Hello heathens, miscreants, agnostics, atheists, skeptics, free-thinkers and assorted other human beings who do not wish to be so titled. Those of you who have watched my youtube presentation of my last holiday Hats, Holidays and Halitosiswill have listened to a track from the Australian band Powderfinger which hails from Brisbane, Queensland. Bernard Fanning, who is singing the song, "Wish You Well" is the lead singer of this band and the song is from his solo album called "Tea And Sympathy." The lyrics for the song can be viewed here. The latest album by Powderfinger is called "Dream Days at the Hotel Existence."Bernard Fanning is a very talented singer/songwriter and homegrown so all the better. Anyway, I just want to wish you all well, even lapsed catholics. ;)
It was that time of the year again when I wandered off on holiday; usually somewhere up or down the coast. This year it was to Rainbow Beach which used to be a quiet, secluded part of the Queensland coastline but has recently seen much more development. I will miss the innocence of these places in Australia. There used to be literally hundreds of undeveloped areas of coastline and now with the ability to make lots of moolah, Queensland's coastline will mimic the tourist destinations of the rest of the world. That is, they will be filled with overweight, pasty people frying themselves in the hot Australian sunshine. Most of us like the tourist dollars but still manage to suffer from Nimby Syndrome. (Not In My Back Yard)
Even though it is winter here, hat wearing, or at least cap wearing is recommended. The mornings might be crisp and cool, but the sun is unrelenting and will fry many an unsuspecting tourist to a crisp before they can say, "Oh, how Cuuutteeeeee." In the typical Australian way of seeing the positive in a potentially dire situation, the response to "What do you think of global warming?" is likely to be " Well, now the sausages will cook themselves." Potentially this leaves Australian men more time at the BBQ to do what they do best - holding a stubbie of beer in two hands instead of one. ;)
So where does the halitosis fit in? Well, after 4 glasses of champagne, 2 glasses of red wine and a steak the size of a cricket pitch, YOU wake up the next day and smell your own breath. (Too much information probably.)
Anyway, watch the video and have a glimpse of the Queensland coast.
Firstly, I would like to apologise for not posting on my blog for a while. I have been lazy and should be severely chastened. So, if there are any regular readers left out there please accept my apology for not being here to discuss the controversial subjects which you know I do like to do.
Anyway, back to the game at hand. This response of mine on a blog triggered a few responses.
"It amazes me sometimes that theists will fight tooth and nail to protect a bundle of cells, but dropping thousands of bombs on sentient adults doesn’t seem to pose much of a problem."
Is an acorn the same as an oak tree? Should we ascribe the same rights, value and meaning to a bundle of cells as we do to a fully formed sentient human being? I think that the majority of people who are opposed to abortion are opposed to it because of a religious belief that a clump of cells contains a soul. People do disagree with abortions for many reasons, but the primary reason I think is because of a religious belief associated with the idea that a clump of cells has a soul. Under those circumstances of belief, I would suggest that those people who believe that should not have abortions. However, if their primary reason for opposing all abortions is a religious one, then they are by default, requiring that everyone share that religious belief if they demand abortions to be illegal on that basis. I agree that there are times when it is right to take life. And so do most people on the planet. War certainly wouldn’t be as popular as it is, if human beings didn’t find ways to justify it. Capital punishment wouldn’t be as popular if people didn’t believe for various reasons, (many of them religious ones) that they were doing the right thing.
There may be reasons why I would oppose the termination of pregnancy but a religious one wouldn’t be persuasive for me. And I suspect that the reason that the majority of people oppose the termination of pregnancy IS a religious one. So, any ideas other than religious appeals to the supernatural, would be considered - but not perhaps accepted. If, you believe that there is NEVER an instance where it is appropriate or right to kill another human being including that of self-defence, capital punishment or during times of war, then I can accept the consistency of your position even though I may not agree with it myself. I don’t believe that people have souls. So, if you oppose all killing on that basis, then I wouldn’t agree with this reason - perhaps I would find some other reason acceptable though.
