Thursday, February 26, 2004
12 Biblical Principles of Marriage
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
(from http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm)
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]! (Just a little context for the issue)
And then there is this:
Supreme Court Approves Denial of Divinity Scholarships
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/national/25CND-SCOT.html
My favorite section of the debate, the one point that I think I will EVER agree with Justice Scalia about, in his own words:
"Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the dissenters, found that reasoning unpersuasive. "The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one's religious calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial," Justice Scalia wrote.
"Let there be no doubt," Justice Scalia wrote at another point. "This case is about discrimination against a religious minority."
It must be hard being a right-wing-nut, having to remember which hat to wear when, and what to support and not support, depending on the day of the week, and which way the wind blows.
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).
Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
(from http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm)
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner]! (Just a little context for the issue)
And then there is this:
Supreme Court Approves Denial of Divinity Scholarships
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/national/25CND-SCOT.html
My favorite section of the debate, the one point that I think I will EVER agree with Justice Scalia about, in his own words:
"Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the dissenters, found that reasoning unpersuasive. "The indignity of being singled out for special burdens on the basis of one's religious calling is so profound that the concrete harm produced can never be dismissed as insubstantial," Justice Scalia wrote.
"Let there be no doubt," Justice Scalia wrote at another point. "This case is about discrimination against a religious minority."
It must be hard being a right-wing-nut, having to remember which hat to wear when, and what to support and not support, depending on the day of the week, and which way the wind blows.
# posted by globalfreak : 12:19 AM
Today's Show: Dealing with Deceit
Who to believe and when, and when not to go along with the proposed actions of others. Notoriously deceitful politicians are usually at the center of national deceit-debate, especially during this, a presidential election year. Our show today, in three acts. Act I: When the Yanks coming Rushing In, how the Democratic candidates for the presidency, led by a Yank himself, deal with the national issues. Act II: In the Name of the Father, religous leaders and their arhumenst against same-sex marriage and how their debate overlooks a basic fundemental right of America: civil rights. Act III: Down the Drain. is the current struggles in America, among the liberals and conserves sending America down the drain? These and other observances, when our program continues...
Who to believe and when, and when not to go along with the proposed actions of others. Notoriously deceitful politicians are usually at the center of national deceit-debate, especially during this, a presidential election year. Our show today, in three acts. Act I: When the Yanks coming Rushing In, how the Democratic candidates for the presidency, led by a Yank himself, deal with the national issues. Act II: In the Name of the Father, religous leaders and their arhumenst against same-sex marriage and how their debate overlooks a basic fundemental right of America: civil rights. Act III: Down the Drain. is the current struggles in America, among the liberals and conserves sending America down the drain? These and other observances, when our program continues...
# posted by globalfreak : 12:12 AM
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Why I am boycotting The Passion of the Christ:
One: I am not religous, nor consider myself Christian, especially overzealous evangelical types.
Two: I dislike any person or organization that uses religion to sell anything, like tickets, or merchandise, like 'nail necklaces' (get yours now before supplies run out)
Three: Mel Gibson is shady in his reasoning for producing such a 'violent' anti-semitic' and 'deeply religous' experience all at once while professing his 'devout beliefs' yet has been in films like 'Signs' (aliens and questioning god) 'Braveheart' (Scottish Heathens) and a foul-mouthed suicidal cop (4 Lethal weapons). I don't get that at all!
Four>: Because everyone is making such a big fucking deal about it!
One: I am not religous, nor consider myself Christian, especially overzealous evangelical types.
Two: I dislike any person or organization that uses religion to sell anything, like tickets, or merchandise, like 'nail necklaces' (get yours now before supplies run out)
Three: Mel Gibson is shady in his reasoning for producing such a 'violent' anti-semitic' and 'deeply religous' experience all at once while professing his 'devout beliefs' yet has been in films like 'Signs' (aliens and questioning god) 'Braveheart' (Scottish Heathens) and a foul-mouthed suicidal cop (4 Lethal weapons). I don't get that at all!
Four>: Because everyone is making such a big fucking deal about it!
