothing that I need to change.

      Your challenges fall outside what Christians believe and are straw man arguments against the list presented

      Straw man how? The Bible really says this stuff. If you’re delighted with what the Bible says, then you’ll have no problem with my celebrating it as well.

      • JBSchmidt

        I hope you and yours had a happy Thanksgiving.

        “Where’s the problem? Show me.”

        Corinth was asking if it was bad to be married. There were a lot of Christians marrying non-Christians causing the Christian to fall away in an attempt to keep their vows. The Corinthians thought that marriage was the problem. Paul condones both married and single life.

        “It’s not the same as yours?”

        If I asked, I am sure not.

        “Sure. When they’re a single cell, they’re not much of a person.”

        Right, life starts when the mother says.

        “Bitter Waters in Numbers 5”

        The original Hebrew says nothing of a pregnancy.

        “(PS. Exodus 13:2 has nothing to do with sacrifice)”

        This is Correct.

        “he’s shown in a positive light”

        Really? Lot is shown to be an idiot of the highest caliber.

        “never prompts you to reconsider what this passages tell you about the all-too-human origins of the Bible.”

        And you have dedicated countless hours to challenge a work of fiction. Apparently, God has us both hooked.

        “Yes, God’s hiddenness is an enormous problem—IMO, the biggest.”

        Is that His fault or yours? Seems that Billions in every walk of life don’t find him to be hidden.

        “the priests knew that they had to remain the gatekeepers”

        Anything to prove that?

        “Ever wonder why Jesus wasn’t introduced on page 1?”

        He was (see John 1:1 as a reference). Again in the 3rd chapter of the Bible and throughout the OT.

        • Paul condones both married and single life.

          “It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.” Married life is second best.

          “[My standard for ‘common-sense’ morality is] not the same as yours?”
          If I asked, I am sure not.

          Which doesn’t explain the difference. Since we both live in the West, I’d have thought we’d think about morality in the same way. Explain.

          If you’re saying that you look to the Bible for your morality, that doesn’t explain it. You’re still the Decider.

          “Sure. When they’re a single cell, they’re not much of a person.”
          Right, life starts when the mother says.

          The State has a say as well.

          You’ve avoided the spectrum of personhood that I alluded to. You disagree?

          “Bitter Waters in Numbers 5”
          The original Hebrew says nothing of a pregnancy.

          The NET Bible has this commentary on Num. 5:21: “Most commentators take the expressions to be euphemisms of miscarriage or stillbirth, meaning that there would be no fruit from an illegitimate union. The idea of the abdomen swelling has been reinterpreted by NEB to mean “fall away.” If this interpretation stands, then the idea is that the woman has become pregnant, and that has aroused the suspicion of the husband for some reason. R. K. Harrison (Numbers [WEC], 111-13) discusses a variety of other explanations for diseases and conditions that might be described by these terms. He translates it with “miscarriage,” but leaves open what the description might actually be. Cf. NRSV “makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge.””

          You disagree?

          This is Correct.

          Since you didn’t respond to my comment on Ex. 13:2, I’ll repeat myself: I’m just letting the Bible speak for itself: “Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.” God luvs human sacrifice.

          “he’s shown in a positive light”
          Really? Lot is shown to be an idiot of the highest caliber.

          I missed that. Show me God’s condemnation for being willing to throw his daughters to the mob.

          “never prompts you to reconsider what this passages tell you about the all-too-human origins of the Bible.”
          And you have dedicated countless hours to challenge a work of fiction. Apparently, God has us both hooked.

          Huh? You think the consequences of what annoys me are just differing literary critiques? Christianity in the US is a bull in a china shop.

          “Yes, God’s hiddenness is an enormous problem—IMO, the biggest.”
          Is that His fault or yours? Seems that Billions in every walk of life don’t find him to be hidden.

          I’ll bet that almost every one of those billions has wondered at least once why one’s relationship with God is so imaginary. If he loves us and wants a relationship, why not make his existence obvious and dispel the doubt?

          “the priests knew that they had to remain the gatekeepers”
          Anything to prove that?

          It’s a natural explanation. Methinks that easily trumps the supernatural explanation.

          “Ever wonder why Jesus wasn’t introduced on page 1?”
          He was (see John 1:1 as a reference). Again in the 3rd chapter of the Bible and throughout the OT.

          The Bible starts at Gen. 1, Chester.

          Jesus is imagined back in the Bible (as with Satan as the serpent) to satisfy an agenda. It never actually says that, but it pleases Christians to imagine that he was hidden in the OT. Why would God do that? If Jesus was the point, why all the throat clearing? Just present Jesus as the point in Gen. 1.

          The Christian Bible as written either makes God look like a dolt (“Doh! I forgot to send down Jesus!” – God in 300 BCE) or a reboot of someone else’s tradition.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seems that Billions in every walk of life don’t find him to be hidden.

          Ah…the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

          Apart from being fallacious, the problem is that billions find a different god from each other…strange dat!

          Unless….

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4LuxzFhhjmE/Uo-g6EH6GhI/AAAAAAAABnw/YlecZIqo5qw/s1600/reflection3.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          “he’s shown in a positive light”

          Really? Lot is shown to be an idiot of the highest caliber.

          Nope…that’s how sensible folk see him from our modern perspective…the Bible portrays him as a righteous and godly man.

