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

Gay Marriage = Religious Freedom

One of the more ludicrous statements made in the recent NOM Gathering Storm ad was the claim that legalizing gay marriage somehow takes away freedom from those who oppose it. Here is an eloquent response to that claim. This clear and well made video exposes some of the myths and mis-information about the threat that gay marriage poses to religious freedom. In fact, the host makes the argument that only WITH gay marriage can we have religious freedom!

Continue ReadingGay Marriage = Religious Freedom

A medium serving of bollocks

Listening to the radio at work just now, I heard the breakfast DJs Matt & Jo talking to an alleged psychic/medium from New Zealand - the name escapes me for now so for the sake of convenience I'll call him K (for Kiwi). The segment began with K's story of how, in his youth, he started seeing spirits in the form of small bright lights in front of his vision (similar to what happens to me right before I cop a massive debilitating migraine). These spirits would reveal things to K about peoples' still-living relatives. When he talked about it he copped flak from his peers, so he concealed it until relatively recently. It was, more or less, along the lines of most medium origin stories: young child with a gift hides it as a child due to teasing or trouble, then makes a living off it in adulthood. You could also apply that to a lot of X-Men origin stories, but that's another, um, story. The fun began when K started a reading for the DJs Matt & Jo. During the intro, Jo sounded like an agnostic sort-of believer (not really sure, but willing to believe - I guess she watches "Medium" and not "The Mentalist") whilst Matt was a dead-set skeptic (you make the big claim, you provide the big evidence). Knowing this, K "read" Matt first, saying straight off that his mother, who had died of cancer, was "there" with a small girl (or talking about a small girl) and there was also the presence of a dog. Matt stated that his mother hadn't died of cancer, that there was no "small girl", alive or dead, that applied to his life and that all the dogs that could possibly have been relevant were still alive. Immediately, K became defensive and flatly stated that Matt was wrong. "You're wrong, this is what they're revealing to me." Matt defended himself, saying "Sorry, but I'm just being honest - none of what you said applies to me," which attracted the response, "Well, you're just being a skeptic." He spat the word "skeptic" out like was poison. "The spirits are telling me there was a small girl and a dog which mattered in your life, so you should take notice of that and think about those things - that's what the spirits say, but let's move on." Swiftly turning his attention to Jo (I could almost hear Matt derisively raising his eyebrow), K mentioned something about a car accident involving her father (whom he knew to be deceased). Jo, now sounding unconvinced, revealed that her father had actually died in a plane crash. "Ah yes," said K, sounding increasingly desperate (yet still nice and smug), "that's what it might be," then attempted to include the third member of the studio crew (whose name escapes me) in his reading (also to whom nothing applied). This vagueness went on for a couple more uncomfortable minutes (uncomfortable for K anyway, I'm sure, but I was enjoying it) and then they threw to a song. I would love to have been a fly on the wall as K made his (no doubt speedy) exit from the studio.

Continue ReadingA medium serving of bollocks

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?