# posted by globalfreak : 10:21 AM
Monday, February 23, 2004
So I heard this story about recent college graduates moving back in with there parents, looking for jobs in a sluggish economy and attempt to save some money and strike out on their own. Being a 20-something-er myself, I imagined that the position that I and many of my friends have found ourselves in is can be awkward, socially, culturally and of course financially. Of my friends, one is married, one lives on her own in NYC, one lives with her boyfriend and a pair of twin sisters recently moved out in their own. Five or six others, and more counting those from high school, live with their parents. Monster.com recently produced a poll in which they asked recent grads and fellow 20-something-ers their financial and economic situations, I cannot remember the number of respondents, but an astounding 67% replied that they now lived with their parents. What in the world does this do to familial relationships and friend's networks? In my case, my social interactions are much more limited, which is also attributable to my lack of transportation of my own. My parents do their thing, I do mine, I also do house chores, prepare dinner, so the occasional laundry. When I neared graduation last spring, I knew that I wouldn’t immediately find a great and all-powerful job, but I had expected to find something, even in my rural county. I had attended a private, small liberal arts school where it was still fashionable to major in theater or art history. College was fantastic, challenging and socially active yet sedate in its small town-ness. Remember that old line how it doesn’t matter what your major is as long as you have that degree? Well I think they need to amend that to read: it doesn’t matter what degree you have you need experience, and no one is handing that out for free.
# posted by globalfreak : 10:59 PM
Rapturous?
Ok, so a while ago i was reading something about evangelicals and there definition of the second coming of Christ as 'The Rapture'. It could happen at anytime. Its when, I beleive, all faithful evangelicals who have taken Christ into their hearts and minds will vanish from earth, having been led to a better place (heaven?) while the rest of us go through hell on earth. I thought it was an interesting concept (and I was intrigued by the description of everyone who was worthy simply vanishing, leaving their clothes behind, which made me think of the Langoliers!), and then the other night on 60 minutes they had a report on the two authors of the 'left behind' book series, which is wildly popular, and deals with biblically referenced prophecies and events surrounding the rapture and what will happen to 'those left behind". (I may interject here that i have never seen a more blatant use of religion for book-selling, ever, but thats just me). Anyway, I decided to look some stuff up online about the rapture and such and came across this:
The Rapture Index:
Rapture Index of 85 and Below: Slow prophetic activity
Rapture Index of 85 to 110: Moderate prophetic activity
Rapture Index of 110 to 145: Heavy prophetic activity
Rapture Index above 145: Fasten your seat belt
(and this reminded me so much of the Terror alert levels the government uses, which figures, because bushie is an evangelical!)
But the index came with this disclaimer:
The Rapture Index has two functions: one is to factor together a number of related end time components into a cohesive indicator, and the other is to standardize those components to eliminate the wide variance that currently exists with prophecy reporting.
The Rapture Index is by no means meant to predict the rapture, however, the index is designed to measure the type of activity that could act as a precursor to the rapture.
(And This IS my Favorite!)
You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as prophetic speedometer. The higher the number, the faster we're moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture.
Wow. So I gues my point is that bushie is an evangelical and maybe one day, one day soon, the Rapture will wisk him away and we heathens can take back this 'wretched' earth to which he has laid waste.
Ok, so a while ago i was reading something about evangelicals and there definition of the second coming of Christ as 'The Rapture'. It could happen at anytime. Its when, I beleive, all faithful evangelicals who have taken Christ into their hearts and minds will vanish from earth, having been led to a better place (heaven?) while the rest of us go through hell on earth. I thought it was an interesting concept (and I was intrigued by the description of everyone who was worthy simply vanishing, leaving their clothes behind, which made me think of the Langoliers!), and then the other night on 60 minutes they had a report on the two authors of the 'left behind' book series, which is wildly popular, and deals with biblically referenced prophecies and events surrounding the rapture and what will happen to 'those left behind". (I may interject here that i have never seen a more blatant use of religion for book-selling, ever, but thats just me). Anyway, I decided to look some stuff up online about the rapture and such and came across this:
The Rapture Index:
Rapture Index of 85 and Below: Slow prophetic activity
Rapture Index of 85 to 110: Moderate prophetic activity
Rapture Index of 110 to 145: Heavy prophetic activity
Rapture Index above 145: Fasten your seat belt
(and this reminded me so much of the Terror alert levels the government uses, which figures, because bushie is an evangelical!)
But the index came with this disclaimer:
The Rapture Index has two functions: one is to factor together a number of related end time components into a cohesive indicator, and the other is to standardize those components to eliminate the wide variance that currently exists with prophecy reporting.
