Top 16 Ways to Get a Woman or Wife, According to the Bible

From Debunking Christianity:

1) Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 21:11-13) [About the command that her nails be trimmed, you wouldn’t want her to scratch your eyes out, would you? “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and they Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou has taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to wife, Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare [trim] her nails.” (Deut. 21:10,11,12)]

2) “Lay hold on” a virgin who is not betrothed to another man, and have sex with her, but afterwards pay her father a sum of money. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 22:28-29)

3) Find a prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)

4) Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.–Moses (Ex. 2:16-21)

5) Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal.–Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)

6) Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife.–Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)

7) Have God create a wife for you while you sleep.Note: this will cost you a rib.–Adam (Gen. 2:19-24)

8) Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife.–Jacob (Gen. 29:15-30)

9) Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife.–David (1 Sam. 18:27)

10) Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone.–Cain (Gen. 4:16-17)

11) Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest.–Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)

12) When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.”–Samson (Judges 14:1-3)

13) Kill any husband and take HIS wife. (Prepare to lose four sons though.)–David (2 Sam. 11)

14) Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!)–Onan and Boaz (Deut. or Lev., example in Ruth)

15) Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity.–Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)

16) A wife?–Paul (1st Corinthians, chapter 7)

Classic.

So let’s hear it, Christians. How is the bible not misogynistic?

Wing Nut Daily Still Thinks Obama Isn’t Legit

And you thought the Birther movement would have disappeared by now…

President Obama may not fit the constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only “natural born” citizens can serve as U.S. president, conclude the authors of a recently released book.

An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.

With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists,” was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.

What response is there, except…

“The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists”? With a book title like that, you know you’re in for some reliable, unbiased reporting. Right?

This takes the concept of beating a dead horse to an unprecedented level.

I’m all for criticizing the president, but these unsubstantiated attempts to de-legitimize the president are simply ridiculous and only serve to show that Republicans are too incompetent to find a way of criticizing the government on rational grounds.

And for extra irony, if having a foreign-born parent makes you ineligible to serve as U.S. President, six other presidents would have needed to be stripped of the title as well, including Thomas Jefferson (mother was English), Woodrow Wilson (mother was English), Herbert Hoover (mother was Canadian) and Andrew Jackson (both parents Irish).

Yes, I’m sure we’re all shocked to discover what a disreputable news source World Net Daily is.

The U.S. vs. The U.K.

Custador over at Unreasonable Faith recently brought up a very interesting point about religion in public policy that I’d never noticed before.

It seems sometimes that the US and the UK, despite many cultural similarities [read: We’re adopting big chunks of yours] have the exact opposite system of government when it comes to religion. To clarify: Ours is filled with pomp, tradition and religious ceremony and is even headed by the titular head of the Church of England – but in actual fact, religion has very little influence over us. We largely ignore it. On the other hand, the USA is explicitly secular by law, and yet you can’t seem to keep religion out of US politics with a crowbar.

It’s an intriguing observation. I can’t help but wonder if the two are related. Is it possible that a governing body’s explicit stance on religion has some effect on the policies that tend to be passed by that government?

Probably not. It’s a damn good question, though. Definitely worth exploring further.

It’s precisely the reason why I constantly fluctuate between being proud of my status as an American citizen and embarrassed at how stuck-in-the-Bronze-Age we must seem to be.

Why Hipsters are Stupid

No one likes a hipster douchebag. Even hipsters with no self-awareness say, “Ugh, I loathe hipsters.” But despite the fact that most people detest that notable too-cool-for-school douchey hipster demeanor, it appears they’re making a comeback. Thriving, as one would say.

Does that mean there must be something to it? Well, no. As the successes of Justin Bieber, the bible, and professional wrestling prove, the fact that something is popular doesn’t make it not stupid.

But before I detail the ways hipsterism is stupid, maybe I should spell out exactly what I mean by “hipster,” lest I fall into the trap of criticizing a straw-man.

Recognizing Hipsters

Hipsters come in all shapes and sizes. But regardless of their height and girth, they all tend to dress the way black people used to dress fifty years ago. They wear tight pants or tight ripped jean shorts, with a newsboy hat or fedora, and t-shirts with characters from movies you’ve never seen or ironic quotes from books you’ve never read. Oh, and eyeliner. They like eyeliner. And pretentious tattoos.

They detest anything popular or common, and so they rarely wear anything bought at a place like Forever 21 or PacSun. And don’t even get them started on Bloomingdale’s. They’re all about pre-owned stuff (or stuff that looks pre-owned). Thrift stores. Used record shops. Antiques. Stores of that nature. And if they do own anything mainstream, it’s usually purchased at some scene-ey store like American Apparel or Urban Outfitters.

Those are just the physical characteristics, though. Many people may look or dress like a hipster without espousing the hipster mentality.

That mentality can be summarized in one word: condescension.

If you like a popular novel or movie, it’s gauche. If you have a mainstream pop single coming out of your car stereo, it’s uncouth. If you ask, “Who’s that old dude on your shirt?” they’ll reply, “You’ve never heard of Bukowski? Uhh… have you heard of oxygen?”