          6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

          7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

          8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

          9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

          10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. ~2 Peter

          Glad to see you getting with the program on this point though.

    • Otto

      >>>”We kill millions of unborn humans yearly and you are ok with that.”

      No we don’t.

      >>>”You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues….”

      Umm…none of that happened. It is just a story.

      >>>”In faith, our sins have been wiped clean.”

      There is always a catch.

      >>>”Do you have a challenge to Dobson’s list”

      1 and 2 are decent…depending on how ‘co-heirs’ are defined.
      3 is crap
      4 depends on how it is done
      5 Dobson breaks his own rule
      6 is decent but completely up to interpretation
      7 is a meaningless platitude
      8 is crap
      9 is up to interpretation
      10 is rather meaningless

    • Zeta

      JBSchmidt: “You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues. You witnessed Moses raise his hands and part the Red Sea,…

      Real men do not believe in such nonsensical made-up stories.

      JBSchmidt: “ In faith, our sins have been wiped clean.
      Real men do not believe in such hypocrisy.
      As 1 Peter 1:20 so frankly reveals:

      “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

      Even before the Universe was created, your god had already decided to “sacrifice” himself as his own son to save humans (yet to be created billions of years in the future) from he himself. So killing Jesus (Can god be really killed?) for a few days was already on the grand agenda of your god. What is so great about this “sins have been wiped clean” thing when it was all a show by your hypocritical god?

      What is the “sin” that you talk about? Where does it come from?

      • Kevin K

        It always amazes me how blind theists are when they use 1 Peter … in these last times was meant to mean “within the next 10 years or thereabouts”. Early Christianity was an apocalyptic cult, no different from the Millerites who went to the top of the mountain to await the end. And then it didn’t happen and they had to scramble around for excuses. “No man knows the hour” and all that.

        Bloody nonsense is what it is.

      • What is the “sin” that you talk about? Where does it come from?

        Great question, when Deuteronomy 24:16 makes clear that there is no original sin: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”

        • Greg G.

          Is it objectively moral to die for someone else’s sin or not? I say that just in case someone would argue that those are two different situations.

          Doesn’t that rule out some godman dying for other people’s sins, too?

        • Otto

          Do as I say, not as I do.

      • Otto

        >>>”What is so great about this “sins have been wiped clean” thing…”

        And obviously sins were not wiped clean because each person’s faith is required for it to actually work. What a mess of a message.

    • Kevin K

      God certainly didn’t stay the hand of Jephthah when he sacrificed his daughter. Why not? My guess is that daughters were considered more like property than sons. So to Jephthah, sacrificing his daughter was about as moral as sacrificing a goat. Just another piece of property. I think this notion is confirmed by the fact that the bible tells this tale in fairly graphic detail, except for one important one — the daughter is never named. Cuz you don’t name goats, either.

    • Ignorant Amos

      -Those are hard passages to read. I put myself in the position of an Israelite at that time. You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues. You witnessed Moses raise his hands and part the Red Sea, until he lowered them and the water engulfed the Egyptian army. Then while wandering the desert a pillar of smoke lead your way by day and a pillar of fire by night. They received food from heaven and watched Moses strike a rock that then produced water. You just heard the voice of God come from Mt. Sinai and Moses, face glowing white with God’s glory, returns with 10 commandments.

      Yeah….Makes me wonder why the “chosen” were so quick to falter and rebel at every hands turn while wandering the wilderness. I mean, with all the smoting and all the other such miraculous stuff going on, that YahwehJesus was prone to act out at the drop of a hat, and all that nonsense. Apparently they were less impressed about, or by the Big I Am, as you are, and you’ve only read about it in a story book…the “chosen” were supposedly there to see it. How gulible does that make you?

      Then again, the Old Testament is all about the “chosen” giving YahwehJesus the finger. No matter how many times they get it shoved up them, they go ahead and diss their super-duper-can-fuck-them-right-up-multi-omni-big-I-Am. Something drastically wrong with that set up if it’s to be believed.

      • Joe

        Then again, the Old Testament is all about the “chosen” giving YahwehJesus the finger. No matter how many times they get it shoved up them, they go ahead and diss their super-duper-can-fuck-them-right-up-multi-omni-big-I-Am. Something drastically wrong with that set up if it’s to be believed.

        To anyone with a more skeptical mind, it sounds like the OT was written to explain away the current situation “God’s chosen people” found themselves in. “Yes, life sucks, but it was our ancestor’s fault, not God’s. So keep on believing, good times are just around the corner!”

    • Joe

      put myself in the position of an Israelite at that time. You just witnessed the Egyptian plagues. You witnessed Moses raise his hands and part the Red Sea, until he lowered them and the water engulfed the Egyptian army. Then while wandering the desert a pillar of smoke lead your way by day and a pillar of fire by night. They received food from heaven and watched Moses strike a rock that then produced water. You just heard the voice of God come from Mt. Sinai and Moses, face glowing white with God’s glory, returns with 10 commandments.

      Or: You didn’t witness any of that, because it never happened.

      I have heard it said that “if God would only reveals himself to me, I would believe” The Israelites lived this revelation and were expected to follow God’s commands. God also knew that false gods would destroy the nation if they were allowed to creep in. A truth that repeated itself throughout Israel’s Biblical history. God was protecting his people from punishment by enacting this law

      As others have pointed out, this is nonsense. If you know god is real, and he can both reward the faithful and punish the unfaithful, where is the attraction of worshiping a false god? Are you ever tempted to worship any other gods?