If the major reason you have for all abortions being illegal is your belief that a soul inhabits each or most human beings, then you are in effect demanding that I also have faith in said supernatural concept. It is within your rights to believe that demons inhabit trees, rocks, and people if you so desire. I have no legal desire to remove this delusion from you. If, however your major reason for opposing abortion is because of your faith that human beings have an incorporeal mind which survives death you may not demand that I also consider this to be a valid or true reason to ban abortion. Otherwise, you are in effect demanding that religious beliefs which I do not share, should be able to decide for me.
If a belief in the supernatural is a persuasive argument for you, then you really should be doing your outmost to make sure that not only men, but women also lead responsible sexual lives. But the argument that tikki tikki tembo inhabits a bunch of cells is not persuasive to me. As abortion in the majority of circumstances is legal, it is not up to me to provide reasons why it should be illegal. That job is for those who disagree with it. Until then, no supernatural appeals to souls will be considered a persuasive argument by myself.
And what does the Bible have to say about abortion?
Very little, except:
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or, as the endnote says, she has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Exodus 21:22-23)
And God doesn’t seem to have any trouble with abortions, as Numbers 5 says.
Perhaps in its crudest terms of expression, the topics of abortion, euthanasia, suicide, infanticide and rape are basically asking the question - “who owns what?” (A crude way to express it perhaps, but I think it may devolve to this concept.) A person who believes in a god would probably say that god owns us and our individual lives. A person who believes in god and the state reflecting the wishes of said god, might believe that god owns our individual lives and that the state acts on god’s behalf. A person who doesn’t believe in a god or gods might say that the state, as highest authority, owns our individual lives. For me, I don’t believe that a god owns my individual life, nor do I believe that the state can act on a supposed god’s behalf. I also don’t believe that the state can own my life. As a result, I would neither support laws (either from a god or the state), which made abortion compulsory or illegal.
What authority outside of yourself, do you believe has the ultimate say over your life, if any? If you do not own your own life it would seem to me that you are in servitude to either a god or the state. Neither of those ideas appeals to me much.
Apparently, I am much older than I thought. Shocking I know. And I mean MUCH older.
"Skeletal remains from a 220-million-year-old dinosaur reveal a prehistoric road runner of sorts, whose svelte figure and long legs allowed it to evade predators lickety-split." (I must say that I hold my age remarkably well under the circumstances. 220million years old, who would have thunk it? It appears to be so much like me that I am gob smacked.)
"The creature stood about 12 inches tall at the hips and weighed just 4.4 pounds. Its head-to-tail length was about 3 feet, with about half of that taken by the tail. The new species is aptly named Eocursor parvus, meaning 'early little runner.'" (Obviously I won't be requiring that people refer to me by my latin name of Eocursor parvus. Perhaps only on formal occasions or at fancy dress balls. It is also evidence of how the vocalization of this particular dinosaur has changed over time from the classic "meep meep" to the more modern, "beep beep."
Anyway, I am ecstatic that my predecessor has been found and so rigorously identified, after all, as a dinosaur, I would hate to have a type of primate as my common ancestor. We dinosaurs have our pride, you know.
We have to post these rules before we give you the facts. Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves. People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules. At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names. Don't forget to leave them a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.
This was much harder than I expected. What do I tell people about me? What could possibly be interesting to the rest of the blogging community about myself? I have no idea but here goes.
Eight Random Facts Or Habits:
1. I could read reasonably well before I went to school. I couldn't write though. In retrospect, I think I was probably a natural left-hander like my mother, but I was being encouraged to prefer my right-hand. I think I can remember my Aunty, who was a teacher, placing a pencil in front of me and asking me to pick it up. According to my memory, which may be accurate or inaccurate at this stage, I continually tried to pick it up with my left hand much to the disappointment of those viewing the experiment. ;) Nonetheless, reading has always been a pleasurable activity for me and is probably one of the distinct reasons why I find the internet such an attractive place.
2. I always think that I am right. In other words, I start with the premise that I am right and work from there. I am quite conducive to being shown otherwise, but I do not assume that others know better than I do unless they are a recognized expert in a particular field and even then I find that I am quite willing to challenge them on their assumptions. (This exercise of completing eight random facts or habits may turn into a litany of my flaws.) I have always been opinionated and I don't consider this by necessity, to be a negative characteristic. After all, I have to lead MY life; I can't lead anyone else’s. I was encouraged to classically "think for myself” and once in the habit of this, it is virtually impossible to defer to others through an appeal to authority, an appeal to age, an appeal to gender, or any other fallacious appeal that at least some of us, find compelling. I was encouraged to be a self-determining adult.
