May 30, 2012

Pastor Sentenced To 2 Years In Prison For Teaching That Parents Should Spank Their Children

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Do you believe that parents should be able to spank their children?  Do you ever express that opinion to others?  If so, then you could be sent to prison.  Sadly, that is exactly what happened to one pastor up in Wisconsin recently.

A minister named Philip Caminiti was sentenced to 2 years in prisonfor simply teaching that parents should spank their children when they misbehave.  Please note that Caminiti was not accused of spanking anyone or of physically hurting anyone.  He was put in prison simply for his speech.  He was put in prison simply for what he was teaching others to do.  Whether you agree with spanking or not, this should be incredibly sobering for all of us.  Increasingly, speech is being penalized in the United States.  Much of the time, the focus of the attacks by the forces of political correctness is on religious speech.  If this trend continues, many of you that are reading this article might be put in jail for the things that you say in the coming years.
When many of us were growing up, once in a while our parents would take out a belt or a wooden paddle and give us a paddling on the behind when we did something wrong.
Was there anything wrong with that?
Of course not.
Yes, there is real child abuse that goes on out there, but in the vast majority of instances spanking does not do any lasting physical harm.  Rather, it benefits the child because it helps them learn what is right and what is wrong.
I know that when I got a licking on the behind as a child that helped me to remember not to do the same thing again.
But Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi was absolutely horrified that some parents would actually use a wooden spoon to spank their little children when they misbehaved.
Perhaps that judge should actually try to spank someone with a wooden spoon some time.  You simply cannot do much damage with a wooden spoon.
Instead of going after the parents who were doing the spanking, prosecutors chose to go after the pastor instead.  They claimed that Caminiti was “the spoke in the wheel of this conspiracy“.
Even after Caminiti leaves prison, he will be forbidden from having any contact with his old church….
Caminiti will be on extended supervision for six years after his release from prison. Despite objections on constitutional grounds by Caminiti’s lawyers, Sumi ordered that he not have any contact with the Aleitheia Bible Church and have no leadership role in any church.
What in the world is happening to this country?
Criminal predators are literally eating the faces off of people, and yet authorities want to go after pastors that are encouraging their congregations to follow the teachings of the Bible?
Have we stepped into a really bizarre episode of The Twilight Zone?
Sadly, this is not the only example of how our free speech is under attack these days.
Up in New York, a new bill was recently introduced that would outlaw all “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks”.
I think that would cover a whole lot of people that leave comments on my blog.
The following is how a recent article by Kurt Nimmo described what this new law would require….
New York state government is attempting to pass the measure in both the Senate and the Assembly. The legislation has been referred to the Codes Committee in the Senate, and the Government Operations Committee in the Assembly.
Both proposals are identical and would effect messages posted on message boards, blogs, social networks, and “any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.” The law would require websites to post email addresses for “removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.” Those demanding the removal of content they find objectionable, however, would have their anonymity protected.
“Had the internet been around in the late 1700s, perhaps the anonymously written Federalist Papers would have to be taken down unless Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay revealed themselves,” notes David Kravets, writing for Wired.
Will we soon see laws such as this nationwide?
Will all blogs and websites soon be at the mercy of the politically correct police?
Up in Buffalo, New York it is apparently now against the law to hand out Christian tracts on a public sidewalk.  At least that is what one man was told recently when he attempted to hand out tracts outside of an Italian heritage festival.  The following is from a recent WorldNetDaily article….
While handing out tracts to willing recipients on a public street during a public festival, Owen was approached by a police officer who declined to identify himself but told him that the Buffalo Police Department is “the law” and he should stop handing out tracts.
According to the lawsuit: “Subsequently, another police officer, Officer Slomka, arrived on the scene. She quickly informed Owen that they could not hand out tracts in the festival and explained that the prohibition was ‘by our orders.’ Owen asked for her name, and she replied: ‘Slomka, write it down.’ Owen advised that he believed the tracts to be free speech; nonplussed, Officer Slomka reiterated that they couldn’t hand out tracts there and had to go outside of the festival area to continue with their expressive activity.”
Then, “Owen inquired as to whether they would be arrested if they continued to hand out tracts in the festival area, to which, Officer Slomka replied: ‘Yes.’”
That almost makes me angry enough to take a trip over to Buffalo and hand out tracts right outside the police station.
Even if you do not ever distribute literature, you should be alarmed at how our freedom of speech is being eroded.
The truth is that whenever anyone has their freedom of speech attacked it is an attack on all of us.
If we are not careful, we are going to end up just like Canada.
At one high school up in Canada recently, a student was suspended from school for a week for wearing a shirt with the following message….
“Life is wasted without Jesus”
The student was told that the shirt was “hate talk” and that he would be suspended for the rest of the year if he tried to wear it to school again.
They are coming for our free speech ladies and gentlemen.
They are not going to be satisfied until they have either shut all of us up or put all of us in prison.
It is imperative that we all stand up for free speech while we still can.  Once our freedom of speech is gone, the loss of the rest of our freedoms will only be a matter of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The above article was noted at Infowars.com
Tags: Dane County Wisconsin pastor arrested, laws against Christianity, being a Christian is a 'hate crime', the gospel is 'hate speech', civil rights erosion, free speech revoked, free speech - Second Amendment under fire, taken away, anti-Christian laws

Related

59 comments:

  1. Since you have time to post new articles Rick, I assume you're going to start responding to the numerous outstanding criticisms of your previous blog posts.
    Are you going to be mature and admit error where error has been demonstrated, are you going to answer criticism of your position with reasoned arguments and not sophistry?
    Or will your response be true to form, and demonstrate a lack of emotional maturity and a disregard for honest dialogue?

    Only time will tell, but I suspect it will be the latter :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a blog spam-filter reply,

    In the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.

    Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence." However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.

    Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.

    Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics).  If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid point and would like to summarize it in some type of logical format, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for confirming my suspicions Rick :-)

      Delete
    2. Tell me about it....it's unbelievable that Warden whines about your "unsubstantiated" slander against him, yet look at how he's still trying to associate Myers with bestiality in, well, right below this comment!

      The holy spirit seems to give the gift of hypocrisy in abundance it seems, eh?