    • Michael Neville

      What is your standard of “common-sense” morality?

      It’s more moral than that of your god. According to your propaganda your god kills people just because he can, he orders genocide and sexual slavery and condones chattel slavery and rape. I think all those things are immoral, which means my morality is better than that of the sadistic thug you worship.

      The difference between the Old Testament rules and New Testament rules is Christ. His death severed ties with those cultural rules. In faith, our sins have been wiped clean. However, the punishment still exists, it is just reserved for God’s final judgement.

      So the NT wiped out the OT rules, except if the old rules are transgressed we can still be punished FOREVER because your god is an asshole.

      • Ignorant Amos

        So the NT wiped out the OT rules, except if the old rules are transgressed we can still be punished FOREVER because your god is an asshole.

        Those rules are cherry-picked…and guess who by?

        YahwehJesus just couldn’t get it right the first time…sounds like an imperfect useless cunt to me.

    • epeeist

      The difference between the Old Testament rules and New Testament rules is Christ.

      But Christ is just a version of Yahweh in mufti. The actions of Yahweh are also the actions of Christ.

    • Max Doubt

      “We kill millions of unborn humans yearly and you are ok with that.”

      You might. I don’t. You’re an asshole to suggest “we” do.

      “In faith, our sins have been wiped clean.”

      I don’t sin. Never have. Never will. It’s one of the luxuries of being an atheist.

  • eric

    Real men don’t leave their wives.

    Realer men don’t coerce a women into staying in the house with them. Do that long enough, they call it kidnapping.

    Real men honor their wives as co-heirs.

    I wasn’t aware following basic laws was such a problem that Christians needed to be told to do it. This is “the lady doth protest too much” advice if I’ve ever heard it.

    Real men lead best when they love most…Real men are sacrificial for the sake of their Lord, family, and others….

    Ah, that would be why religious conservatives are anti-gun, right? Because loving someone and being willing to sacrifice yourself for them is pretty much the exact opposite of deciding to shoot someone when you feel at risk, right?

  • sandy

    Real men don’t have their wife cut off the end of their son’s dick for them.

    Exodus 4:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

    24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses[a] and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it.[b] “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone.

    • Greg G.

      Remember that “feet” does not always mean feet. Apparently God started a fist fight with Moses because he wasn’t circumcised so his wife stole their son’s foreskin, and made it look like it was Moses’ foreskin and God fell for the ruse. That is the best explanation I have read about that. Touching Moses’ actual feet with it makes far less sense.

      • Pofarmer

        The hell?

        • Greg G.

          When Naomi and Ruth wanted to be redeemed, Naomi said to watch where Boaz settled down for the night, then go “uncover his feet”. That would be annoying if “feet” meant feet, but delightful if it was a euphemism.

          When Bathsheba’s husband’s outfit was near Jerusalem, David sent for him to suggest he visit his house and “wash his feet”. Her husband refused to sleep with her while his men were sleeping outside. He knew what David meant by the euphemism. That meant that he would be suspicious when he came home to find a child in his wife’s arms. Which is why David had him killed in battle.

        • Michael Neville

          The story of Uriah the Hittite just shows what a jerk David was.

      • sandy

        I read somewhere that “feet” meant Moses’ dick and his wife wiped the blood on Moses’ junk to fool God. Apparently Moses, wasn’t fully circumcized, if at all, due to his Egyptian upbringing and their customs. Regardless, it’s all just another crazy ridiculous story from the bible.

        • I’m trying to picture this actually happening. God is stumbling around, shouting in a slurred voice, “Where’s that sumbitch Moses? I’m gonna kill him!” for no good reason. And Mrs. Moses, seeing that her husband is seconds away from getting a holy haymaker, says, “Hold on a sec!” and then gets her son, “This’ll just be a moment!” and then gets a flint, “Hang on!” and so on through the procedure. That’s gotta take a couple of minutes, even if she’s really practiced at it. And God is just poised, mid-strike, waiting for her to finish?

        • sandy

          If you’re God, what could be more entertaining than watching a dick get skinned in your honour? I guess burning the foreskin to get that nice aroma of burning flesh.

        • Yeah, I guess the problem with my example was that God would have his hand up ready to smite, not bizarrely frozen, but held with fascination as God watched the barbaric ritual done in his honor.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ahhhh yes….The good auld days before YahwehJesus got all omniscient and was an eejit that could be fooled as easy as the next Dime Bar.

      • Friedman in The Bible with Sources Revealed says that this God-killing-Moses passage is a J insertion into a primarily E chapter. That explains the story’s abruptness but still doesn’t explain why God went on this rampage.

        RM Price notes a number of Moses/Jacob parallels, and both men have a “God ambushes him” section.

        • Greg G.

          Polytheistic religions have tall tales about their gods dealing with one another. Converting to monotheism leaves a lot of good stories that don’t work unless they have one god thingy and humans. Men wrestling or boxing with an omnipotence doesn’t sound like a fair fight.

        • sandy

          No you wouldn’t think those fights would be fair but we have another good one. Jacob wrestled with God until dawn, refusing to let go of him even though God had punched Jacob in the hip and dislocated it. Jacob wanted to be blessed or he wasn’t letting go. God eventually blessed him and called him Israel and to this day Israelites do not eat the thigh sinew from the hip socket due to where God punched him.