3. My favourite sandwich is white bread with vegemite and rare onion. You may all gag now at the thought, and gas masks are highly recommended during and after consumption of said sandwich.
4. Over the years I have methodically stripped away the vestiges of superstition and meaningless ritual from my life and feel much the better for it. Though I am aware that many people enjoy the imposition of external power structures, mores and belief systems upon their lives, I am not one who thrives on rigid structure or routine. It saps my energy and my enthusiasm. Nothing depresses me more than the thought that I must complete a certain set of behaviours within a given time frame and in a specific pattern. For better or for worse, I am unquestionably individualistic.
5. One ritual I have no intention of parting with at the moment, probably because I find it pleasurable, is the use of scented candles. Good quality scented candles burning in the house with few other light sources, is very relaxing and contemplative.
6. I have a fascination with what makes people tick. That is, what drives them - how they think, and why they believe what they believe. Obviously, this also extends to myself. It is of endless fascination to me that none of us have the exact same visual, visceral, intellectual or emotional reactions to the same object or experience. Obviously, we are not meant to behave as if we are clones of each other, yet so much of societal influence is an encouragement towards conformity. I do not make a "good drone." I actively rebel against the business model which treats people as identicals, or machine parts. I think the politically correct term is "human resources."
7. I have been "addicted" to computer gaming; more specifically, play station and nintendo games. Many of the strategy games are challenging and thought provoking. I also enjoyed first person action and role-playing games. And if I disappear from here for any length of time, it is probably because I have found a play station game which is taking my attention. I rarely use game cheats unless I am stuck on the same level for a couple of days, then I might weaken and look up some info concerning it on the net. I like to complete the game and don't see a lot of sense in buying a game and not mastering it to its conclusion.
8. I like a glass of red wine with my dinner, preferably a grenache, but I am not really that fussy. One is just right. Two is enough to send me off to the land of nod. Three and I am dancing on tables singing "Hey Big Spender" at the top of my lungs. Not really, but if you were kind enough to read this far, I thought you deserved a disturbing image of me to complete the picture.
Now to tag some other blogs. Ok, I give up. If you would like to be part of this meme, please tag yourself.
The topic of gay marriageis hot on the press again and being discussed on a few blogs around the ridges. After listening to quite a few arguments concerning the subject of marriage, it seems to me that there is a great deal of discussion about the definition of marriage itself. What it is, what it is not and why. Talk to a variety of people and each seems to have a view of what a marriage is and what it is not. Many people seem to have a view of marriage which derives from their religious beliefs, but to assume that marriage is only that which confirms our complies with our religious beliefs, is to only acknowledge part of the larger picture. To assume that marriage throughout history is derived from a specific religious belief, flies in the face of history. My understanding of human relationships and history suggests strongly that marriage is not specifically aligned with the advent of either judaism, christianity, hinduism, buddhism or islam. That various religions have formulated their version of what a marriage is and goes on to claim that ALL marriages must fit their religious precepts, is an indication of religions trying to redefine what marriage is and the history of it.
In other words, marriage predates judaism and as such it predates christianity. If one wants to pretend that the only kind of marriage is one formalized through a specific religious construct, then all I can say is that the revising of history has been successful in this case.
"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage." - Westermarck, Edward Alexander (1903). The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480 (reprint).
Marriage as a concept, existed prior to judaism and consequently christianity and islam. One only needs to look at Ancient Egyptto see this. And certainly pagan marriages, (those who were not one of the big 3), existed prior to these religions and during the expansion of these religions.)
In other words, neither jews nor christian, nor muslims created marriage. They created a concept of marriage which fitted their religious precepts and then went on to claim that marriage under all circumstances must comply with their religious precepts. If you want a "christian marriage" - go right ahead. If you want a "jewish marriage" - go right ahead. If you want a "hindu marriage" - go right ahead - but don't try and pretend that you invented the concept of marriage and that all marriages must fit your religious precepts.
