So, Obama places the most racist left liberal possible to be the next Supreme Court Judge. She will be replacing a very independent voter that, in a sense, balanced the votes. But these people have a horrible view on our Constitution. They believe that its a living document that needs to be interpreted instead of enforced. Shift said this today in his vlog and I couldn't agree more.
The Bible is another document that doesn't need to be interpreted, just honored. This is merely a deconstructionism approach to the Constitution. In that, they believe that all written texts are always subject to differing interpretations which are affected by one's culture, biases, language imprecision and so forth. This critical approach is a form of relativism or nihilism. This very same argument of modern deconstructionism is made for the Bible and Christianity by Dr. Bahnsen in his book "Pushing the Antithesis."
J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."
Can anyone honestly say that about the Constitution or the Bible?
UPDATE: I cannot think of a worse Bible study then something like this:
In these days of Burger King church "have it your way" it is not surprising what we find in many Bible studies.
We need to move away from interpretation of these two documents, the Constitution and the Bible, and move towards a sensitive discernment.
This has to be taken with a grain of salt. First off, when someone says "enforce, rather than interpret" the Constitution, he generally means "enforce [his own] interpretation." One reason why lawyers are so busy is that there is dispute over what passages in the Constitution and in the U.S. Code actually mean. Interpretation is unavoidable. Actually, I must revise that. Interpretation is unavoidable -- unless one is ignoring the Constitution and the laws.
ReplyDelete"They believe that its a living document that needs to be interpreted instead of enforced."
Well, considering that it explicitly allows for its own modification, it is indeed a living document. And one can only enforce an interpretation of the Constitution as there is not unanimous agreement as to what it says.
But these people have a horrible view on our Constitution. They believe that its a living document that needs to be interpreted instead of enforced.So Dan, I take it you disagree with all those pinko liberal amendments to the Holy Constitution, for instance those protecting the freedom of speech, abolishing slavery, and granting the vote to blacks and women. Keep that Constitution pure!
ReplyDeletePvblivs' comment and mine crossed in cyberspace, so I hope I will be forgiven for double dipping here. I'd just like to add that I agree with Pvblivs (not for the first time) and will go further: any text, in order to be understood and implemented, must be interpreted. And any interpretation is subject to more or less ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteAn example from the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill", found in Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 5:21, and Romans 13:9. What exactly does this mean? I doubt you can find any two Christians who will agree on the precise interpretation of this.
And as far as the immutability of the Bible goes: I would say that many of the passages that describe the same phenomenon in different ways, for instance John's version of the Creation as opposed to that in Genesis, are amendments. In a way, the whole New Testament is an amendment of the Old. The Bible is thus a "living document" within its own compilation.
Of course, the interpretation of the Bible has also undergone much amendment: for instance, many Christians earlier interpreted the Bible to support slavery, but nowadays most (not all) Christians claim the Bible condemns slavery.
Some texts are clearer and thus easier to plausibly interpret than others. The Bible is sometimes pretty clear, but often not. Thus, any claim for an interpretation that is "correct" must be taken with a grain of salt, as Pvblivs said about the Constitution.
This may shed some light on the madness...
ReplyDeleteUPDATE:
This is merely a deconstructionism approach to the Constitution. In that, they believe that all written texts are always subject to differing interpretations which are affected by one's culture, biases, language imprecision and so forth. This critical approach is a form of relativism or nihilism. This very same argument of modern deconstructionism is made for the Bible and Christianity by Dr. Bahnsen in his book "Pushing the Antithesis."
J. Hillis Miller has described deconstruction this way: "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently-solid ground is no rock, but thin air."
Can anyone honestly say that about the Constitution or the Bible?
This is merely a deconstructionism approach to the Constitution. In that, they believe that all written texts are always subject to differing interpretations which are affected by one's culture, biases, language imprecision and so forth. This critical approach is a form of relativism or nihilism.Ooh, a slippery slope argument! Those are fun! Can I play too?
ReplyDeleteLet's see. If you can say that interpretation equals deconstruction equals nihilism, then I can say that Christianity equals the Inquisition equals the Holocaust. Gee, that was cathartic.
C'mon, Dan, you can do better than that. Tell me exactly what "thou shalt not kill" means, without interpretation. And tell me the name of someone else who will agree with you one hundred percent; otherwise, at least one of you is interpreting.
If one wants to complain about people "interpreting" the Constitution wrong, one could look at the people like David Barton who claim that america was founded as a "christian nation" and his lie the constitution doesn't support the separation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteExamined hereWhile you're complaining about the president abusing the constitution, you may want to read up on George Bush's constitutional record.
By the way, Dan...if the bible wasn't "interpreted" but just "enforced", we'd still be living under the OT law. Though some people might like that (Rushdooney and the Christian Reconstructionist movement).
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteTell me exactly what "thou shalt not kill" means, without interpretation.
We can see with a plain reading in context what that means. Yes, cherry picking will hurt the meaning of the Bible, but in context everything is clear.
In Exodus 20 it says thou shall not kill (Strong's H7523 - ratsach: Murder) and the very next page in Exodus 21:12 says "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death"
Translation error? Possibly. Contradiction in need of interpretation? Nope, clear as a bell.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteif the bible wasn't "interpreted" but just "enforced", we'd still be living under the OT law.
Not if is taken in context, and not cherry picked, it would not. The messages are plainly written for our understanding. No one has to go through mental gymnastics to see that we are now in a new covenant.
I perfectly agree with you about GW. His neo-con cronies I believe were the worst in history to destroy the constitution.
So is your argument two wrongs make a right?
But Dan, you haven't answered my question: what does "thou shalt not kill" mean? Whom shall we not kill? Does that mean that nobody should ever be killed under any circumstances? If so, what if you break up with your wife and she commits suicide- did you kill her? Or if she just cries so hard that she can't see where she's going and falls down the stairs?
ReplyDeleteOr if you interpret "kill" to mean "murder", what exactly constitutes murder? What about shooting the madman who is pointing a machine gun at a crowd? What about a madman pointing a knife at a crowd? Or a baseball bat? Or a ping pong paddle? I will bet you a silk pajama that there's no one else in the world who would agree with you on where to draw the line in, say, one hundred carefully chosen, plausible scenarios. No matter how you read it, you have to draw lines, and that's interpretation.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteAll the Bible needs is understanding not interpretation. One must delve deeper into the Bible to understand the meanings of things because that is how its set up. (Milk vs Meat)
The provisions are laid out quite specifically in the Bible what is good or bad. Even on the subject of killing.
I will consider what you said but for some reason I can't bring myself to betting you. Just the thought of you losing your silk pajamas makes me shiver and cower in fear. :7)
FFS.
ReplyDeleteGoing only with the Constitution guy's nonsense, here are a few choice gems, aspects of which were already touched on by Pvblivs and Zilch:
Regarding the pending Supreme Court nomination...
~2:52 - "I haven't really looked into this individual's background too heavily..."
...but he's perfectly willing to offer his explicitly ignorant views...
~3:08 - "[To me, what all that means is] she's a judge or a justice who is going to completely ignore the Constitution..."
So, based on his interpretation of the hearsay to which he's been exposed, he's on the verge of committing libel...
Regarding the Constitution itself...
~3:44 - "[E]ven if a ruling interferes with what we believe is the right thing to do... if it conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution has to win."
One has to wonder if this guy is even remotely aware of the function of a Supreme Court justice, if he's willing to make such asinine comments such as this.
~3:56 - "We're a nation of *laws*, not a nation of *men*..."
Strange... I remember reading somewhere something about the men, as opposed to the laws... Where was that...?
Oh. My bad. It wasn't "men," it was "people," and it was We the People...
We're a nation of people, and at least one giant douche.
~4:16 - "[T]his whole nonsense that the Constitution needs to be interpreted is a joke ... The Constitution isn't written in Chinese -- it doesn't need to be interpreted, it needs to be enforced."
Right. Then why, I wonder, don't we dispense with the Supreme Court entirely? If we don't need to interpret the Constitution, then we don't need a Supreme Court, right? After all, how could there possibly be any "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution"?
More on this later...
~5:25 - "If we had simply followed the Constitution..."
...we'd never even have gotten a First Amendment, much less twenty-seven of them...
~8:49 - "[T]he judges on the bench are not enforcing the Constitution..."
No, they're interpreting it, which is their function, according to a "plain reading" of Article III of that staid document.
---------
Now then, as to the relationship between Constitutional interpretation and Christianity...
Dan, you're dumb. Surely you support interpretation of the bible, yes? Else, you'd be a Roman Catholic, or a member of the Eastern Orthodox church, rather than a Protestant. After all, Luther's interpretation of the bible led to the Protestant Reformation. Of course, biblical interpretation has precedents in the fucking bible, via Jesus' interpretation of the Fourth Commandment, as just one such example, off the top of my head.
Obviously, every denomination and off-shoot of Christianity is a result of a set of unique interpretations, so interpretation is hardly uncommon -- it is, rather, the rule, as opposed to the exception. Like the Constitution, none of the authors of the bible are available for comment, and even if you claim that god is available to provide the "correct" interpretation, you'd have to stand in line to say your piece, as every denomination and off-shoot of Christianity can, and does, make the same claim.
Unlike the Constitution, however, the bible wasn't written in English, and therefore it does need translated -- not "interpreted" for being written in, say, "Chinese," as the twit in the video suggested. Translation is not interpretation, necessarily, nor is the converse true for the same reasons. Do Shakespeare's plays, all of which were originally written in English, need "interpreted" for modern readers to make sense of them?
Yes, dipshit, they do.
ReplyDeleteWhen Romeo says, "Soft, what light through yonder window breaks..." and when Juliet says, "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art though Romeo..." he doesn't mean that the light is "soft," but rather, "soft" means "wait," or "hang on." Juliet doesn't wish to know the location of Romeo's drawings, nor does she wish to know his location, but rather, she seeks to know why -- which is what "wherefore" means here -- he is Romeo (Montague) rather than Joe Veronian.
Do you really not get this? Are you really that dense?
The bible must be interpreted for several reasons, many of which are also true in the sake of the U.S. Constitution.
First, both are old, though the bible is obviously far older, and thus any cultural and time-specific meanings, idioms, and nuances are in need of translation, and interpretation, so that the original meaning -- assuming anyone is qualified to determine it -- can be preserved.
Second, both are [intentionally] ambiguous in many cases, so even if nuance and idiom weren't enough of a problem, applying an ambiguous statement to a specific scenario is an exercise in futility.
Third, a lot has changed since the writing of each, with far more having changed, obviously, since the last phrases in the bible were penned (papyrused? carved?). Slavery in any form is no longer appreciated as a legitimate practice, though in each document in question the practice was assumed, if not openly endorsed. Misogyny, or chauvinism at the least, was also very much the way of things in each document's time(s), despite the general acceptance of equality in today's world. The map of the world looked far different when these documents were written than it does today. The electron, or the harnessing of a flow of electrons to perform mechanical work, was not known to any of the authors of either document, despite the fact that sparks, and certain electrical phenomena, were familiar enough.
Not enough for you?
What does the First Amendment say about the use of Cohen's "Fuck the Draft" pin worn in a California courthouse in 1968? What does it say regarding pornography? Sans amendments, what does the Constitution say about quartering soldiers in a time of war? With amendments, what does it say a "reasonable" search consists of (hint, this Amendment)?
What does the bible say about bumper stickers which say, "Jesus kicks ass"? What does it say about abortion? Does the bible say that dancing, movies, electric/amplified instruments, or alcohol are prohibited? What does it say regarding apparel made of a cotton/polyester blend?
Where are you from, that you could be so daft?
The bible, like the Constitution, require interpretation if they are to be useful. Insofar as the latter wasn't "written in Chinese," it also doesn't cover issues present in today's society, which is the society for whom the Constitution now applies. Insofar as the former may be at all useful, it can only be so through interpreting the text in a modern context...
Funny. Anybody want to guess what the definition of hermeneutics is?
--
Stan
(Sorry about the breaks; copied from gedit into OO...)
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thought on the subject (but not about me).
I too thought of hermeneutics when I wrote this. I am sitting on the fence about such a thing and wanted to explore it more at a later time. The question is could someone deconstruct the Bible with hermeneutic principles. I don't know and I haven't delved deeper into that thought. Nice job for thinking as I did though. Scary.
I will take some time to think about it but as a fine example of your rhetoric shows, deconstructionism cannot be a good thing. I will contemplate on it.
I appreciate your thought on the subject (but not about me).
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your appreciation. If it makes you feel any better, whenever my best friend and I initiate a phone call with one another, the first word out of either of our mouths is, "Ass." You must know by now that I ridicule everyone, where I find it necessary, and I'm perfectly willing to accept ridicule when it comes my way -- but don't expect it to go unnoticed or unanswered.
--
Stan
Dan:
ReplyDeleteNot if is taken in context, and not cherry picked, it would not. The messages are plainly written for our understanding. No one has to go through mental gymnastics to see that we are now in a new covenant.
"mental gymnastics" or not, guess what? You had to interperet the bible that way! Just as Rushdoony et al went and interperet the bible in a complete opposite way that you did. Then there's people like Ken Ham who interperets the bible to mean a young earth and a 6 day "creation week" while guys like Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig do not. William Craig interperets the bible to correspond to the "big bang" and even uses the big bang as evidence of biblical accuracy.
I perfectly agree with you about GW. His neo-con cronies I believe were the worst in history to destroy the constitution.
So is your argument two wrongs make a right?
No. It's the fact that people will interperet things differently, even though one may think that the "plainly written messages" may not need interpretation.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note that you are interpreting your bible. I also thought "no one has to go through mental gymnastics to see that we are now in a new covenant" was cute when you linked back to your own gymnastics. When you also consider that councils made of men decided what would and would not be part of the bible (thus influencing the relevant "context") the whole thing falls flat. People decided amongst themselves what they wanted "god's word" to say.
Stan,
ReplyDeletethe first word out of either of our mouths is, "Ass."Ewww! You have what coming out of your mouth? Yea, I can go many ways with that one. You just need a breath mint. You suffer from Mouth to Ass syndrome or LaHF (latent aggressive homosexual feelings)
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteI am finding it fascinating that interpreting things, like the Constitution and Bible, may be the problem with what is going on. An epiphany moment, if you will. If the RCC et al would have never "interpreted" the Bible then there would of been a lot less blood shed and false converts, if America didn't misinterpret the Bible then we would never have had slavery.
We need to look at the fruit of interpretation to see if it is good (of God) or not. Fascinating subject to me though. The only reason there is a YEC crowd, like myself, is because of the plain logical reading of the Bible. Yom means a day. Ross is attempting to interpret the Bible according to his presuppositions and we all know where that will lead. It will lead to breaking the 2nd Commandment and making a god to fit our image.
Interpreting is a subject worth exploring though. It may even render hermeneutics non-biblical. Words have meaning in context and there are rules in grammar for a language and to me the texts speak for themselves and it does not need an interpreter. Otherwise it varies with different rules for the contextual words. Context is key though. Science has interpreters of evidence also. Maybe that is where they go wrong. They are adding their bias to the situation.
We must dedicate to exegesis, any interpretation moves from exegesis to eisegesis. Agree?
"All the Bible needs is understanding not interpretation."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I stopped reading there.
One of the definitions of "understanding" IS "interpretation"
Understanding
UPDATE: I cannot think of a worse Bible study then something like this:
ReplyDeleteIn these days of Burger King church "have it your way" it is not surprising what we find in many Bible studies.
But Dan, you are having it your way. The difference is your ways id to be blindly lead by others who have interpreted the bible for you.
ReplyDeleteEach generation and sect has a different exegesis of their holy text. Oddly enough, the particular meaning they drew from it reflected the current cultural standards.
You undermine your own argument when you said, "We need to look at the fruit of interpretation to see if it is good (of God) or not." What you, I, Fred Phelps, Mormons, Muslims, past generations and ancient cultures all feel is good, is very different. At one time, in the eyes of many Christian in America slavery and women being 2nd class citizens were considered morally correct and supported by the word of god. Over time and a lot of hard work educating the public, we moved forward. Cultures change because of the people and religion always seems eventually to come along but after a lot of kicking and screaming.