The Rapture Index is by no means meant to predict the rapture, however, the index is designed to measure the type of activity that could act as a precursor to the rapture.
(And This IS my Favorite!)
You could say the Rapture index is a Dow Jones Industrial Average of end time activity, but I think it would be better if you viewed it as prophetic speedometer. The higher the number, the faster we're moving towards the occurrence of pre-tribulation rapture.
Wow. So I gues my point is that bushie is an evangelical and maybe one day, one day soon, the Rapture will wisk him away and we heathens can take back this 'wretched' earth to which he has laid waste.
# posted by globalfreak : 10:48 PM
I had completely forgotten about this....
One of the best This American Life epidodes ever, I recommend all to listen to it if they have an hour, or just read the synopsys. Everything you ever wanted to know about being a 'sissy'.
Sissies
12/13
Episode 46
Though being gay no longer has much of a stigma in some parts of the country, being a sissy still does. Even among gay men. In this show we have a number of surprising and unusual stories of sissies, their families, and why people still get so upset about them.
Act One. Anti-Oedipus. This American Life producer Nancy Updike on a family where the father was one kind of sissy and the son was another kind, and how the family was destroyed despite the fact that no one wanted it to be. (22 minutes)
Song: "I'm In Such Pain From Loving You," Linda Ronstadt, Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris
Act Two. Instructions for sissies. Chicago performance artist John Conners reads from a 1942 book called How To Improve Your Personality, from a chapter instructing men on how to avoid being sissies. (6 minutes)
Act Three. The Pansy Kings Sing Songs of Love. Chicago writer and actor Dave Awl, who runs a show called the Pansy King Cotillion, on how he accidentally discovered how not to get picked on as a sissy in high school. (8 minutes)
Song: "Girl's Bike" the Aluminum Group
Act Four. The Other Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name. Seattle writer and syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage on how there's a stigma against sissies even among gay men. Gay personals ads are filled with men who want "straight acting/ straight appearing" partners. Girly boys need not apply. Savage prefers swishier men, and believes they actually have to be braver than homosexuals who can pass for straight. (15 minutes)
Song: Barbra Streisand "Oh My Man I Love Him So"
Original musical scoring throughout the hour by the Aluminum Group.
To listen to it, go tothislife.org , and click on the year 1996 and look for episode #46.
One of the best This American Life epidodes ever, I recommend all to listen to it if they have an hour, or just read the synopsys. Everything you ever wanted to know about being a 'sissy'.
Sissies
12/13
Episode 46
Though being gay no longer has much of a stigma in some parts of the country, being a sissy still does. Even among gay men. In this show we have a number of surprising and unusual stories of sissies, their families, and why people still get so upset about them.
Act One. Anti-Oedipus. This American Life producer Nancy Updike on a family where the father was one kind of sissy and the son was another kind, and how the family was destroyed despite the fact that no one wanted it to be. (22 minutes)
Song: "I'm In Such Pain From Loving You," Linda Ronstadt, Dolly Parton, Emmylou Harris
Act Two. Instructions for sissies. Chicago performance artist John Conners reads from a 1942 book called How To Improve Your Personality, from a chapter instructing men on how to avoid being sissies. (6 minutes)
Act Three. The Pansy Kings Sing Songs of Love. Chicago writer and actor Dave Awl, who runs a show called the Pansy King Cotillion, on how he accidentally discovered how not to get picked on as a sissy in high school. (8 minutes)
Song: "Girl's Bike" the Aluminum Group
Act Four. The Other Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name. Seattle writer and syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage on how there's a stigma against sissies even among gay men. Gay personals ads are filled with men who want "straight acting/ straight appearing" partners. Girly boys need not apply. Savage prefers swishier men, and believes they actually have to be braver than homosexuals who can pass for straight. (15 minutes)
Song: Barbra Streisand "Oh My Man I Love Him So"
Original musical scoring throughout the hour by the Aluminum Group.
To listen to it, go to
# posted by globalfreak : 10:40 PM
FACT
There have been 640 coalition deaths, 545 Americans, 59 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of February 18, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. This list is updated regularly. There have been 3,039 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon.
The List (which i just read through)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
FACT
These statistics do not include the casualties from the war in Afghanistan.
FACT
These statistics do not include the nearly 9,000 'other' casualties that have been sent home for non-combat related reasons (illness, disease, etc).
FACT
This also does not count the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.
THE FICTION
That any of this was even the slightest bit necessary...
