Watching the train wreck.

Observing how the self-proclaimed leading edge of free-thought and social evolution determine for themselves the difference between a "sexual identity" and a "pervert creep" is pretty amusing.

Richard Carrier - whose "sexual identity" is "adulterer" - responds to critics.

Polyamorous Jesus-Mythicist who dumped his wife to follow his urge to be true to his sexual identity...

...finds out that divorce is lonely.

The rest you can find out by googling me (along with your preferred keywords). Or checking out my body of writing (even the writings of my enemies). But really, my religious status is obvious. As are my politics. And social views. I’m 0.5 on theKinsey scale. Not heavy into kink (but get along well with people who are). I have an unusual fetish or two but don’t expect any of my partners to share them. I’m pro sex worker, and though I personally find strip clubs and brothels uninteresting at best (uncomfortable at worst), I like partners who are or who have been sex workers. I also like women who have or pursue a lot of partners or who love to boast of their sexual exploits, especially over wine or whiskey or equivalent. I’m not going to get all butt-hurt or angsty over how high Your Number is. It very much has the opposite effect on me.

I can totally believe that Richard Carrier concluded the Christ never existed out of his intellectual commitment to the truth, and not out of his opposition to an idea that would harsh his "fun."

What a jerk.

Excuse me... I just threw up in my mouth again.

Did you know that wife-swapping, adultery and orgy-participation require an even higher commitment to ethical behavior than normal relationships?

Noted scholar and denier of the existence of Jesus, Richard Carrier, thinks so!

And he has a Ph.D, so he must be smarter than you!

For further insights read this article - Dr. Richard Carrier, Ph.D - a creepy, dishonest hypocrite.

Modern culture - it is a freak show in an insane asylum.

After reading that trash, read this Communio article on the "indissolubility of marriage" and why it matters.

// Rather, many of the challenges facing marriage today are bound up with a much larger shift in man’s understanding of himself as a person, and this new anthropology goes hand in hand with our Western culture’s evolving understanding of marriage and family. “Marriage,” writes Wendell Berry, “has now taken the form of divorce: a prolonged and impassioned negotiation as to how things shall be divided. During their understandably temporary association, the ‘married’ couple will typically consume a large quantity of merchandise and a large portion of each other.”5 Though seemingly paradoxical, Berry’s description reveals accurately that marriage is perceived today as a type of contractual relation established by two human freedoms. Rather than giving all of one’s life, as love requires, in this contract spouses give only a portion of themselves. This partial giving entails that, in their life together, each spouse cannot but try to avoid losing what he is afraid of giving away to the other, that is, himself. Yet, because he does not give all of himself, he must work to keep himself; that is, he must seek to preserve or increase what he considers indispensable for his own happiness: property, pleasure, and, ultimately, power. If living thus becomes a matter of possessing instead of receiving and giving, then, as Berry indicates, spousal love does not establish any real unity. The negotiated “form” of marriage never constitutes a real whole, that is, a communion of life and love. Understood simply as a contract, marriage becomes the mutually agreed-upon juxtaposition of two existences that lasts as long as negotiations endure. Lacking an objective form greater than the spouses’ singular existences, married life is not only deprived of the grounds that enable it to weather the disintegrating forces that erode any nuptial communion; it also actively—albeit most of the time unwittingly—contributesto its own fragmentation.//

Excuse me...

...I threw up in my mouth.

Leading Jesus Mythicist Richard Carrier comes out as committed to sin, which makes it convenient that he also doesn't believe that Jesus - who had harsh things to say about adultery - existed.

He describes his habitual disposition toward infidelity as a "sexual orientation."

 So, adultery is now a "sexual orientation"?

Well, hey! Let's give it civil rights.

And an equal right to marriage!

Pretty darn convincing from a skeptical viewpoint.
And totally meta.

Is Jesus-mythicist a myth created by Jesus-mythicists to support their arguments that Jesus is only a myth?