thoughts out !oud

A month at The Aristophrenium

Mathew — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:24:50 +0000

I haven’t made it overly clear – apart from the occasional hint here and there during January and February – but I am now producing content for another blog as well here at thoughts out !oud. Late last year I developed a partnership with two other fine Christian bloggers – David and Duane; between the three of us, we relaunched David’s existing blog into a new masterpiece to which the three of us now regularly co-author. This new venture is called The Aristophrenium.

If you’ve enjoyed some of my writings here, I’ve no doubt you’ll enjoy the wider variety and depth of writings over at The Aristophrenium. Between David, Duane and myself, we’re able to provide more content, more frequently on a wider range of topics and issues than we could do separately. To give you some idea of the breadth, here’s a list of some of the goodies we posted for our inaugural month in February:

Atheism and the Problem of Evil, pt1 ~ David (Ryft)
A New Religion in Classrooms ~ David (Ryft)
The Problem with Man ~ Duane
Pro-birth: too painful to bring to term ~ Mathew
Devils, Demons and Double-standards ~ Duane
Finding Forgiveness ~ Duane
Burqas, Bathrooms and the Public Concern ~ Mathew
Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence ~ David (Ryft)
Thoughts on Free Will ~ David (Ryft)
Thoughts on Biblical Authority ~ Duane
Evolution Isn’t ~ Duane
Abstinence Arouses Displeasure Down-under and State-side ~ Mathew

… and that’s just a sample of some of the good stuff! There’s much more besides, so go check it out, poke around and interact and challenge us on our views and arguments – we’d welcome it!

I will still be writing for this blog here and will see how I cope with producing content for two blogs over the course of the year. So retain thoughts out !oud in your RSS Reader to catch any additional thoughts of mine and definitely be sure to add The Aristophrenium.

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

The Senate, pink Aussie flags and 5000 bums

Mathew — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:10:12 +0000

Last Monday morning (1 March 2010), on the fabled steps of the Sydney Opera House, photographer Spencer Tunick – world renown for his photos of mass nudity – snapped a five-thousand strong contingent of butt-naked nudites under the House’s white sails.

Said Mr Tunick of the event, “Gay men and women lay naked next to their straight neighbours and this delivered a very strong message to the world that Australians embrace a free and equal society.”

Australians have been demonstrating “a free and equal society” for pretty much most of its recent history (yes, ok – many could state that that statement has a fair bit of contention, but by and large I hold it to be accurate). And any Australian worth his salt should fight to retain such a society – I certainly do. But just what a bunch of naked people, gays and straights alike, do to further promote equality in Australia is a little mystifying. What equality was it supposed to be advocating? That we’re all human, despite our sexuality? Ok, check. That we believe in equal sunburn for all? – Ok, I jest. What about: that nudists have as much right to sit on the steps of the Opera House as clothed people? … er. I’m pretty sure the same equality could have been demonstrated without the nudity – what’s more, families who also believe in equality may have participated, too. But I guess the mass nudity kind of precludes any notion that families ought to be involved in this display of equality. I don’t know of any parent who’d feel comfortable with their pre-teen children masquerading amongst five-thousand leering nudes. (Not to mention the few hiding around the parklands or in office buildings and apartments, etc., with their telescopes and binoculars. Though I’m sure there would have been some measure of policing going on to try to catch any peeping Toms.)

But of course, reading between the lines, and taking the queue from Mr Tunick’s statement, the nude-shoot was to be connected to the issue of gay rights. After all, the event was specifically organised to run directly after the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

… at which point, my comment about families still stands.

The Sydney Mardi Gras boasted a nine-thousand strong parade of drags, guys hugging each other in their CKs, a troupe of George Michael clones and Australian flags stripped of their royal blue for a stark shade of pink, among other things. While I’m aware these parades were originally begun to canvas for gay rights, I’m not sure what other rights they’re still lacking that the events need continue. Apparently, now, the events are held to garner support for the alternate lifestyle – as one spectator mentioned, “We want them to know that we don’t care that they’re gay.” Well, I can wholeheartedly say the same thing – as would the majority of Australians, I’d wager – so can they stop with parading their sexuality now? After all, I thought one’s sexuality was a private affair and that one oughtn’t go snooping into another’s bedroom?