      Warden
      It's funny how PZ Myers refuses to answer three simple and direct questions and his atheist fans continue to lavish praise.
      Shall I get the clue bat out for you, Warden? When a person swears at you and wonders why the hell you're asking such insane questions, that should give you all the answer you need: Myers finds the concept so insane that he's not even bothering to give a reply because it's so obvious.

      Not that you care, though.

      Warden
      For any somewhat open-minded atheists, these are all tell-tale signs of where you can begin to look for truth. Once you accept God's existence as the ultimate answer, all the smaller questions and answers fall together into place as a cohesive logical whole.
      Oh, like the contradictions in the bible?
      Sorry pal: The accuracy of the bible is refuted.

      Here is a video of the book The Bible Unearthed which helps put the nails in the coffin of the accuracy of biblical archeology.

      Since Rick doesn't like to read or watch anything that goes against what he wants to believe though, I'll give a short blurb about the book from here:

      The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King Josiah. In that period, "the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah."

      Delete
    3. The bible unearthed is a good book, and goes into a lot more detail than the documentary of the same name.

      It does highlight the positive evidence in favour of the view that Israel culture arose from Canaanite culture, rather than being an introduced culture (which contradicts the Exodus). It also undermines the conquest of Canaan by Joshua as being historical.

      In all, great evidence that the bible as history is a failed hypothesis :-)

      Delete
  3. It's funny how PZ Myers refuses to answer three simple and direct questions and his atheist fans continue to lavish praise.

    And those atheists who themselves cannot offer counter logical arguments sense the need to continue posting unfounded lies and slander as the only possible measure of defense.

    For any somewhat open-minded atheists, these are all tell-tale signs of where you can begin to look for truth. Once you accept God's existence as the ultimate answer, all the smaller questions and answers fall together into place as a cohesive logical whole.

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/p/knowing-god.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: Once you accept God's existence as the ultimate answer, all the smaller questions and answers fall together into place as a cohesive logical whole.
      Translation: Once you've wedged the Christian God in as an unquestionable presupposition, then you'll be able to rationalise and ignore all sorts of things, and you may actually believe this to be a logical and cohesive whole.

      Delete
    2. Rick, the concept of God has no logically coherent definition or description.
      The closest (though still not logically coherent as far as I'm aware) seems to be Swinburne's definition of God , but that makes a lot of claims and concessions that you're unlikely to assent to (Swinburne's God is contingent rather than necessary, for example).

      If you want to start talking about the existence of something, I hope you'll provide a logically consistent and coherent description of this thing so we know what we're talking about.

      While it's fun to see you struggling to defend the existence of this vaguely defined being, if you wanted to actually be taken seriously, you'd pony up with a description whish was both logically consistent and coherent, and actually corresponded to the world we see around us.

      I won't hold my breath for you to do this, however, since I suspect such a task is impossible - I suspect "God" is an incoherent concept.

      Delete
  4. And those atheists who themselves cannot offer counter logical arguments sense the need to continue posting unfounded lies and slander as the only possible measure of defense.

    And what about the people who engage with you, and see you run away to argue other points?

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/materialist-gambit-purposeless-in-fine.html?showComment=1336979384598#c4278196516719851537

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what you call a rebut?

      >Sourcing Answers in Genesis undercuts your credibility significantly

      - Focusing on the source and not the facts themselves is an extremely weak resonse.

      >I call your attention to this (link)...

      - As I've noted countless times already, if you can't even summarize a point or points, there is no point in chasing down dead end rabbit holes of atheists who believe that posting a link is actually presenting an argument.

      >And when you're done reading that, we can discuss Miller-Urey further.

      - You've offered nothing new to discuss. It was an extremely manipulated experiment that actually helped to disprove abiogenesis.

      Delete
    2. - Focusing on the source and not the facts themselves is an extremely weak resonse.

      Yet you repeatedly argue from authority -- "One atheist said something that I can contort into agreement with me, therefore..." You try and trade on Vilenkin's credibility, and try and use Singer to undermine atheist credibility. You're *full* of the argument from authority, and so don't be surprised when your so-called "authorities" are called out for what they are.

      In addition, your facts are rebutted in the link I provided, along with its summary.

      As I've noted countless times already, if you can't even summarize a point or points,

      If you look at the next paragraph in the comment you're responding to, you'll see it begins "In short..."

      Which begins a *summary* of the article.

      To quote:

      I call your attention to this:
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm

      And when you're done reading that, we can discuss Miller-Urey further.

      (Short form -- he found a lot more than he thought he had, because the techniques he had available in 1955 were primitive, and he was careful about his claims.


      You continue:

      - You've offered nothing new to discuss. It was an extremely manipulated experiment that actually helped to disprove abiogenesis.

      I offered data in direct rebuttal to the claims above in your article, and you call it "nothing new to discuss".

      This fairly clearly demonstrates your actual commitment to fact, as opposed to whatever you feel you can manipulate to support your point.

      When are you going to realize that if you have to willfully ignore what's written and quote-mine to prove your point, maybe your point isn't supportable?

      Delete
  5. I notice, BTW, that you omitted one big fact from your post:

    Some of these children were two months old.

    Two months.

    I'd love to hear you defend beating two-month-old infants with wooden spoons, and what they're supposed to learn from that.

    Since that's what you're now allying yourself with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. imnotandrei, you don't understand Rick's psyche.

      God = Good
      Christianity = Good

      Therefore:

      Hitting children because God said so = Good
      hitting children because Christianity teaches it = Good.

      Those other concerns don't even enter into it.

      I'm surprised Rick isn't lobbying for a reintroduction of slavery, for a repeal of various womens rights so they can be treated as chattel, for the death penalty for things like adultery, speaking back to your parents, or not yelling loudly enough while being raped. After all, each of those things is condoned by Rick's God in Rick's magical book.

      Why the inconsistency Rick? :-)

      Delete
    2. But we have Jesus now! That carpenter guy did not cancel any laws from the old testament, but now we know that we are loooooved. We are all despicable creature, there is no major difference between a serial rapist and Ghandi. We are all doomed to hell no matter what, if we do not realize how disgusting we are and repent for being human. So who cares about the laws if the outcoome is the same? But in Christianity its the thought that counts. Show Jesus you are trying hard and still stone your insolent children to death even if you failed from the start. And do not forget to use the right context for slavery and rape or else it does not count as a good deed. 8)

      Delete
    3. imnotandrei, you don't understand Rick's psyche.