Each generation has something to be embarrassed about that is eventually corrected. An honest and modest person is willing to admit they were wrong or could be wrong and encourage discussion to keep things moving forward. You and many other religious people like you Dan are to proud to admit you too could be wrong, and instead just say that every Christian from the past and those today who do not agree with you are wrong. If you had more than a subjective justification like, "...see if it is good (of God)", then you might have a leg to stand on.
In the bible it clearly a reflection of a bronze age culture when you read things like Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Much of what follows is just as barbaric.
You can claim all you want about cherry picking, but it take far more mental gymnastics to believe a god could be so cryptic in writing his word to his people, than accepting that its a reflection of a bronze age culture.
Dan, you have nothing to support your claim but your own interpretations that you assume is fact.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Each generation and sect has a different exegesis of their holy text. Oddly enough, the particular meaning they drew from it reflected the current cultural standards.
ReplyDeleteReally? each generation? How many generations has it been and Christians still haven't 'exigised' pro choice in the bible, or pro homosexuality, or pro 'everyone goes to heaven'.
You undermine your own argument when you said, "We need to look at the fruit of interpretation to see if it is good (of God) or not." What you, I, Fred Phelps, Mormons, Muslims, past generations and ancient cultures all feel is good, is very different. At one time, in the eyes of many Christian in America slavery and women being 2nd class citizens were considered morally correct and supported by the word of god. Over time and a lot of hard work educating the public, we moved forward. Cultures change because of the people and religion always seems eventually to come along but after a lot of kicking and screaming.
completely incorrect. There were Christians maintaining that chattel slavery was not biblical during those days, in fact Christian ABOLITIONISTS were overwhelmingly responsible for ending it in the first place. Our knowledge of the language and historical context of the bible grew, thus allowing the Christians to correct their mistakes in interpretation, not from 'feelings' and opinions like in the video, but with actual exegesis and historical research. The only people 'kicking and screaming' were the people that wanted free labor, who happened to be Christians.
Furthermore, as I really dislike speaking for people, but in no way is Dan undermining his argument. With better knowledge of the language and history, we can better interpret the bible and differentiate between interpretations and translations, not with 'feelings' and 'opinions' as described in the video, but with using the brains God gave us to use in the first place.
Dan, you have nothing to support your claim but your own interpretations that you assume is fact.
and you have nothing to support your claims but quote mining, ignorance, and your unintelligent personal opinions about biblical slavery that run contrary to the evidence.
"There were Christians maintaining that chattel slavery was not biblical during those days...."
ReplyDeleteThere were. They were in the minority and, as I recall, were regarded as heretics.
"How many generations has it been and Christians still haven't 'exigised' pro choice in the bible, or pro homosexuality, or pro 'everyone goes to heaven'."
I believe there are some branches that do -- although I'm sure you will consider them heretical. "Mainline christianity" seeks power. And to achieve this power, it needs "enemies" for the masses to hate. Something like "everyone goes to heaven" would eliminate the power of the leadership.
"[A]nd you have nothing to support your claims but quote mining, ignorance, and your unintelligent personal opinions about biblical slavery that run contrary to the evidence."
Oh, by all means, if you think that he has changed the meaning of biblical passages by taking them out of context, feel free to provide a quote in context. But I find that he has kept the meaning intact.
I'd love to jump in here with an essay, because these are interesting and important issues, but I have a plane to catch in a week and lots to do beforehand. So I'll just make a few snide remarks and split.
ReplyDeleteDan: what seems to me to be the basic problem here is the incommensurability of dualism with the complexities of evolved systems. You are convinced that lines can be drawn that cleanly and clearly separate right from wrong, good from bad, exegesis from eisegesis, interpretation from understanding. This is perhaps a reflection of the dualistic nature of God's judgment: either you're saved or you're damned, no in-between.
Of course dualism is not merely a Christian viewpoint, but a very human trait, and it's probably indispensable for us to get anything done: often, we must categorize things and make decisions that are either/or.
But it's misleading to make a religion out of it, unless you're a mathematician: the real world is seldom black and white. What works to separate sheep from goats does not work so well in describing whole complex systems: for instance, you cannot draw a meaningful line between yellow and green in the rainbow, or between mammals and reptiles in the fossil record.
So we are in a pickle: we must draw lines, if we are to describe the world with our words, but we cannot always "carve Nature at the joints" as Plato said, because sometimes there are no joints. The same is true of our evolved systems of morals, laws, and religions: in order to build societies, we need these ordering principles, but the lines they draw do not exist in nature.
Thus, we must be dualists, to some extent, if we are to get anything done; but we are imposing our limitations on the world if we claim that our dualism is the way things are.
Okay: I promised some snide remarks. Here they are: hermeneutics is an ex post facto attempt to defend the received Truth (that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God) from those ugly little facts that the real world stubbornly insists on throwing at it. Exegesis is my understanding of the Bible- eisegesis is yours. You interpret the Bible and the Constitution: I understand them.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
How many generations has it been and Christians still haven't 'exigised' pro choice in the bible, or pro homosexuality, or pro 'everyone goes to heaven'.
ReplyDeleteUm, Universalist Christians?
Our knowledge of the language and historical context of the bible grew, thus allowing the Christians to correct their mistakes in interpretation,
How do you know what mistakes you are making now?
not with 'feelings' and 'opinions' as described in the video, but with using the brains God gave us to use in the first place.
Um, what?!
Theological Discourse (TD), you seem to assume a lot more than I said. I never claimed that a culture is solely based on the interpretation of the most commonly reference religious text. If that were so, we would have no escape from things like stoning men, women and children for things we now consider hardly deserving of that. My point was it is the people who decide that standards of the time they live in and they interpret, pick and ignore particular parts of their holy text to support their standards. If you would like I can list many points Christians previously drew from the bible and show how some are reinterpreted and others completely ignore (due to lack of ability to spin doctor them) today.
ReplyDeleteTD Said, ”There were Christians maintaining that chattel slavery was not biblical during those days, in fact Christian ABOLITIONISTS were overwhelmingly responsible for ending it in the first place.” You are incorrect. Freethinking rationalist in the age of enlightenment are the people credited for being the first to speak up against slavery, not Christians or any particular religion. The abolishing of slavery swept across Western Europe long before it was even being considered in America. Again, it was rational people who stood up and change the views of a culture not religion. Religions followed after the fact, though some were less resistant than others, and eventually used their text which they previously used to support slavery, to now support the antislavery movement.
So, let me get this straight. I say that Dan undermined his argument that we shouldn’t don’t the bible but instead enforce it, by only using his subjective interpretation of the bible (see if it is good) to define what the text is intending to be enforced. Then you say I’m wrong but follow up with suggesting how to “With better knowledge of the language and history, better interpret the bible” , so we can, “differentiate between interpretations and translations…”. So you’re saying we can learn to properly interpret the bible and make sure we are not interpreting the bible. You logic eludes me TD. What do you use to measure this difference between interpretation and translations anyway?
Also, what does understanding the history of the bible has to do with enforcing it? If it should not be interpreted, we should be able to read it and clearly see what god was intending for his laws and standards. If we need to understand something to properly filter it for our current civilization that is exactly why what we are saying about the bible and the constitution, that make them living document. If any kind of processing of the information using coordinating outside information is done, you are interpreting.
”you have nothing to support your claims but quote mining, ignorance….”But I do have evidence. Though I feel the reading of the text on slavery I gave I feel is accurate, I was using it as an example of how previous Christians read the bible. Cultural history clearly supports my claim that cultures change and eventually religions adapt their interpretation of their doctrines to suit the current standards. Do you deny that previous Christians drew different meanings from the bible than you do? Would you agree that the cultural standards of those time we relative to those interpretations of the bible much like we see today? If so, please explain and show support for why your current reading of the bible in correct while your ancestors, nor any other modern Christian sects is.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Context is key though. Science has interpreters of evidence also. Maybe that is where they go wrong. They are adding their bias to the situation.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that science has though, is other people who use the previously gained knowledge and are able to learn new things with it. Also, in science, there are usually many lines of independent evidence that can lead to a certain fact.
It's one thing to interperet one datum one way, but when a lot of data keep on verifying the original point, that's something else.
(ex. the confluence of radiometric dating methods, and astronomical methods for the age of the earth, etc)
One more thing Theological Discourse (TD), since you claim I’m ignorant and only quote mining, please enlighten me by explain the proper meaning of Exodus 21:20-21.
ReplyDeleteWord is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Theological Discourse,
ReplyDelete"....in fact Christian ABOLITIONISTS were overwhelmingly responsible for ending it[slavery] in the first place."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The present Day Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) split from the Northern and western Baptists over the issue of slavery.
There was major disfatisfaction among the Southern Baptists because they were being criticised for their pro slavery interpretation of the bible before the Civil War.
National criticism of slavery led to their withdrawal from the national Baptist organizations.
They met at the First Baptist Church of Augusta in May 1845.
They formed a new convention, naming it the Southern Baptist Convention.
William Bullein Johnson was chosen as the new convention's first president.
The racism of the Southern Bapatists did not die out quickley. Southern Baptists defense of white supremacy and the institution of slavery have been long lived.
In 1968 the SBC did it's own survey and found thatthat only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit black Americans!
African Americans actually formed their own churches throughout this time and as early as the American Revolution.
The KKK was made up of those Christians.
Before you you try rewriting history you need to know that the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995voted ************to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery.*********
In that resolution they admitted that racism played a role in its early history.
It was those same Christians that opposed segregation and voting rights for African Americans.
The problem with people like you is that you do not read real history. You do not think for yourself. And you lie to make a point.
Theological Discourse,
ReplyDeleteHA HA!
You are making me laugh now.
It was written,
"Each generation and sect has a different exegesis of their holy text. Oddly enough, the particular meaning they drew from it reflected the current cultural standards."
And you credulously respond,
"Really? each generation? How many generations has it been and Christians still haven't 'exigised' pro choice in the bible, or pro homosexuality, or pro 'everyone goes to heaven'."
In case you haven't noticed, many Christian churches have exigised gays and pro choice.
You are apparently sitting in the right wing fundamentalist chair.
Still burning witches much?
There will come the day when gays will be looked at as just another ordinary citizen and people like you will be yelling, "The Christians are the ones that preached tolerance and love of gays."
Yeah, right.
You need to quit believing what you are told by the people that obviously are controlling your mind.
I just noticed that my comment posted May 28, 2009 7:02 AM read, "we shouldn’t don’t the bible but instead enforce it..." but should be "we shouldn’t interpret the bible but instead enforce it..."
ReplyDeletesorry!
~Atomic Chimp
Silly Theological Discourse (STD); you said:
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, as I really dislike speaking for people, but in no way is Dan undermining his argument. With better knowledge of the language and history, we can better interpret the bible and differentiate between interpretations and translations, not with 'feelings' and 'opinions' as described in the video, but with using the brains God gave us to use in the first place.
First, it is always amusing to see, "I really dislike [doing something], but [I'll do it anyway]." I'm guessing you only mildly dislike doing it, if you dislike it at all.
Second, I'm curious if you have any clue as to what Dan's argument here is, at all. Clearly, Dan is confused, since despite the evident thesis of this post, he also -- hmph -- until very recently, anyway, ran a blog titled "Hermeneutics," which explicitly described the methods one should use to properly interpret the bible. Since Dan has cleverly, if not dishonestly (yes, Dan, I'm questioning your motive there), quit that blog, I'll instead point you to his fairly recent interpretation of the bible, in which he actually suggested that Adam's rib was intentionally allegorical, and referred to DNA.
Yeah, if he's arguing now that the bible doesn't need interpreted, he's necessarily undermining his own [past] arguments. Either his position has changed, or it is inconsistent.
Finally, your bald assertion that "we can better interpret the bible..." seems to pose a problem to Dan's statement that "[t]he Bible ... doesn't need to be interpreted..." Which is it? Whenever any meaning is gleaned from a particular text, it is necessarily interpreted by its reader. When the text in question is hailed as a blueprint to correct living, yet is quite silent on a veritable plethora of modern issues, and incredibly ambiguous on many of those on which it presumes to speak, it begs to be interpreted, and the only way it can apply to any specific scenario of the type above mentioned is if it is interpreted in some way beyond its "plain reading."
Really, kid, if you wish to participate here, you're more than welcome, but next time, try to formulate a cogent response, eh? The bible, like any other document, is interpreted by those who read it, and different denominations and off-shoots of Christianity are direct evidence of differing interpretations. So while your red herrings are interesting, even they are wrong in this regard, as has already been shown.
--
Stan
Ac starts off hitting a straw man, I never once said you said "that a culture is solely based on the interpretation of the most commonly reference religious text."
ReplyDeleteMy point was it is the people who decide that standards of the time they live in and they interpret, pick and ignore particular parts of their holy text to support their standards. If you would like I can list many points Christians previously drew from the bible and show how some are reinterpreted and others completely ignore (due to lack of ability to spin doctor them) today.
This is LAUGHABLE, who might those people be AC? who are the people that decide the standard? who are they? and go ahead and list your 'many points where Christians reinterpreted the bible'
You are incorrect. Freethinking rationalist in the age of enlightenment are the people credited for being the first to speak up against slavery, not Christians or any particular religion....
WOW, Another historically ignorant atheist. The QUAKERS who are a RELIGIOUS GROUP were the first to speak out against slavery.
By 1783, an anti-slavery movement was beginning among the British public. That year the first British abolitionist organization was founded by a group of Quakers. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the campaign.
Sure there were some free thinkers that helped out, but the quakers started it, and did the majority of the work. The first movement to end slavery in the U.S. was in 1688, which were the quakers. There is no universally accepted date of when the enlightenment started. Somewhere in the MID 1600's, with some scholars saying it began in 1688 you do the math, if you can manage numbers that big. Oh and Stephen I of Hungary was the first person in history to 'abolish' slavery. He was a Christian. In case you were thinking of taking another route.
Also, what does understanding the history of the bible has to do with enforcing it? If it should not be interpreted, we should be able to read it and clearly see what god was intending for his laws and standards....
You can't clearly read anything if you're completely ignorant in the ancient language, if you don't have a complete grasp of the historical context back then, which is a far cry than the 'have it your way' opinions and feelings being talked about in that video.
Though I feel the reading of the text on slavery I gave I feel is accurate, I was using it as an example of how previous Christians read the bible....
What did I say before? people drew different meanings becuase they didn't have an accurate grasp of the historical context OR an accurate translation of the language. You don't seem to understand the difference between drawing different meanings and WHY they drew different meanings. You're just ignorantly lumping both of them together.
One more thing Theological Discourse (TD), since you claim I’m ignorant and only quote mining, please enlighten me by explain the proper meaning of Exodus 21:20-21.
ReplyDeleteExodus 20-21 isn't describing anything the Hebrews that WEREN'T SLAVES didn't go through themselves. A free man could do that to another free man as well.(Exodus 21:18-19) Since the Law of the Prophets is summed up simply as 'do to others what you want done to yourselves' there was no inequality there, the masters were treating the slaves exactly as they themselves wished to be treated. Not only that, but Biblical slavery was nothing at all like old southern american slavery.
Finally, your bald assertion that "we can better interpret the bible..." seems to pose a problem to Dan's statement that "[t]he Bible ... doesn't need to be interpreted..." Which is it? Whenever any meaning is gleaned from a particular text, it is necessarily interpreted by its reader. When the text in question is hailed as a blueprint to correct living, yet is quite silent on a veritable plethora of modern issues, and incredibly ambiguous on many of those on which it presumes to speak, it begs to be interpreted, and the only way it can apply to any specific scenario of the type above mentioned is if it is interpreted in some way beyond its "plain reading."
ReplyDeleteAthiest logic strikes again. If you look at the video you would see what type of 'interpretation' that is not needed. It is the 'feelings' and 'thats your opinion' interpretation, not the interpretation that is backed by hard evidence, which i made quite clear in my last couple of posts. The text is not 'quite silent' on too much of anything, nor is is it 'incredibly ambiguous' either. The type of interpretation(with the exception of prayer) that is needed is the same type of interpretation all documents of ancient language and culture need, proper translation and historical context. Prayer should match up with what is already in there.
Nice work. Let me catch up. There were many points I want to hit but like Zilch I have too much going on.
ReplyDelete"Mainline christianity" seeks power. And to achieve this power, it needs "enemies" for the masses to hate. Something like "everyone goes to heaven" would eliminate the power of the leadership.