(And for what its worth, I’d object to a similar public display of heterosexuality. It’s just not called for.)

Of course, arguably one of the reasons behind both of these events was likely a continued push for the oxymoronic notion of same-sex marriage. It would seem that some (and it really is some – it’s certainly not all) in the gay and lesbian community aren’t satisfied with equal rights, they want super-rights, something that no-one is currently entitled to do: marry someone of the same-sex. To ask for such a thing is really to ask for the nonsensical – as I’ve written before. It may be overly coincidental, but on the Thursday (25 February 2010) before both the Mardis Gras and the nude-shoot, the Australian Senate voted on the Greens’ Marriage Equality Amendment Bill. The Bill failed, as was expected (and was in accord with the recommendation put forth by the Senate Inquiry that researched the Bill), having garnered only five votes – and those were from the Greens’ own Senators.

Wisely, Liberals Senator George Brandis stated that the Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into for life, is non-discriminatory^* – a factually correct statement – and that every country has restrictions that ought to be protected for the good of the wider society.

(^*I would add, further, that marriage rights are not afforded to heterosexuals because they are heterosexuals; in fact, marriage rights are not afforded on sexuality at all. A right to marry is afforded on the complementariness of the sexes, as this is what marriage means – a union of the two halves of humanity, male and female. In such a meaning, there is no discrimination but a holistic equality of both genders.)

Such restrictions are in place for the good of society; no freedoms can be granted without adequate restrictions to protect them. A society without restrictions is a society that will crumble into chaos. And no one wants that to happen – whether they be gay or straight.

By all means, let’s protect and continue to promote this grand equality and the freedoms shared by all Australians. But let’s Endeavour to do this with our sails on, huh?

References:

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Excerpt: Burqas, bathrooms and the public concern

Mathew — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:53:51 +0000

[The following is an excerpt of an article I published on The Aristophrenium. Please visit The Aristophrenium to read the full article and to comment.]

“While the French government unveiled its plan to ban the burqa worn by some Muslim women, the reign in Maine leaves much to explain by proposing to allow transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice. The contrast between the two stories is quite clear: the French move to protect its public while the Mainers move aside to endanger theirs.

Two burqa-wearers walk into a post office …

The stance taken by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, declaring last year that the burqa was not welcome in France, is one taken in the interests of security and as an act against the debasing of women. The burqa (actually, it is techinically the naqib – a head-to-toe covering that leaves no exposed skin bar slits for the eyes) is seen as something that is incongruent with French society. Yet the ban is not intended to marginalize Muslims or to oppress them in any fashion: the ban would see any form (Muslim or otherwise) of veil or other covering of the face in public become illegal, except at specific festivals and cultural events.

France has approximately six million Muslims within its borders, of which less than 2000 Muslim women wear the burqa. That’s a mere 0.03% of the French Muslim population. Ought there really be such a fuss?

Well, to some extent, the French government have recently been given just cause to make such a fuss: a post office was robbed by two burglars just last week. And the burglars were disguised in – yep, you guessed it – burqas …”

… read the rest of the article at The Aristophrenium and be sure to subscribe to the site’s RSS Feed in order to stay up to date with both my articles and those published by my colleagues.

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Lazy Myth: all religions are equal

Quote: Christian Pride and Complacency

Mathew — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:32:49 +0000

If Christians who shelter beneath [their own] self-assurance do not learn better ways by listening to the Scriptures, God may address them in the terrible language of tragedy. We serve a God who delights to disclose himself to the contrite, to the lowly of heart, to the meek. When God finds us so puffed up that we do not feel our need for him, it is an act of kindness on his part to take us down a peg or two; it would be an act of judgement to leave us in our vaulting self-esteem.

~ DA Carson, Evangelical Theologian and New Testament Professor.