Marriage existed prior to the jewish version, the christian version or the islamic version. Religions do not OWN the concept of marriage. They have just formalized a natural process of pair bonding into their respective religions and tried to convince us that no other type of marriage except the ones they espouse, are allowed to exist.
The marriage contract, as we in the west know it, involves consent which is why it is restricted to those who are able to give consent on their own cognisance. This rules out marrying your goldfish if you believe that it looks at you in that "special way", as it is not capable of responding in kind to your declaration of love and marriage. The issue of consent or consensual sex is also what makes paedophilia wrong whether you have a religious belief that it is wrong or not. Paedophilia is illegal because a contract for sex cannot be made without consent. Children are unable to give consent on their own cognisance, so paedophilia is sex without the legal consent of one of the parties. Sex without consent is rape. Easy to see why it is illegal and a crime. The same goes for bestiality or people in love with their goldfish. The issue of a contract requiring mutual consent is what keeps paedophilia and bestiality illegal.
Surely one would agree that the important issue in a contract of any kind is that of mutual consent. The ability to give consent on one's own cognisance is the underlying feature. Unless, of course, you support the marrying of children as child brides at the age of 9 or 10 - regardless of their ability or willingness to consent? Now, where did I read about instances like that? Oh yes - in so-called holy books.
So, Christianity gets to say what a christian marriage is. Judaism gets to say what a jewish marriage is and islam gets to say what an islamic marriage is. However, they don't get to dictate to those OUTSIDE of their specific religion what a marriage is. If, however, the only reason you can give for not marrying your goldfish or your cat, or perhaps your favourite teddy bear, is a scriptural one, or one associated with your religious beliefs; where in passage and verse does it say that you are not allowed to marry your underpants?
I think that if a referendum was held in Australia today concerning gay marriage that it would pass. However, the conservative government and conservative "christian prime minister" that we have now decided to rewrite the definition of a "marriage" so that the door to marriage for gay people is shut. I believe that this is a case of him inflicting his personal religious beliefs on the rest of the population. He has the right to his own religious beliefs, he does not have the right to impose them on others.
As I have mentioned previously, you also have the right to believe according to your religious position, that homosexuality is wrong, but it is an insufficient and irrelevant reason for those who do not share your religious beliefs and by demanding through law that it be banned, you are in effect demanding that I object to gay marriage because of religious beliefs I do not hold. It is tantamount to saying - "My religious beliefs will decide for you even if you don't share them."
This isn't good enough.
"I think men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought jewellery." - Rita Rudner
So what is "The Highway To Hell?"I would consider that it is the antithesis of "The Yellow Brick Road." Now some of us, freethinkers, sceptics, atheists, agnostics and the like, consider the idea of a place like hell to be part of interesting mythology, but mythology nonetheless. I guess the "Highway To Hell" is that road that so called unbelievers, nonbelievers or disbelievers are on. If that is so, I am on that highway and beetling along at breakneck speed. No doubt blasphemers top the list when it comes to a place on Hell's Highway and as a practiced blasphemer, I may actually be coming first. Obviously, threats of Hell, Hadesand the devil are of no consequence to those who consider them to be all but primitive campfire stories. But I suppose they do keep the kiddies in line.
One of the problems of the concept of hell is one which is closely related to the problem of evil. As in, how can an omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent god consign some people to hell forever where they will be eternally punished? Is it love to create a heaven and a hell, then tell people they better do as you say and love you and get your name right or you're going to burn them for eternity? Does that pass for love?
And now for a little background about hell. Gehenna, (or gehenom or gehinom) has sometimes been described as a final punishment for the wicked and sometimes as a spiritual forge in which souls are purified after death. The name derived from a burning garbage dump near Jerusalem (the valley of Hinnom), sometimes identified as an entrance to the underworld. Gehenna also appears in the New Testament and in early Christian writing to represent the place where evil will be destroyed. It lends its name to Islam's hell, Jahannam.
The word is supposedly derived from the Greek meaning the Valley of Hinnom's son. The valley forms the southern border of ancient Jerusalem and stretches from the foot of Mt. Zion, eastward, to the Kidron Valley. It is first mentioned in Joshua 15:8. as a deep, narrow ravine at the foot of the walls of Jerusalem where refuse was burned. It is here that the bodies of executed criminals or others deemed unworthy of a proper burial were dumped. The association with hell derives from the tradition that the Canaanites sacrificed children to their god Moloch in this place.
