Friday, June 4, 2010


Just in case anyone wants to see some horrible, horrible apologetics work, the comments section in Ken Pulliam's new post is horrifying.  And kind of funny, but in a horrifying sort of way.

I thought it was bad when the initial response boiled down to a not-so-subtle implication that Ken was a rapist just because he wrote a post about rapists.  Then Rhology came around.  That dude...that dude is messed up in the head.

Everyone's morality is plastic except the Christian's.  Women aren't people.  Raping a woman and paying her father 50 shekels to take her as your bride is a-ok because the Bible says so.  I'm going to be a rapist tomorrow because I used to dislike pecan pie and now I don't.

Go.  Visit.  Be amazed at the morality of the holier-than-thou Real True Christian and the logical pretzels they must twist.


The Woeful Budgie said...

Wow. I tried, I really did, but I could only make it about halfway down the page before my brain began to hurt. But props to you for sticking it out.

On the other hand, it's comforting to know that there's no chance I could ever become a rapist...I'm allergic to pecans. :D

Fiat Lex said...

This is why I took Rhology off my sidebar. As far as I can tell wishes to learn from no one and exists to teach everyone from his wisdom, which is actually god's wisdom. However no one except for him has correctly 'intuited'--scuse me, logically deduced according to rules which only make sense to Rho--the wisdom of god from the scriptures.

I find his use of the phrase "restorative punishment" to describe a girl being forced to marry her rapist especially disturbing. It implies that:

a) rape victims are deserving of punishment
b) having more nonconsensual sex with someone who has raped you will make the first rape less bad somehow
c) Godfearing women--since when the command was put into Scripture, it was meant to apply within the society of God's followers--should be treated in this way

Fiat Lex said...

Point c there directly contradicts his bizarre statement that atheist women are not human.

Which by itself seems like pretty much the opposite of how Jesus would have described them. Y'know, or treated them. Unless all those bible stories about Jesus being nice to women nobody else respected was, y'know, just a buncha revisionist bullshit.

Geds said...


What happens if you intuit that you're not allergic to pecans next week? I'M JUST ASKING WHY?


Yeah. Rhology is a weapons-grade moron. Apparently over at Atheist Experience they did an April Fool's thing saying they were turning the blog over to him and he believed them.

I just like letting people reveal how dumb and inhuman they are. It was a good way to spend a Friday.

And, of course, when you have to defend rapists and declare women inhuman to defend your position, well, you prove the opposing viewpoint quite well.

The Woeful Budgie said...

Hm, you make a good point. Tell ya what. The day I throw out my EpiPen is the day I will check myself into a mental hospital, just in case, for the safety of the community. I swear it on Rhology's life.

Michael Mock said...

Is Ray Comfort or somebody throwing around the "objective morality" line? 'Cause I've run into it twice now, from two different people in two different places, and I'm wondering if there's a common source.

It's a fairly specious argument, regardless. (I think that's why Rhology keeps trying to take the offensive.) It's built around a false dichotomy: either God provides objective morality, or else all morality is completely subjective, and therefore meaningless.

There's no middle ground; there's no allowance for using outside standards to better approach an objective moral standard; and there's absolutely no admission that even believers apply their beliefs using (subjective) human perceptions and (subjective) human judgement.

It's absurd on the face of it.

He sure does toss around a lot of big words, though.