Christian Dating Tips… Honoring Christ, Your Date, Christian Dating Tips…

, , , , 6 Comments

I bet this was written by a 90 year old virgin who thinks his/her celibacy will please the creator of the universe..

Christian Dating Tips… Honoring Christ, Your Date, Christian Dating Tips…

Choose to not kiss : At least until you are engaged to be married. Okay, this can be extremely difficult, but if you can follow this one dating tip then most of the others will happen naturally. Even kissing once you are engaged can be very dangerous. It’s better to not kiss at all until your wedding day! Before you laugh and click to another page with thoughts that we must be insane, consider these points on kissing.

  • A kiss begins to sexually stimulate a man instantly.
  • If you aren’t kissing then you won’t become tempted to take things to a more intimate level. You’ll be protecting yourself and the purity of your date.
  • If a Christian man is kissing his date and it gives him an erection (often just the possibility of a kiss can do this), is God or his date being honored?
  • Is this healthy for the man to get sexually aroused time after time without sexual release? When men become sexually aroused a large amount of blood flows to the genitals. If ejaculation does not occur; the build up of blood can become painful. That just can’t be a good thing for anyone! Ouch! :O)
  • A kiss will surely break down your barriers and leave you in a position that could ultimately devastate your relationship with your date and separate you from a close walk with God. Self-control seems to be the better option.
  • Just think how magical that first kiss will be if it is saved for your wedding day!

Suspect Says Atheism Made Him Kill, Cook and Eat Girlfriend

, , , , , , 5 Comments

Just kidding, he claims god told him to do that. In case you want to say “he was crazy, this has nothing to do with religion”, ask yourself what it does to people when you teach them that they can speak to an invisible all powerful being that created the universe through telepathic channels.. and what happens when that being starts talking back to you..

Suspect says God made him kill, cook girlfriend

TYLER, Texas (AP) — Friends and family of a 21-year-old who police say was killed and mutilated by her boyfriend struggle to put aside the grisly details of her death.

“You can’t sleep. You can’t think straight anymore,” said Amy Gage, a friend and neighbor of the victim, Jana Shearer. “Then you just keep finding out more and more. It’s the most difficult thing anyone can go through.”

Shearer’s boyfriend, Christopher Lee McCuin, 25, was charged with capital murder after police said they found her body, an ear boiling in a pot on a stovetop, and a hunk of flesh with a fork in it on a plate at the crime scene.

McCuin, wearing a jail-issue red jumpsuit, was not asked to enter a plea as he appeared before state District Judge Jack Skeen Jr. on Monday. Skeen continued McCuin’s bond at $2 million and appointed an attorney to represent him.

Authorities said McGuin’s comments in a 911 call that alerted them to the hideous discovery led them to believe he may have intended to eat his girlfriend’s remains, but said it is unclear whether McCuin consumed any part of her body.

Smith County Sheriff Lt. Larry Wiginton told the Tyler Morning Telegraph that McCuin told investigators that God made him kill Shearer.

“When he said God told him to do it, one of the investigators looked at him and just said, ‘What did you say?”‘ according to Wiginton.

What’s most amazing about this whole thing, think about how many people will say “riiight, god told you to kill her”, even religious people will do it.. yet those same people will believe others who say they’ve spoken to god, or have seen the pearly white gates, or been touched by an angel.

Funny how it’s never god when things go bad, but it’s always god when things go right..  makes you think.

Tom Cruise ‘Scientology second-in-command’

, , , , , 5 Comments

 Well, this about seals it for me. Tom Mapother is legitimately insane. He’s moved all the way up to second in command of the most retarded cult ever. Good job tommy boy.

Tom Cruise ‘Scientology second-in-command’

Tom Cruise has become the de-facto second-in-command of the Church of Scientology and is consulted on every aspect of the controversial group’s planning and policy, according to a new book by the royal biographer Andrew Morton.

The writer paints a disturbing picture of the extent to the Hollywood star’s life has been taken over by Scientology.

Morton claims that Cruise, 45, has long tailored his career and even his choice of romantic partners to furthering the organisation’s ends.

In return, the “church”, founded by the science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard, has come to rely so heavily on Cruise that he is now considered second in importance to its leader, David Miscavige.

Morton – who has written biographies of Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Beckhams – says that Mr Miscavige is so close to Cruise that he even joined him on his honeymoon in the Maldives after his marriage to Katie Holmes in 2006.

Just to highlight this poin (and hopefully piss off some of the nut case Scientologists, there’s about 55,000 Scientologists.. total, that’s pretty pathetic given how long Scientology’s been around.

Huckabee Steps Back Into the Pulpit at Evangelical Church in N.H.

, , , , , 1 Comment

Guess what? Apparently the all mighty powerful creator of the universe requires humans to form armies and carry out his will, because, you know, he’s not able to do it himself, instead he needs us puny humans to do his dirty work. Good thing nut cases like Huckabee are up to the task.

Huckabee Steps Back Into the Pulpit at Evangelical Church in N.H.