Eventually this valley became Israel's "garbage dump". In it would be thrown refuse as well as dead animals and the dead bodies of criminals. This "dump" was perpetually on fire to rid the land of these unclean things. Jesus, who spoke more about hell than love, used this word 11 times to describe the suffering of those who do not trust in Him before death.
The Christian philosopher Origen also argued that the literal terrors of hell were false, but they ought to be publicized in order to scare simpler believers.
That having been said, watch the video, enjoy the music and find out why I am on "The Highway To Hell."
Ever wondered why Australia is called the "Land Down Under?" Ok you haven't, but maybe some people don't know. It is a colloquialism which refers to all things Australian because of Australia's position in the southern hemisphere. When one looks at a map in the most common way, Antarctica appears at the 'bottom' of the page, and north appears to be "up" and south appears to be "down." Now if cartography developed in Australia, we would have all you northern hemispheric centrists as "downunders."
According to the description listed beside the video: -
"This is some traditional Australian Dancing. This is what the convicts used 2 do in their spare time and to the same music. Ahh-Just watch it." (My suggestion is to watch out for Australians cause they are the biggest bullshit artists you are ever going to meet.)
Nevertheless, this is a video made by a couple of aussie guys doing what aussie guys go best and that is making dickheads out of themselves. :)
When you watch the video, you will see an Australian flag. On the flag you will notice the Union Jack which symbolizes that Australia was claimed as a British Colony. The Southern Cross is the constellation called surprisingly, The Southern Cross. It is comprised of 4 major stars in a kite pattern and is easily recognizable from the Southern Hemisphere. The other major symbol on the flag is The Commonwealth Star or Star of Federation which has seven points to denote the six states and the combined territories of the Commonwealth.
One of the guys is dancing around a Hills Hoist which is an Australian version of the rotary clothesline. Its distinguishing feature is a crown and pinion-winding mechanism invented by Adelaide based Lance Hill in 1945. As most places in Australia have good clothes drying weather, the Hills Hoist has been a common feature in many Australian backyards. In part of the clip a guy is also riding a unicycle and carrying a cricket bat. Cricket, if you hadn't guessed, is a National obsession for many Australians.
The song used is by Men at Work and is called "I Come From a Land Downunder"
Travelling in a fried-out kombi On a hippie trail, head full of zombie I met a strange lady, she made me nervous She took me in and gave me breakfast And she said,
"Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover."
Buying bread from a man in Brussels He was six foot four and full of muscles I said, "Do you speak-a my language?" He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich And he said,
"I come from a land down under Where beer does flow and men chunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover."
Lying in a den in Bombay With a slack jaw, and not much to say I said to the man, "Are you trying to tempt me Because I come from the land of plenty?" And he said,
"Oh! Do you come from a land down under? (oh yeah yeah) Where women glow and men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover."
This song was used as a theme song by the crew of Australia ll when they won the America's Cup in 1983. I remember the yachting race well as it was the first time that another country broke the US's stranglehold on the race. Most of Australia sat up glued to their TV sets in the wee small hours to catch a glimpse of John Bertrand's crew doing the seemingly impossible. It goes without saying that a lot of Australians also had a small celebrationary drink as a result. The next day, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, Bob Hawke went on National television and uttered his immortal line that any boss, who sacked a worker taking a sickie because he was up late celebrating the win, was 'a bum'. So, many of us didn't go to work. I know I didn't. :) I can't imagine the present Prime Minister, John Howard being quite as "Australian."
"Fascism" is one of those terms that many people use when they want a word to describe a political ideology that they don't like. To call someone a "fascist" has become an attack on someone's character and morality. Consequently I have heard people on the left, middle and right of politics call each other "fascists" on regular occasions. But what does it actually mean and how would someone be able to identify a fascist? Is fascism the sort of political ideology to be aspired to, or is it always something to be confronted and despised?
People seem to be able to understand easily that a communist is someone who believes that the state should control aspects of society including the economy. They seem to understand that a capitalist is someone who believes that means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit and that the various ideologies of socialism are somewhere in between. (For more complete descriptions of communism, capitalism and socialism click on the links.) But what do people mean when they call someone a fascist? The word seems to be used more often than not as a way to say - "I don't like you and what you stand for."
