Two funny warning signs I noticed in The Simpsons:
On Homer’s desk: ‘Plant Destruct - please do not push’ and another sign at Hooters:
‘Do not stare at the waitress’s enormous breasts’

In context with the rest of my book, I was using the ‘improper use’ warning sign as an example of how laws and rules inspire some kind of ART: Automatic Reverse Thinking,
vital for the creative process.
What’s my book you ask? It’s called ‘LOGICAL STUPIDITY - INNOVATION by
navigating through nonsense’

But before downloading your free version from my site, BE WARNED:

Navigating through nonsense is a fast and thrilling ride requiring courage, stupidity
and your own SPQV: Self-Propelled Question Vehicle.
If you’re sane, or suspect you might be sane, you should not ride.
The SPQV is powered by curiosity, a fuel made by burning aspiration and emotion
that splits your thoughts to create emotional instability. If you have clearly defined
principles, or you know how the universe works, you should not ride.
Be aware that as we enter undiscovered territories of insight, bright flashes of brilliance
will definitely occur.
You should also be aware that while inner space travel is just as fascinating as outer
space travelling, it’s also just as dangerous - things can go horribly wrong on re-entry
back to the physical world and should you make it, everything will be different.
For up-to-date travel information, read Chapter 9: Chasing the Unknown.
Please secure all loose thoughts and feelings as the management will not be held
responsible for any loss or damage to your current belief system.
No eating or drinking.
Enjoy the ride.

wow. great article. i learned long ago that everyone who uses the hebrew or christian scriptures is a selective literalist. they pick and choose what they’re going to believe is literal and historical and what is symbolic or no longer applicable. of course, this is done in line with one’s particular biases! don’t want to be presumptious, but i have a posting about the bible that is very similar; you might enjoy it. i also have postings about prayer and the recent rise of an “angle cult” in post-modern western culture, along the same lines. anyway, i’ll return when i can read more. i love humor and i’m intrigued by how it shows up on your blog.

Peace, Gus

I long ago realized that the only sensible way to approach a religious creed is to accept that “the creed is whatever believers say it is”. It isn’t anything else and it certainly isn’t what we unbelievers say it is (or isn’t). Likewise, to believers, the Bible says what they say it says. If we try to tell them it says something else, we are missing the point.

Some Anglicans say that their creed does not admit female officiants. They have no need to “justify” this precept because this precept is part of their creed as they define it. That is good enough for them and we will save a lot of wasted time, energy and frustration if we let it be good enough for us too.

The only question that really matters is what if anything we, as a community, should do about it. In this instance the answer is nothing. It doesn’t impinge on us and it’s not even worth thinking about, except possibly as a spectator sport. Let the Anglicans sort themselves out, as they have a perfect right to do, as long as their actions don’t impact unfavourably on anyone else.

It looks as if the Anglican Communion has outlived its usefulness and is splitting up. It will be interesting to see what organisms emerge from the wreckage. I think some will be pretty unpleasant.

I think it’s a sad story. First, with the criticisms of women who choose to share the word, woman have to be very dedicated to God and to their beliefs if they are going to become teachers of it. So it is likely that their faith may be even stronger then that of their male counterparts. They need to really feel God’s calling and be willing to suffer for that calling. Second, if God calls a woman to the faith, who are we to tell him nay? And third, the bible says that once men and woman have accepted Christ in our life we all become brothers and sisters in God. there are sites based entirely around quotes from the Bible that argue that that Christ did call woman too. I think it also needs to be considered that Jesus couldn’t have called woman disciples in that day and age because of the role of woman in that society. Even if he had wanted to : these days woman don’t have the same limitations imposed on them, and so they are able to spread the word. After all, isn’t that what it’s truly about?

Thanks for the comment. Glad that you are happily married and was just curious. At first, I did think you were not in a relationship, single, christian and thinking about one. I can see some of what I have said is not entirely relevant for you. However, if my comments mean that you are in more of a position to help advice others on the same questions raised then that is great.