WINDHAM, N.H., Jan. 6 — A pastor from Texas was scheduled to deliver the sermon Sunday at a church here called the Crossing.

But instead this small evangelical congregation heard from a different special guest: Baptist minister and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who delivered a sermon of more than 20 minutes on how to be part of “God’s Army” in the middle school cafeteria where the congregation meets.

“When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ,” Huckabee told the enthusiastic audience.

Days after winning the Iowa Republican caucus, where Christian conservatives powered him to victory, Huckabee now finds himself in a state without an extensive religious base. While more than 60 percent of GOP voters were estimated to be evangelicals in the Iowa caucuses, they accounted for only about one in five New Hampshire Republican voters in 2000, the last time the state held a competitive GOP primary.

Huckabee’s campaign did not allow cameras into the church, and the candidate did not make an appeal for votes as part of his sermon. But a church official invited members to attend an event a mile away, where Huckabee held a rally with actor Chuck Norris and where free clam chowder was served.

Huckabee mixed homespun jokes into his sermon and added a more religious tone than in his political speeches, not just quoting from the Bible but citing specific verses and talking about the serious side of faith.

“When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go,” he said. “It’s no longer your life; you’ve signed it over.”

Likening service to God to service in the military, Huckabee said “there is suffering in the conditioning for battle” and “you obey the orders.”

In his campaign stops in New Hampshire, Huckabee has generally focused on appealing to nonreligious voters, playing the bass guitar and emphasizing his support of small government, local control of schools and gun rights — popular causes among Granite State Republicans. Norris, who has endorsed him, has been at his side at nearly every event. His campaign has not run an ad, popular in Iowa, that dubbed him a “Christian leader.”

Why I Won’t Debate Creationists

, , , 1 Comment

 Here’s an interesting article by Richard Dawkins about Creationism, good read.

Why I Won’t Debate Creationists

For good or ill, the late Stephen Jay Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time. Although he and I disagreed about much, we shared much too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world, and a passionate conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation.

Another thing about which we agreed was our refusal to engage in public debates with creationists. Steve had even more reason than me to be irritated by them. They distorted the theory of punctuated equilibrium so that it appeared to support their preposterous (but astonishingly common) belief that there are no intermediates in the fossil record. Gould’s reply deserves to be widely known:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists ? whether through design or stupidity, I do not know ? as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. “

Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

There must be violence against women

, , , , , , , 0 Comments

Clearly, there’s nothing wrong with Islam. P.S. Fuck the Qur’an, this is what’s wrong with religion; instead of using their brains they insist on deriving all their answers from one ancient book of garbage that they feel should give their lives all the meaning they need. Want to beat your wife? Tell me where you live and I’ll show you some of my ‘beliefs’.

There must be violence against women

Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.

Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.

Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?

According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?

Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.

In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?

Suit alleges man fired for refusing to dress as Santa

, , , , , , 0 Comments

Suit alleges man fired for refusing to dress as Santa

SANFORD — A Lebanon man alleges he was fired last month by the local Wal-Mart because he refused to dress up as the store’s Santa Claus.

A spokesman for the retail giant denied the claim, which was filed this week with the Maine Human Rights Commission on behalf of Christopher Nolan.

Nolan, 27, had worked at Wal-Mart for three years, most recently as a bicycle assembler.

In his complaint, Nolan said he thought it was a joke when he was asked Dec. 8 to fill in as the store Santa Claus at the Main Street Wal-Mart. He said his co-workers were laughing.

Nolan, who described himself as an atheist who doesn’t believe in Christmas, said he laughed as well and then declined. “I said, ‘Uh, no way,’ ” he said in an interview last month.

Nolan said he was surprised when his supervisor called him later to say that Nolan had an hour to change his mind. When Nolan again refused to don the Santa suit, he said, his boss brought him into his office and told him he was fired.

“He said, ‘We have to do an exit interview,’ ” said Nolan.

Nolan provided the Portland Press Herald a copy of his exit interview form that was signed by the store manager and includes the following statement of termination from his supervisor: “Asked Chris several times to dress up as Santa Claus. Repeatly (sic) told me no and then said he would look for another job. Didn’t listen to me at all. Told him I would take him out of the system.”

Can Atheists Be Parents?

, , , , , , 6 Comments

Good thing we still live in a theocracy. Judge denies two atheists the right to adopt – because they didn’t believe in God.

Can Atheists Be Parents?

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children’s Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple’s religious affiliation.

John Burke, an atheist, and his wife, a pantheist, had left the line blank. As a result, the bureau denied the Burkes’ application. After the couple began court action, however, the bureau changed its regulations, and the couple was able to adopt a baby boy from the Children’s Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange.

Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 31, with a baby sister, Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months, whom they acquired from the same East Orange agency. Since the agency endorsed the adoption, the required final approval by a judge was expected to be pro forma. Instead, Superior Court Judge William Camarata raised the religious issue.

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” Despite Eleanor Katherine’s tender years, he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

1 2 3 4