      Oh, I think I do. I just want him to understand the old saw "Good for the goose, good for the gander."

      Or, if he's going to practice guilt by association, clearly, he's a child abuser. ;)

      After all, each of those things is condoned by Rick's God in Rick's magical book.

      Why the inconsistency Rick? :-)


      Ooh! Ooh! I know this one -- because if Rick doesn't like it, it's not being a True Christian! It's being something else that calls itself Christian, but Rick knows better.

      Delete
    4. I'd love to hear you defend beating two-month-old infants with wooden spoons, and what they're supposed to learn from that.

      - Did I write anywhere that I am defending the specific actions of any one person or persons in the article? I don't think so. The main issue here is free speech. And it is not surprising that atheists such as you would hold free speech in low regard. Suppression and totalitarianism are the natural results of an atheistic and relativistic society. History is replete with examples:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html

      You should feel right at home with our increasingly totalitarian society. It suits the atheist mindset quite well, including the celebration moral decay, slavery to sin, and spiritual blindness.

      Delete
    5. - Did I write anywhere that I am defending the specific actions of any one person or persons in the article? I don't think so.

      To quote:

      Was there anything wrong with that?
      Of course not.


      Perhaps that judge should actually try to spank someone with a wooden spoon some time. You simply cannot do much damage with a wooden spoon.

      The main issue here is free speech.

      So you would have no problem with someone *advocating* child abuse -- indeed, telling people that if they didn't do it, they were raising their children in an way that was contrary to the word of God. Oh, and did I mention that person was in a position of authority within the community? Still fine? Gotcha.

      Just making sure you understand. Most freedom-of-speech statutes have limitations; even the First Amendment does; I refer you to Schenck vs. United States, for example.

      Suppression and totalitarianism are the natural results of an atheistic and relativistic society.

      Unlike, for example, the Catholic Church's Inquisition, Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England, and modern Wahhabist states, which are beacons of free speech and democracy.

      (BTW -- I notice it's fine for you to post links to large walls of text someone has to wade through, but if someone posts a link to a specific rebuttal article, that's asking too much of you and they need to give you a summary.)

      You should feel right at home with our increasingly totalitarian society.

      Funny, as an anarcho-socialist, I don't.

      including the celebration moral decay

      So, just to make sure -- you have no problems whatsoever with the display of blasphemous art, right? Because that's even more a free-speech issue than this, since it doesn't involve instructions for criminal behavior.

      Or is it only a free-speech issue when Christians aren't being allowed to say whatever they want?

      Delete
    6. imnotandrei

      >To quote: Was there anything wrong with that?
      Of course not.

      - Yes, that's an excerpt from the article I sourced. None of the text in the article is my wording.


      You might want to take quotes in context, as opposed to quote mining:

      "When many of us were growing up, once in a while our parents would take out a belt or a wooden paddle and give us a paddling on the behind when we did something wrong.

      Was there anything wrong with that?

      Of course not.

      Yes, there is real child abuse that goes on out there, but in the vast majority of instances spanking does not do any lasting physical harm. Rather, it benefits the child because it helps them learn what is right and what is wrong."

      >So you would have no problem with someone *advocating* child abuse

      - Obviously, this person is not advocating anything of the sort. If you weren't interested in mere quote mining you would have offered a fair evaluation of the article. No such luck.

      >Unlike, for example, the Catholic Church's Inquisition...

      - Try to choose examples that follow biblical tenets, not political abuse and church corruption.

      >Funny, as an anarcho-socialist, I don't.

      - You ought to visit the former Soviet Union sometime and follow socialism to it's end result. Or ask Anonymous here who posts comments from Russia. What is the most hazardous occupation in the former Soviet Union? After coal mining it's journalism. Say something negative about the government and see how long you last in these socialist systems.

      >So, just to make sure -- you have no problems whatsoever with the display of blasphemous art, right? Because that's even more a free-speech issue than this, since it doesn't involve instructions for criminal behavior.

      - I've written posts on blasphemous art:

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/french-theater-act-highlights.html

      What strikes me about local governments that support blasphemous art is the hypocrisy. It's apparently OK to mock and desecrate images of an historical person whom people revere, Jesus Christ, but try critiquing a homosexual in the same society and see if you don't end up in jail. You see, the Anti-christ agenda is not a balanced one. It is a one way censorship of ideas that extends from kindergarten to the public sphere of daily life that forbids any positive references to Christianity in public places while at the same time protecting its ridicule.

      If Christians were equally able to critique other ideologies in the public sphere then the promotion of blasphemous art would not be reflecting the hypocrisy that it does.

      Delete

    7. - Yes, that's an excerpt from the article I sourced. None of the text in the article is my wording.


      Are you familiar with the legal principle "qui tacet consentire videtur"?

      If you post with no comment, then at the very least, you can be taken to agree. Indeed, some would argue the very act of electing to post this suggests significant agreement.

      Certainly, much more significant agreement than, say, I have with Peter Singer, with whom you regularly try to tar humanists.

      So, if you do not accept the views here, I suggest you reconsider your smear tactics in other places.

      You might want to take quotes in context, as opposed to quote mining:

      Given your behavior elsethread, I find this amusing.

      IN context, the author is guilty even more of the "Oh, it's not that bad..." defense, since he regularly compares what was being done to general experience, not the fact that this was done to two-month-olds.

      - Obviously, this person is not advocating anything of the sort.

      The priest in question, whose free speech rights the person you felt it important to repost, was doing so. That is, after all, the claim of the article -- that he is being unjustly punished.

      >Unlike, for example, the Catholic Church's Inquisition...

      - Try to choose examples that follow biblical tenets, not political abuse and church corruption.

      >Funny, as an anarcho-socialist, I don't.

      - You ought to visit the former Soviet Union sometime and follow socialism to it's end result.


      And here, in two lines, we see a marvelous example of special pleading. On the one hand, Catholicism (I noticed you eliminated the two Protestant examples I provided, as well as the one outside the Christian worldview) is not a valid critique of Christianity, while Soviet Russia is a useful critique of (I notice you also omitted the anarcho- part) socialism.

      In other words, Christians doing things you disapprove of aren't doing it right, while socialists you disapprove of are exemplars of socialism of all flavors. Funny, that doesn't really fly; I think you know which logical fallacy that is.