To a hipster, you’re not cool, hip, or with-it unless every band you listen to is indie, every writer you like is under-appreciated, and every artist you’re familiar with is avant-garde.

Why They’re Stupid

Here’s the thing about hipsters.

For some reason, they can’t enjoy anything that a large number of people find emotionally or mentally stimulating. Coldplay, for example. Or Leo DiCaprio movies. I’m not quite sure what the theoretical limit of hipster acceptance is (i.e. the relative popularity of a given cultural phenomenon allowable before a hipster loses interest), but it doesn’t seem to be very high.

Example, I heard this statement from one particular hipster:

“Tristeza? Oh, yea… I used to listen to them before they were, like, the thing.”

[hair toss, followed by a swig of Pabst Blue Ribbon]

I’ve written about this phenomenon before, a reaction that I have since then officially named The LeBron Fallacy. It’s the tendency of hipsters to label a popular trend as “played-out” and any new fans contributing to its popularity as “poseurs,” which runs contradictory to what someone with a true appreciation of an art form would do.

Another staple of hipsterism is nihilism.

No passions or strong political stances are acceptable to a hipster. If you’re a liberal, you’re too whiny and naive. If you’re a libertarian, you’re an anarchist deviant. If you’re a conservative, you’re a greedy bigot. Atheists and theists are arrogant. Vegans and meat-eaters are ill-informed.

You get the idea.

The problem with hipster nihilism is twofold.

Fold Number One, political affiliations are largely a matter of opinion. They are a set of principles that represent an individual’s worldview and their desired outcome for society. The mere fact that most people are in the middle does not mean that the best option is in the middle.

Fold Number Two, Fold Number One holds doubly true when we’re talking about things that aren’t a matter of opinion. Things like religion. Either a particular religion is true, or it isn’t. Either God exists, or he doesn’t. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. The theist who says “I believe there is a god,” and the agnostic atheist who says, “I don’t believe there’s a god” are non-overlapping demographics. Saying “neither of you are right,” apart from being logically impossible, is nothing more than another douchey way of refusing to identify with any group, just to be able to cling to non-conformity.

If you’re a hipster, my message to you is, no one is impressed. You don’t own a monopoly on cool just because you can quote G.G. Allin and refuse to take a stance on anything. Listening to Coldplay doesn’t make anyone out-of-touch or a poseur, and no one died and made you the king of style.

I doubt they’ll listen. Ah, well.

Maybe if we’re lucky, being a hipster will become so popular that hipsters will be smug and condescending about hipsterism, creating a non-conformist vortex that will cause them to completely pop out of existence in an instant. Keep your fingers crossed.

I’m about to make your day

There’s audio, but sound isn’t necessary. Just hit Play, fast forward to about 2:20, and tell me this isn’t the high point of the last 24 hours.

You’re welcome.

Help! I’m drowning in irony!

(The relevant parts begin at about 3:09)

This is Ron Ramsey of Tennessee, a Republican gubernatorial candidate. And a Methodist.

Here’s what he said about the “threat” of Islam in the United States:

“Now, you know, I’m all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on,” he said. “But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee — to the United States. We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution.“

Interestingly enough, the part in bold I actually agree with. Sharia courts have popped up in several Western countries (including the UK), and that’s one thing I as an American would not tolerate.

Just like I wouldn’t tolerate anyone who believes that religious laws should be forced onto those who aren’t of their religion. People like… oh, I don’t know, Ron Ramsey? The guy who believes that women should not be allowed to terminate their pregnancies and that two people shouldn’t be allowed to get married if they’re the same sex, because Jesus hates queers and thinks a clump of cells with no consciousness is the same as a baby?

I guess by “freedom of religion,” they mean “freedom to worship Jesus however they please.”

He also calls the world’s second-largest and fastest-growing religion more of a “cult” or “nationality” than a true religion. (And therefore, perhaps it’s exempt from the Establishment Clause?)

Ramsey proclaimed his support for the Constitution and the whole “Congress shall make no law” thing when it comes to religion. But he also said that Islam, arguably, is less a faith than it is a “cult.”

“Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it,” Ramsey said. “Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face.”

Christ. What an asshole.

It shouldn’t surprise you that he, like most of his GOP colleagues, is against the opening of a new Muslim community center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee (even though Murfreesboro already has a mosque) over these same irrelevant and paranoid concerns about Sharia law.

Muslims have every right to build places of worship and community centers, just like Christians do. A Muslim community center is not a Sharia court. And if you have a problem with that community center, or with the Cordoba House near Ground Zero, then you quite frankly have a problem with religious freedom.

Sharia law isn’t coming to America, people. Sorry to disappoint you.

And if you’re a conservative Christian concerned that it is, then I’d like to politely suggest that you keep your own religious dogma out of public policy before you start worrying that some other religion might do the same.