One thing that many people will agree about fascism is that it is anti-democratic. That it opposes liberalism. A couple of quotes express this view.
" The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. " - President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism: -
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
I prefer the simple version stated by Robert A. Heinlein: -
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein
The Worldnutdaily has a column up with the following headline:
Leave it to the ladies Exclusive: Pat Boone honours women leaders who've stepped up due to male 'wimpiness'
(Pat Boone. Talking about male wimpiness. Pat Frickin Boone, who could only seem macho if he stood next to Andy Williams. Someone really needs to come up with some sort of irony transplant surgery.)
And what does someone mean by "male whimpiness?" I suggest that the term isn't meant to apply to when guys get sick and want to be mothered incessantly. Is "male whimpiness" the desire not to kill furry little animals with a sub-machine gun? I dunno. What IS "male whimpiness?"
In the 1940s, the word "weakling" or "wimp" was used before the word "nerd" was used widely. wimp : –noun 1. a weak, ineffectual, timid person. 2. a person lacking in courage or confidence
What is it with gender stereotyping? Some cultures seem to gravitate between the idea that a male isn't a "real man" unless his balls are dragging in the dust, (and his knuckles probably as well), and a female isn't a "real woman" unless she can pull out of her vagina a freshly baked tray of chocolate chip cookies the instant guests arrive. Regardless of how one expresses it, the concept of gender and gender roles is a polarizing factor in many cultures. Why did this polarization occur? A hint to this question might be found in one of the other comments posted on the article.
"It comes from the idea, popular in fundamentalist circles, that in God's ideal world only men are to be in positions of leadership. The only excuse for a woman to lead is when the man has wimped out of his responsibility and the woman is forced to reluctantly take over. The perfect biblical illustration is the story of Deborah and Jael which I posted about a few weeks ago. There's a link to a whacked out fundamentalist website that goes into detail about this very issue."
I think that this comment may have hit the nail on the head. Religions seem to push the gender stereotype more than any other dynamic. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, from my understanding, are probably the biggest players when it comes to gender stereotyping. What do you think?
God's Vendetta Against Kittens - "Everytime You Masturbate God Kills a Kitten"
For centuries, all forms of sexual pleasure unlikely to result in population increase have routinely been denounced as wrong. This goes a long way to explaining why some religious folks have had a hard-on for those who waste seed. Perhaps I should express that differently.. Some people of religious conviction believe that it is wrong to indulge in sexual activity which does not result in procreation. This concept probably stemmed from ancient times when male seed was associated with abundance in the same way that the seed of various crops was also associated with abundance.
Regardless of various "modern religious views", masturbation has been quite a popular past time throughout history and prior to the Abrahamic Religions was part of many cultural religious practices.
"A clay figurine of the 4th millennium BCE, from a temple site called Hagar Qim on the island of Malta, depicts a woman masturbating. However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common. A figure of a masturbating male from a Neolithic cemetery in Greece is roughly contemporary with the Malta image and likewise suggests fertility rites. From the Sumerians, who invented the first written Western language, we find references to the Mesopotamian god Enki masturbating, his ejaculation filling the Tigris River with flowing water."
"Male masturbation became an even more important image in ancient Egyptian cosmology. When performed by a god it could be considered a creative or magical act, but a mortal human masturbator might not receive such approval. According to one major creation myth the god Atum appeared on the Primordial Mound out of the void of Nu. As the first "thing" in the midst of nothingness, Atum relieved his loneliness by masturbating. His ejaculation resulted in the appearance of the first god and goddess, Shu and Tefnut, who became the parents of all other elements of the world. An alternate version indicates that the god Ptah, architect of the universe, maintains cosmic order through continual masturbation. The yearly flooding of the Nile, on which Egypt depended entirely, was also said to flow from the secretions of the Nile god Hapy. Min, the god of male potency, was always shown standing with an immense erection, often held in his own hand. The vegetative god Osiris, King of the Dead and Lord of Eternity, resurrected himself through an act of sacred masturbation, an association with seed-force and cyclic regeneration. Osiris conceived his son Horus, Lord of the Living and the Falcon of Light, in this way."