      It's apparently OK to mock and desecrate images of an historical person whom people revere, Jesus Christ, but try critiquing a homosexual in the same society and see if you don't end up in jail.

      Funny -- Fred Phelps isn't in jail. Donald Wildmon isn't in jail. People who advocate locking homosexuals up behind fences aren't in jail.

      That's a lot of critique.

      You see, here's the thing. No one can hurt Jesus now. If I saw someone advocating nailing Christians to trees, and there was any reason at all to believe that they weren't being purely hyperbolic, I'd have a word with the police, because that's an imminent threat of violence.

      But a man who compared homosexuals to (hm. Do I sense a thread?) bestialists was running for *President* recently. And another's still in the U.S. Senate.

      (con't).

      Delete
    8. (Pt. 2)


      If Christians were equally able to critique other ideologies in the public sphere then the promotion of blasphemous art would not be reflecting the hypocrisy that it does.

      Funny, that sure sounds like what's actually happening. But heaven forfend someone not show proper respect to someone who's been dead 2,000 years, if they ever actually existed as they're portrayed now -- *that* is really really bad. Telling people they're diseased and deserve to die? People who are alive now? Heaven forfend.

      Oh, and to take something slightly out of order:It is a one way censorship of ideas that extends from kindergarten to the public sphere of daily life that forbids any positive references to Christianity in public places while at the same time protecting its ridicule.

      When we have a National Day of Blasphemy instead of National Day of Prayer, come talk to me. When we don't have chaplains opening sessions of legislatures all over the country, come talk to me about "censorship of ideas".

      Until then, just because you don't have complete freedom, and your opponents none, doesn't mean you're being censored.

      Delete
    9. Rick: And it is not surprising that atheists such as you would hold free speech in low regard. Suppression and totalitarianism are the natural results of an atheistic and relativistic society.
      Is this in comparison with the suppression and totalitarianism that are the natural results of Christianity, given that Christianity is an essentially totalitarian system?

      Rick History is replete with examples:
      History also has some counter examples - most of the west is non-religious, secular, and they're not "totalitarian" or "suppressive" (though the religious continually try to introduce oppression, it seems).

      More weapons grade projection from you Rick :-)

      Delete
    10. Oh, I forgot to mention the numerous examples of religious totalitarian oppressive states.

      Delete
  6. R:The main issue here is free speech

    Rick, do tell what is your interpretention of free speech. Have you ever heard of the "harm principle"? Do you really think that beating a two-month old with a wooden spoon will go without any consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  7. imnotandrei and anonymous,


    Based on his quote, the author is not advocating child abuse in any way shape or form.

    "Yes, there is real child abuse that goes on out there, but in the vast majority of instances spanking does not do any lasting physical harm."

    However, when we look at someone like PZ Myers and his bestiality, we see that he does not object to bestiality under certain cirumstances.

    "So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.”[9]

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html

    Just curious on a few questions for you two.

    1. What do you two believe PZ is referring to as non-objectionable forms of bestiality?

    2. Is that perhaps when it is clear that the animal is not being harmed and is enjoying the process?

    3. Do either of you believe bestiality should be legal for the public at large? Why or why not?

    Both Reynold and PZ seem to be mum on these kinds of questions. Perhaps you two can offer some wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Based on his quote, the author is not advocating child abuse in any way shape or form.

      "Yes, there is real child abuse that goes on out there, but in the vast majority of instances spanking does not do any lasting physical harm."

      And yet he seems determined to exempt hitting two-month-olds with wooden rods from the category of "child abuse", by lumping it in with "spanking", and defying people to call spanking "child abuse".

      So, that's not clear at all. What's clear is he doesn't want to admit that what he considers OK, others might consider child abuse.

      However, when we look at someone like PZ Myers and his bestiality, we see that he does not object to bestiality under certain cirumstances.

      And your OP is doing a great job of hiding what might or might not qualify as child abuse. Save that PZ Myers is not raising a hulabaloo about "OMG, someone's being sent to jail for talking about bestiality! The sky is falling! The sky is falling."

      You're the one who's obsessed with the subject, Rick. Bringing it into a thread that has nothing to do with it, again, feels remarkably like you think that you've got a winner in the "Oh, if I can get them to agree with this, then nothing they say will ever be valid again."

      Which, I believe you'll find, is a classic approach to the ad hominem attack, which you specifically ask people not to use.

      So, frankly, someone's opinion on your pet (so to speak) subject is irrelevant to their views on the material complexity of the universe, or whether hitting a two-month-old baby with a wooden rod is child abuse or not.

      So, no answers for you, as they're irrelevant to any points I've been making on this blog.


      (Previous comment deleted as it included a bunch of stuff pasted at the end that didn't need to be there.)

      Delete
  8. imnotandrei

    >"Oh, if I can get them to agree with this, then nothing they say will ever be valid again."

    - I love the way atheist critics at my blog always believe they know what I am thinking. I thought ESP was considered a pseudo science that secular humanists tend to shun. I guess I was wrong. Pseudo science and mind reading are in.

    In addition to free-speech infringements, hhe above article happens to be about morality and moral justifications for actions.

    - First PZ, then Reynold, now you, imnotandrei. Can someone please tell me why atheists are afraid to plainly state what they believe about specific moral subjects?

    Reynold had made the following statement recently:

    "Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that morals can change over time...we as a society are constantly trying to improve things."

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338113129377#c2076759023001023201

    It seems that atheists aren't so honest to admit what they really believe about morally after all. If morals change over time, then maybe bestiality is en vogue now, but no one wants to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: In addition to free-speech infringements, hhe above article happens to be about morality and moral justifications for actions.
      It's also about whether someone in a position of authority, who tells people to behave immorally and illegally can be held accountable when people follow his dictates.
      Rick, do you defend the free speech rights of anti-Semites, racists, and the like who advocate violence?
      How about someone who advocates Christians be spanked with a wooden spoon every time they use the bible as if it were a valid justification for their claims, so that they learn not to promote lies and falsehoods?

      Rick: First PZ, then Reynold, now you, imnotandrei. Can someone please tell me why atheists are afraid to plainly state what they believe about specific moral subjects?
      It's nice to know that you understand why people are not answering you Rick - what was it you were saying about mind reading above?