Look at the fruit. Ask yourself will it serve them well to be the rich man in the parable. Don't you think God know evil when He sees it? Justice will prevail. Look at the shame of the RCC and the priests. God is good and will expose the frauds. Ask Ted Haggard if that is true or not. Christians seek to save the lost period. Our hearts ache for you and we want to witness the miracle of your changing heart. Money has nothing to do with it. We might even owe you an apology for the fact that so many have asked for money in the name of Christianity. Christians should be giving to the community, not taking from it.
Southern Baptists defense of white supremacy and the institution of slavery have been long lived.
That right there, I could never grasp. I guess its a southern thing that I may never understand. We all come from one couple (Adam and Eve, Noah and his family), yet whites are better? It makes zero, logical or common, sense.
Christians are not perfect, just forgiven.
Theological Discourse, Welcome back to the fray. You are appreciated. I agree proper translation and historical context, is the primer.
the real world is seldom black and white.
Great Zilch, now you sound like my Dad. Life is actually black and white. This was one of the real attractions to Christianity and the Bible for me. I just knew the "gray," that my Dad claimed was fine and was doing, was quite wrong.
Again stealing bread to feed your family still awards you the label of a thief. Lie for gain, is simply not right. I knew this as a kid and when I finally read it in the Bible it was confirmed for me. So in a sense I owe my Christianity to my Dad's Atheism and gray morals.
It's one thing to interpret one datum one way, but when a lot of data keep on verifying the original point, that's something else.
Its wonderful that you finally admit there is a Creator then Reynold. I appreciate that honesty. :7)
(ex. the confluence of radiometric dating methods, and astronomical methods for the age of the earth, etc)
Indeed there are a vast amount of assumptions made with these examples.
Assumptions along with presuppositional interpretation of data equals disaster. Could you imagine if a forensic scientist added his bias to the evidence? The data, or language, must stand on its own and speak to us without our input. We need to listen instead of interpret.
There is something to this point of interpreting vs listening/understanding the words/data. We are adding variables and presuppositions which change the results of the equation. A eureka moment I need to pray and contemplate on.
Now I know I missed something but this will have to do for the moment.
Silly Theological Discourse (STD); you said: ”WOW, Another historically ignorant atheist. The QUAKERS who are a RELIGIOUS GROUP were the first to speak out against slavery.”You are correct, the several evangelical sects including the Quakers were involved in the early abolishment of slavery movement, but historically neither these groups nor their doctrines were credited with starting the movement. Instead the age of enlightenment which causes them to rise against what was previously supported by their sects is the cause, which is why this movement was not centralized to nay particular sect or group.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the actual abolishing of slavery in some places around the world started much earlier than the 1800s and not in England. In these cases, this is no historical recognition of any religious sect Christian or not. If I remember correctly, Lithuania abolished slavery in 1588. In 1688, 100 year after Lithuania, there was a protest against slavery but that is not the start of the abolitionist movement no more than Lithuania abolishing slavery in 1588. The movement to abolish it everywhere did not start until the 1800s.
”You can't clearly read anything if you're completely ignorant in the ancient language, if you don't have a complete grasp of the historical context back”If you are required to understand the historical context to be able to understand the bible, then you are interpreting. The historians I work with consider history an argument, not a fact. Even ancient cultures we study now see ancient cultures previous to them differently than we do. A view of history also cannot avoid the trap of interpretation of the currently available evidence. Also, if you need a lens of ambiguous information to understand your holy doctoring and you still feel you are not interpreting it in anyway, you have once again astounded me once again with you twisted logic.
” people drew different meanings becuase they didn't have an accurate grasp of the historical context OR an accurate translation of the language.”Again you reference historical context which is open to interpretation. As for translation, do you read the King James Bible or a different translation? Are you reading directly from the original text and interpreting it yourself? Please elaborate.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Silly Theological Discourse (STD) said, "Exodus 21:20-21.
ReplyDeleteExodus 20-21 isn't describing anything the Hebrews that WEREN'T SLAVES didn't go through themselves. A free man could do that to another free man as well.(Exodus 21:18-19) Since the Law of the Prophets is summed up simply as 'do to others what you want done to yourselves' there was no inequality there, the masters were treating the slaves exactly as they themselves wished to be treated. Not only that, but Biblical slavery was nothing at all like old southern american slavery.Oh I see how it works STD, you find other text in the bible you agree with but read different and just ignore that parts that you don’t agree with. So where is the rule in the bible that says you can just drop the part of Exodus 21:20-21 where it says if your slave continue a day or two after you beat him, you won’t be punished for he is your money (property).
STD, you go on to say, ”'do to others what you want done to yourselves'…”First of all, that is not an original concept of Christianity, but I digress.
It seems to me that Jewish people are considered of a higher status and slaves are far less than 2nd class citizens since they are property. Also, Exodus 21:18-19 read like the eye for an eye since you have to pay in equal to the Jewish person you did the act upon, but not Exodus 21:20-21 since you do no pay out to the slave but instead God punishes you, and if he dies two days later, you aren’t punished at all. So how is killing a slave over a few days and not being punished relate to your quote above? How do you see inequality there?
You can keep denying that you, Dan or anyone interprets the bible but I think you explanation makes it loud and clear how blindly you do. Like I mentioned, each generation chooses to adapt their interpretation and ignore parts of the bible to line it up with the current cultural standards.
You’ve proved my point for me! Thank STD!
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
One more thing STD, if your god is so powerful and knows all, why did the information he communicated in his bible not be more obvious about things? I would think that his rules and laws should be pretty straight forward and clear and require no reference to the time it was written since it was to be the one and only book he provided for the entire existence of humanity. It seems pretty poor of him to make it difficult for people following his visit to earth to understand him. The ill result of this botch book published by god is especially obvious in recent history. Look at all the misery and destruction cause by the misunderstanding of his word. According to Christians, he knew this would happen because of it. I think any modern person could revise the bible to read better and be easily understood. Please explain why god failed to.
ReplyDeleteWord is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
”You are correct, the several evangelical sects including the Quakers were involved in the early abolishment of slavery movement, but historically neither these groups nor their doctrines were credited with starting the movement...
ReplyDeleteAC simply ignores evidence and continues to ignorantly assert that the quakers did not start the movement and instead it was the age of enlightenment.
The first movement to end slavery in the U.S. was in 1688, which were the Quakers. There is no universally accepted date of when the enlightenment started. Somewhere in the MID 1600's, with some scholars saying it began in 1688 you do the math, if you can manage numbers that big.
How on earth can the age of enlightenment be credited with starting the movement when the age of enlightenment (according to some scholars) didn't begin until 1688? and the first movement to end slavery was STARTED in 1688 BY THE QUAKERS?
the The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery
look at that, 1688.
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/18877
Still others describe the Enlightenment beginning in Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688 and ending in the French Revolution of 1789. However, others also claim the Enlightenment ended with the death of Voltaire in 1778.
Look at that, it's either the beginning of the 18th century, the mid 1600's or 1688. The descartes method had nothing about slavery in it, the freethinkers like Montesquieu and Rousseau didn't start attacking it until AFTER the quakers.
Also, the actual abolishing of slavery in some places around the world started much earlier than the 1800s and not in England. In these cases, this is no historical recognition of any religious sect Christian or not. If I remember correctly, Lithuania abolished slavery in 1588. In 1688, 100 year after Lithuania, there was a protest against slavery but that is not the start of the abolitionist movement no more than Lithuania abolishing slavery in 1588. The movement to abolish it everywhere did not start until the 1800s.
the actual abolishment of slavery is irrelevant, since the quakers were the ones that started it, everyone else followed suit.
If you are required to understand the historical context to be able to understand the bible, then you are interpreting. The historians I work with consider history an argument, not a fact. Even ancient cultures we study now see ancient cultures previous to them differently than we do. A view of history also cannot avoid the trap of interpretation of the currently available evidence. Also, if you need a lens of ambiguous information to understand your holy doctoring and you still feel you are not interpreting it in anyway, you have once again astounded me once again with you twisted logic.
you, like the other ignorant athiest, have a difficult time understanding interpretations via feeling and opinion which is described in the video(which I maintain is WRONG) and interpretations via hard evidence. Try and not equivocate the 2.
Again you reference historical context which is open to interpretation. As for translation, do you read the King James Bible or a different translation? Are you reading directly from the original text and interpreting it yourself? Please elaborate.
stop being ignorant, it is open to interpretation but there are valid forms and INVALID FORMS(which are shown in the video) no one here is arguing that the bible should not nor cannot be interpreted, only that there a valid forms of interpretations and the forms of interpretation in the video are NOT one of them.
Now try and address the point, stop being ignorant in history and logic and you might make an ounce of sense.
Oh I see how it works STD, you find other text in the bible you agree with but read different and just ignore that parts that you don’t agree with. So where is the rule in the bible that says you can just drop the part of Exodus 21:20-21 where it says if your slave continue a day or two after you beat him, you won’t be punished for he is your money (property).
ReplyDeleteAnother ignorant atheist dispalys his inability to read. The same thing in Exodus 21:20-21 is applied to free men which I listed. You just ignored it.
First of all, that is not an original concept of Christianity, but I digress.
Ignorant.
Matthew 7:12
Therefore, whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them, because this summarizes the Law and the Prophets."
Another ignorant atheist displays his complete ignorance of Christianity. Typical.
It seems to me that Jewish people are considered of a higher status and slaves are far less than 2nd class citizens since they are property. Also, Exodus 21:18-19 read like the eye for an eye since you have to pay in equal to the Jewish person you did the act upon, but not Exodus 21:20-21 since you do no pay out to the slave but instead God punishes you, and if he dies two days later, you aren’t punished at all. So how is killing a slave over a few days and not being punished relate to your quote above? How do you see inequality there?
It doesn't matter what status they have, they still treated people how they treated themselves, you seem to be completely ignorant of what the godlen rule is.
STD says, "AC simply ignores evidence and continues to ignorantly assert that the quakers did not start the movement and instead it was the age of enlightenment."Again, I never denied that he quakers and other evangelical groups played a major role in the movement. You still have not shown support that they were the creators of this movement. It was the theories of natural rights brought on by the enlightenment that spawn the people to start seeing how slavery was wrong. It was due to these philosophers of the enlightenment arguing that man was not guided by god or sin and the universe was only controlled by natural laws. Slavery did not fit in with these natural laws and public welfare and they felt the government had the power to end slavery and should. The enlightenment philosopher montesquieu summed it up best in 'The Spirit of the laws with ," This is the idea that started it, "as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural." and "to sell one's freedom is repugnant to reason" that "if a man could not sell himself, much less sell an unborn child," and that enslaving a person because he was a heathen in effect said "that religion gives its professors a right to enslave those who dissent from it."
ReplyDeleteThere were several Christian sects that were in the process of reevaluating their beliefs and standards around the same time and joined in the movement. They were going through what was considered the 'great awakening', which was in contradiction of the practices of their past. Though they were adapting to standards that supported the abolitionist movement, they were not the one to initiate it.
There were many countries long before the Quakers who did exactly the same as they did and many also actually abolishing slavery. Here are some that did, which is more impressive than talking about it and had to be put into motion even earlier than the dates.
1102 London,
1117 Iceland
1335 Sweden
1588 Lithuania
1723 Russia
1761 Portugal
Though they accomplished a lot far before 1688, this is not what is historically considered the abolitionist movement. That did not take place until the 1800s in Europe, and inspired by the philosophies of the enlightenment.
"the actual abolishment of slavery is irrelevant, since the quakers were the ones that started it, everyone else followed suit."I thing my previous text refute this point.
"you, like the other ignorant atheist, have a difficult time understanding interpretations via feeling and opinion which is described in the video(which I maintain is WRONG) and interpretations via hard evidence.Dan stated that the bible should not be interpreted but enforce. You are now agreeing that it is interpreted but just not the way you thing is wrong. Well, at least you agree Dan is incorrect. Please now show how you interpretation where you clearly exclude large portion of the test to change the meaning is correct, and not just due to your cultural bias.
"stop being ignorant in history and logic and you might make an ounce of sense."I'm sorry if your biblical and historical gymnastic doesn't impress me. You have demonstrated my point several times yet you continue to make the same assertions.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
" Another ignorant atheist dispalys his inability to read. The same thing in Exodus 21:20-21 is applied to free men which I listed. You just ignored it.What follow Exodus 21:18-19 clearly pertains to slave and servants but Lets just say you are right for the sake of discussion. My question to that is, if I beat someone, slave or free man, if he desn't die until a day or more after, I will not be punished? Is this how justice works for Christians? I like that sort of reasoning too. Lets free all the wrongfully imprisoned people who didn't kill their victims immediately!
ReplyDeleteI said "First of all, that is not an original concept of Christianity, but I digress."
You replied, "Ignorant.
Matthew 7:12Showing me bible quotes does not change the fact that there were many civilization that predates Christianity and it bible that promoted the idea first, for example, Confucius:
Adept Kung asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
"Another ignorant atheist displays his complete ignorance of Christianity. Typical."You flatter me with you ad hominems. I suggest you work on formulating a well-founded point before you post again.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Again, I never denied that he quakers and other evangelical groups played a major role in the movement. You still have not shown support that they were the creators of this movement. It was the theories of natural rights brought on by the enlightenment that spawn the people to start seeing how slavery was wrong. It was due to these philosophers of the enlightenment arguing that man was not guided by god or sin and the universe was only controlled by natural laws. Slavery did not fit in with these natural laws and public welfare and they felt the government had the power to end slavery and should. The enlightenment philosopher montesquieu summed it up best in 'The Spirit of the laws with ," This is the idea that started it, "as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural." and "to sell one's freedom is repugnant to reason" that "if a man could not sell himself, much less sell an unborn child," and that enslaving a person because he was a heathen in effect said "that religion gives its professors a right to enslave those who dissent from it."
ReplyDeleteAC continues to ignore things. I have posted it TWICE!
How on earth can the age of enlightenment be credited with starting the movement when the age of enlightenment (according to some scholars) didn't begin until 1688? and the first movement to end slavery was STARTED in 1688 BY THE QUAKERS?
You even mention Montesquieu but he started speaking out in 1748!! 60 years after the quakers.
The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery is the EARLIEST EVIDENCE of ANYONE speaking out against slavery, if you can find evidence of the age of enlightenment speaking out against slavery PRIOR to 1688 then you have a point.
All you do is ignore facts, blundering on in your ignorance of history.
There were several Christian sects that were in the process of reevaluating their beliefs and standards around the same time and joined in the movement. They were going through what was considered the 'great awakening', which was in contradiction of the practices of their past. Though they were adapting to standards that supported the abolitionist movement, they were not the one to initiate it.
This is just blatantly incorrect, the great awakening didn't start until 1730, which is almost 50 years after the quakers STARTED speaking out against slavery. The quakers started it, they initiated it. Show me a shred of evidence that shows anything about the abolishment of slavery prior to 1688.
Though they accomplished a lot far before 1688, this is not what is historically considered the abolitionist movement. That did not take place until the 1800s in Europe, and inspired by the philosophies of the enlightenment.
Historical ignorance. The quakers started it with The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery.
It seems to me that Christians who were pro-slavery interpreted specific biblical passages to support what they did, and Christians who were anti-slavery did the opposite.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-slavery movement was not borne of religious belief.
Dan, here's something that would convince me that the Bible is not interpreted by every Christian as they would like it. If just one long-time believer could stand up and say "The Bible clearly states (X) about issue (Y) and this goes against everything I would like to believe on the issue but there it is, in the Bible, clear as day. I will struggle with this but clearly I am wrong."
Anyway, long time no speak and I hope that all is well with you and yer missus. :)
Typo up there: should read Christians who were anti-slavery did the same.
ReplyDeleteWhat follow Exodus 21:18-19 clearly pertains to slave and servants but Lets just say you are right for the sake of discussion. My question to that is, if I beat someone, slave or free man, if he desn't die until a day or more after, I will not be punished? Is this how justice works for Christians? I like that sort of reasoning too. Lets free all the wrongfully imprisoned people who didn't kill their victims immediately!
ReplyDeleteIt is called 'do to others what you have done to yourself.' It was a law for free men thus it was a law for slaves, so there was no punishment because it was equal for all. Today you will be punished because nobody wants to be subjected to that rule, thus you cannot subject anyone else to that rule. Simple logic, I know you lack it, that is why you try to appeal to emotion.