What Ariane Sherine does express in her piece is a certain irritation at being subjected to Christian messages (she went to the Web site of her own volition, by the way) and this leads her to a suggestion that atheists ought to respond in kind. That makes a nice piece for the paper but I am not at all sure about the logic of the argument.

If Ariane Sherine wants to advertise atheism on buses, good luck to her, as she has the perfect right to do so, but to do it to get back at someone whose advertisements annoy her seems to me mean spirited and rather pointless. She should also realize that, because her atheist adverts will annoy some believers just as the Christian adverts annoy her, she is thereby supporting Christians’ right to publish their annoying adverts. Feuding never did advance the cause of peace.

Another point: there is no sense in advertising unless you have something to offer. Christians think they do have something to offer. What, exactly, has Ariane Sherine’s atheism to offer? I can’t see that the proposed wording offers anything much to its target audience, presumably people troubled by religious doubts and fears. They would very much like to “get on with their lives” if only they could.

Think what else you could do with £23k. For one, you could set up an atheist information centre with a phone number and email address that could be contacted by people wishing to know more about the atheism or by people who are atheists but need support because they live in communities where it is dangerous to express unbelief. Religion causes a lot of pain and grief around the world and maybe it is time for atheists to organize in order to help the victims instead of sitting on their bums moaning about high-living evangelists and religious tube adverts.

Very detailed response, wow!

Actually, I am a happily married woman who’s only had one partner ever. I was asking because I was just curious. I always want to know everything (which makes me a bit annoying).

When I first left the Christian faith, about 3 years ago, the thought of infidelity crossed my mind. But the fear of STD’s kept on track. Good thing!

However, I occasionally talk to younger people about these issues and knowing what to say is always helpful, given that well, I don’t have any STD’s and I married a virgin–imagine that!

Thanks again!

Dear Lorena,

I am not by any means an expert on this subject but this is one area of great interest to me, so have read around this topic widely and feel able to answer in the following way.

Technically, there is no such thing as complete 100% quarantied safe sex. But with all aspects of living, as you will know, there comes some degree of risk.

The main point to say here in trying to keep as safe as possible is:

1) Keep the number of relationships-sexual to a minimum in your life time.

2) If possible know your partner well and their history before hitting the sheets, preferably when you are not drunk either of you, and he is sober enough to comply with bearing a condom. So many STD and unwanted pregnancy, including sexual assault take place on drunken one night stands. Remember “walkingaway” is right. You don’t have sex with that one person but with all the others that individual has had contact with. People forget that.

3) Condoms do not totally protect against all STI’s fully but they are in the main stay, the main bread and butter of STI prevention. The herpes virus can get through the protection in some cases. Condoms do remain the most effective way of preventing infection. Use them!

4) Be sex aware and health aware. If you are sexually active as a woman, know your body, watch for any changes that do not appear right. Get cervical screening done every three years up to age 50. Then at five yearly intervals after that. Some warts virus are linked with certainty to a large percentage of cervical cancer. A vaccine is due out soon nation wide for 13 -16 non-sexually active girls, before they have have sex. It can’t come soon enough. 80% of sexually active women will contract warts in their life-time and not be aware. Most virusus will burn themselves out and are harmless: some are not.

5) Don’t just think “normal sex ” is the only risk factor. Possibly as many as one third of herpes cases are caused by oral sexual transmission. If your partner has an active mouth, cold sore then avoid sex until well healed.

So there is lots you can do to minimise the risks but have great sex. It is all about balance. Women have babies all the time, knowing there is risk of maternal injury, illness or death even in our westen world of modern medicine.
Take it from me, don’t save your self forever, other wise it just could lead to that. Have fun but play safe.

It concerns me more that you feel you have no-one to talk too more on this subject. athinkingman can gladly give you my e-mail if you want to communicate futher, as there is always more to say.

Hope that helps. Take care!

It would make a great bumper sticker, or a T-shirt.