      But here you go, I'm feeling generous today:
      Rick: 1. What do you two believe PZ is referring to as non-objectionable forms of bestiality?
      I have no idea, and I would not like to speak on his behalf.
      For myself, I think if both participants had given informed consent to the activity, then there would likely not be a problem. Before you pounce on that statement, I'm not convinced that any non-human animals can actually give informed consent, which pretty much rules it out (at present).

      Rick: 2. Is that perhaps when it is clear that the animal is not being harmed and is enjoying the process?
      Why on earth would you think that Rick?
      What is it about your warped mentality that you have no problem imputing positions you find distasteful to others, but you will go to extreme lengths to avoid actually understanding their actual position?

      Rick: 3. Do either of you believe bestiality should be legal for the public at large? Why or why not?
      I see no reason why it should not be legal. As above, I think we could concentrate on consent - animals, like children are unable to give informed consent, and so, regardless of whether the animal (or child) appeared to be enjoying it, or even initiate it, it would be a form of rape.

      Any questions Rick?
      I wonder how you'll twist the above in service to your delusional beliefs?
      I wonder if you'll actually respond, or if you'll give your immature "spam reply filter" response?

      Delete
    2. imnotandrei

      >"Oh, if I can get them to agree with this, then nothing they say will ever be valid again."

      - I love the way atheist critics at my blog always believe they know what I am thinking.


      I love the way you quote-mine out half my sentence, talking about the impression you give, and then imply that I think I'm reading your mind.

      > I thought ESP was considered a pseudo science that secular >humanists tend to shun. I guess I was wrong. Pseudo science and >mind reading are in.

      See above; I'm telling you what impression you generate in, at least, me, when you drag your bestiality questions into yet another thread that has nothing to do with them.

      >In addition to free-speech infringements, hhe above article happens >to be about morality and moral justifications for actions.

      Funny, almost all of it seems to be about "Christians are persecuted, whine, whine, whine, free speech! Free speech!". The part hat's talking about morality appears to be the part justifying hitting children with sticks.

      - First PZ, then Reynold, now you, imnotandrei. Can someone please tell me why atheists are afraid to plainly state what they believe about specific moral subjects?

      Because we know you'll quote-mine our answers and use them as ad-hominem attacks, as you do when you associate people with Peter Singer.

      As it happens, BTW, I use consent as the basis for my sexual morality; there are therefore animals that I view as incapable of giving consent, animals that *might* be able to, but are therefore still forbidden, and animals that are. Interestingly enough, most of the animals that are are ones that are quite capable of enforcing that consent by *killing* the person involved, which I consider a sure sign of lack of consent. However, having also seen more than a few dogs attempt to lick someone's crotch, I am not unaware that the question is complicated.

      i also think that people who draw a clear line and say "It's all wrong" are allowed to do so for themselves, but are certainly not allowed to punish with the death penalty people who disagree with them because their scriptures told them so.

      Now -- now that I've answered your basic question, let's see if you do as I predict, or whether you're capable of engaging at a level above ad hominem attack.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and are you going to reply anywhere else, or is it only to threads about PZ Myers and sex with animals that you're interested in having a discussion? ;)

      Most notably, are you going to respond on free speech issues and your massive case of No True Scotsman above?

      Delete
    4. As always, Rick has ignored more than half of the comments. Furthermore, he is adding a red herring with his favorite subject "bestiality". Though, I am used to it and I will humor you with my response about the off-topic, even if I will be mostly repeating myself.

      R:What do you two believe PZ is referring to as non-objectionable forms of bestiality?

      I do not know and I do not care much to find out.

      R:Is that perhaps when it is clear that the animal is not being harmed and is enjoying the process?

      In addition if both participants have given their consent and are aware of the consequences, then it would be moral. Though, with animals it is virtually impossible.

      R:Do either of you believe bestiality should be legal for the public at large? Why or why not?

      No, because it is virtually impossible for animals to give consent and be aware of the consequences of such actions. Not to mention, there is no way of checking for sure if it is not just plain abuse.

      As a courtesy, Rick. Would you be so kind as to answer our questions?

      1. Is it ok for a person in a position of authority to advocate for child abuse under the guise of free speech?

      2. Do you consider beating a two-month old with a wooden spoon as child abuse?

      Looking forward for your answer. Even if I doubt you will answer my questions since you have been doing your best to avoid making your position clear.

      Delete
    5. Rick is avoiding making his position clear, I suspect, because he is not comfortable with it.

      He thinks beating children is biblically mandated, and therefore it is a good thing. He also knows how immoral that position actually is, and so he is loath to commit himself.

      And so he ignores and obfuscates :-)

      Rick, in addition to anonymous' questions, I'd like to know where you stand on slavery?
      The bible is pro-slavery, so I suspect you are to due to your commitment to that set of texts.
      But I suspect you also know that slavery is immoral, and therefore do not want to be seen to be supportive of it.

      Can you clear it up for me? :-P

      Delete
    6. Rick the closeted zoophile:
      Reynold had made the following statement recently:

      "Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that morals can change over time...we as a society are constantly trying to improve things."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338113129377#c2076759023001023201

      It seems that atheists aren't so honest to admit what they really believe about morally after all.

      Huh? Where do you get that? Just because we don't rely on a source of morality that has a habit of ordering genocide for children (ie. biblegod) does not mean that we aren't willing to admit what we find moral.

      An example of true "unsubstantiated slander". You truly are a hypocrite, Rick...you whine and whine about Havok allegedly doing that to you, but your posts are full of that shit towards others.

      Back to what each side finds "moral": For instance, you and people like William Craig find nothing wrong with baby killing, so long of course if it's biblegod who orders it.

      We do. We at least recognize that once the babies' born: Hands off. Not so with biblegod.


      Warden
      If morals change over time, then maybe bestiality is en vogue now, but no one wants to admit it.
      Any....EVIDENCE for that, Rick? Or is this your obsession showing again? I'd like an answer please, instead of this "unsubstantiated slander".

      You won't though...you'll likely dodge by saying that since it was just a hypothetical as opposed to an outright declaration, it doesn't count as an "accusation" per se and therefor doesn't require you to back it up.

      It's just necessary to poison the well a little. You know: One of those fallacies that you pretend to despise...