Showing me bible quotes does not change the fact that there were many civilization that predates Christianity and it bible
It doesn't matter if it is not an original concept, it is STILL a concept of Christianity. How ignorant are you? marriage was not an original Christian concept, yet it is still a concept of Christianity. You have no point.
You flatter me with you ad hominems. I suggest you work on formulating a well-founded point before you post again.
Your ignorance of both history and logic don't surprise me as it is quite common with atheists. You are confusing an ad hominem with an insult, they are 2 different things, not only that but you have not made a single coherent point, asserting idiotic things like the age of enlightenment started trying to end slavery.
The anti-slavery movement was not borne of religious belief.
ReplyDeleteif you find me something earlier than The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery
I'll concede the point gladly.
SDT said,"if you find me something earlier than The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery"I already provide a short list, but here is a bit more detail of a few on that list.
ReplyDeleteIn Sweden and Finland in 1335 the Skara ordinance prohibited slaves.
In Poland the sale and purchase of slaves were forbidden in the 15th century.
Lithuania eliminates slavery in 1588.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
"AC continues to ignore things. I have posted it TWICE!..."You can call what the Quakers did what ever you want but that does not change the fact that the abolitionist movement did not happen until the 1800 in Europe.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as I pointed out previously, the Quakers were beaten to the punch as far back as the 1100s.
" How ignorant are you? marriage was not an original Christian concept, yet it is still a concept of Christianity."The early Christians church considered marriage a private matter they wanted no part of. They saw it as being like a business transaction between two consenting adults where the man gets the woman and her father gets the sheep. It wasn't until 1545 that the church decided to adopt it as a holy sacrament. It wasn't until a few years after that the the protestant church did too.
quoting myself from another comment on Dans blog:
Here are but a few excellent examples. I can provide many, many more if you wish.
(Exodus 21:7)
(Exodus 21:8)
(Exodus 21:20)
(Genesis 25:6)
How about these on marriage.
Rules for disposing of hated wives. (Deuteronomy 22:13)
Best not to marry but if you must have sex... (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9)
Avoid getting married. (Corinthians 7:27, 1 Corinthians 7:29)
Anyway, the bible mostly give tips on dealing with it. Some are good others are pretty poor by our standards. Sometimes god says marriage is good other times he talks like its the plague. The Apostle Paul promoted the idea of not getting married or touching a woman.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Cwc,
ReplyDelete(I still don't know the protocol on real name usage.)
All is quite well and I hope the same for you.
So, for your benefit, I will oblige your request.
The Bible clearly states its necessary to spank children to love them and this goes against everything I would like to believe on the issue but there it is, in the Bible, clear as day. I will/did struggle with this but clearly I am/was wrong.
That is the first thing that came to mind as I read you comment. It was a very real struggle for me. I never was spanked as a child because my grandfather destroyed my Mom's tailbone with a hard swing of a crutch. So my Mom was dead against it and raised me with that knowledge.
Personal story: My Mom had her stroke and couldn't speak. One day we arrived at the hospital and we found her in a wooden chair next to her bed and she was crying and crying. Months later, after she was able to speak, we asked her what was she was crying about that one day. She right away remembered how painful her tailbone was on that hard chair, the reason for all the frustrated tears. So I always grew up knowing how very wrong it was to strike a child. I now know the vast difference between abuse, such in my Mom's case, and correction. I would also not use hard items like crutches, or as Stan suggested, PVC pipes. So I even struggled with the term Rod also, as I compromised on just my hand until I read Proverbs 13:24.
I have found that the flat 5 gallon stir sticks for paint cans, given freely at Low's btw, is a better choice. They would break way before bone would if, God forbid, anyone would ever get that aggressive.
STD I questioned why it OK with you not to be punished if you beat a person, free or slave, and they die 2 days later. you replied with,"It is called 'do to others what you have done to yourself.'"So you read another quote from the bible and it erases the parts you disagree with from a different quote. I guess god does work in mysterious, or silly ways.
ReplyDeleteYou go on to say, "It was a law for free men thus it was a law for slaves, so there was no punishment because it was equal for all."That makes no sense at all. I asked why I get off scott free if the person didn't die until 2 days or more later.
You continue,"Today you will be punished because nobody wants to be subjected to that rule, thus you cannot subject anyone else to that rule. Simple logic, I know you lack it, that is why you try to appeal to emotion."I think you're losing it now or are you saying we are punished for any killing now because nobody want to be able to get off from it if the victim doesn't die immediately?
"Your ignorance of both history and logic don't surprise me as it is quite common with atheists.Ah, how prejudice of you STD. I see the best of you is starting to reveal itself. anyway, I cited several historical events predating the 1688 quakers and pointed out the period historically recognized as the abolitionist movement. I guess I'm missing something.
One more thing, while some Quakers opposed slavery, many were major participants of slave ownership and trade of slaves. Anti-slavery was an intense and unpopular movement by the quakers far into the the 1800's. Around the 1830's it saw some success due to reaching thousands of northerners through distribution of publication an speeches, and influence from the abolitionist movement growing in western Europe.
Word is bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Enough about anti-slavery history. This post was about interpreting the bible & constitution. I apologize for derailing the topic. Lets get back on track.
ReplyDelete~AC
Atomic Chimp said...
ReplyDeleteEnough about anti-slavery history. This post was about interpreting the bible & constitution. I apologize for derailing the topic. Lets get back on track.
-------------
To that end I would point out that the constitution, written by post enlightenment people, with a lot of history and pricipals to draw from, is vastly easier to interpret than the bible, which was written by bronze age people trying to make sense of their existance.
The fact is that the constitution has served us, successfully for over two hundred years. If the bible had been used as the founding document there would have never been a moments peace, evidenced by the fact that there are a myriad of bible tenets/ verses that defy interpretation and thus hundreds of competing Christian sects.
The bible could never be used to actually govern people. It would be a disaster.
I already provide a short list, but here is a bit more detail of a few on that list.
ReplyDeleteIn Sweden and Finland in 1335 the Skara ordinance prohibited slaves.
In Poland the sale and purchase of slaves were forbidden in the 15th century.
Lithuania eliminates slavery in 1588.
Now we see the ignorant atheist trying to cover up his blunder.
Look what he said " Freethinking rationalist in the age of enlightenment are the people credited for being the first to speak up against slavery, not Christians or any particular religion...."
and
"but historically neither these groups nor their doctrines were credited with starting the movement. Instead the age of enlightenment which causes them to rise against what was previously supported by their sects is the cause, which is why this movement was not centralized to nay particular sect or group.
"
Well the things he listed WERE NOT FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT. This ignorant atheist spounts errouneous claims that people from the enlightenment spoke out against slavery first, when asked to PROVIDE EVIDENCE of this, he provides COUNTRIES that date centuries before the enlightenment. So he is COMPLETELY WRONG in asserting that freethinkers from the age of enlightenment were the first to speak out against slavery. Not only that but Stephen I of Hungary, who was a CHRISTIAN was the first person speak against slavery stating IN HIS LAWS that any slave that lives, stays or enters the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary would become free immediately. Which predates the earliest date in his list by almost 300 years. Ac is completely and utter historically ignorant.
That makes no sense at all. I asked why I get off scott free if the person didn't die until 2 days or more later
ReplyDeleteIgnorance, you wouldn't get off scott free, perhaps you should read the verses again and study the language. Here is what the NIV says.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
It says if the slave gets up after a day or two, it says nothing about killing. Stop quote mining. If the slave got up after a day or two then died as a result of the masters beatings the master would be punished since it clearly states "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished"
so if the master beat his slave and the slave gets up after a day or two then dies from something OTHER THAN a direct result of the beatings the master is not punished, but if the slave dies as a direct result of the masters beatings, the master is punished.
stop quote mining.
Dan, you didn't really respond to me. Are you saying that every action is either right or wrong, no in-between? To take your example of theft: is it always wrong to take what is not yours? If so, how exactly do you define "yours"? What if you take an apple from a tree that used to belong to your family, but no longer does, because of some legal chicanery? Is it wrong to steal bread so your family will not starve?
ReplyDeleteThere also seems to be two kinds of "right and wrong" for Christians: local and ultimate. Thus, while it is "locally" wrong to murder, it is only "ultimately" wrong to deny God. Thus, we have cases such as this: Stacy Moskowitz was a practicing Jew when she was murdered by David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam" serial murderer. Berkowitz has since become a born-again Christian. This means, at least according to many if not most Christians, that Stacy is burning in Hell, and David is assured of Heaven when he dies. Are you with me so far, Dan?
This being the case, what does it matter what we do, as long as we repent before we die? It seems to me that we have two very different classes of "right" and "wrong" here: the first class, all those "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots", which are however completely obviated by the second class: "believe and be saved" or "disbelieve and be damned". If the world is black and white, why should I care about anything other than getting my ticket to Heaven before I die?
STD, I must say, you are very entertaining. I can see your selective reading is not only reserved to the bible.
ReplyDeleteSo Dan, you still have not successfully explained how you know that your reading of the bible is the correct one and everyone else is just misinterpreting it. Saying that
Dan you also said, "If the RCC et al would have never "interpreted" the Bible then there would of been a lot less blood shed and false converts..."Which translation of the bible do you use Dan?
"...if America didn't misinterpret the Bible then we would never have had slavery"I find that comment silly. Slavery was not a result of the bible. The bible was used to support a practice that was around long before its existence. The bible is so ambiguous and self contradicting, it can be used to support many different ideas and ideals.
Though the constitution is much more clear, it is still hard to escape people interpreting portions of it differently. Even in simple discussions online or conversations we need at times need to explain what we meant by something we stated. When the original writers no longer are alive and lived hundreds of years ago when language usage and culture were very different, it makes it even easier to misunderstand the meaning of their words.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
AC said:
ReplyDeleteThe anti-slavery movement was not borne of religious belief.
STD replied:
[I]f you find me something earlier than The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery I'll concede the point gladly.Yet, when "something earlier" was shown, no concession was offered. Granted, the original claim maid by AC may not have been entirely accurate (that anti-slavery movements were begun by "Freethinking rationalist [sic] in the age of enlightenment"), but you're focusing on the minor point regarding the timeframe, and ignoring the substantive point regarding the fact that anti-slavery movements were not necessarily the product of religious movements, which is exactly what the opening sequence above demonstrates.
Your unwillingness to engage in any actual dialog, and instead to use the trendy new fundy method of "riposte" (which is little more than constant name-calling, arrogance, and pride, with a glaring lack of thought, argumentation, and logic) is noted, and you have undoubtedly been branded by other viewers here as a douche -- certainly that label fits from my viewpoint...
If you wish to troll, kindly do so elsewhere. If you wish instead to engage in discussion, grow up. If Dan, or any of his fellow Christian passers-by wish to stand up now and defend your "style," let's hear it.
Of course, the initial point, the on-topic point, in all of this is that the bible requires interpretation, which is in direct opposition to what Dan is claiming in the OP. It is also, evidently, a point on which we actually agree -- you and I, that is -- the bible does indeed require interpretation. Where we likely differ, however, is in the usefulness of the bible as a result. Due to the many different interpretations, the "have it your way" versions have indeed gained traction, and while we agree that this isn't the intent of the original authors, we will likely never agree on the original intentions of the authors, much less the relevance in today's modern world. This difference of opinion is why so many versions of Christianity exist, and it supports my own thesis that even if a god exists, it is impossible to know its motives, espoused doctrines, or its favorite color. To say otherwise is to beg the question.
Dan, you said:
ReplyDeleteIf the RCC et al would have never "interpreted" the Bible then there would of [sic] been a lot less blood shed and false converts...
Really, Dan, this is ignorant. The RCC is responsible for the canon you today embrace. Have you had an opportunity to examine -- not interpret -- every available text of the era which claimed to be Christian in origin? If not, whose fault was that? Is it not possible that some Christian texts, worthy of inclusion, were destroyed?
Even if you insist that the Catholic leaders who formulated today's canon were "inspired by the Holy Spirit," you must admit that the texts were interpreted, and that Catholics -- Roman Catholics -- were involved.
Of course, you went on to say:
[I]f America didn't misinterpret the Bible then we would never have had slavery.
This argument is specious and you know it. If [insert group here] didn't misinterpret the bible then we would never have had [insert undesirable action(s) here]. Any and every Christian group extant can, and does, make exactly the same argument in almost exactly the same phrasing. You must do better than this to separate yourself, and to identify your interpretation as the interpretation.
We must dedicate to exegesis, any interpretation moves from exegesis to eisegesis. Agree?
No. Any attempt at exegesis necessarily involves interpretation. As Zilch so brilliantly said:
Exegesis is my understanding of the Bible- eisegesis is yours. You interpret the Bible and the Constitution: I understand them.
If you can't see this, then you're as blind as your insult-hurling "friend."
--
Stan
(Strange; OO said my post was only 4031 characters, but Blogger said it was over 4096... One of them is cheating...)
Hey Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned my comment about the abolitionist movement being triggered by the ideas from the age of enlightenment was not entirely correct.
My understanding was that the anti-slavery sentiment had existed in many countries and groups on an off since the 1100's or earlier, but it was the ideas brought forward by Philosophers of the enlightenment that put the fire beneath the already stirring sentiment, to trigger what was recognized as the abolitionist movement in Europe.
I was somewhat suspicious as to why the much earlier attitudes against slavery were not categorized as the movement but what took place in th 1800s was. I was under the impression it was because earlier it was of a minority and had little to no growth, and some reversals, until after the 1800's.
Thanks!
~Atomic Chimp
Honestly, I couldn't care less. What irks me more is how Christians cherry-pick from history just as much as they do from their bible. STD and pals are as prone to claiming science is due to Christianity as they are to say that abolition is.
ReplyDeleteWhile our resident middle-schooler will probably assert that OT slavery wasn't anything like slavery in the U.S., he's as wrong as he is retarded. I've had this discussion with Christians far more cordial, and judging by his comments here, far more capable, than him, and while they've refused to accept that OT slavery was "bad," they have been forced to concede that it wasn't as different from chattel slavery as they'd have liked. Gentile slaves in the OT were property, they were forced into slavery, and they had no rights aside from those granted them by their owners.
Anyway, it's irrelevant to this discussion -- the fact of the matter is that a) interpretation is unavoidable, and b) Dan and STD evidently disagree on the use of interpretation. STD says interpretation is necessary, and asserts that his own interpretation is True™, whereas Dan asserts that documents such as the bible and the U.S. Constitution require no interpretation.
Also, Dan seems to think that the Judicial branch of the U.S. Government (as outlined -- defined, even -- in the U.S. Constitution) is either unnecessary, or a subsidiary of the Executive branch... He's bitched about "legislating from the bench" before, but now he's explicitly requesting that the Supreme Court do precisely that, and he's suggesting they enforce their judgments... Legislative branch? Nah. Judicial branch? Nah. Let's just have an Executive branch, apparently, as all the rest is fluff.
What was that, Dan? Were you going to speak to the existence of Amendments at all? How about the fact that the New Testament amended the Old Testament? How about the fact that the bible has been interpreted throughout history by everyone who has ever read the damned thing, whether they believed it or not?
--
Stan
no concession was offered. Granted, the original claim maid by AC may not have been entirely accurate (that anti-slavery movements were begun by "Freethinking rationalist [sic] in the age of enlightenment"), but you're focusing on the minor point regarding the timeframe, and ignoring the substantive point regarding the fact that anti-slavery movements were not necessarily the product of religious movements, which is exactly what the opening sequence above demonstrates.I don't have to concede anything since he was supposed to provide evidence for freethinkers from The AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT speaking out against slavery before the quakers. He did not do that, instead he posted countries that predated the age of enlightenment. I never said every anti slavery movements were the product of religious movements, so you're wrong again. I was merely refuting your ignorant atheist buddies assertion that free thinkers in the enlightenment are credited for starting the abolishment movement. You're just too ignorant to see that.
ReplyDeleteYour unwillingness to engage in any actual dialog, and instead to use the trendy new fundy method of "riposte" (which is little more than constant name-calling, arrogance, and pride, with a glaring lack of thought, argumentation, and logic) is noted, and you have undoubtedly been branded by other viewers here as a douche -- certainly that label fits from my viewpoint...