If we skip to the "modern era" we have someone like Cereal magnate John Harvey Kellogg declaring "sex for anything but reproduction" to be "sexual excess." He also recommended circumcision as a way to discourage male masturbation. (Obviously female circumcision is much more successful at discouraging female masturbation. Suffice it to say, I am more than glad that he didn't recommend this as well.)
"The eminent neuropsychologist James W. Prescott has said: "Deprivation of physical affection in human relationships...constitutes the single greatest source of violence in human societies." We might want to take a cue from our close relatives the Bonobos and consider the social benefits of increased sexual satisfaction."
A while ago I wrote a piece about Spencer Tunick and his photography. It was called "Now lies the earth all Danae to the stars." What I failed to include was this video when he organized some of the people from Melbourne, Australia to be part of one of his nude photographic sessions. The day was enjoyed by all who participated it seems, except for a lonely protester who wanted to use the photographic session to voice his religious opinion. There's one in every crowd apparently, but to the cheering of the crowd he was removed from the scene. Even the police at the end of the shot seemed a little sad for the poor man and gave him a consoling pat on the back. What needs to be remembered is that this was a legal photo shoot with willing participants who were not paid for getting naked. But at least according to the lone protester, god was upset with this display of nakedness. What do you think?
By the way, those of you who may be offended by naked Australian wobbly bits bouncing around in full view, should avert their eyes from the video.
I am going to start a series of posts which just involve a few lines of either my own thoughts on a specific subject, or a few lines of someone else's thoughts on various subjects. Comments are welcomed.
My understanding is that a religion would require an explicitly stated set of beliefs. There is no explicitly stated set of beliefs for someone who calls themself an atheist. However, if someone calls themselves a 1. Materialist 2. Naturalist 3. Existentialist 4. Humanist 5. Secular humanist - it could be argued that these philosophies display an explicit set of beliefs.
Would the evidence of explicitly stated beliefs mean that these philosophies were a religion? For that you would need to be able to demonstrate how a philosophy differs from a religion, or more pertinently, how it doesn't differ. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that a philosophy involves itself with arguments primarily based in reason and that a religion involves itself in arguments primarily based in faith.
Faith, in this context means that regardless of the argumentation or the processes used, that the argument would not under any circumstance change the position of the person of faith. Faith, in this sense, is an unwavering belief, which is not ameliorated or mitigated in the light of new or contradictory evidence or information. Secular humanists, materialists, naturalists or philosophers do not have "faith" of this nature. They may endorse a variety of beliefs, but those beliefs are open to review and to change in light of evidence to the contrary.
Introduction: - " Ladies and Gentlemen in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit let me hear you say "A - men." Let me hear you say "Praise the lord." Let me hear you say "I will empty the contents of my wallet into that little collection plate when it comes around. And it's all Tax free! Hallelujah! "
Lyrics: - "Praise the lord for all the cash I've got. Praise him for my Rolls Royce and my yacht.
Serving god ain't hard with a credit card. Jesus died so I could make a lot.
Praise the lord he's made us millionaires. Wave your donations in the air.
We've replaced our hymns with ATMS. And soon we'll charge a fee on every prayer.
Jesus Christ was a poor man don't you know. He should have used our accountants for his cash flow.
Stop the sermon on the mount he should have had a bank account.
Two thousand years with interest he'd be rolling in the dough.
Praise the lord this song's out on CD just $40.95 plus GST.
Hallelujah plenty of moolah. Solid gold baubles on my christmas tree.
I've got all of heaven's riches thanks to all you stupid b*tches.
Praise the lord for modern christianity. Whoever said religion should be free."
~*~
Hillsong Church (formerly Hills Christian Life Centre) is a Pentecostal Christian church. Its primary location is in Australia where it is headquartered at its "Hills" campus near Castle Hill, to the north-west of Sydney in Baulkham Hills' Norwest Business Park.
The Hillsong Church has attracted support from high profile politicians, especially from the conservative Liberal Party of Australia. The Prime Minister, John Howard, opened its Baulkham Hills campus and the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, spoke at its annual conferences in July 2004 and 2005. Mark Latham, the former Leader of the Opposition, declined Hillsong's invitation to the 2004 conference, although Bob Carr, the then Premier of New South Wales, (from the Australian Labor Party), did attend the 2005 conference. The former New South Wales Liberal Party state director, Scott Morrison (to November 2004), is a prominent member of Hillsong Church.