        • God is so puny that he can be wrestled to a tie with an ordinary man?? What a wimp.

        • Zeropoint

          An ordinary man with a dislocated hip.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re talking about the omnipotent (plus other omnis for flavoring) creator of the entire universe. Watch it, buddy, or you’ll get smote or smitten, whichever verb tense is appropriate.

    • the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him

      … as happened from time to time. Sure, that makes sense.

      Maybe it was Friday night, and God was an angry drunk.

  • Pofarmer

    Interesting times. Middle son, 17, leaves a receipt laying on the table. Wife looks at it. 4th item was Trojans. Catholic wife is now upset, practically crying. I was pretty proud he was at least minimally being prepared. Haven’t actually met the girl. Had to get on him for being a dumbass. I’m sure wife will have a nice chat with him tommorow. I walked into our bedroom and of course she’s reading the Bible. I don’t know what she hoped to find in their. Pardon my OT ramblings of living around exceptionally uptight religious people.

    • Otto

      You deserve a place to vent. I would be damn proud of my 17 year old if he was being responsible like that. How does “just say no” help? How is that going to protect him? No disrespect intended but I just don’t understand that ‘bury your head in the sand and hope for the best’ logic. It is seriously harmful.

      I gave my son a condom when he was 14, he said he wasn’t having sex. I said “that is fine, but would you come to me when you really need one?”. Of course he said ‘no’, and I said that is why I am giving you one now.

      • Pofarmer

        It’s just so damned frustrating. My oldest son was dating a girl and I thought it was getting a little serious so I bought him a small pack, as well. They broke off not too long after, and nothing ever came of it, but still.

        No disrespect intended but I just don’t understand that ‘bury your head in the sand and hope for the best’ logic

        You and I both know what’s going on here. Puritanical ideas about sex lead to problems. Catholicism doesn’t really give you many good options about discussing sex or dealing with it. One of my Brothers in Law posted some video on youtube about how access to porn was just ruining everything and was the root of all the ills in our society. I know it got several “So True” comments on it. I didn’t comment, and didn’t even watch the whole thing after it became evident it was just more stupid puritanical bullshit.

        • I don’t know how it is in Catholic circles, but conservative Protestants are likely to demand that there be no sex ed taught in public schools. OK, but then are you going to do it??

        • Pofarmer

          Oh no, they’re big on the “just say no.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The problem is, with abstinence-only sex ed, “just say no” to WHAT?

          They can’t know…and DO realize how good it feels.

        • Michael Neville

          Supposedly if you don’t know that Tab A goes in Slot B then you won’t do it. Reality says otherwise but when has that changed the minds of fundamentalist Christians?

        • That’s my approach to driving. I say that if we don’t teach kids driver’s ed, we’ll have fewer accidents.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          LOL

        • Pofarmer

          Reality is that hormones take over and kids make mistakes when they don’t know anything.

        • Otto

          Bringing up porn or abortion is just a grand way to insert a red herring into the issue and ensures the discussion of real world solutions is never addressed. Porn is going nowhere, that genie is not going back in the bottle, they know that so they know they can safely point at it as the boogie man in the room even though there is nothing to indicate that is a source of problems.

          Yeah I know it is puritanical ideas about sex, but your wife was 17, if she puts herself back into her 17 year old self she knows “just say no” does not, and will not work. So now that that is out of the way lets talk about real world solutions.

        • It’s amazing how so many fundamentalists will admit to doing plenty of wild-oats sowing in their day but then insist that they were wrong to do so and that their kids need to follow different rules, and blah blah blah without wondering if it may be really hard (and perhaps even unnecessary) to remain a virgin before marriage.

        • Otto

          >>>”without wondering if it may be really hard (and perhaps even unnecessary) to remain a virgin before marriage.”

          It. Will. Not. Happen. on a large scale…period. No large group throughout history has ever remained sexually abstinent until marriage. I don’t know why they continue to think it is a solution. Hell, they keep telling us that kids are worse than they ever were… and at the same time as a solution they just expect kids to behave better than their generation ever did. It absolutely boogles the mind.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Statistically, kids are waiting *longer* to first have sex than ever before, and fewer even seem to have sex.

          That’s what taking the mystery out of it can do.

          😉

        • Sample1

          When I went through pre-Cana indoctrination before my marriage the priest made it clear that we should not live together until after the wedding. We’d been inseparable since the day we began dating, moving in with each other shortly thereafter, lasting for three years before the proposal.

          I understood the priest’s reasoning but strongly disagreed. I don’t think that priest had routinely witnessed a sheep conceptually say fuck you to him and he backed down. We both rejected the “official” advice and he happily married us a few months later. Advice he likely offered to remain out of trouble. Coward. I also think he supported us because he was a widower, now priest. He once understood reality. Celibate bishops are simply handicapped when it comes to love and what’s worse, they see that deficiency as a virtue.

          Mike, faith free now.

        • Otto

          I rejected a Priests advice once (nicely) and after he wouldn’t even acknowledge my presence when we saw each other. They really don’t like it when their sheep refuse to capitulate.

        • Sample1

          I’ve told this story elsewhere but it’s relevant.

          Had a priest who decided to leave the priesthood and get married. He remained a lay Catholic. The same priest who married me mentioned this before the start of mass. His entire demeanor was that of sadnesss and disappointment.