If you wish to troll, kindly do so elsewhere. If you wish instead to engage in discussion, grow up. If Dan, or any of his fellow Christian passers-by wish to stand up now and defend your "style," let's hear it.
No I am quite willing to engage in dialouge, what I am not willing to do is stand by and allow you and your ignorant atheist buddies to make absurd assertions. Don't label me a troll because I call you out and expose your ignorance for all too see, try making an ounce of sense and you won't get treated like someone that doesn't have any.
My understanding was that the anti-slavery sentiment had existed in many countries and groups on an off since the 1100's or earlier, but it was the ideas brought forward by Philosophers of the enlightenment that put the fire beneath the already stirring sentiment, to trigger what was recognized as the abolitionist movement in Europe.
ReplyDeleteIt is incorrect, the quakers spoke out against slavery long before the people of the enlightenment did, which is why you cannot find a shred of evidence for that. The abolishment movement was motivated by the quakers not the enlightenment you historically ignorant atheist. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your ridiculous assertions that the philosophers put the 'fire' under the already stirring sentiment,' not a shred of it, all you do is baselessly assert like the historically ignorant atheist you are. I have evidence that states the quakers STARTED IT and got motivated independent of free thinkers from the enlightenment age. You have no evidence, just your own ignorant opinion.
Anyway, it's irrelevant to this discussion -- the fact of the matter is that a) interpretation is unavoidable, and b) Dan and STD evidently disagree on the use of interpretation. STD says interpretation is necessary, and asserts that his own interpretation is True™
ReplyDeleteYup, you evidently cannot read. Where on earth did I say that? you're another ignorant atheist flailing away for points. Not only that, but would you like to engage in a debate about how different chattel slavery is from biblical slavery? or would do you enjoy making stupid assertions about Christians 'more capable' than me forcing to concede something comletely incorrect. Here's a hint, your inability to differentiate between an insult and a point are your intellectual short comings. Letting your opinion of me cloud the points I am making is nothing but illogical, irrational reasoning so very common in militant ignoarnt atheists as yourselves.
It was actually me that said that the anti-slavery movement was not borne of religious belief.
ReplyDeleteTheo:-
I don't dispute that the majority of the people involved in the anti-slavery movement were of some sort of religious persuasion. Professing atheists were pretty thin on the ground back then, I think :)
What I'd like to explore is the philosophy of the abolitionist movement and the theological argument to support this philosophy. In this way you can help me to understand how Christianity has always been decidedly against slavery.
For the purposes of definition and this discussion can we agree that "slavery" excludes the notion of indentured servitude? So we're basically talking about the forced, non-consensual ownership of a person?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou can call me Sarah if you like - unless we're locked in battle, lol, then it's CC or CwC ;)
Thanks for your honesty regarding the conflict you have about rods, spanking and such. I don't believe for a second that you enjoy what you think you have to do.
Dan, is it just Proverbs where you're getting the whole rod thing? FWIW, I'm not sure that the proverbs of Solomon are meant to be taken literally on face value. Take this paradox (Prov 26:4-5):
"4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
How would you approach these as straight, literal commands? I'm not sure that the Book of Proverbs is intended to be read that way.
Unless there's anything else in the Bible that makes you believe that you need a literal hitting implement?
P.S. Congrats on your suprise son, just read the post.
I never said every anti slavery movements were the product of religious movements, so you're wrong again.
ReplyDeleteSo you do concede that abolitionism was not born of religious belief?
(Incidentally, I mistakenly attributed that quote to AC -- it was rather CwC, and your own ignorance of the source of the quote, especially your boisterous defense of your own actions, is quite telling. CwC made the statement, and you quoted her, so your concession offer in response to her deserves a hearing. We'll wait.)
I was merely refuting your ignorant atheist buddies assertion that free thinkers in the enlightenment are credited for starting the abolishment movement.
No, you weren't. You were responding to CwC, who you quoted, and to whom you offered a ready concession should pre-Quaker roots of abolitionism be found. When those roots were subsequently and immediately offered (by AC), you reneged on your obviously disingenuous offer.
It is incorrect, the quakers spoke out against slavery long before the people of the enlightenment did, which is why you cannot find a shred of evidence for that. The abolishment movement was motivated by the quakers not the enlightenment you historically ignorant atheist.
Blah, blah, blah.
1. There is no hard and fast date for the beginning of the Enlightenment period, so depending on one's motives, it could be considered as having begun as early as the early-mid 17th century, to as late as the end of the 18th century.
2. The Quakers did not organize against slavery until the middle of the 18th century -- the 1688 date is merely when they reportedly began studying the evils of slavery. The two major Quaker proponents of abolition were not even born until ~1720.
3. Who the hell cares? I'm not arguing about who started abolition, and since the Quakers aren't exactly in either of our respective camps, why do you seem to care so much? One of the fundamental theological aspects of the Quakers is the denial of Sola Scriptura; are you claiming that to be the True Christian Doctrine™ now? Are you denying the Southern Baptists' interpretation of the bible to support slavery, while at the same time embracing the bible-rejecting, female-minster-promoting Quakers...
...
So shut your pie-hole, jackass, and get back on topic.
What?
ReplyDeleteOh.
Well, shut your pie-hole anyway, jackass.
...
Where on earth did I say [that interpretation is necessary]?
Well...
Our knowledge of the language and historical context of the bible grew, thus allowing the Christians to correct their mistakes in interpretation ... with actual exegesis and historical research.
If it walks like endorsing interpretation...
With better knowledge of the language and history, we can better interpret the bible...
...and quacks like endorsing interpretation...
The type of interpretation (with the exception of prayer) that is needed is the same type of interpretation all documents of ancient language and culture need...
...it might fucking well be endorsing interpretation.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and only if I'm wrong -- but when you said, "interpretation ... is needed," you did in fact say that interpretation is necessary.
Do you care to revise your statement, sir?
[W]ould you like to engage in a debate about how different chattel slavery is from biblical slavery?
Not in this thread, and not unless you can limit the [unnecessary] insults. Dipshit.
Letting your opinion of me cloud the points I am making is nothing but illogical, irrational reasoning so very common in militant ignoarnt [sic] atheists as yourselves.
So if every other word or phrase is an unnecessary, and generally unprovoked insult, you think it unreasonable to refuse to so filter your posts, in an effort to glean the one or two feeble attempts at making a point?
Sorry, kid, I'd rather banter with Sye. He may be a douchebag, too, but at least he's civil, and occasionally amusing.
Let me know when you cease being so "ignoarnt."
--
Stan
"The first movement to end slavery in the U.S. was in 1688, which were the Quakers."
ReplyDeleteThat is utterly false. There was no U.S. at the time. (The earliest one can place the U.S. is 2 Jul 1776, when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. A more appropriate point would probably be when King George III recognized the U.S. as an independent nation.) At any rate, in 1688, it wasn't even a pipe dream.
"There is no universally accepted date of when the enlightenment started. Somewhere in the MID 1600's, with some scholars saying it began in 1688 you do the math, if you can manage numbers that big."
I'm going to come back to this claim.
"[T]he actual abolishment of slavery is irrelevant, since the quakers were the ones that started it, everyone else followed suit."
The actual abolishment of slavery anywhere, prior to the quakers involvement, is relevent as it defeats "Theological Discourse"s claim that "everyone else followed suit."
"'The anti-slavery movement was not borne of religious belief.'
"[I]f you find me something earlier than The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery
I'll concede the point gladly."
This particular point, which TD says he will concede gladly (if given the appropriate evidence) has nothing to do with the "age of enlightenment."
"Well the things he listed WERE NOT FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT. This ignorant atheist spounts errouneous claims that people from the enlightenment spoke out against slavery first, when asked to PROVIDE EVIDENCE of this, he provides COUNTRIES that date centuries before the enlightenment."
Now, I will come back to a couple points. First, TD has already said that there is no universally accepted date for the beginning of the enlightenment (i.e. it is in dispute.) So "Atomic Chimp" might be regarding those events as part of the enlightenment. Second, TD called for evidence that anti-slavery (in any form) predated the quaker petition. Requiring that any such evidence must be of people "from the enlightenment" is "moving the goalposts." Finally, he has suggested that is taking the beginning of the enlightenment as after the petition. So, he has already closed his mind to any possible evidence.
"No I am quite willing to engage in dialouge, what I am not willing to do is stand by and allow you and your ignorant atheist buddies to make absurd assertions."
This appears to be false. The fact that he said "ignorant atheist buddyies" strongly suggests that he's not really listening.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and only if I'm wrong -- but when you said, "interpretation ... is needed," you did in fact say that interpretation is necessary.
ReplyDeleteStan the ignorant atheist displays his inability to read and his quote mining skills, he blatantly ignored the whole question.
TD says interpretation is necessary, and asserts that his own interpretation is True™Answer the whole question you stan, where did I say that my own interpretation is true?
I never said every anti slavery movements were the product of religious movements, so you're wrong again.
ReplyDeleteSo you do concede that abolitionism was not born of religious belief?
Athiest logic strikes again. Ignorant stan can't tell the difference between
Every anti slavery movements being the product of religious movements.
and
abolitionism being born out of religious belief.
I said every anti slavery movement is not the product of a religious movement, meaning there were some anti slavery movements that were not product of religion. HOWEVER due to your inability to read and grasp simple discussion fundamentals you cannot differentiate between what I was talking to AC about which was 'the age of enlightenment starting the abolitionist movement' which is why I said the QUAKERS were the ones that started it, not the enlightenment freethinkers. You're so ignorant and desperate to prove a point you're lumping in 2 separate points I made into one.
[W]here did I say that my own interpretation is true?
ReplyDeleteReally? Well then what are we arguing about? If your interpretation is not true, as this question implies, then I don't give two shits about what your interpretation might contain, or about any of your thoughts whatsoever.
In case you still want some evidence of such an assertion, however, I will humor you for a moment longer:
Our knowledge of the language and historical context of the bible grew, thus allowing the Christians to correct their mistakes in interpretation, not from 'feelings' and opinions like in the video, but with actual exegesis and historical research.
"Our" implies inclusion of the speaker in the group in question. "Christians" is likewise a group with which the speaker is associated. "To correct their mistakes" implies the assertion in question -- that there exists a "correct" interpretation. Thus, by implication, you have indeed asserted that your interpretation is correct.
You may quibble over the meaning of "interpretation" if you must, but even for a twit such as yourself that would be pretty pathetic. Again, though, unless you deny that you think your interpretation is correct, your objection to my "partial" answer is trite.
Anyway, the quote you cited in italics wasn't me. Ignoring the added emphasis, you removed the "S" from "TD." The actual quote should read as follows:
STD says interpretation is necessary, and asserts that his own interpretation is True™...
The latter portion is not in dispute, to my knowledge, and the former portion has been shown.
Did you have something more, or is it time to brush your teeth?
(I'm still waiting for that concession you promised, and while an apology for this most recent accusation is warranted, I'll let this one go.)
--
Stan
hat is utterly false. There was no U.S. at the time. (The earliest one can place the U.S. is 2 Jul 1776, when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. A more appropriate point would probably be when King George III recognized the U.S. as an independent nation.) At any rate, in 1688, it wasn't even a pipe dream.
ReplyDeleteAnother ignorant atheist comes out of the woodworks. The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery was created in Pennsylvania. Guess where that is? IN THE UNITED STATES, just because the U.S. was not officially recognized doesn't mean it wasn't IN the U.S.
The actual abolishment of slavery anywhere, prior to the quakers involvement, is relevent as it defeats "Theological Discourse"s claim that "everyone else followed suit."
Wrong. I was mocking AC's logic when he said that the philosophers from the age of enlightenment started it and everyone else followed suit.
This particular point, which TD says he will concede gladly (if given the appropriate evidence) has nothing to do with the "age of enlightenment."
"Well the things he listed WERE NOT FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT. This ignorant atheist spounts errouneous claims that people from the enlightenment spoke out against slavery first, when asked to PROVIDE EVIDENCE of this, he provides COUNTRIES that date centuries before the enlightenment."
Another atheist shows his complete ignorance of history. There is no universal accepted date for the age of enlightenment, but we do know it did NOT START AS EARLY AS THE DATES HE GAVE. You're just so ignorant that you think 'no universal accepted date' means you can just extend the date as far back as you want too, it just shows how ignorant you are in history. Furthermore, if you looked at every single time I mentioned the 1688 Quaker petition it was always in the same line of discussion as AC's ridiculous assertion about the age of enlightenment, so NO, there is nothing to concede, as it was quite clear regardless of who I quoted what I was talking about.
This appears to be false. The fact that he said "ignorant atheist buddyies" strongly suggests that he's not really listening.
With the exception of CC there have been NOTHING but ignorant atheists here, you, stan and ac are all ignorant, you have proved it many times in this post alone.
You know what, kid? You're an imbecile. You have no game other than childish insult-slinging, and when you're called on your bullshit, you move the target, and nag about some trivial, and undisputed, nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI think I know why you've all-of-a-sudden shown up here -- school is out.
Am I right?
--
Stan
"Our" implies inclusion of the speaker in the group in question. "Christians" is likewise a group with which the speaker is associated. "To correct their mistakes" implies the assertion in question -- that there exists a "correct" interpretation. Thus, by implication, you have indeed asserted that your interpretation is correct.
ReplyDeleteMan, you really have difficulties reading. You're confusing the word implying with ASSUMING. You're completely incorrect and completely ignorant at basic reading comprehension, wouldn't except anything less, you being an atheist and all.
Our knowledge of the language and historical context of the bible grew, thus allowing the Christians to correct their mistakes in interpretation, not from 'feelings' and opinions like in the video, but with actual exegesis and historical research.
Our = Christians
their mistakes in interpretation = biblical case for chatel slavery, which is not MY OWN INTERPRETATION but the interpretation of the catholic church, assemblies of God, and various other authoritative churches.
So you're wrong and completely ignorant once again.
(I'm still waiting for that concession you promised, and while an apology for this most recent accusation is warranted, I'll let this one go.)
There is no concession, I was talking about evidence for the age of enlightenment. Just look at the thread, every time I mentioned 1688 Quaker petition it was in response to AC's ridiculous assertions, I quoted CC because she was the most recent to talk about it. More evidence of your ignorance and iniability to comprehend basic fundementals of conversation.
You know what, kid? You're an imbecile. You have no game other than childish insult-slinging, and when you're called on your bullshit, you move the target, and nag about some trivial, and undisputed, nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI think I know why you've all-of-a-sudden shown up here -- school is out.
Am I right?
hilarious, you have not given a logical rebuttal, just a bunch of insults stringed together, The difference between me and you (besides myself being smarter than you) is I mix my insults with logic and evidence. You have shown yourself too ignorant to differentiate between the 2 which is why you had to make a separate post containing nothing but insults, because you're too ignorant to combine it with an argument.
You're completely incorrect and completely ignorant at basic reading comprehension, wouldn't except anything less, you being an atheist and all.
ReplyDeleteSo you would except more, then? Since you wouldn't except anything less, should I assume you'd accept less?
Who has comprehension issues?
Our = Christians
Ummm. No. Well, it could mean Christians, but this doesn't remove yourself from inclusion in the group.
"Our" is the first-person plural possessive pronoun. You learned about it last semester, between "recess" and "lunch."
From Merriam-Webster.com:
of or relating to us or ourselves or ourself especially as possessors or possessor, agents or agent, or objects or object of an action
Perhaps if your ability to write matched your perception of your ability to argue...
their mistakes in interpretation = biblical case for chatel slavery, which is not MY OWN INTERPRETATION but the interpretation of the catholic church, assemblies of God, and various other authoritative churches.
Right -- you didn't make that mistake, but you are nonetheless part of that group, unless you're here claiming that you are not a Christian. The fact remains that you explicitly stated that interpretations were needed, and that by implication you feel there is a "correct" interpretation -- I happily admit, however, that I did indeed assume that you felt your own interpretation to be the correct one.
I hope, for your sake, that you eventually settle on the correct interpretation which has thus far eluded you.
There is no concession, I was talking about evidence for the age of enlightenment.
You are a liar. You made a statement directly responding to a comment which you quoted. That statement included a promise to concede the point if and when its stipulations were met. Those stipulations were immediately met, yet you have quite boorishly refused to honor the promise to concede. You are a liar, and a coward, and a douche.