Share on Facebook

Other Thoughts out !oud posts

Abstinence at the movies

Mathew — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:29:34 +0000

The recent media attention on the issue of sexual abstinence of the past two to three weeks – which I wrote a commentary piece on over at The Aristophrenium – led me to watch a movie that I would not have ordinarily have watched. Not 15 minutes into the film I was beginning to regret watching it – I wasn’t expecting it to be as crude and as base at it actually was. In hindsight, knowing our culture and the way in which it views sexual topics and issues, perhaps I shouldn’t have been so surprised. In any case, I got the kids off to bed and settled down with my wife to watch The 40 Year Old Virgin.

I’ve come to enjoy Steve Carell’s performances – albeit, my exposure to him has been a little limited: I’ve never watched The Office and there’s only three other movies that I can name him in (actually, four, now I think about it). Seemingly an understudy for Jim Carey (who’s acting I never cared much for, but Ace Ventura is a worthy mention), I was much endeared by Steve Carell’s role in Dan In Real Life, whimsically amused at his Moses character in Evan Almighty and impressed with his straight-faced portrayal of Maxwell Smart in Get Smart. Watching him in The 40 Year Old Virgin was therefore somewhat of a shock – especially in the hair-removal scene (at which any hairy-chested man would wince at) where his language was a flurry of unending obscenities – but it was clear that his character was, overall, a pleasant stark contrast to those others in the film.

To sum up the plot of the movie is pretty simple – most anyone could deduce the entire story line from the film’s title alone: a single guy, never married, has never had sex; his colleagues (who are three ravenous womanisers of a high order) make it a pact to get him “laid”. And the awkwardness of the lead character while subject to this pact becomes the focal point of the first half of the movie.

For me, The 40 Year Old Virgin – if you can stomach the crass sexualised language – did for sexual abstinence much like what the film Juno did for the pro-life cause – surprisingly, it praised it. Or at least, it gave the audience due pause to consider it as a viable notion. For this reason, while the film starts out poorly it finishes as it should with Steve’s character, Andy, losing (or should we say, “giving away”) his virginity on his wedding night.

With that spoiler out of the way (I’m assuming that since the film is five years old now, you may have already seen it), it was only half way through the movie that my wife made a startling observation: Andy’s work colleagues – whom, we learn, have been, currently are, or intend to be, promiscuous in their sexual dealings – are jealous of Andy’s (seemingly accidental) virtue.

It’s this strange contrast between Andy and his colleagues that plays out for the remainder of the movie. He ignorantly, yet with hesitation, goes along with the “advice” his colleagues give him on what he needs to do to “cure” his virginity. Yet all along it becomes very clear to the audience that Andy is the most content with who he is – he finds the sexualised lifestyle of his friends somewhat uncomfortable and undesirable; for him, sex is about something much much more than what his friends make it out to be. As the movie progresses, we find his friends are increasingly unhappy with their choices – and it’s there that it becomes clear they are envious of Andy. In retaining his virginity, he has not become subject to the vices of pursuing sex with a reckless abandon as they had – failed relationships, relationships of dependancy, regret, dissatisfaction and discontentment with current relationships and an unfulfilling yet insatiable quest of sexual philandering.

No, Andy’s character brings to the screen something we rarely see in movies: being a virgin is ok and remaining abstinent is achievable and can heighten and intensify the courting process – solidifying the relationship – when both partners are willing participants.

As I wrote in my “Abstinence arouses displeasure” article, Bristol Palin I think understands the value in abstinence and Tony Abbott realises the long term value it can bring to the marriage bond.

Whether this was the intended emphasis of the movie, I am not sure; but it does, much like I implied with Juno, open the way for parents of mature teens who watch the movie to discuss the topic with them and to point out to them that sex, in it’s proper context, is something worth waiting for.

And that’s something of which any Biblical Christian would agree is worth discussing.

If you haven’t seen the movie and are now curious, please do be aware that the language and sexual themes are really strong and very frequent throughout.

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Excerpt: Abstinence arouses displeasure Down-under and State-side

Mathew — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:27:00 +0000

[The following is an excerpt of an article I published on The Aristophrenium. As indicated in my two-year anniversary post, I will be writing both here at thoughts out !oud and The Aristophrenium.]

