Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Polygamy Next up on Labour's Agenda

4 comments | 1:57 am | top |
The maiden issue of Ian Wishart's compelling new weekly newspaper, TGIF (Thank God it's Friday) launches with a killer of a expose on the deceit, and the dark agenda of the Labour Party.  Family First has the article on their website (click here to read it).  Seriously, read it.

I'm not surprised in the least by revelations of Labour's agenda to legalise polygamy and "so on" as Ruth Dyson so vaguely puts it.  If adultery is all ok, if homosexual relationships are to be officially recognised under the law, why should it come as any surprise to us that now they want to legalise polygamy?  Bob McCoskrie of Family First responded “I don’t think it’s surprising, the argument for civil unions was all about taking down boundaries."

Dyson made the comments in a speech given to Victoria University students back in May, but at the time the media did not pick up on her dangerous and revelutionary propositions.  Laughable, is the despicable response of Ruth Dyson's spokesman Rob McCann who denied the existence of her speech after hurriedly deleting it from off the Beehive website.  "Unfortunately for your story", he responded to Ian's request for more information on the speech, "that was not the speech the minister delivered".  Of course, Rob was not reckoning for Google's amazing Cache.  You can view the cached page by clicking here.

It just sickens me to think of the pack of low down, lying beurocrats up in Wellington.  For the most part, they are nothing more than a parasite on the wallets of hard-working Kiwis.  They are using our money for their dark and immoral agenda.

Click here to download a complimentary copy of the first issue of TGIF.

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger Canterbury Atheists said...

Andy buddy, now can you be so morally indignatious as a proposal for Polygamy? Moses was a polygamist. The Bible is littered with them and all with Gods approval. Having more than one wife with isn’t something unusual is you have ever read the Old Testament. In-fact it should be a basic tenant of any Christian Political Party if they are wanting to be consistent with their attempts to overhaul the Civil Union Bill and be men of faith. God didn’t see Polygamy as immoral – why should you?

5:41 pm, October 11, 2008 
Blogger Andy Moore said...

Hi Canterbury Atheist. The Bible does not, and God does not condone polygamy. The Bible is a respected historical reference, and as such, documents instances of polygamy. However polygamy has never been acceptable - however vague it may appear in the Old Testament. There were plenty of key figures in the OT (such as Solomon), who had many many wives, but you should remember that this is never explicitly condoned. In the New Testament however, no doubt is left in our minds, that polygamy is in fact wrong. It's not something I've looked into a whole lot but there you go.

Oh and here's a question for you...

As an atheist, do you believe in objective, ultimate truth? If you do, please explain how you believe that this can exist, or began. And if you do not, then please tell me why either your opinion or mine matters in the slightest.

1:38 am, October 12, 2008 
Blogger Canterbury Atheists said...

Happy to answer the question you have posed Andy, on the basis you do two simple things for me mate, in relationship to Polygamy, which you have nicely side-stepped (1.) show me one tract of the Old Testament where God condemns Polygamy (2.)Exodus 21;10: 'If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish' - what does this mean? My point is simple: If you don't want to use the Bible as a reference point, then you may as well joint us on 'the dark side'. Cheers. Pauuuulll (putting-on deep baritone Darth Vader like voice)

2:55 pm, October 13, 2008 
Blogger Andy Moore said...

Right... your first question, "show me one tract of the Old Testament where God condemns Polygamy".

No. I don't need to. Just because something isn't explicitly condemned doesn't mean it is therefore condoned. That goes for any law or ruling, whether in the Bible or of our country.

And in response to your second question...

The passage is primarily setting out regulations governing slaves/maidservants in Israel. So it is not dealing with God's
regulations for marriage or advocating polygamy, but acknowledging the sad reality of a situation faced by some women and families, and seeking to regulate it in such a way that the woman is not just discarded, but her rights protected against the arbitrary actions of an ungodly man. Polygamy is not advocated or encouraged here, but it is acknowledged that such situations did arise in Israel at that time.

Now, much as I may like to continue this discussion, it's exams here at Canterbury Uni, and I need to focus on them as well as a number of other (ahem), projects...

Now, I'm interested to hear your response to my questions.

11:47 pm, October 14, 2008 

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

blog design by equipbiz | this blog is best viewed with Firefox. Remember: Friends don't let friends use Internet Exporer. :)