I'm still waiting for anyone -- anyone -- to defend a single thing you've said, and especially to defend either your style or your behavior.
Isn't it past your bedtime?
--
Stan
I happily admit, however, that I did indeed assume that you felt your own interpretation to be the correct one.
ReplyDeletegood, you concede your ridiculous error.
You are a liar. You made a statement directly responding to a comment which you quoted. That statement included a promise to concede the point if and when its stipulations were met. Those stipulations were immediately met, yet you have quite boorishly refused to honor the promise to concede. You are a liar, and a coward, and a douche.
Gee, you would have a point if I made a general statement that didn't HAVE TO DO WITH THE POINT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD. You're completely ignorant. There is no lie, look at the thread, every time the petition in 1688 was posted it was in response to AC's ridiculous assertion, that time was no different, just because I quoted cc does not change that fact. Now what rational response do you have to refute that?
STD's entire comment regarding the offered concession:
ReplyDeleteThe anti-slavery movement was not borne of religious belief.
if you find me something earlier than The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery I'll concede the point gladly. (emphasis in original to denote CwC's statement)
That's it. No reference to the Enlightenment, no reference to AC, nothing. Just a direct quote of CwC, and a direct response. To claim it has meaning outside that exchange is to quote-mine yourself, and while that's very humorous, it's also bullshit.
You needn't concede anything more than a tiny, innocuous point regarding the origins of abolition being divorced from religion.
That's it!
Is that so hard to do? Can you not admit even that?
Come on, STD, show us you're more than an anal wart.
--
Stan
I'm still waiting for anyone -- anyone -- to defend a single thing you've said, and especially to defend either your style or your behavior.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it past your bedtime?
The facts defend what I say, I don't need anyone to defend what I say, that is nothing but an appeal to majority, which is a testament to your ignorance in logic. I am completely right, if I am wrong in anything I say prove it. My 'style' and behavior is completely independent of the facts and my argument, I know you're too ignorant to differentiate between the 2, but at least pretend ok?
That's it. No reference to the Enlightenment, no reference to AC, nothing. Just a direct quote of CwC, and a direct response. To claim it has meaning outside that exchange is to quote-mine yourself, and while that's very humorous, it's also bullshit.
ReplyDeleteYou needn't concede anything more than a tiny, innocuous point regarding the origins of abolition being divorced from religion.
That's it!
Is that so hard to do? Can you not admit even that?
Come on, STD, show us you're more than an anal wart.
Typical ignorant atheist. You're ignorant the context, line of discussion and basic fundamentals in discussion. Like I said, every time I posted about the 1688 petition was in response to AC's assertions, that is no different, I just quoted CC because I thought she was agreeing with what AC was saying. You have not proven anything whatsoever.
[G]ood, you concede your ridiculous error.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am unafraid of conceding a point where concession is warranted. I am also glad we agree that the assumption that you felt your interpretation was correct was a "ridiculous error."
The facts defend what I say, I don't need anyone to defend what I say, that is nothing but an appeal to majority...
If that is what you think it is, then I apologize. I'm not looking for a defense of your position so much as I am looking to see if anyone is willing to stand next to you. It's not an appeal, just a poll. I'm merely curious, perhaps morbidly so, to get an idea of the character of the participants of this blog, many of whom I've grown to know in a friendly way as we banter civilly.
...which is a testament to your ignorance in logic.
Heh. As if anything you know about logic didn't come from its Wikipedia page or fifth-hand from some tool at TheologyWeb. I'm guessing the closest you've come to a formal philosophy class of any kind is from watching The Matrix.
I am completely right
Well, I guess that settles the "ridiculous error" I made when assuming you felt your interpretations were correct, eh?
Care to concede that point, about you and Dan being at odds on the interpretation front?
It's okay, little one, far greater thinkers than you have been bested by my wit. You are at a distinct disadvantage, you know, since I have twice your wit. Just a moment ago, in fact, I bested a moth in intellectual combat, when its failure to anticipate the simultaneous extinguishing of every light in the room, and was crushed by a paper towel. If one so more advanced than you could suffer such a fate, your own chances are indeed slim.
--
Stan
Typical ignorant atheist. You're ignorant the context, line of discussion and basic fundamentals in discussion. Like I said, every time I posted about the 1688 petition was in response to AC's assertions, that is no different, I just quoted CC because I thought she was agreeing with what AC was saying. You have not proven anything whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteWhatever helps you sleep at night, kid. All you had to do was admit that the roots of abolitionism were divorced from religion, but you're far too stubborn and petulant to admit any error whatsoever, or even to admit this tiny, insignificant point.
Your life must be terribly lonesome. I feel for you in that regard. No real friends, a mind-bogglingly awkward social life, if any... Are your parents divorced? Does your step-father... do things to you?
If I seem too forward with these questions, or too rude or insensitive, I apologize; I truly do hope your life doesn't resemble the above. If it does, though, recognize that although we bicker online, I'd be happy to be known as your acquaintance, and I'd even be willing to buy you a beer (whenever you turn 21).
Don't worry, we all make mistakes. It seems like you're always being persecuted, and that you're always "completely right," but it's not true, and we both know it. Things will get better.
--
Stan
Yes, I am unafraid of conceding a point where concession is warranted. I am also glad we agree that the assumption that you felt your interpretation was correct was a "ridiculous error."
ReplyDeleteYou said my OWN interpretation, you were incorrect.
If that is what you think it is, then I apologize. I'm not looking for a defense of your position so much as I am looking to see if anyone is willing to stand next to you. It's not an appeal, just a poll. I'm merely curious, perhaps morbidly so, to get an idea of the character of the participants of this blog, many of whom I've grown to know in a friendly way as we banter civilly.
Your poll has nothing to do with my arguments glad you acknowledge that.
Heh. As if anything you know about logic didn't come from its Wikipedia page or fifth-hand from some tool at TheologyWeb. I'm guessing the closest you've come to a formal philosophy class of any kind is from watching The Matrix.
no, I know a lot about logic that comes from more places that wiki and tweb. You guessed wrong good job.
Well, I guess that settles the "ridiculous error" I made when assuming you felt your interpretations were correct, eh?
Care to concede that point, about you and Dan being at odds on the interpretation front?
My interpretations are correct but they are not MY OWN interpretations, its unfortunate you're too ignorant to differentiate between the 2. Sure I can concede the point if Dan says the 'interpretations' he is talking about are not the 'feelings' and 'opinions' type of interpretations in the video, but rather something else. You're just so desperate for me to concede a point you're flailing for anything.
You have not even proved anything I've said wrong at all, just given your opinion on things, but you have not refuted anything I have said at all, congrats.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, kid. All you had to do was admit that the roots of abolitionism were divorced from religion, but you're far too stubborn and petulant to admit any error whatsoever, or even to admit this tiny, insignificant point.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a refutation of what was said. Not even a little bit, not even a tiny amount.
You said my OWN interpretation, you were incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAbsurd. I did not emphasize the word "own," and as you well know it was meant as "the interpretation held by STD, irrespective of whomever may share it with him." You're just trying your damnedest to avoid admitting any error whatsoever, aren't you?
It's a silly error, and a bigger man would admit it and move on. Only a tiny pissant would constantly deny even a minuscule error such as that one.
Grow up.
I know a lot about logic that comes from more places that wiki and tweb.
...like About.com?
You have nothing.
--
Stan
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe for a second that you enjoy what you think you have to do.
Well, most of the time. :7) One sure way to screw with your kids mind is to giggle while you spank them.
Take this paradox (Prov 26:4-5). How would you approach these as straight, literal commands? I'm not sure that the Book of Proverbs is intended to be read that way.
I disagree and here is why. Proverbs 26:4-5 tells us not to allow "the fool" to get the best of us, and not to be lowered to his level. In the very same breath we need to answer "the fool" to help him become wiser for his foolishness. To bring him up to a level of understanding. We do it for love, for betterment of them, not to fight back or win.
I read this jewel online "It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence."
Proverbs 26:4-5: This is not a paradox, but a dilemma.
Which takes me right to the ring side seat to the TD/Stan slug fest. First you both are pure entertainment, thanks for the smiles.
Now, In wracking my brain to think of a good way of showing what I was actually saying, we should ponder this:
There is a real failure by interpreting, which leads to a deconstructionism approach just like in that awful Bible study. The Constitution, or the Bible, should not be approached in this manner at all.
It reminds me of these more liberal "paraphrased" Bibles, like The Living Bible. These spurious attempts to interpret the message is a horrible way to reveal God's truth. They actually shut God out and replace it with someones opinion of what is being said. Instead of retelling God's message, we need to move to a more perspicacious approach.
We need to move away from interpretation of these two documents, the Constitution and the Bible, and move towards a sensitive discernment.
Which takes me right to the ring side seat to the TD/Stan slug fest. First you both are pure entertainment, thanks for the smiles.
ReplyDeleteAwwww, snap!
Somebody call a Waaaaambulance; STD just got called a fool! Sure, so did I, but Dan thinks I'm a fool for my views. STD, on the other hand, is a fool for his actions.
How about it, STD, are you comfortable with Dan calling the both of us fools?
Dan, you're right, regarding the interpretive dance in that "bible study." That's not the way interpretation generally works. Real constructive interpretation may take a consensus approach, but once the decision is made as to how a thing should be interpreted, that decision should remain intact.
ReplyDeleteThe problem arises when ideological differences surface, which are not easily ignored. You, for example, are willing to cut Catholics some slack, and say that some of them -- perhaps many of them -- may yet be True Christians™ despite being members of that church and its false doctrines. You disagree on various points, but on the core values you remain steadfast -- if they agree, you see room for them in heaven. If not, they can burn.
When ideological differences cannot be ignored, though, whole new denominations are formed, if not new religions entirely. Every denomination and sect of Christianity is a result of some sort of schism, where parties agree to disagree, and go their separate ways. The interpretation held by the one group is maintained, like yours, while the interpretation held by the other group is also maintained, like yours, but the two are necessarily different.
There needn't be wholesale deconstruction, as the video (which, if not a parody, is indistinguishable from one -- hail Poe) suggests, but over time, successive schisms do result in a thoroughly deconstructed version of the original, and naught that you or I might do can change that.
I don't think this supports your thesis, but that it supports mine -- specifically, the shellacking I gave you regarding the utility of True Christianity™ versus False Converts™. Since your own "version" of Christianity is necessarily based on one or more previous versions, their taint rubs off on you...
...sorry -- I just love saying "taint." It's a perfectly foul word for a perfectly foul region.
Anyway, while it may be possible to "correct" a previous version's mistake(s), it is not possible to know how close to accurate one's current version has become, and it is intuitively obvious that any "correction" is itself an interpretation [which considers new information].
Without direct access to the authors of the texts in question -- which you may claim, but you will find it difficult to demonstrate -- the meaning and intent behind each story and statement are only found through interpretation, and where consensus forms, the assumption is that the likelihood of the consensus being "correct" is greater than the likelihood of an outlier being correct.
So yeah, an unmetered acceptance of every possible interpretation is not useful, and thus not pursued, but a consensus interpretation is viewed as having value, and in the case of the Constitution, the Justices involved are revered for their knowledge, experience, and impartiality -- ideally, anyway -- and as participants in this democratic republic, we tacitly approve of the authority the system has granted them as the [nine] arbiters of the "official" interpretation.
Love them or hate them, the RCC has adopted a hierarchical system designed to provide an "official" position on biblical interpretation, and many denominations, if not all, have followed suit. It's just like evolution... taken over short intervals, among like samples, it is difficult to even notice -- like the difference between Mennonites and Amish to one unfamiliar with either -- but as more and more are piled on, eventually the differences are obvious, and unresolvable, and a new species of Christianity is born.
--
Stan
P.S. - Plus one Intarwebz to Dan for making me look up a word. "Perspicacious"?! I'm really not sure how you came up with it, but I'm impressed. It's a cool word.
ReplyDeleteMinus one Intarwebz to STD, whose mom evidently finally tucked him in. Minus another Intarwebz to STD just because I'm capricious.
Quick question for STD: If it is not "your own" interpretation, but "your" interpretation, which is correct, how many correct interpretations do you think there are? Does Dan get "his" interpretation, and might it be correct? What about "my" interpretation?
--
Stan
Absurd. I did not emphasize the word "own," and as you well know it was meant as "the interpretation held by STD, irrespective of whomever may share it with him." You're just trying your damnedest to avoid admitting any error whatsoever, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteIt's a silly error, and a bigger man would admit it and move on. Only a tiny pissant would constantly deny even a minuscule error such as that one.
Grow up.
It doesn't matter, it is not my own(SMALL LETTERS THIS TIME unemphisied!) interpretation. You really should choose your words better, as logic tells us it isn't my own interpretation anymore than it isn't the RCC's own interpretation, or the assembilies of God own interpretation. Your ignorance of logic is hilarious.
...like About.com?
You have nothing.
Actually YOU'VE got nothing, you have no evidence whatsoever that I know nothing of logic, non, so YOU'VE got nothing. You have no evidence whatsoever.
Awwww, snap!
ReplyDeleteSomebody call a Waaaaambulance; STD just got called a fool! Sure, so did I, but Dan thinks I'm a fool for my views. STD, on the other hand, is a fool for his actions.
How about it, STD, are you comfortable with Dan calling the both of us fools?
Wow, I didn't know the word 'entertainment' means fools? where is that in the dictionary? how on earth do you know that dan wasn't trying to tell me not to argue WITH YOU becuase YOU ARE THE FOOL?
BTW Stan,
ReplyDeleteI considered the intellectual bantering entertainment, you being a fool is just pathetic. :7)
You're way too smart not to grasp the majesty of God and His Salvation.
You're horribly hostile towards God and that was the exact purpose of Proverbs 26:4-5. I am here to help you understand, hopefully, through you conscience, not your intellect.
Stan the Man: thanks for the compliment, but I can't really claim brilliance for that observation, because it's pretty obvious. Perhaps just perspicacity.
ReplyDeleteTD: this is a bit off-topic, and no reflection on your arguments, but you might consider cleaning up your website: the only posts on your forum are soft porn spam.
Dan: c'mon, you can do better than that: telling Stan that he's "horribly hostile towards God" is like me telling you that you're "horribly hostile towards Santa Claus". And you haven't answered me yet: is every action either good or bad? Is it always wrong to steal, even if it's necessary to save a life?
TD:
ReplyDelete"Another ignorant atheist comes out of the woodworks"
The ignorance is all yours. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an atheist. And you know nothing of my beliefs.
"The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery was created in Pennsylvania. Guess where that is? IN THE UNITED STATES, just because the U.S. was not officially recognized doesn't mean it wasn't IN the U.S."
The fact that the U.S. didn't even exists in anyone's imagination at the time does. All you have is that the event occurred on a patch of land that later became part of the United States. Just as you deny events being in the enlightenment because they were prior to your recognized dates of the enlightenment, the quaker petition was not in the U.S. because it was prior to any recognized dates of the U.S. Face it. You are holding yourself to a much lower standard than you hold the people you label "ignorant atheists."
"Wrong. I was mocking AC's logic when he said that the philosophers from the age of enlightenment started it and everyone else followed suit."
Interesting attempt to cover your blunder. But it just doesn't fit. AC simply showed that there was abolition prior to the quaker petition. (In a previous post he sadid that rational thinkers -- which he attributed to the enlightenment -- came first and religious groups opposeing slavery came later. But that's historically accurate. The only thing that can be challenged is the attribution to the enlightenment.) Even if it were true, I have done a post on my own blog about ridiculing ideas. I suggest you read it.
"'This particular point, which TD says he will concede gladly (if given the appropriate evidence) has nothing to do with the 'age of enlightenment.'
"''Well the things he listed WERE NOT FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT. This ignorant atheist spounts errouneous claims that people from the enlightenment spoke out against slavery first, when asked to PROVIDE EVIDENCE of this, he provides COUNTRIES that date centuries before the enlightenment.''
"Another atheist shows his complete ignorance of history. There is no universal accepted date for the age of enlightenment, but we do know it did NOT START AS EARLY AS THE DATES HE GAVE. You're just so ignorant that you think 'no universal accepted date' means you can just extend the date as far back as you want too, it just shows how ignorant you are in history."