If Atheism Were a Religion

Since the word “atheist” notes a lack of belief rather than a set of beliefs, it’s a pretty absurd concept to think of it as a religion. It would be like thinking of not collecting stamps as a hobby.

But it’s still nice to imagine a world where religious people got a taste of what it would be like if atheists were (1) the majority, and (2) as pushy or confrontational about their beliefs as religious people.

Imagine that.

We’re not saying you can’t run those ads, but… you can’t run those ads

Remarks by President Obama on the DISCLOSE Act:

So the House has already passed a bipartisan bill that would change all this before the next election.  The DISCLOSE Act would simply require corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities.  So when special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and claim responsibility for it -– like a company’s CEO or the organization’s biggest contributor.  And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections — just as they were in the past.

Now, you’d think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense, particularly since they primarily involve just making sure that folks who are financing these ads are disclosed so that the American people can make up their own minds.  Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads — just make sure that people know who in fact is behind financing these ads.

“Nobody is saying you can’t run the ads”?

What about the part of the bill that prohibits political ads that are sponsored by companies with foreign ownership exceeding 20% or companies that have government contracts? How is that group not being disenfranchised? I understand there’s a lot of anti-corporation stigma in America, but freedom of speech extends to everyone. Including those who own companies that are partially foreign-owned, or accept government contracts.

Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine adds:

If the DISCLOSE Act is all about transparency and has nothing to do with discouraging speech, why did its chief Senate sponsor, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), say “the deterrent effect should not be underestimated”? Why did Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) say he hoped the bill “chills out…all sides” and “keep[s] all outside entities out”? Furthermore, if Obama really believes “the American people can make up their own minds,” why does he object so vehemently to Citizens United v. FEC, which lifted restrictions on attempts to persuade them?

Christian Biologist explains why Intelligent Design fails

Okay, admittedly, this isn’t so much an Intelligent Design FAIL as much as it’s an evolution WIN. But all the same, IDers have yet to provide a rational response to this clear example of a testable prediction made by evolutionary theory that turned out to be correct.

One of many, by the way.

Christians have officially lost the right to say “I’ve seen miracles”

Look at that photo.

The baby in the photo is 8-month-old Alayna May Wyland. The lump above her eye is a mass of blood vessels that has grown so large, it’s likely to cause blindness.

Her parents knew about this for quite a while. Rather than taking their daughter to a trained medical professional, they decided that whispering wishes to an imaginary friend with superpowers would be much more efficacious.

Now a court will decide whether they should go to prison for criminal mistreatment.

Medical experts describe the eye problem as a hemangioma, a fast-growing mass of blood vessels. Normally the condition could be diagnosed and easily treated at the first signs of swelling or discoloration. Left untreated, the mass pushed Alayna’s eye down and out, placing profound pressure on her eyeball and eye socket, as The Oregonian’s Steve Mayes reported.

It’s not clear whether Alayna will go blind in that eye or somehow recover. The only certain thing is that the Wylands deliberately withheld medical care, and admitted in court to doing so, from a baby whose injury was painfully obvious.

Thankfully, Alayna isn’t dead, and there’s no word yet on whether or not the mass has caused any serious damage. But the sad truth is, some kids aren’t so lucky.

For every story I hear from Christians about how their god magically healed a dying or disabled person (with no visible symptoms, as fate would have it), I’ve read stories about parents who withhold medical care from their children and opt for prayer, only to have nature tragically take its course and kill their child.

One has to wonder, if God is “powerful” enough to help an old woman walk without her walker or cure an ex-drug-addict of his withdrawl symptoms (seriously… these are actual “miracle claims” I’ve heard from believers), why would he withhold his healing powers from an innocent infant? Would he rather the child go blind than perform an unambiguous miracle?

Most Christians, rather than trusting the “power of God” to heal all their wounds, use the slick method of seeking medical attention and praying for healing. That way, when a century of medical advancement does what it’s intended to do, they can still give credit to whichever invisible friend they prayed to by claiming that God “used the doctors to carry out his plan.” (Never mind the fact that in the bible, miracle faith-healings happened all the time, completely unaided by medical professionals. Who am I kidding… there were no medical professionals. And also, never mind the fact that getting help from science would be “leaning on one’s own understanding,” rather than having pure faith. Hey… if they were consistent, they wouldn’t be Christians.)

On the other hand, if someone like me goes to a doctor and gets cured by medical science, it’s either because someone else prayed for me or because God has some kind of plan for me and needs me healthy.

The logic kinda works like this.

With believers making these kinds of excuses for him, how can God possibly lose?

Believers need to come to terms with the fact that these “miraculous faith-healings” they’re so fond of touting as proof for the supernatural are nothing but clear-cut cases of confirmation bias. Plain and simple.

Sadly, it’s the children that suffer the most when idiot parents prefer fairy tales to science. These parents deserve to be imprisoned for endangering their child like that, and let’s hope it serves as an example for the rest of the nuts out there.

People often ask me, why are you so critical of religion? What harm does it really do?

Well, now you have an answer.