      If you bothered to look over history Rick...you'd see that society is trying to move away from such senseless things. Hence, no more god-approved genocides take place, even in so-called "xian" countries.


      Rick, was it not you who quoted me:
      You noted, Reynold, "Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that morals can change over time...we as a society are constantly trying to improve things."
      and then tried to link that to bestiality by saying right afterwards:

      It seems that the US Military (or at least president Obama who signed the NDAA into law) see bestiality as acceptable now. Some may believe bestiality can be a valid option to "improve things" for lonely soldiers.

      What is one supposed to think Rick? Especially since Havok asked you to back up that idea that the NDAA has a link to bestiality and you never did?

      Good grief. I'm starting to think that you do need help after all.

      Delete
    7. Rick, the liar
      - First PZ, then Reynold, now you, imnotandrei. Can someone please tell me why atheists are afraid to plainly state what they believe about specific moral subjects?
      Hey did you not read what I said here?

      If it ain't already covered by existing animal cruelty laws, it should be.
      Oh, I forgot: It's in italics, and poor you, you can't tell italics from normal print.

      Delete
  9. >Are you familiar with the legal principle "qui tacet consentire videtur"? If you post with no comment, then at the very least, you can be taken to agree.

    - What you fellows are trying to do is lump every aspect of the case together and proposing it is an all or nothing yes or no decision.

    The article that the above article sources refers to scripture: "Caminiti was found guilty by a jury in March of eight counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse for teaching church members what he said was a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible..."

    Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_de5ac314-a6ba-11e1-94c4-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1watLzruj

    The Bible states simply,

    "Spare the rod and spoil the child" (Proverbs 13-24)

    A two month old would be considered more specifically a baby than a child and I know of no Christian pastors who would advise anyone to spank a two month old. It seems the judge wants to call all spanking child abuse - no matter the age. In general, free speech may likely be outlawed when lived are threatened. Such is the case of yelling "fire!" when there is no fire in a public theater, possibly inciting a panic.

    As far as spanking is concerned, it does not seem to be life threatening. Yet, most of you atheist critics seem to have very strong feelings on this subject. Let me ask for your individual opinions:

    1. Is all spanking of children morally wrong in your opinion?

    2. Is spanking a 2 year old always morally wrong, no matter what era or culture?

    I'd be interested to know your personal responses.

    Also, I have a note for Imnotandrei...

    You had stated,

    "So, no answers for you, as they're irrelevant to any points I've been making on this blog."

    I will ask you the same exact questions in the comments of the following article and see if you are capable of answering the questions there.

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html#comment-form

    Hopefully, you will not find new excuses in order to avoid answering the specific questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick: "Spare the rod and spoil the child" (Proverbs 13-24)
      Actually Rick, the bible was not written in English, so it does not say that. And if we look at the Hebrew, it uses the word 'ben', which basically just means 'son'. It has a few nuances with it, but in context I don't see that it is actually indicating any sort of age.

      Of course, you'll ignore that because it doesn't suit your purposes, as per usual :-)

      Delete
    2. It just occurred to me:

      "Spare the rod and spoil the child" (Proverbs 13-24)

      Does this have the force of law, or is it merely advice from a bygone time, whether good advice or bad?

      Think carefully about your answer.

      Delete
    3. "Spare the rod spoil the child" isn't actually what the statement in proverbs says.

      Proverbs 13:24 "Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
      but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." NIV
      "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." KJV
      "He who withholds his rod hates his son,
      But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." NASB

      The statement comes, not from the bible, but from a 17th century poem called “Hudibras” by Samuel Butler.

      Delete
  10. >Are you familiar with the legal principle "qui tacet consentire videtur"? If you post with no comment, then at the very least, you can be taken to agree.

    - What you fellows are trying to do is lump every aspect of the case together and proposing it is an all or nothing yes or no decision.


    Actually, what we are doing is saying that the author of the original post is trying to gin up outrage by ignoring facts in the case at hand, thus making it seem a far greater offense than it is.

    The article that the above article sources refers to scripture: "Caminiti was found guilty by a jury in March of eight counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse for teaching church members what he said was a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible..."

    And here comes the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

    The Bible states simply,

    "Spare the rod and spoil the child" (Proverbs 13-24)

    A two month old would be considered more specifically a baby than a child and I know of no Christian pastors who would advise anyone to spank a two month old.


    And here we go -- yet that is *exactly* what the pastor in the OP is accused of doing. So saying you "know of no Christian pastors who would...." indicates either a) you're not reading your own source material, or b) you're trying to cover it up.

    It seems the judge wants to call all spanking child abuse - no matter the age.

    Citation, please. The judge is quoted as saying that children wer ebeaten for doing what all kids do, which is crying. This is *not* the same as you are making out -- and, I note, again, you are trying to conflate "beating with wooden rods" and "spanking", and then saying "But spanking is OK!"

    In general, free speech may likely be outlawed when lived are threatened. Such is the case of yelling "fire!" when there is no fire in a public theater, possibly inciting a panic.

    When immediate *harm* is threatened, Rick. Again, you're trying to argue a very narrow case. If I said "All Christians should be beaten with sticks -- but be careful not to kill them, because that wouldn't be OK" -- that would be actionable speech.

    As far as spanking is concerned, it does not seem to be life threatening.

    Do you have children, Rick? How would you feel about someone beating them, when they were two months old, with a wooden stick?

    Yet, most of you atheist critics seem to have very strong feelings on this subject. Let me ask for your individual opinions:

    1. Is all spanking of children morally wrong in your opinion?

    No.

    2. Is spanking a 2 year old always morally wrong, no matter what era or culture?

    No.

    I'd be interested to know your personal responses.

    And I'll ask you one -- and if you on't answer, that'll be the end of any answers from me:

    Do you believe it is justifiable to hit a two-month-old baby with a wooden stick?

    Also, I have a note for Imnotandrei...

    You had stated,

    "So, no answers for you, as they're irrelevant to any points I've been making on this blog."

    I will ask you the same exact questions in the comments of the following article and see if you are capable of answering the questions there.


    I'm perfectly capable of answering the questions. I fail to see their relevance here, or in the Miller-Urey discussion. Since you do such a fine job of not answering questions, I fail to see why I should bother answering yours in any more detail than I have above, in the comments thread here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. R:A two month old would be considered more specifically a baby than a child and I know of no Christian pastors who would advise anyone to spank a two month old.