Did you even read the passage you quoted? I state that a particular point has nothing to do with the enlightenment. And you endeavor to use that to say I am extending it indefinitely?
"With the exception of CC there have been NOTHING but ignorant atheists here, you, stan and ac are all ignorant, you have proved it many times in this post alone."
"[H]ilarious, you have not given a logical rebuttal, just a bunch of insults stringed together, The difference between me and you (besides myself being smarter than you) is I mix my insults with logic and evidence."
Well, you have not given a logical rebuttal to me just a bunch of insults strung together mixed in with flat declarations that you are "right" (no evidence, no logic.)
TD: this is a bit off-topic, and no reflection on your arguments, but you might consider cleaning up your website: the only posts on your forum are soft porn spam.
ReplyDeleteReally? thanks for that, I had no idea, I haven't checked that forum in months.
The fact that the U.S. didn't even exists in anyone's imagination at the time does. All you have is that the event occurred on a patch of land that later became part of the United States. Just as you deny events being in the enlightenment because they were prior to your recognized dates of the enlightenment, the quaker petition was not in the U.S. because it was prior to any recognized dates of the U.S. Face it. You are holding yourself to a much lower standard than you hold the people you label "ignorant atheists."
ReplyDeleteIgnorance, the petition is called the first public American document of its kind to protest slavery, so you're just being ignorant. Not that it matters since the Quaker petition preceded the age of enlightenment free thinkers. Not to mention Pennsylvania and the Quakers link to the U.S. is entirely different than ignorantly insinuating the age of enlightenment began in the 1300. Furthermore if you're going to maintain the petition is NOT part of the U.S. then it is part of great Britain and thus I am still right, the quakers were the first to speak out against slavery, not free thinkers from enlightenment.
Interesting attempt to cover your blunder. But it just doesn't fit. AC simply showed that there was abolition prior to the quaker petition. (In a previous post he sadid that rational thinkers -- which he attributed to the enlightenment -- came first and religious groups opposeing slavery came later. But that's historically accurate. The only thing that can be challenged is the attribution to the enlightenment.) Even if it were true, I have done a post on my own blog about ridiculing ideas. I suggest you read it.
No, he did not, he said and I QUOTE
"You are incorrect. Freethinking rationalist in the age of enlightenment are the people credited for being the first to speak up against slavery, not Christians or any particular religion."
Here is the mocking of his logic
"it was rational people who stood up and change the views of a culture not religion. Religions followed after the fact,"
His ridiculous logic states 'because rational people stood up first, religious people followed after the fact' but because hes so historically ignorant and religious people were the first to stand up, if we were to apply his logic now, it states that everyone else followed suit.
you did a blog post about ridiculing ideas, I'll have to read it as it can't be more worse than the ignorance you've displayed here.
Did you even read the passage you quoted? I state that a particular point has nothing to do with the enlightenment. And you endeavor to use that to say I am extending it indefinitely?
Good, then the passage is pointless as my entire point was about the age of enlightenment. Not to mention Stephen I of Hungary who was a CHRISTIAN pre dates the earliest date on there by almost 300 years. So you have no point.
Well, you have not given a logical rebuttal to me just a bunch of insults strung together mixed in with flat declarations that you are "right" (no evidence, no logic.)
Wrong, your ignorance of logic, facts and evidence have been exposed. I have refuted AC's ridiculous assertion, stans, and yours with logic, facts and evidence.
Zilch,
ReplyDeletec'mon, you can do better than that: telling Stan that he's "horribly hostile towards God" is like me telling you that you're "horribly hostile towards Santa Claus".
You c'mon. Are you here to tell me you and Stan are "neutral" to God and/or a belief in God? You have picked a side and you, as well as Stan, are fully aware of it.
That reminded me what Dr. Bahnsen, quite poetically, said about the supposed neutral tolerance:
"...we are all aware that the Christian view is seldom given equal tolerance. In fact, the call to tolerance is even self-contradictory in the non-believing system. It is intolerant of views that do not tolerate such things as homosexual conduct or feminism or abortion, for instance."
Basically y'all are not tolerant of an intolerant God. We all have chosen the side we wish to stand on, for or against God, because there is no such thing as "neutral tolerance".
Oh yea I forgot, yet again.
ReplyDeleteIs it always wrong to steal, even if it's necessary to save a life?
What would you call it then, if not thievery?
I guess it depends on what is the most important thing in life. God or life? You may feel life itself is the absolute most important thing. So justification for immoral acts would be tolerated in your worldview. I feel God is the most important thing. If I needed to rob a pharmacy to get pills that would save my daughters life then I would give it to God in hopes to provide a way and not be a thief. Because unrepentant sinning may keep me from seeing my daughter again in the afterlife. (Proverbs 6:30,John 10:1-2,7-9, 1 Corinthians 6:10)
I am not being selfish to save my own ass either, I am being obedient and trusting to God.
[L]ogic tells us it isn't my own interpretation anymore [sic] than it isn't [sic] the RCC's own interpretation, or the assembilies [sic] of God [sic] own interpretation. Your ignorance of logic is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteLogic tells us? You sure do cite logic as a source to your musings quite a bit, but we'll get to that later. For now, I would like an answer as to how many correct interpretations there are, regardless of whose interpretations they may be.
How many, STD?
[Y]ou have no evidence whatsoever that I know nothing of logic, non [sic], so YOU'VE got nothing. You have no evidence whatsoever.
You're right. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have thus far failed to use logic in any recognizable way, but this does not necessarily mean you are completely devoid of knowledge on the subject. I apologize.
Wow, I didn't know the word 'entertainment' means fools? where is that in the dictionary? how on earth do you know that dan [sic] wasn't trying to tell me not to argue WITH YOU becuase [sic] YOU ARE THE FOOL?
It really isn't surprising that you'd be unaware of connotations of the word "fool," but to ease your little mind, here you go (courtesy of Merriam-Webster online):
1. a person lacking in judgment or prudence
(Psst. That's you.)
2a. a retainer formerly kept in great households to provide casual entertainment and commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble
(Note that strange word in the middle, "entertainment"? We were de facto entertainers, ergo, we were fools.)
3a. a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding
(Psst. That's you, again.)
3b. one with a marked propensity or fondness for something
(That one is me, though you may also qualify; we're fools for childish mockery.)
Even without the definitions, however, I know that Dan doesn't consider me the fool, and that he wasn't "trying to tell [STD] not to argue WITH [Stan] becuase [sic] YOU ARE THE FOOL," for the simple fact that I have argued with Dan many times over, and not once has he applied the reasoning you suggest. He argues with me, therefore he does not think me a fool according to your reasons above.
Hence, and again, you are a fool. I'm perfectly content to have Dan call us fools. Why are you so defensive?
Dan...
ReplyDeleteI considered the intellectual bantering entertainment, you being a fool is just pathetic.
Noted. If you wish, then, I will cease the foolish mud-slinging and follow your example by ignoring STD.
You're horribly hostile towards God...
That's ridiculous. I'm far more open to the possibility of god than you are. In my world, god needn't be constricted to the tiny box in which you Christians have him confined. Anyway, it would be rather insane of me to direct hostility toward an imagined being, wouldn't it? Any hostility I exhibit, then, is directed not toward the fiction, but toward the practice of promoting fiction as fact, and the arrogance involved in claiming access to omniscience (of which all Theists guilty, necessarily).
I'm also openly hostile toward trolls, punks, and bitchy little kids who shit all over a usually civil forum.
........
Back to the punk, momentarily...
I am still right, the quakers were the first to speak out against slavery, not free thinkers from enlightenment.
More "have it your way" history? The Quakers could very well be considered part of the Enlightenment, and if your claim is that a religious group is responsible for beginning the abolitionist movement -- specifically, that abolitionism was due in some way to a "correct" interpretation of the bible -- then you're doubly wrong.
The Quakers, while religious, rejected the doctrine of Sola Scriptura; they rejected slavery then, not because the bible said anything either way, but because they were Freethinkers in the Enlightenment age. If nothing else, they weren't True Christians™, according to some present...
Unlike your claim, however, the 1688 statement was not by "The Quakers," but by "some of the Quakers," or, more accurately, "a very few of the Quakers." The Society of Friends didn't officially denounce slavery for another hundred years...
...but, again, this is all moot.
The fact remains that slavery -- the non-consenting ownership of a human being -- is wrong, and that the bible both endorses this (whether or not we're describing "American" chattel slavery or the "good slavery" detailed in the bible), and many, many people have used the bible to support slavery. It is only by interpreting the bible in a way divorced from its original context that we decree slavery to be bad, and attempt to back up this claim with scripture.
Whatever. I've got things to do today. If any of the regulars here have more they'd like to discuss, I'll be back later, but I'm done playing with STD. He truly is a fool.
--
Stan
Thrice avoided Zilch,
ReplyDeleteStacy Moskowitz was a practicing Jew when she was murdered by David Berkowitz
I could only hope both Moskowitz and Berkowitz made it to Heaven. But we don't know the full story. We have to realize that God is the Omniscient one and knows whether Stacy Moskowitz was worth saving or had Berkowitz do His bidding. I just don't know. The difference is that I trust God to do the right thing and you do not.
Are you tolerant of God's decisions? I will expect crickets.
I am not being selfish to save my own ass either, I am being obedient and trusting to God.
ReplyDeleteAnd if god told you to kill your daughter?
Obviously, he's done this before, even if the killing was avoided, so you can't say, "god would never command such a thing," because according to the bible, he already has.
Furthermore, such a test would be diminished in its value to you, since you are familiar with Isaac's near-fate. A truer test, such as what Abraham endured, would be your response if god told you to rape your daughter. Like the command to kill Isaac was to Abraham, it would be something completely unexpected, and unprecedented. Perhaps like Abraham, you could hope that god would provide a way out, but you'd still have to tie her up and unzip your fly.
Would you "save [your] own ass" in that situation, or would you be "obedient and trusting to God"?
Are you saying here that you think the nuns sinned when they stole the alternators from the Nazi's cars, assisting the Von Trapp family in their escape? Are escaped POWs or shot-down pilots sinning when they steal fruit from an orchard?
Apparently, they are...
--
Stan
Are you tolerant of God's decisions?
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned earlier, I am not aware of god's decisions, so to say I am tolerant or intolerant with respect to them is a non sequitur. Rather, I am intolerant of those who claim [exclusive] access to the motives and opinions of god.
I don't claim to know god's decisions -- you do. If what you describe is true, then I believe that god is a monster. Fortunately, I don't believe you have access to the omniscient, so the question is ultimately moot. I am neither tolerant nor intolerant of decisions about which I am unaware.
--
Stan
TD:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore if you're going to maintain the petition is NOT part of the U.S. then it is part of great Britain and thus I am still right, the quakers were the first to speak out against slavery, not free thinkers from enlightenment."
It would be part of Great Britain. But no, you are still not right. You are dismissing the possibility that the first people to speak out against slavery may have been neither quakers nor people from the enlightenment.
"...[B]ut because hes so historically ignorant and religious people were the first to stand up..."
Except that previous examples non-religious people standing up were given and you dismissed them, saying they were prior to the enlightenment. You claim more than just that someone came before the enlightenment. You claim that the quakers came first (not just before people from the enlightenment.)
"Good, then the passage is pointless as my entire point was about the age of enlightenment."
No, you just "moved the goalposts" when you found yourself stuck.
"Stephen I of Hungary who was a CHRISTIAN pre dates the earliest date on there by almost 300 years. So you have no point."
The earliest date on there was 1102. A quick search shows that King Steven was in the 11th century, only about 100 years before the earliest datae. Also, he did not speak out against slavery. He said that knights and counts could not make slaves out of free people. But this is a limitation on the authority of knights and counts. It left existing slaves as slaves.
"[Y]ou did a blog post about ridiculing ideas, I'll have to read it as it can't be more worse than the ignorance you've displayed here."
I'm not the one who has displayed ignorance here.
"Wrong, your ignorance of logic, facts and evidence have been exposed. I have refuted AC's ridiculous assertion, stans, and yours with logic, facts and evidence."
You just keep telling yourself that. But you have not shown logic, facts, or evidence. You have shown gratuitous, petty insults, which suggests that you cannot make your case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, most of the time. :7) One sure way to screw with your kids mind is to giggle while you spank them.
ReplyDeleteLmao, good one. Mine has just turned three, she’s a strong-willed kid and gets a little physical sometimes. She’s been swatted a couple of times (two fingers only, sharp rap to the back of the hand, try it on yourself!) but only for purposefully hitting/kicking/biting. As far as I’m concerned this is a valuable lesson about the real world. If she cracks a kid in nursery, or someone else as she gets older, she has to know that she’s likely to get one back. I’d never come into contact with little kids before I had her, and never dreamed that she’d get purposefully vicious now and then – me being so nice to her, lol. Ah well, you live and learn.
However, this is only a punishment I utilize in the case of (very rare) purposeful violence. There is a veritable array of corrective techniques at the disposal of a parent. She’s generally a good kid though, funny, smart and helpful. I like her, anyway : )
As to your Proverbs assessment, I concede your point on the fool/folly dilemma. However, the word “rod” itself is open to interpretation too. Solomon really should have given weights, measurements, and suitable materials for the rod to be made of if this proverb was intended to be a prescriptive command. How remiss! I just hope for the sake of your eternal soul that he didn’t have a very specific rod on his mind; made of – I dunno – the finest Lebanon cedar, inlaid with six emerald-cut onyxes.
Actually that rod sounds rather kick-ass. Or spank-ass, if you will…
Logic tells us? You sure do cite logic as a source to your musings quite a bit, but we'll get to that later. For now, I would like an answer as to how many correct interpretations there are, regardless of whose interpretations they may be.
ReplyDeleteBefore we get to that, are you're conceding your error in saying it was my own interpretation?
You're right. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have thus far failed to use logic in any recognizable way, but this does not necessarily mean you are completely devoid of knowledge on the subject. I apologize.
You're completely correct about everything here except asserting that I have failed to use logic in any recognizable way, that is completely incorrect, as there are plenty of posts here where I use logic in a recognizable way.
It really isn't surprising that you'd be unaware of connotations of the word "fool," but to ease your little mind, here you go
these are nothing but naked assertions, just becuase it is your opinion that I am a fool does not make me one. Furthermore you didn't answer the question, how is dan saying we are entertaining indicate I am a fool? that definition is talking about a JESTER( commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble) you historically incompetent atheist. By your ridiculous logic everything that is entertaining is foolish, or every entertaining person is foolish. Atheist logic strikes again.
Even without the definitions, however, I know that Dan doesn't consider me the fool, and that he wasn't "trying to tell [STD] not to argue WITH [Stan] becuase [sic] YOU ARE THE FOOL," for the simple fact that I have argued with Dan many times over, and not once has he applied the reasoning you suggest. He argues with me, therefore he does not think me a fool according to your reasons above.
Speaking of ignorance of logic, you have given us a good example. I said "how on earth do you know that dan wasn't trying to tell me not to argue WITH YOU becuase YOU ARE THE FOOL?"
and you respond with
"I know that Dan doesn't consider me the fool, and that he wasn't "trying to tell [STD] not to argue WITH [Stan] becuase [sic] YOU ARE THE FOOL," for the simple fact that I have argued with Dan many times over, and not once has he applied the reasoning you suggest."
That is not a logical refutation at all, not one bit. "Dan didn't call me a fool now because he hasn't called me a fool before" how illogical is that? by that ridiculous logic nobody is a fool because no one has been called a fool prior to their first time being called a fool by that person.
Athiest logic strikes again.
More "have it your way" history? The Quakers could very well be considered part of the Enlightenment, and if your claim is that a religious group is responsible for beginning the abolitionist movement -- specifically, that abolitionism was due in some way to a "correct" interpretation of the bible -- then you're doubly wrong.
ReplyDeleteHILARIOUS!!! stan shows his historical ignorance and also ignorance of the discussion at hand.
1.
Ac said "You are incorrect. Freethinking rationalist in the age of enlightenment are the people credited for being the first to speak up against slavery, not Christians or any particular religion."
Well the Quakers are Christians.