There have been 640 coalition deaths, 545 Americans, 59 Britons, five Bulgarians, one Dane, 17 Italians, two Poles, eight Spaniards, two Thai and one Ukrainian, in the war as of February 18, 2004. The casualty list below reflects the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors whose families have been notified of their deaths by each country's government. This list is updated regularly. There have been 3,039 Americans wounded in the war, according to the Pentagon.
The List (which i just read through)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
FACT
These statistics do not include the casualties from the war in Afghanistan.
FACT
These statistics do not include the nearly 9,000 'other' casualties that have been sent home for non-combat related reasons (illness, disease, etc).
FACT
This also does not count the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.
THE FICTION
That any of this was even the slightest bit necessary...
# posted by globalfreak : 10:35 PM
Came across this and borrowed it from ratcliffeblog, a recommendation from a Nation article I read recently on the Digital Democracy Forum. Anyway, what this map tellsme, and I LOVE maps, is that I have led a rather insular, provincial life. While this is not shocking news to me, and at least I have been some places, seeing it spelled out in color and shapes is disconcerting. I live in upstate NY, I went to college 30 mins from my parents house, and I am currently applying to Syracuse Uni, which is two hours away but still in NY. Perhaps that is why I am drawn to blogging: escape mechanism. Well, first it was as a way to stay in touch with frinds after college through OpenDiary before they deleted me, and most currently LiveJournal. So i suppose ive been blogging for quite some time, but I want to do more. I suppose we shall see.
create your own visited states map
create your own visited states map
# posted by globalfreak : 2:51 AM
CONFESSIONS of a DANGEROUS MIND...
While I am not sure how much ego has to do with his decision (he is thee preeminent consumer advocate/protector, which i would call fairly self-less), I do think it might be be detrimental to Dems that Nader is running. However, while I am supporting the Dems, I have no problem stating why I voted for Nader in 2000, because it really is for a greater good. Our system does'nt work efficiently, the electoral college should be canned, and if anyone wants to witness real democracy watch a session of a European parliament, where they HAVE to work together for ANYTHING through COALITIONS of multiple parties. If I had my way, everyone with a different opinion could form their own, viable political party and actively work to produce real change and good. Our two party system reminds me of 'Animal Farm' - "two legs bad, fours legs good, four legs bad, two legs good..." and we all know what happened in that story. Third parties are a true democratic process, but with that said, we need everyone to unite against bushie. While I applaud what Nader stands for and what he is trying to do, I hope that he understands that few people will vote for him because there is greater good to be served NOW. And in case you are wondering, no, my vote in 2000 did not cost Gore the presidency, our system did (remember he did win the popular vote, meaning that if we had a representational voting system, he would BE president).
While I am not sure how much ego has to do with his decision (he is thee preeminent consumer advocate/protector, which i would call fairly self-less), I do think it might be be detrimental to Dems that Nader is running. However, while I am supporting the Dems, I have no problem stating why I voted for Nader in 2000, because it really is for a greater good. Our system does'nt work efficiently, the electoral college should be canned, and if anyone wants to witness real democracy watch a session of a European parliament, where they HAVE to work together for ANYTHING through COALITIONS of multiple parties. If I had my way, everyone with a different opinion could form their own, viable political party and actively work to produce real change and good. Our two party system reminds me of 'Animal Farm' - "two legs bad, fours legs good, four legs bad, two legs good..." and we all know what happened in that story. Third parties are a true democratic process, but with that said, we need everyone to unite against bushie. While I applaud what Nader stands for and what he is trying to do, I hope that he understands that few people will vote for him because there is greater good to be served NOW. And in case you are wondering, no, my vote in 2000 did not cost Gore the presidency, our system did (remember he did win the popular vote, meaning that if we had a representational voting system, he would BE president).
# posted by globalfreak : 12:09 AM
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Forgotten Blog: Returning to a long-last blog after only one entry, and asking the simple question of why? Why do people blog, and is it a cultural/social revolution? Todays post in three acts. Act I: Why Blogger? What drives those who seek out news and views to post online and what they expect in return. Act II: Return of the HTML. Learning a new code is like learning French or Swahili, and we all make tag mistakes. Act III: Mission Impossible. Bringing politics, culture, opinion, and change down to the grass-roots and how or how it does'nt work. These and other observations when our program continues...
# posted by globalfreak : 5:46 PM