“One thing that hasn’t been abstaining from the news in the past fortnight is culture’s attitude towards sex. There are two counts in particular that caught my interest: one was State-side, aroused by curious questions from Oprah Winfrey on her namesake’s show; the other was a reactive orgasm from Australia’s media and some members of it’s Federal Government (including the Deputy Prime Minister, no less) towards remarks made by the Opposition Leader.

Both instances concerned the topic of sexual abstinence and, while both were delivered a world apart, both were raised in praise of abstinence. In the US, it was Bristol Palin’s (daughter of 2008 US vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin) commitment to abstain from sex until marriage; in Australia, it was Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott’s parental exhortation for his three daughters to remain virginal until marriage.

In either case, neither of the comments made were received with any measure of intellect. Just an incredulity and a penchant for political power play …”

… read the rest of the article at The Aristophrenium and be sure to subscribe to the site’s RSS Feed in order to stay up to date with both my articles and those published by my colleagues.

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Woman arrested for attempted murder for failed abortion

Mathew — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:34:06 +0000

Here’s some more No Shortage of Crazy:

Q. If a woman desires (and is permitted by law) to terminate her pregnancy, under what circumstances is she not allowed to?

A. In a culture which says that abortions are permitted by law when the mother does not desire the child, doesn’t it then seem contradictory to state that the mother cannot induce a termination of her own accord?

In most States in the US and increasingly in the UK and in Australia, abortions can be solicited for any reason, even if the pregnancy is desired by the father – the mother’s decision vetoes that of her husband’s/partner’s.

Recently, an Iowanian woman was arrested for attempt of murder charges after she failed to end her pregnancy by purposely throwing herself down the stairs of her home. While I think the charges are well founded (as the life she attempted to end was that of an innocent human being), it does come as odd that a society that permits clinical abortion on the one hand is then also obligated into drafting up attempted-murder charges with the other against mothers self-inducing abortions.

Let’s look at the illogic:

Scenario A – woman falls pregnant and does not desire the child. The law permits her to undergo a clinical abortion;
Scenario B – woman falls pregnant and does not desire the child. She is not permitted by law to throw herself down a staircase to terminate the pregnancy herself

In both scenarios (and assuming the woman in question above was successful in her attempt), the desire is the same; only the manner in which the abortion is sought differs. If the law is to be in anyway consistent, wouldn’t you think that: 1) either scenario would attract legal charges of murder?, or; 2) a different charge other than murder (and manslaughter) would be issued in the case of scenario B?

The double-standard here sticks out like all heck. Either the child in the womb is fully human and deserving of the full protection of the law in all circumstances (which means illegalising abortion), or the child in the womb is not fully human and the Iowanian woman ought not be charged with any criminal offence.

Now, which is it? And what happened to the woman’s “choice”?

(H/tip: Sanity in an Upside Down World)

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Quote: When sex gets the best of you

Mathew — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:32:18 +0000

“What had happened to the human imagination, as a whole, was that the whole world was coloured by dangerous and rapidly deteriorating passions; by natural passions becoming unnatural passions. Thus the effect of treating sex as only one innocent natural thing was that every other innocent natural thing became soaked and sodden with sex. For sex cannot be admitted to a mere equality among elementary emotions or experiences like eating and sleeping. The moment sex ceases to be a servant it becomes a tyrant. There is something dangerous and disproportionate in its place in human nature, for whatever reason; and it does really need a special purification and dedication. The modern talk about sex being free like any other sense, about the body being beautiful like any tree or flower, is either a description of the Garden of Eden or a piece of thoroughly bad psychology, of which the world grew weary two thousand years ago.”