    Now you do. Caminiti advised to spank two-month old babies with wooden spoons. Or is he not a Christian pastor? Should he have been allowed to continue his preaching in your opinion?

    You still did not answer my question. Is spanking a two-month old with a wooden spoon abuse? And should free speech offer the possibility to advocate abuse?

    R:Is all spanking of children morally wrong in your opinion?

    Spanking in very rare cases is something neccessary (when the situation went completely out of hand). However, if the person resorts to such actions, that means they failed as a parent. Unfortunately, no one is perfect and mistakes in parenthood are bound to happen.

    R:Is spanking a 2 year old always morally wrong, no matter what era or culture?

    Yes, spanking is wrong. Instead of explaining why the child is wrong and making them understand, some parents just choose the easy way and dicourage undesirable actions through fear of punishment (spanking). In short, you are just forming a small totalitarian sect in the form of your familly. Spanking should be done only when communication with your child is no longer possible and that is the fault of parents for allowing the situation to go that far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >You still did not answer my question. Is spanking a two-month old with a wooden spoon abuse?

      - I personally would not do it and do not know any pastors personally who would recommend discipline at such a young age. But as far as sending a person to jail for two years, I would want to know the details of the case.

      For example, what was spanking defined as in this case? Was it something that necessarily causes sharp pain? In this sense it would seem to be abusive at this age. However, is it possible for spanking to be used more as a symbolic gesture, a tap that does not cause pain? Perhaps.

      But this question is really a side issue. What the case implies is that any kind of spanking at any age should be considered child abuse.

      You, Anonymous, apparently disagree with the judges decision in this respect:

      "Spanking in very rare cases is something necessary"

      - Would you like to be sent to jail for 2 years for making the above comment?

      Apparently, you could be in the US now due to this legal precedent. Does that make you feel as though we live in a safer world? Not me.

      Delete
    2. R:But as far as sending a person to jail for two years, I would want to know the details of the case

      Then look for the details of the case. You have seen a catchy headline and put it in your blog without any additional thinking. You did not want to know any details from Caminiti s case and just rushed ahead.

      R:But this question is really a side issue. What the case implies is that any kind of spanking at any age should be considered child abuse.

      How can you say that when you have just shown you have an extremely limited knowledge about the case?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      I am basing my interpretation on a Wisconsin source. It specifically states,

      "Caminiti was found guilty by a jury in March of eight counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse for teaching church members what he said was a literal interpretation of discipline prescribed by the Bible..."

      You want me to focus on the details of a two-year old, but the judgment does not focus on this detail.

      The judgement as described in the source is equating a general biblical teaching of discipline with child abuse. If the act involving the two month old was the main issue, then the parent who disciplined the two year old should have been arrested, but this is not the case.

      Based on Wisconsin state law, reasonable spanking would not be considered illegal. You yourself have admitted you would consider spanking allowable on certain occasions. But the judge in the case has a zero tolerance for spanking.

      Wisconsin law states: "Reasonable discipline may involve only such force as a reasonable person believes is necessary. It is never reasonable discipline to use force which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death or creates an unreasonable risk of great bodily harm or death."

      http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/wisconsin/wi-laws/wisconsin_laws_939-45

      Delete
    4. two-year old

      Actually, you're looking for two-*month*-old.

      If the act involving the two month old was the main issue, then the parent who disciplined the two year old should have been arrested, but this is not the case.

      To quote another article from the same source; "The charges alleged that two of the children involved were just 2 months old when discipline was advocated by Caminiti."

      "Was advocated by..." means he advocated them doing it. It doesn't mean they did it, and if they didn't, they couldn't be charged.

      See how that works?

      Based on Wisconsin state law, reasonable spanking would not be considered illegal.

      Clearly, the judge did not consider hitting two-month-olds with wooden rods "reasonable".

      But the judge in the case has a zero tolerance for spanking.

      Cite evidence. Saying that a specific case of spanking is abuse is not the same as saying that all spanking is abuse. Indeed, if, as she did, she took time to point out the invalid motivation for some spanking -- "for crying, which all kids do" -- it would imply, if anything, the opposite -- that there is some valid motivation and time and place for spanking; otherwise why even mention the motivation?

      As usual, you're trying to stretch the facts to support your alleged "implication" so you can try and protect whatever shreds of your initial point you can. I've seen this behavior before, where you change your claims again and again in order to preserve some way of being *right*, rather than, for example, going "Oh, this doesn't mean what I thought it did -- I made a mistake."

      It doesn't help your credibility one bit to do so.

      Delete
    5. R:But the judge in the case has a zero tolerance for spanking.

      Indeed, as imnotandrei has noted, you need to back up that statement. You cannot use Caminiti s case as reference, as you have extremely limited knowledge about the case

      Delete
  12. Reynold,

    >t's unbelievable that Warden whines about your "unsubstantiated" slander against him, yet look at how he's still trying to associate Myers with bestiality in, well, right below this comment!

    - Reynold, I don't have to "try" to post actual quotes from Myers, I can just do it, and offer that he is unwilling to further clarify his position. At least commenter "Imnotandrei" is taking a step in the direction of clarity:

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338611694475#c4760858910378645032

    Myers is running in the other direction, afraid to post his views clearly and concisely for some reason.

    In the previous article I noted a Myers quote from his own blog:

    "I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions..." (reference 9)

    What does that mean exactly, Reynold? I asked you about this in the comments of the previous article. You can answer it there, which is more in keeping with the subject matter of that article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have a clue...I suspect that even Myers doesn't either...he's probably figuring the somehow somewhere it may be theoretically possible.

      I can't think of any though.


      Mind you, that won't stop you from running with that ONE hypothetical statement to full-blown bestiality with you.

      As imnotandrei notes:
      Or he thinks you're not worth answering because your questions are inane. Or he doesn't trust your answers, because he's seen how much you (and many other apologists) quote-mine. Or he's irritated by your pursuit, and doesn't want to give you the satisfaction of getting an answer.

      Delete
  13. Myers is running in the other direction, afraid to post his views clearly and concisely for some reason.

