Traditional “Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible

"Christian" marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I'm not exaggerating. You'll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional "Christian" marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:

  • The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
  • But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn't), he can have more than one wife.
  • And if he doesn't like one of his wives (like if she's unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
  • If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
  • Christians shouldn't have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn't be).
  • Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn't have, since they shouldn't get married or have sex).
  • Good Christians must hate their families. (If they abandon them for Jesus, he'll give them a big reward.)
This list list only includes the first seven rules. Go to Dwindling in Unbelief for the details and the pinpoint citations. Don't just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated. Conclusion: We need to march to America's heartland and start picketing traditional Christian marriage because it is clear that traditional Christian marriage contravenes the clear teachings of the Bible.

Continue ReadingTraditional “Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible

I don’t understand high volume text messaging

I know this is a dramatic example from Yahoo News. I'm not trying to paint with a brush that's too wide:

Their thumbs sure must be sore. Two central Pennsylvania friends spent most of March in a text-messaging record attempt, exchanging a thumbs-flying total of 217,000. For one of the two, that meant an inches-thick itemized bill for $26,000.

I understand email. I understand a text message here and there. I don't understand the allure of volume texting personal updates to friends (any more than a dozen per day). And, yes, I don't understand the allure of Twitter (and see here). Not everyone is like these record-setters, but our society is now filled with people who are truly obsessed with communicating in micro-messages. Many parents are concerned that their children aren't developing traditional conversational skills. It really seems like quantity over quality. Or is it insecurity: the need to be reassured that someone exists on the other end and cares enough about your almost-mindless phrase that they reciprocate with their own almost-mindless phrase? If you care about someone, why not join them for a face-to-face conversation, or call them on a phone and have a real conversation, or video-Skype them (a truly remarkable and free service which I recently discovered)? Are people becoming afraid that they won't be able to string more than a few sentences together? That they won't be able to conversationally perform under the pressure of the moment? Why the rampant preference for conversationus interruptus? In my experience, most of the important things in life cannot be said in a short burst of words, and quantity cannot make up for quality. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Continue ReadingI don’t understand high volume text messaging

Anti-gay, or pro-discrimination?

Following on previous comments about gay marriage (1, 2, 3), prop 8, and the increased change of falling skies... I was very pleased to encounter this extremely well argued vid on Ed Brayton's blog. He demonstrates both strong logic, and the ability to construct his argument from facts. Something he demonstrates to be lacking in the christian opposition. If our opponents actually argued like this, the debate might even be interesting! I'm experiencing some issues with WordPress and embedded video - so click here for the video on Youtube

Continue ReadingAnti-gay, or pro-discrimination?

What are the teabag protests really about?

What are the teabag protests really about? Their message is so incredibly incoherent, that it's clear that these sparsely-attended "protests" weren't really about what they were supposedly about, at least for many of the protesters. Therefore, we need to explore the subterranean reasons. On Keith Olberman's show, Janeane Garofalo suggests that what really upsets the teabaggers is that there is a black man in White House. With her theory, Garofalo is echoing one of my suspicions. And check out the blogger who took the microphone at one of the protests and had the protesters eating out of his hand, to demonstrate the incoherence.

Continue ReadingWhat are the teabag protests really about?

The storms are still gathering . . . but these are better

In response to one of Hank's posts from a week or so ago, Erich posted the Internet commercial put out by NOM, the National Organization for Marriage, which is, in my mind, almost a parody of itself. The ridiculous assumptions they put forth - that THEIR freedoms are at-risk, that schools are teaching gay marriage, that they are losing something if gay men and women are allowed to marry - would be laughable if not for the fact that a portion of our population will watch it and nod vigorously in agreement. I think these "storms" say it better: -- On YouTube, you'll actually find many of these parodies - thank goodness so many jumped on board to point out the utter absurdity of that horrible ad. [If you're viewing this post from the home page, click on the title for 2 additional parodies.]

Continue ReadingThe storms are still gathering . . . but these are better