The Anglican Bishop of Western Sydney, Ivan Lee, has expressed concern that the extreme emotion of Hillsong services could be manipulative and said that "... their worship is in danger of being experience-centred rather than Bible teaching-centred".
Of course it is manipulative. It wants people to have an emotional experience, which will encourage them to part with their cash.
In the Australian Constitution - Section 116 - (Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion), it states that: - "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't say -"And no politician will kiss the arse of corporate religion in order to gain a few more votes."
I mentioned before I went on holidays how I would take a few pictures and post them when I got back. Well, if you click the youtube presentation, you can view those photographs. I didn't take all that many pictures when I away, so you will see similarities in some of the shots. Usually, I would only select a few from each roll and use those, but in order to make the presentation of a reasonable length, I had to use all of them - even the less visually appealing ones. Anyway, to those who read my blog, I hope you enjoy them.
One of the reasons I decided to punctuate some of my writings with aspects of my own life, feelings and ideas, is so that people may get an understanding that skeptics, freethinkers, non-christians, non-muslims are real people who have real lives. They are just people who do not share your religious beliefs.
"Shoot straight you bastards. Don't make a mess of it." - Harry (Breaker) Morant - executed Australian soldier and poet.
I have been tagged by Arthur @ Five Public Opinions for the National Day of Secularism on May 26th. National Day of Secularism May 26th Tagging stage: If you are tagged by the meme, then it’s the same old format; mention this entry so people can see the rules and then tag five other bloggers (preferably Australian given the nature of the NDoT.) You can link back to these rules and display the banner. Blog against theocracy stage: If you have been tagged then in addition to tagging others, it is also hoped that you will write a blog entry about the separation of Church and State in Australia. It could be a critique of Pell’s “normative democracy”, the historic anti-democracy sermonizing of Archbishop Daniel Mannix, inevitable discrimination by the funding of (approved) chaplains in public schools, the state backed imposition of bans on forbidden women’s dress or whatever Church-State issue you find important. Preferably, such a blog entry would be published on the 26th, but there is no deadline as such. Just a couple of caveats:
1) the church-state anti-theocracy blog entry should mention the phrase “National Day of Thanksgiving”, possibly mentioning that the entry is a response to the NDoT, and 2) feel free to add the (again admittedly modest) banner. I, in turn, tag the following: 1. Dikkii's Diatribe 2. Plonka's Blog 3. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo 4. Dissecting Leftism 5. Talking Squid
music 
video 
life 
wish 
personal 
brisbane 
australia 
atheist 
bands 
musicians 
lyrics 
resolution 
holiday
travel
photography
photos
pictures
queensland
beach
vacation
coast
tourism
tourists
abortion
reproductive rights
religion
pro-life
pro-choice
bible
dinosaur
dinosaurs
science
evolution
fossils
paleontology
palaeontology
prehistoric
who put the bomp
meep
meep meep
beep
beep beep
road runner
roadrunner
satire
meme
habit
fact
tag
me
about me
individualism
marriage
relationships
gay marriage
same sex marriage
civil union
homosexual
religion and politics
hell
hades
The HighwayTo Hell
evil
Gehenna
Origen
Moloch
men at work
down under
southern hemisphere
aussie
america's cup
bob hawke
john howard
humor
humour
fascism
fascist
liberalism
democracy
collectivism
communism
socialism
capitalism
gender
gender roles
gender stereotyping
wimp
the rocky horror show
frankenfurter
I can make you a man
charles atlas
masturbation
fertility
history
masturbation and religion
sexual taboos
sex and procreation
Kellogg
Bonobos
kittens
god
nakedness
nudity
tunick
spencer tunick
art
protest
protester
Tu Quoque 
Tu Quoque Fallacy
logic
philosophy
equivocation
beliefs
faith
atheistism
materialism
naturalism
existentialism
humanism
secular humanism
evidence
hillsong
praise the lord
politics
parody
secular
secularism
secular state
religious right
blog against theocracy
national day of secularism
blog
internet
blogging
Breaker Morant