          Not once did he express happiness for the former priest, that the guy fell in love. That he experienced a new sacrament. No, what was clear is that the priesthood was superior to marriage, he’d say nothing kind about a couple in love and that we the assembled should be grief stricken and mildly angry.

          This cult is evil.

          Mike

        • Michael Neville

          The Catholic Church has always had a fixation on virginity and chastity. Also the relationship of the Catholic laity to the priesthood is supposed to be “pray, pay and obey”.

        • Sample1

          The estimated percentage of priests having sex at any given time is (was) estimated to be 50% (R. Sipe). That’s pretty freaking astounding even if he’s wrong by half.

          Fixation maybe, more like the fix is in.

          Mike

        • Ignorant Amos

          And quite a bit of the sex is with other males.

          “The idea of a purge of gay priests is both ridiculous and dangerous,” Martin said in an email. “Any purge would empty parishes and religious orders of the thousands of priests (and bishops) who lead healthy lives of service and faithful lives of celibacy.”

          https://religionnews.com/2018/08/21/cardinal-mccarrick-scandal-inflames-debate-over-gay-priests/

          https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/08/30/witch-hunt-gay-priests

          Yeah right…the RCC is full of Gay priests, but all is okay, because they are all celibate…well except for all those that get caught that is of course.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-VR7rvkuU

        • Sample1

          Damn bro…I plugged in my phone and the Bluetooth display in my car read VATICAN GAY ORGY. This, while parked at a light with a truck next to me with a good angle.

          I just had to laugh. But yeah, hypocrisy is a wonderful exit door motivator.

          Mike

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haaa…that tickled me.

        • epicurus

          My favorite quote on Church’s fixation is from Bertand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy:
          “It is strange that the last men of intellectual eminence before the dark ages were concerned, not with saving civilization or expelling the barbarians, or reforming the abuses of the administration, but with preaching the merit of virginity and the damnation of unbaptized infants. Seeing that these were the preoccupations that the Church handed on to the converted barbarians, it is no wonder that the succeeding age surpassed almost all other fully historical periods in cruelty and superstition.” (P. 262-3 New Unwin edition, 1961)

        • Sample1

          Another experience on your point of shunning.

          While Obama may have been playing the long game with his answer to Bill Maher about atheists not being persecuted in the US, he really dropped the ball for me on that one. Lost a bit of respect for him. Google the short interview if you haven’t seen it.

          When I came out of the atheist closet, the fact is my business suffered which means my community suffered which means my discretionary time for living life suffered not to mention losing a few relationships along the way.

          Really disappointed that Bill Maher wasn’t able to respond adequately to Obama in a way that demonstrated, no Mr. President, atheists are persecuted, they just aren’t persecuted as the stereotype you failed to free yourself from.

          Mike

        • Otto

          While I don’t agree with Obama on that, I am not surprised by that answer. He lives on a level where he does not see the issues at ground level. Quite frankly most people don’t. If most of my Christian friends saw the daily posts that Hement produces about Christians and Christianity they would be appalled, but those stories rarely make news except in the very local environment where they happen. And so reasonable Christians write those stories off as a singular event. To them there isn’t any persecution, they just are not presented with it hardly at all.

        • Sample1

          I hear you. I just remain surprised that Obama didn’t ask questions, one hallmark of intelligence if not an indicator of good listening. Here was a well known atheist making a claim. Rather than investigate someone with concerns, he countered with his own rationale. There are countless analogous social scenarios where it would have been callous to behave that way, pretending to know what those shoes feel like when they don’t fit.

          He did make good remarks overall and like I say, he is a long game strategist in my opinion. I don’t want to sound ungrateful or petty.

          We can’t rest and accept being the least trusted demographic in North America. Our time is nearing but it will be with a future president

          Mike

        • Otto

          I get your point, and I don’t think you sound petty, nor am I saying you are wrong. I will say that in that type of set up Obama is the one being interviewed, Bill is trying to get Obama’s take on the situation. My point is the whole thing is more of an interviewer/interviewee situation rather than a back and forth discussion. Maher muddies that dynamic with his style to some extent, but he is still trying to get Obama to comment rather than trying to get him to listen. I don’t have as big of a problem with it because of that, though I do get what you are saying.

        • Sample1

          Fair enough, fair point. We don’t get many chances with presidents and I could be projecting an unrealistic want for the format.

          Still, it’s encouraging considering Bush the Elder, only a generation ago, is on record saying:

          Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

          Bush (Senr): I guess I’m pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

          Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

          Bush (Senr): No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

          Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

          Bush (Senr): Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on Atheists.

          ________

          As an honorable veteran himself, I don’t know how he could have discounted atheists in foxholes as being patriots.

          Baby steps.

          Mike
          Edit done

        • Otto

          Yeah I had heard about that exchange, it is a little dubious but at the same time seems to have some support that it happened. I believe the reporting of the even goes back quite awhile, and given the time frame of when it is supposed to have happened it really wouldn’t have been very controversial at the time it took place.

        • Pofarmer

          I dunno, I think an awful lot of them just dismiss those stories out of hand. One big No True Scotsman circle jerk.

        • Otto

          Well, there is that too.

        • Pofarmer

          Celibate bishops are simply handicapped when it comes to love

          And these are the dudes writing all the stuff about how married couples or couples in general should act. Something in which they have NO relevant experience, for the most part. Fuck em.

