If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

The ‘Real Men Love Jesus’ Bumper Sticker

The other day I was behind a car that had a bumper sticker that stated, “Real Men Love Jesus” among other bumper stickers that were sufficiently fundamentalist Christian. Well, I guess I am not a real man according to that Christians. Oh well.

The thing is that this bumper sticker brings up a few issues. First, I thought fundamentalist Christians hate homosexuality and yet here this guy goes telling everyone about his gay relationship with Jesus. Seriously though, I think it is an arrogant way of devaluing other people and so I was surprised when I saw the same bumper sticker among others on a progressive’s car later that same day.

As a biological fact, whether one loves Jesus, doesn’t love Jesus, or doesn’t even accept the existence of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with one’s gender. For the record, neither does loving people of the same gender or of the opposite gender. A more accurate bumper sticker should read, “Real Men Have XY Chromosomes.”

Also, I want to mention that outstanding PR campaign that Jesus has. The reason why both the right wing and the lift wing Christians sport this bumper sticker is because they all think of Jesus as a model of morality. But any full read of the New Testament shows that Jesus is far from that model.

There is no doubt that there are some positive things that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible has said, but most Christians are not aware of or quickly dismiss all the really horrible things that Jesus said. I blogged about this before so I won’t repeat it in this blog entry.

The point is that if the claim of the bumper sticker is taken figuratively to mean that loving Jesus is macho (in a good way), I think it goes in the wrong direction. The positive macho trait of being a protector and a gentleman clearly supports taking issue with many of the claims, opinions, and attitudes of the character of Jesus as he is portrayed in the Bible.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Mike O.

    XX = female
    XY = male

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      That was my next guess, lol.

  • Mike O.

    Also, Jesus will love you, but he won’t respect you in the morning.

  • http://unenslaved.com Synthaetica

    i always thought Jesus just loved the little children.

  • Kevin

    Staks

    My word! What a rant! If only it were rational.

    If you love your son, does that make you a pedophile? If you want to enter into a debate about Theism vs Atheism then at least start off with logic….and your grammar is appalling.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      There is no excuse for the grammar, but I think you did miss the joke. Now do you have a response to anything other than poor grammar/spelling?

  • Kevin

    Staks

    The bottom line is this:

    There are arguments for and against, and they are probably equally credible. Eminent scientists like Collins, MacGrath and Polkinhorne are Theists and Dawkins et al are Atheists.

    Interestingly, one of the most outspoken Atheists of the century, Anthony Flew has just admitted that the evidence for God (or a god) is convincing. This was after reading Gerald Schroeders – The hidden Face of God.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Wow, Antony (not Anthony) Flew said this recently? Did he come back from the dead to say this? Just wondering. I actually blogged about that one already (see the categories in the sidebar —>).

      Second, there is no credible evidence any god and even less then no evidence for the Christian God. But that is a different blog post. Today’s blog post is about a bumper sticker.

  • Kevin

    Now I’m the one being pulled up on my spelling.

    Actually, Flew was very alive – biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?”

    There is far more evidence to suggest a “first cause” than nothing.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      As stated before, Flew is very much dead and I blogged about him shortly after his death. Please see that blog. HERE

    • http://myspace.com/scott888 Scott

      Scientists have done experiments in the laboratory mimicking the early conditions of earth and created amino acids and later on made RNA after sifting the molecular soup thru a sandy substrate. RNA is a self-replicating molecule and the ones that replicated the fastest became the most abundant. DNA is much like two connected strands of RNA. Given a billion years of probability within oceans and oceans of molecular soup, life is gonna form.

      If you have a coin flipping machine it will take a long time to get heads 50 times. However, if you have several coin flipping machines working simultaneously you will eventually get 50 heads in a row. Essentially, life will form if conditions and time present themselves.

      The first cause argument is horseshit. It’s just something Christians created to cause the grief and chaos necessary to keep their damn religion alive awhile longer.

  • Jim

    What do you call it when two men love each other but are not sexually attracted to each other? They’re still attracted to woman, sexually but they can’t imagine living without each other? This is an honest question.

  • Kevin

    Staks

    Flew was very much alive when he acknowleged the probability of a “first cause”. I never twisted it to imply the God of Chritianity – that was the jist of your blog, which showed a number of inaccuracies (even though you admitted to them later).

    It seems to me that you haven’t examined the evidence honestly. Come on Staks, take a closer look!

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      You said “recently.”

      Also, I stand by the article with the corrections. The point is the Flew wasn’t “most outspoken Atheists of the century,” he was losing his mind, and he was taken advantage of by opportunistic Christians. Oh, and the book that bears his name as the author he didn’t write.

      It should also be pointed out that you are using the argument by authority to make you case rather than actual evidence (for which there is none).

      Finally, this is not the appropriate forum for this debate as I stated earlier this blog entry is about a bumper sticker. This comment should have been made on the blog entry dealing with Flew.

  • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

    I gotta agree with Kevin on this one. I don’t support violence.

  • f_galton

    Me neither, just a run of the mill caricature.

  • Nichelle Wrenn

    Just abut every political cartoon extenuates certain features of people to shed a negative light on that person. The fact the President Obama is black does not give him a pass. And there so much cartoon going on here, hehe.

  • http://skepticink.com/dangeroustalk Dangerous Talk

    I doubt it.