~ GK Chesterton, Francis of Assisi

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Useful tweets for everyday Christians – 2010-01-22

Mathew — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:59:00 +0000

#Muslim martyrs compared to #Christian martyrs – is there a difference? You bet: http://is.gd/6IrUX #religion #
#Jesus is not the bridge over troubled waters. But if you allow him he will pull you through the waters if you can stand the tow. #
#Religion is not the opiate of the masses … TV is the opiate of the masses. Frankly, they're better off with religion. #
There's more to The Aristophrenium than you think. All will be revealed on 1 Feb 2010. Follow @Aristophrenium to find out. #
Great msg from #JohnPiper on How to deal w the Guilt of past #Sexual indiscretions – read it or listen to it here: http://is.gd/6ruT0 #fb #
A great nation…always rises from her material ruins, but it will never rise from her moral ruins” – Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot #tcot #
(Video) William Lane Craig speaks on how the universe first began: http://bit.ly/8aAj5s #Christianity #apologetics #creation #bigbang #
Why does #God allow natural disasters? Is He not good? Or is He not able? http://bit.ly/6AQnhr #apologetics #christianity #
What's most important for u in a #worship service? Preaching? Community? Praise? What wld stop u from going to a given #church? #
#Disney's corporate #gay acceptance creates intolerance & #discrimination against ex-gays: http://bit.ly/6kdfvT #tcot #
#Naturaldisaster & the #Christian worldview: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/01/15/haiti-and-theodicy/ #haiti #
Environmental factors in #childhood and #adolescence determine sexual #orientation, not a #gaygene: http://bit.ly/87Gn27 #sexuality #tcot #
Great thought-provoking post from @STRtweets on same-sex #marriage: http://bit.ly/6G46yt #ssm #tcot #soundthinking #
The greatness of a society is measured best by how it cares & protects those citizens who r least able to care for themselves. #

Share on Facebook

Related Thoughts out !oud posts

Celebrating two years online … now there’s a thought

Mathew — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:09:57 +0000

Today marks the 2nd year anniversary of thoughts out !oud.

It really doesn’t seem all that long ago when I first figured out how to install Wordpress, chose an appalling Wordpress theme (I dunno what it was … some garishly bright yellow and orange sun-thing), cobbled together my first post and delved right on into the blogosphere. The two years have gone quick, have been an interesting journey – full of lessons and growth – and during the time there are many people I’ve come to know and to whom I’ve been grateful for along the way.

Following are just some of the highlights, reflections and learnings for me over the last two years.

Small beginnings

I started out with this blog with only a few vague objectives – the only sure one being that I wanted to write on matters related to my Christian faith. For the most part, I got there; it’s been a rewarding (though, at times, frustrating) journey. It’s likewise been interesting looking back over some of my old posts to see on what topics I’ve written and on how the blog has shifted focus slightly or, more to the point, how I’ve tried to attract new eyeballs to my blog to gain a readership. My first post (after the intro) was concerning the death of Australian actor Heath Ledger; I guess the attempt was an effort to be topical while working in a Christian worldview bend. It went largely unnoticed (not surprisingly, considering the newness of the blog at the time) and wasn’t a brilliant piece anyway. But it was a start.

Everything Sucks

The first blog post that was noteworthy, and which rounded out a loosely formed three-part series of posts, was my article titled Why Religion Sucks (And Will Destroy Your Soul). Actually, this was the third of three articles; the first one was like it, Why Christians Suck and then there was the second, called Why Church Sucks (Or What Churches Need To Avoid). The Why Religion Sucks piece is perhaps the most responsible for attracting new visits to my blog – it’s amazing how many people out there in the interwebs Google “religion sucks”. Last I checked I think Google ranked that piece in the top 6 results for that term. I hope the article plants the seeds I intended it to plant (though I’m sure its content is not what most Google-searchers had wanted to find … but that was the point!).

Writing a blog series

Speaking of writing a series of blog posts, my first organised attempt was titled Lazy Myths. As a series, it kinda flopped (it wasn’t a properly structured series – at least, didn’t have the ideal structure – namely, a start and finish date), but it did produce, I think, some thought-provoking content. Titles Christians Believe Because They Are Told To and Christianity Oppresses Scientific Truth and is Closed-Minded: aka the Galileo Case were probably the better ones of that series.

It wasn’t the last blog series I tried. I regrouped and scheduled a new series addressing 50 Reasons Why Religion Sucks, which attracted a lot of interest and generated some lively dialogue with a few different readers.