        • Pofarmer

          The really ironic thing is that my wife has had more partners than I have and I could honestly care less.

        • Sample1

          Can I ask a really personal question? Why doesn’t your wife have upwards of 20-30 children?

          Mike

        • Pofarmer

          Because i got fixed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Isn’t that cheating and against the rules too?

        • Sample1

          There is a small but non zero chance of recanalization post vasectomy so if his God really wanted threesome parenting He could do it.

          All fun aside, castration is 100% effective yet how peculiar for the Church, under Pope Sixtus V, to condone that for music.

          The illogic burns, until the Church is recognized as just another human, not divine, enterprise.

          But you know all this. 🙂

          Mike

        • Pofarmer

          Yep. And it caused a great deal of tension later in our marriage. I’ve told this story before, and I’ll repeat it here. Our third child was born with Hurler’s syndrome, which is a dual recessive genetic condition, that, to be blunt, is not kind. He had two Bone marrow transplants, one on his first birthday and one on his second, and has had a ton of ongoing care. It’s been a serious financial drain. I don’t know when, but sometime after that I decided to have a vasectomy. We had 3 kids, and simply, in my estimation, couldn’t handle the stress and expense of having a fourth, with all of the challenges of our third. In short, it seemed like the responsible thing to do. I learn years later, as my wife got more religious, that she had revealed this to a class in a “Chirp” (Christ renews his Parish) session, and that she had asked for forgiveness and confessed about it and all that bullshit. I was more than a little upset. Number one, because it’s no one’s fucking business, but, number 2, because she was so religiously blinded that she couldn’t see that the consequences of having another child could be devastating. There was a one in four chance any of our children could be born with Hurlers, with all of the misery that that entails. You can’t talk sense to someone when the religious virus fully takes hold.

        • Sample1

          I remembered your general situation but had forgotten the vasectomy/genetic connection. Sorry to bring it up but appreciate your sharing.

          Mike

        • Pofarmer

          No problem. If I can’t be a good example, perhaps I can be a horrible lesson. Religion poisons everything.

        • This is more a Protestant slogan, I suppose, but I’ve heard the platitude “God never gives you more than you can handle.” I guess when one protests, they’d reply, “Well, you’re still here, aren’t you??” as some sort of evidence.

          Yeah, I may still be here, but God is still absent.

        • Reminds me of Kim Davis who, after 3 divorces, got sanctimonious on everyone once she became a county clerk (in a vague way).

          EDIT: added qualifier to reduce the sounding like I know anything about your wife

        • Michael Neville

          When I was in my early twenties my father told me that every generation thinks they’re the ones who discovered sex.

        • Pofarmer

          And I think we, and they, really underestimate just how much damage they are doing with their assinine teaching.

        • Taneli Huuskonen

          I was a virgin until marriage. The sex my first wife and I had was amazing… but not in a good way.

        • Greg G.

          https://xkcd.com/2074/

          Don’t blame me for this one. Blame xkcd. The first manned spaceflight is closer in time to the first airplane flight than to the present.

        • Sample1

          That’s a great one. It will replace my current go to mind F. That Cleopatra is closer in time to the founding of McDonalds than the founding of the pyramids.

          Mike

        • Greg G.

          The beginning of Christianity is closer in time to us than to the end of the pyramid building era.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or Stonehenge for that matter…

        • MR

          I think he must be following you.

        • Otto

          I am still blaming you btw… but good one none the less.

        • Which supports my thesis that technology change isn’t a smooth, exponential, always-increasing curve. We had the SST/Concorde, which stopped the progression of commercial aircraft, we went to the moon and then lost interest, and so on. Technology does progress, of course; I’m simply pushing back against the idea that it’s a smoothly increasing, Moore’s Law kind of exponential progress across all technologies.

          And now, back to your regularly scheduled topic …

        • MR

          That sounds an awful lot like punctuated equilibrium….

        • That’s an interesting comparison.

        • Sample1

          I found your idea fascinating enough to look around for more thoughts. This is begging for mathematical hypothesis if one doesn’t already exist.

          Found this. Learned some perspectives that will at least be topic friendly at gatherings. I think you’ll enjoy it.

          https://www.economist.com/briefing/2013/01/12/has-the-ideas-machine-broken-down

          Mike

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          Holy shit… I read that book years ago, but never took note of your name, so I didn’t realize after reading your blog that you wrote that book (until just now).

        • Small world! I hope you enjoyed the book.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          I did. It presented me with an entirely new perspective on the nature of progress, so I’m much more skeptical now whenever anyone talks about how quickly things change.

        • I’m glad to hear it!

          When you see examples of impressive progress in the past, back to the Industrial Revolution, it seems obvious that change happens in bursts, perhaps in punctuated equilibrium fashion as MR noted. The idea that technology continues to change, and change faster, is maddeningly common. People are quick to acknowledge that “you can’t schedule a breakthrough,” but they don’t seem to take that the next step or two to see where that means.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Wow–that feels like a million years ago!

        • Sample1

          The greatest amount of support for Catholic sexual ethics undoubtedly comes from the ant biome where it’s employed by the colony wholeheartedly.

          Mike

      • Pofarmer
        • Otto

          JFC he could be Dave Armstrong. Bring up some issue and immediately somehow, someway abortion gets brought up in an effort to claim the ‘moral’ high ground and deflect from the actual issue. Fkn doll with a pull string.