    Or he thinks you're not worth answering because your questions are inane. Or he doesn't trust your answers, because he's seen how much you (and many other apologists) quote-mine. Or he's irritated by your pursuit, and doesn't want to give you the satisfaction of getting an answer.

    After all, by the standard of argument you use above, you're clearly terrified of the Miller-Urey experiments. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. imnotandrei

    >After all, by the standard of argument you use above, you're clearly terrified of the Miller-Urey experiments. ;)

    This Miller-Urey subject is not related to this post at all. If you have a specific point to make question to ask (as opposed to, "Read this link, it disproves you.") , please ask it at the appropriate blog post. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  15. This Miller-Urey subject is not related to this post at all.

    Ah, welcome to the massive double-standard. You answered Reynold everywhere he appeared with your PZ Myers Bestiality questions, including in threads where it was irrelevant, and yet when someone else calls you out on your behavior, it's "Go to the appropriate post".

    I've done so. My answer to you is sitting there (as far as I know) unanswered. I was making a specific rhetorical point *here* in reference to what you're doing -- which means this was the right place to call you on it.

    You accuse PZ Myers of being "afraid" of you because he's not answering the way you want him to. By that standard, you're "afraid" of me and the Miller-Urey experiments. Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This Miller-Urey subject is not related to this post at all.

    If only hypocrisy was more subtle...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whateverman and imnotandrei,

    I seem to remember a little note recently...

    "So, no answers for you, as they're irrelevant to any points I've been making on this blog."

    (imnotandreiMay 31, 2012 3:23 PM)

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison.html?showComment=1338503021808#c3186570687089299581

    It seems it was Imnotandrei, not me, who began to nitpick about posting off topic. :-)

    Although neither of you are believers, Jesus made a point that seems to summarize your attitudes quite well:

    "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7.5

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also note that out of all the things I said, you chose to make more of a point of a possible hypocrisy in a long discussion than anything of substance. One would think that you were more interested in defending yourself against any possible hint of not being a perfect moral specimen than actually debating the points at hand.

      Delete

  18. It seems it was Imnotandrei, not me, who began to nitpick about posting off topic. :-)


    Actually, if you look at the comment I was replying to, in the middle of a thread about free speech and child abuse, you asked out of the blue:

    Just curious on a few questions for you two.

    1. What do you two believe PZ is referring to as non-objectionable forms of bestiality?
    ... adnd the rest of your questions.

    Now, since I had not expressed any opinion on the subject, I saw no reason to answer your questions, as they weren't relevant. I changed my mind when I saw your obsession was so all-encompassing you'd ask the question of everyone you were talkiend to, no matter what you were talking about.

    So, before you start accusing people of hypocrisy, perhaps you should consider where this *really* started.

    Look at your own bestiality-obsessed, PZ-Myers-obsessed plank. You brought the subject up, and pressed until it was answered. You have lost the authority to complain about where things *should* be.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Imnotandrei,

    >Does this have the force of law, or is it merely advice from a bygone time, whether good advice or bad?

    - I'll answer you argument about the multiverse soon. I would like to write an article on it. As far as the book of Proverbs is concerned, you've offered a false dichotomy. It is neither a law nor merely outdated human advice. The law of God was distilled into the 10 Commandments. When Jesus referred to "the Law" he was basically referring to this. The rest of scripture may be generally referred to as 'God's law' but in light of the New Testament, believers today are not 'under the law' and 'the letter of the law' as proposed in the Old Testament. We read the entire Bible with this understanding.

    The other side of your false dichotomy is to say that the scriptures are mere human opinion. They are not. All of the word of God is inspired by God and for this reason is timeless in its value and application (2 Timothy 3.16). Does this mean that there are aspects of scripture that are outdated or culturally specific? Yes, and it takes discernment through God's Spirit to interpret the scriptures correctly and to understand which aspects are outdated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R:The law of God was distilled into the 10 Commandments.

      What about the other 700 or something of those commandments? Why do you think that only the first ten are important?

      Though, the main question would be which interpretention is the right one of those commandments. 8)

      For some reason "God s spirit" has failed to convey properly how those laws should be obeyed. And that concerns not only non-believers, but the believers themselves. Why can t they find common ground? Is the spirit of God defective in some people, but his almighty omniect is too lazy too fixe the problem?

      Delete
    2. The rest of scripture may be generally referred to as 'God's law'

      Well, that depends on your framework. For example, under Jewish tradition, the law is the law, and the proverbs and stories of the prophets, etc., are not "Law". They can be used as a guideline for interpreting the law, and understanding how to live a righteous life, but they are not law.

      This is the point I was challenging with my question; I find it odd, to put it mildly, that someone (not you) who (I am sure) denies the validity of much of the Law is prepared to treat as immutable and inarguable a selection from Proverbs, which was never treated as law by the original ...possessors of the text.

      say that the scriptures are mere human opinion.

      Actually, you inserted the word "human" in there. I said "Advice from a bygone time".

      I do note that "discernment through God's Spirit" is an incredibly subjective basis for a moral judgment -- given that so many people have come to vastly different conclusions as to what the Christian scripture means based upon their "discernment".

      This calls into question the "objectivity" of any pronouncement based upon Biblical information.

      Delete
    3. As I understand it "The Law" refers to the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the OT, which were supposedly written by Moses.

      I always enjoy the dodge that Christians are not bound by "The Law", even though Jesus afirms that Christians are in fact bound by "The Law".

      Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

      The word used in 5:17, translated to "fulfil" is plēroō, which means to be complete or to consumate. This seems to mean that Jesus was showing how to live within "The Law", not, as Christians often claim, to do away with them. This means that Christians should be living by the Law of Moses just as much as Jew's (no more wearing that poly-cotton blend shirt, or eating pork or shellfish).

      Delete
    4. s I understand it "The Law" refers to the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the OT, which were supposedly written by Moses.

      It is my understanding that those books contain the Law, (the written Torah) but are not all Law. The creation stories in Genesis, for example, can be viewed by the orthodox as metaphor without repercussion -- but that does not affect, say, shatnes or the appropriateness of eating turtle.

      Otherwise, yes, you have a strong point there, though, IIRC, the Essene tradition out of which, at least, John the Baptist came was not as rigid in its application of Talmudic constructions as the more mainstream Jews of the time -- however, that's depending on 20+-year-old memories, which may not be the most helpful. ;)

      Delete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!