Writing a blog series is, I think, very rewarding, if only for the additional interaction it can generate with your readers and for keeping yourself focussed. I highly recommend it. My only advice is to plan it well and then execute it faithfully. I’ve got a couple on the back-burner just waiting to break out.

Branching out

Recently I’ve taken to writing about more social values issues than theological ones; well, there’s only really been two that I’ve addressed so far (same-sex marriage and abortion). These topics create heated discussion and a thick skin is needed. I’ll get there

The weirdest thang

The strangest post I have published would have to be Thoughts out !oud and the middle-eastern oud. See, that’s the problem with trying to be hip and cool; by my transposing the “L” in the word “Loud” with an exclamation mark, I thought I was the bees-knees. After all, why say “Loud!” when you can say “!oud” and visually get the same result.

Of course, Google doesn’t get it; it totally ignores the “!” and simply registers the word as “oud” for the purpose of Google results. Hence my post about the oud.

As they’d say in LOLSpeak: DAT’Z WHAT U GET 4 TWYIN 2 B CLEVAR!!1 O WELL!!1

(And speaking of LOLSpeak, there was this one other entry I posted re: the newest, grooviest version of the Bible to hit the webs: the LOLCat Bible!)

The friends

Without a doubt the most surprising and enjoyable aspect of my blogging experience has been the network of like-minded bloggers with whom I’ve come in contact. It is these people who really make blogging much more enjoyable – I love the supportive network it offers and the opportunity it affords to bounce around ideas, garner suggestions, call out for help (oh, how I need that!), receive constructive criticism and to experience a vibrant, warm and hospitable community of fellowship. In particular, I wish to thank the following:

Duane from Duane’s Mind. Duane introduced me to online ministries and resources like Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason and William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. When I first stumbled across Duane’s blog around Easter 2008, I remember being thankful for finding a blog that looked just as awful as mine did (at least at the time … he’s got a very smart looking site now ). I look forward to meeting Duane in person one day as he’s only a 12hr or so drive away from me and I’m sure our paths will cross this side of heaven sooner or later;
Neil from Eternity Matters, who is a compassionately fearless and prolific blogger (and has been kind enough to help me out on certain topics from time to time) and who has a finger on the pulse of … well, just about everything. Stop writing Neil, so I can catch up
David, from two blogs whose names are difficult to pronounce and just as hard as to remember how to spell: The Aristophrenium and the now-dormant Itinerarium Mentis. David’s writing and ability to pick holes in weak arguments is something remarkable to behold – he’s got a clear, lucid mind for such topics as philosophy, theology and apologetics. He’s also Canadian, but I won’t hold that against him, nor that he sometimes edits my comments on his blog for better clarity and flow
Dan from The Bumbling Genius, who has also been generous enough with his time to help me flesh out certain topics and is a warm, genuine soul with whom to engage;
Carlotta from Christocentric, who I have only just recently had the pleasure of making a virtual acquaintence. I look forward to more interaction with her in future and learning about her successes as an author and blogger

It is friends like the above that truly make blogging worthwhile; when I had given up those several times on my own blog, reading theirs was encouragement enough to pick it up again. Doubtless, there’ll be other faith-filled Christian bloggers as well somewhere down the track with whom I’ll establish similar relationships. That’s exciting!

Something Awesome This Way Comes

Come 1 February 2010, I will be undertaking a brand new venture. Since the start of December last year, I have joined forces with Duane and David and as such we have been planning a wonderful blogging project on which the three of us will co-author. More details about this will be the subject of a further post within the next fortnight.

Closing Remarks

Lastly, in closing (and thanks for the indulgence thus far), this anniversary serves as a reminder to me as to why I am writing. From my Setting Up Shop post:

I trust the content to Jesus and to the guidance and correction of the Holy Spirit as I make mistakes and venture into some unfamiliar territory.

I still want that to be true. All my posts and responses to readers who leave comments should be dedicated with prayer – a goal I’ve fallen short of – and honestly and courageously reflect my maturing Christian worldview. God is as patient as He is gracious for which I’ll forever be grateful.

Thanks for being part of the journey and I look forward to sharing more of my thoughts with you over the course of 2010.

Share on Facebook