        • Pofarmer

          And appeal to a “higher moral authority.” Its cult thinking.

        • Sample1

          Higher moral authority always means obey the flesh and blood person that I obey.

          Funny how that works.

          Mike

        • Michael Neville

          We’ve all seen that when someone claims to know the mind of God that God has exactly the same opinions and prejudices as his mouthpiece.

        • Sample1

          Is there a Godwin’s Rule (long discussions eventually go to Hitler) for abortion? Coincidently, after a quick search, there is a pro-lifer named Godwin also.

          Mike
          Stealing “doll with a pull string.”

        • Otto

          Funny, because I was thinking the same thing when I wrote that.

          Otto’s Rule: As a discussion about human morality gets longer, the more likely that the Christian in the discussion brings up abortion and then claims to have won the argument.

    • It’s analogous to drinking. It’s smart to say, as a parent, “OK, I don’t want you drinking, but if you do …” and then talk about safety (don’t drive; I’ll come to take you home; etc.).

      And it could even be just wishful thinking on his part.

      • Pofarmer

        Yeah. I think it is wishful thinking, but still good.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There are many alternative uses for rubbers.

          During the Gulf War, the British Ministry of Defense shipped 500,000 custom-made camouflage condoms to troops in Saudi Arabia with the express purpose of protecting the guns from filling with sand.

          https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/01/26/A-half-million-sand-colored-condoms-are-going-to-soldiers-in/9372664866000/

          Here’s a few more…

          http://mentalfloss.com/article/70950/15-non-sex-uses-condoms

        • RichardSRussell

          I always liked the (probably apocryphal) tale of a crate of condoms supposedly destined for US troops being “accidentally” dropped behind enemy lines. They were all 12″ long and 2″ in diameter and marked “Size: Medium”. Supposed to demoralize the enemy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Urban myth or not…that’s a good yarn. It reminds me of Billy Connolly’s “big slipper” joke.

        • Otto

          My son realized at 12 that they make huge water balloons.

        • Pofarmer

          Pretty sure he had in mind the original use.

        • Did they have the patented Reservoir Tip® in case the guns ejaculated any bullets?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A should imagine there would be little point in re-tooling the manufacturing machinery for no practical reason.

          Anno, anno…yer joking.

          https://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/345000/620x/condom-512010.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          When I was in beautiful, sunny Southeast Asia ever so many years ago I was in an Army Exchange when a sergeant came in and told the clerk he was there for his “usual order”. The clerk went into the back room and returned with a box of condoms. A Catholic chaplain was there and started berating the sergeant for such massive sexual activity that he got condoms by the box. The sergeant interrupted the chaplain and explained that infantry would put condoms over the muzzles of their M-16s to keep moisture out of the barrels. He then invited the sky pilot to go out on patrol to see what combat was all about. I don’t know if the chaplain took up the invitation.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do I remember you reporting that anecdote here before…or am a suffering a bit of deja vu?

          No matter, a good story…well worth repeating.

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve told that story for years and probably told it here before.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          …the parents are always the last to know….

          😉

          (not really…)

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        I remember buying condoms at one point when I was very unlikely to need them just because I was curious what they felt like.

        I didn’t leave the receipt around but I think my mother found them poorly hidden in my closet, with one from the pack missing…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha haa…the one you tried on for the feel of it…yer ma, am sure, thought ya’d used it differently.

          Tried using a condom once…just after my first born pitched up and the wife was off birth control meds….a didn’t like it. It was akin to paddling while wearing water boots.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      OUCH on the situation, glad the young man is responsible enough to be prepared.

  • Kevin K

    Real men don’t have crushed testicles…

  • ThaneOfDrones

    The phrases real man and real men appear precisely zero times in the Bible (KJV of course)

  • RichardSRussell

    It’s too hard living up to the expectations for real men. I’m content just being a fake man. Pressure’s off.

    • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

      “Pressure’s off.”

      Pretty much. I’ve never liked sports, I don’t care for hunting (although target practice with pistols or trap shooting with a shotgun is fun), and I’m not really into cars very much. I’m perfectly fine being a “fake” man.

  • Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg

    what a foolish article. One would think, the Bible Literalist culture is the only culture that exists on this world. How silly. In Western culture since the 1880’s men have been dumbed-down feminized and mocked publicly, until they’re having a really hard time leading the English-speaking world. This movement, of course, was deliberate and represents the blowback and KARMA coming out of the Vatican Doctrine of Conquest.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      “Opinions are like assholes: Everybody has them and THEY ALL STINK.”

      Crawl back under your slime-coated rock, troll.

      Dosvidanya.

    • Otto

      What exactly happened in the 1880’s? You sound like a loon.

    • Lots of words, but I don’t see much meaning.

    • Damien Priestly

      1880’s? Well, during 1881, was the shootout at the OK Coral…Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, Billy Clanton. These were all real men, hardly feminine. No?

      “Vatican Doctrine of Conquest” — eye rolls !!

    • sandy

      the bible is ridiculous and deserves to be ridiculed.

    • Michael Neville

      It isn’t the mainstream Christians who make rules about what Real Men™ should be. It’s the evangelicals like James Dobson and the odious Steven Anderson (who once said that real men urinate standing up, not sitting down [LINK]) who decide what Real Men™ are.

      • On a list of “words other languages have that English needs” was the German Sitzpinkler, which means “guy who sits to pee.” Apparently, there was a push in Germany to get gentlemen to sit to pee, on cleanliness principles, and men who complied were seen as wimps.

        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30937492

        • EllyR
        • Ignorant Amos

          I never use the urinal if I can help it…the last thing I want is every other fuckers pish spraying me.

          I also see little point on the hand washing routine…if my dick is clean enough for my partner when we engage in bedroom Olympics, then its okay for me to hold.

          When in the field, how often does anyone think a soldier washes his hands or charlie….especially in the desert with nothing but a water bottle to drink from?

          Anyway…in a public toilet, yer hands are only going to be as clean as the last person that touched the door handle.

          If only the ancients had such luxuries.

        • If you’ve been in a restroom with painted metal panels between urinals, you might have seen what the errant pee does to them. I guess it’s the ammonia when the urea gets broken down by bacteria, but whatever it is, it’s pretty corrosive. There is some logic in the arguments that urge good aim.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh I’ve been in some manky bogs in my life’s travels.

          Including the trusty auld army Thunderbox…to the outdoor festival/building site Portaloo…and all manner of “restrooms” in between.

          The bars in Benidorm with a single toilet and urinal being used by hundreds daily, to Egypt with nothing but a hole in the floor.

          But yes, good aim is just good manners, unless one is also the cleaner too…but even then.

        • A newish thing is to put a fly image on the urinal. I guess one’s eye (and aim) is drawn to that. One tries not to think where they’d be aiming otherwise …

          https://dgprhltfudt76.cloudfront.net/assets/ArticleImages/_resampled/SetWidth1200-N80-0456.JPG

        • Greg G.

          Bachelor me used to clean the toilet that way. Married me learned that didn’t fly.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bachelor me was living in the barracks and was likely the one going to be on ablution cleaning duties, so like most squaddies, we always cleaned up as we went along. Married me took that procedure home with him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Now that’s clever.

          I play “pee off the skid mark” when using public facilities and help the cleaner in the process.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A wee trick to get young boys getting weened off the potty and a bit of target practice was to through a fruit loop into the toilet bowl and get them to aim at that.

        • Otto

          Back in the day, when smoking was allowed in bars, the trick was to separate the cigarette butt from the remaining cigarette.

        • David Cromie

          The fly image (under-glaze blue) first appeared in 19th cent. lavatory bowls.

        • Sample1

          Fear not! Technology to the rescue. Our current Attorney General Matt Whitaker (can anyone else hear Cohen sulking and mumbling, “but that was supposed to be my job!”) where was I? Oh yeah, behold the Masculine Toilet for the Well Endowed. A product from a company that our current AG and Trump sycophant once defended (shut down/finded for fraud). The well endowed toilet manufacturer also marketed Sasquatch dolls. Because why the hell not?

          Pro tip Whitaker: never go full retard.

          Mike

        • gusbovona

          I believe it was Cynthia McFadden in San Francisco who made the observation decades ago (rough paraphrase): “I never understood why men wanted to take aim instead of taking a rest.”

      • Joan Frances DaVanzo

        For Steven Anderson it’s all in the apparatus.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Wow….you really are the real deal. A full on bug nutty bat shite crazy barking at the moon lunatic fruit cake.

      A flat earth, neo-nazi supporting holy roller…all that inbreeding of your royal family lineage has really taken its toll. I bet you talk to plants and dabble in homeopathy.

      Or just a Russian troll.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Second Wow…just did a Google search…my original hunch was bang on the nail.

      what a foolish article.

      Spoingty, spoing, spoing-spoing, spoing!

      You are definitely away with the fairies…there is lesser idiots locked up.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECUEFe_8j4w

      https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emily-E.-Windsor-Cragg/e/B0091X5MW8

      And this was funny, getting called out as a mental degenerate by a mental degenerate….the lunatics are taking over the asylum.

      https://irenecaesar.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/degenerate-emily-windsor-cragg-daughter-of-king-edward-viii-claims-british-throne-via-claiming-sephardic-jewish-blood/

      So much for academic credentials…no accounting for lunacy.

      • David Cromie

        I do so love a long, convoluted, conspiracy story (pity about the shit historical details)!

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      You don’t have to be a Biblical literalist to see that the Bible praises Abraham for being willing to murder his son. Or that Paul says its better not to marry.

  • Damien Priestly

    A real man doesn’t rudely call their bad weekends…”salvation”, for everybody else’s misdeeds.

    A guy gets killed — comes back to life a few days later…then goes on to reign in heaven — a real man would not call this a sacrifice !!

    • Zeropoint

      Jesus had a rough weekend for your sins.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Especially when there’s no logical connection between the “death” and any benefit to mankind.

      But I would argue that if a pushed someone out of way of a car and got hit myself, that would be a sacrifice even if I survived.

      But if I got mad at my friend for not wanting to come to my party, then punched a wall to let out my frustration and broke my hand, then decided to forgive my friend and tell him he could come to the party, that’s no sacrifice.

  • Joan Frances DaVanzo

    According to Dobson’s rules, Trump is not a real man!

    • Ignorant Amos

      According to my rules too.

    • Small clarification: while it was on Dobson’s site, the author of the original list was “JT Waresak.”

  • Joan Frances DaVanzo

    Christ was just a man, a fanatic doomed man. He probably considered all men the sons of god. But he was remiss in not mentioning the daughters of god.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Or just a character in a story even.