2. Stan ignorantly claims the Quakers could very well be part of the enlightenment, there is not a shred of evidence at all of this, not a single bit of it. In fact, it contradicts the evidence since enlightenment free thinkers were not groups of Christians! and the Quakers were very religious people, the creator of the religion heard the voice of Christ YEARS after going on a religious search. In fact the Quakers were persecuted and had to live in the U.S. to practice THEIR FAITH. Ya real age of enlightenment stuff right there.
3. Stan ignorantly combines 2 separate points of discussion into a single point by asserting "that abolitionism was due in some way to a "correct" interpretation of the bible -- then you're doubly wrong."
Not only is he combining 2 points, he is also incorrect, the correct interpretation of the bible is specifically against chatel slavery that was going on back then.
The Quakers, while religious, rejected the doctrine of Sola Scriptura; they rejected slavery then, not because the bible said anything either way, but because they were Freethinkers in the Enlightenment age. If nothing else, they weren't True Christians™, according to some present...
HILARIOUS!! startling historical ignorance here. The quakers rejected sola scriptora in favor of the following:
1. "Instead of the bible, they believed Christ was the Word of God"
2. Believed that "God did not dwell in temples made with hands. But I told them what it was, namely, the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions and judgments were to be tried; for it led into all Truth, and so gave the knowledge of all Truth"
3. Christ wouldn't lead them astray or teach them anything that contradicted scripture.
They also Celebrated the Resurrection, birth of the chruch, and crucifixion EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
Ya, real freethinking enlightenment principles there.
Stan ignorantly asserts "they rejected slavery then, not because the bible said anything either way.."
HILARIOUS, the quakers rejected slavery and WROTE THE 1688 PETITION BASED UPON THE BIBLES GOLDEN RULE!!!
Unlike your claim, however, the 1688 statement was not by "The Quakers," but by "some of the Quakers," or, more accurately, "a very few of the Quakers." The Society of Friends didn't officially denounce slavery for another hundred years...
ReplyDeleteHILARIOUS!!! stan spouts ignorance, The petition was done by THE QUAKERS, Francis Daniel Pastoriu was one of the people that signed it. He was a QUAKER and prior to him being a quaker he was a lutheren, it was even DURING A QUAKER MEETING which are described as worship services. Man your ignorance is hilarious.
The fact remains that slavery -- the non-consenting ownership of a human being -- is wrong, and that the bible both endorses this (whether or not we're describing "American" chattel slavery or the "good slavery" detailed in the bible), and many, many people have used the bible to support slavery. It is only by interpreting the bible in a way divorced from its original context that we decree slavery to be bad, and attempt to back up this claim with scripture.
More ignorance, the bible does not support chatel slavery at all, not one bit, and it is only by LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT do we see this, only ignorant atheist and ignorant Christians can interpret the bible to see chatel slavery, hence we have the ignorant atheists in this thread.
It would be part of Great Britain. But no, you are still not right. You are dismissing the possibility that the first people to speak out against slavery may have been neither quakers nor people from the enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteWrong, the first person to speak out against slavery was a Christian, Stephen I of Hungary.
Except that previous examples non-religious people standing up were given and you dismissed them, saying they were prior to the enlightenment. You claim more than just that someone came before the enlightenment. You claim that the quakers came first (not just before people from the enlightenment.)
Ignorance, I claimed the quakers CAME FIRST IN RESPONSE TO AC'S claim that freethinkers came first. Every time 1688 petition was mentioned it was in response to that assertion, my quoting of CC was no different. Learn basic fundamentals of discussion.
No, you just "moved the goalposts" when you found yourself stuck.
no goalposts were moved, you're just too ignorant to follow conversation points.
The earliest date on there was 1102. A quick search shows that King Steven was in the 11th century, only about 100 years before the earliest datae. Also, he did not speak out against slavery. He said that knights and counts could not make slaves out of free people. But this is a limitation on the authority of knights and counts. It left existing slaves as slaves.
HILARIOUS, how ignorant are you?
Stephen I of Hungary, declared in his laws that any slave that lives, stays or enters the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary would become free immediately.
I'm not the one who has displayed ignorance here.
Yes, actually you are, you have displayed historical ignorance.
You just keep telling yourself that. But you have not shown logic, facts, or evidence. You have shown gratuitous, petty insults, which suggests that you cannot make your case.
Now you've shown your ignorance as to what evidence, logic, and facts are. I have shown the 1688 petition, that is evidence and fact, I have shown king shephen, that is evidence and fact, I have shown that quakers spoke out against slavery before freethinking rationalists, that is a fact as well, I have also shown many other facts, all of which have been presented in logic. You and the rest of your atheist buddies are the only ignorant ones here.
You're completely correct about everything here except asserting that I have failed to use logic in any recognizable way, that is completely incorrect, as there are plenty of posts here where I use logic in a recognizable way....
ReplyDeletethese are nothing but naked assertions, just becuase it is your opinion that I am a fool does not make me one. Furthermore you didn't answer the question, how is dan saying we are entertaining indicate I am a fool? that definition is talking about a JESTER( commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble) you historically incompetent atheist. By your ridiculous logic everything that is entertaining is foolish, or every entertaining person is foolish. Atheist logic strikes again.I laughed out loud at this. If you are a poe, well done, it's funny.
Before we get to that, are you're conceding your error in saying it was my own interpretation?
ReplyDeleteUmmm... What error? I already admitted I had assumed, faultily, that you believed your interpretation was correct. There is no error in stating that you have an interpretation in mind when you read the bible, and that it is "your own interpretation." I am not implying that you "own" the interpretation, nor that you first voiced it, but that you have claimed it for yourself, irrespective of whomever else may likewise make that claim.
[T]hat definition is talking about a JESTER( commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble) you historically incompetent atheist.
[Note: the definition in question was this one; the word "jester" appears as text nowhere on that page]
So... You've confused a definition with a synonym, or is this your eminent display of "logic"?
"Dan didn't call me a fool now because he hasn't called me a fool before"
I'm not sure who you are quoting, but it certainly isn't me. I didn't say Dan wasn't now calling me a fool because he hadn't before called me one -- indeed, I noted that he considered me a fool based merely on my disposition(s) -- but rather, I said that his actions were not commensurate with your sentiment, due to the fact that, if he was advising you to cease interaction with me because I am a fool, he wasn't following his own advice. That is, simple one, he has engaged with me in discourse over a number of issues prior to your appearance, and if he thinks me the fool, then either he thinks himself superior to you in dealing with me, or he thinks I am not a fool.
Again, then, you are a fool, as we both are, in the eyes of Dan. It bothers me not, but you, evidently, it does bother.
Well the Quakers are Christians
O RLY?
Will you be so kind, then, as to identify which denominations and sects qualify as being "Christian" and which do not? Are Mormons "Christians"? Are Christian Scientists "Christians"? Are you as bold as Dan, who is willing to ostracize entire groups as not being True Christians™? Since Quakers no doubt deny various aspects of "Christianity" which you embrace, precisely which set of theological beliefs is necessary to identify one's
group with "Christianity"?
Ya real age of enlightenment stuff right there.
You mean, the abolitionism, the inclusion of women in the clergy, the conscientious objection, etc.?
You're right. that stuff is mighty progressive, and worthy of inclusion in the Age of Enlightenment...
[T]he correct interpretation of the bible is specifically against chatel [sic] slavery that was going on back then.
This is somewhat ambiguous, and I seek clarification. Are you saying that there is one correct interpretation of scripture?
HILARIOUS!! startling historical ignorance here. The quakers rejected sola scriptora [sic] in favor of the following...
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to cite something, at leest make an atemt at speling it curektly...
If you're unfamiliar with the doctrine of sola scriptura, you should look it up. If I were less scrupulous, I might accuse you of being ignorant.
Also, if you're going to quote something from outside this blog's comment stream, you should cite it. It's just etiquette. I recognize that etiquette isn't something you value, but if you'd be so kind as to humor me on this point, it would greatly facilitate some semblance of meaningful dialog...
The fact of the matter is that the Quakers rejected Sola Scriptura, and interpreted scripture in their own unique way. If this is acceptable, please say so. If they still qualify as True Christians™ in spite of this unique interpretation, then again, please say so. If there are rules which determine which unique interpretations are in keeping with True Christianity&trade, and those which are not, then please also post the entire list of rules.
Believe it or not, little miss narcissist, this is not all about you. Dan is the mystery person who favors Sola Scriptura, and as such he'd sooner choke than admit the Quakers were True Christians™...
...or so I would expect. I'll leave it to him to solidify his position in that regard.
[Based on the 1688 petition] the quakers rejected slavery
...and...
The petition was done by THE QUAKERS, Francis Daniel Pastoriu [sic] was one of the people that signed it. He was a QUAKER and prior to him being a quaker he was a lutheren [sic] ...
Again, if you spelt the guyes naime rite, it'd be eazier to identifey him.
Also, what's a "lutheren"?
So what if he was a Quaker. Does he speak for all Quakers? When a Christian claims that San Francisco will be destroyed by the end of 2009, does he speak for all Christians, or just himself?
[O]nly ignorant atheist and ignorant Christians can interpret the bible to see chatel [sic] slavery...
Overlooking the fiction for a moment, I have to wonder at the phrase, "ignorant Christians." Dan would say these people were not True Christians™, but you have sought no such distinction, and seem willing to accept whole groups of individuals with quite disparate views into the fold of "Christians" without batting an eye.
Do you truly think this, that persons with widely differing viewpoints can nonetheless be "Christians"? What, if anything, separates a True Christian™ from a False Convert™?
[T]he first person to speak out against slavery was a Christian, Stephen I of Hungary.
Don't you think this is just a little presumptuous? You've gone from claiming that Christians (Quakers) were responsible for abolition in proto-America, to now claiming that "the first person to speak out against slavery was a Christian, Stephen I of Hungary."
This is just a guess, but I suspect one or four others had spoken out against slavery before Stephen. Don't make stupid statements and expect to have them go unnoticed -- especially when you're being such a bitch with respect to everyone else's statements.
So I ask, again, how many correct interpretations of scripture are there?
--
Stan
I could only hope both Moskowitz and Berkowitz made it to Heaven. But we don't know the full story. We have to realize that God is the Omniscient one and knows whether Stacy Moskowitz was worth saving or had Berkowitz do His bidding. I just don't know. The difference is that I trust God to do the right thing and you do not.That being the case, Dan, what's the point in evangelizing at all? If God knows who's worth saving, and that might (according to you) include practicing Jews, who deny the Christ, what's the point in trying to convince us to believe in Jesus? For all you know, God might value honest skepticism more than fawning subservience.
ReplyDeleteIf you insist, however, that one must be "saved" to get their ticket to Heaven, then Stacy must be burning in Hell, according to you. You can't have it both ways. Of course, "both ways" here means the conflict between the fundamentalist insistence on belief in Jesus for salvation, and the humane desire to not see a murder victim further punished. But I don't see any possible resolution here without massive cognitive dissonance.
Are you tolerant of God's decisions? I will expect crickets.Who am I to deny you whatever you want, Dan? *chirp* *chirp*
Again: Stan said it. I don't really understand this insistence on the part of Christians that atheists are "defying", "denying" or "belying" God, rather than simply not believing in Him. I guess it's just too hard for many believers to put themselves in our position. I don't suppose it will help for me to ask you if you are tolerant of Santa's decisions.
Dan: you still haven't really answered my questions. Here they are again: is every action either good or bad? Given the fact that even Christians disagree about what is good and what is bad, how is one to know the truth? And what does it matter, ultimately, if one does good or bad, as long as one believes in Jesus before one dies?
Why shouldn't I eat, drink, and make merry, and maybe kill a bunch of people, if I get my ticket to Heaven before I die? That way I get it all: a life of sin and pleasure, and an afterlife basking in the eternal pleasure of my well-earned heavenly reward for saying "I believe!" at the last moment, just like David Berkowitz. If the world is black and white, as you say, then that would be my logical choice. I think I'll go kill some people right now.
Well, maybe tomorrow. Maybe there are other reasons not to kill. I'll have to sleep on it.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Ummm... What error? I already admitted I had assumed, faultily, that you believed your interpretation was correct. There is no error in stating that you have an interpretation in mind when you read the bible, and that it is "your own interpretation." I am not implying that you "own" the interpretation, nor that you first voiced it, but that you have claimed it for yourself, irrespective of whomever else may likewise make that claim.
ReplyDeleteIgnorant, how on earth do you know what I am thinking when I read the bible?
[Note: the definition in question was this one; the word "jester" appears as text nowhere on that page]
So... You've confused a definition with a synonym, or is this your eminent display of "logic"?
That what the definition was talking about you historically ignorant atheist. Like I said, by your ridiculous logic, anything that is entertaining is foolish, or any entertainer is foolish. The definition IS talking about a jester, jesters wear bell caps, motley clothes, carry baubles, all of that stuff described in the definition. There was no confusion, just stating fact, something you're completely incompetent of.
hat is, simple one, he has engaged with me in discourse over a number of issues prior to your appearance, and if he thinks me the fool, then either he thinks himself superior to you in dealing with me, or he thinks I am not a fool.
Again, then, you are a fool, as we both are, in the eyes of Dan. It bothers me not, but you, evidently, it does bother. Whether I am a fool in dans eyes won't be known until he says so, you trying to twist and turn his words to make it seem like he called me a fool is nothing but your inability to comprehend simple reading.
Atheist logic strikes again! option #3 Dan thinks you're a fool and keeps engaging with you because he is trying to save your soul.
Will you be so kind, then, as to identify which denominations and sects qualify as being "Christian" and which do not? Are Mormons "Christians"? Are Christian Scientists "Christians"? Are you as bold as Dan, who is willing to ostracize entire groups as not being True Christians™? Since Quakers no doubt deny various aspects of "Christianity" which you embrace, precisely which set of theological beliefs is necessary to identify one's
group with "Christianity"?
NICE!!! you quote my answer out of context, The answer I gave "Well the Quakers are Christians" has nothing to do with which denominations they are, it was given to refute yours and AC's ridiculous claim about 'the quakers being part of the enlightement' and 'free thinkers in the age of enlightenment NOT RELIGIOUS GROUPS are credited as being the first to speak out'. So you talking about denominations is nothing but taking the answer I gave out of context and applying it to a new question compley distinct from the original line of discussion.
You mean, the abolitionism, the inclusion of women in the clergy, the conscientious objection, etc.?
HILARIOUS, you're so ignorant. Were the Quakers desit freethinking rational philosophers? were they hostile toward religion?
Although Peter Gay, writing in the 1960s, criticized Cassirer's work for ignoring the social context of his intellectual history , he too defined the Enlightenment as a unity, governed by a general hostility towards religion and the use of reason for the purposes of freedom and progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment#cite_note-91
You're so ignorant of history it's hilarious.
This is somewhat ambiguous, and I seek clarification. Are you saying that there is one correct interpretation of scripture?
Nope, but I am saying chatel slavery is not a correct interpretation.
If you're going to cite something, at leest make an atemt at speling it curektly...
ReplyDeleteIf you're unfamiliar with the doctrine of sola scriptura, you should look it up. If I were less scrupulous, I might accuse you of being ignorant.
Also, if you're going to quote something from outside this blog's comment stream, you should cite it. It's just etiquette. I recognize that etiquette isn't something you value, but if you'd be so kind as to humor me on this point, it would greatly facilitate some semblance of meaningful dialog...
The fact of the matter is that the Quakers rejected Sola Scriptura, and interpreted scripture in their own unique way. If this is acceptable, please say so. If they still qualify as True Christians™ in spite of this unique interpretation, then again, please say so. If there are rules which determine which unique interpretations are in keeping with True Christianity&trade, and those which are not, then please also post the entire list of rules.
Ignorance, just because they rejected sola scriptora doesn't catapult them to some deist, freethinking rationalist category.
http://www.bible.ca/cr-quakers.htm
1. Of the Holy Scriptures: The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God, therefore true and profitable (2 Tim. 3:15,16,17). But only Christ Jesus is the Word of God (Rev.19: 13-15) as the Scriptures clearly testify. Christians must study the Holy Scriptures (Jn 5:39). One must be led by the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Scriptures if not then there is the danger to fall into heresy (2 Peter 3:16). The Scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. 1:20, 21).
2. Of Salvation: We are saved through Faith, the grace of God, (Eph.2: 8, 9, 10).
3. Of Freedom from Sin: Christians are free from sin (Rom. 6:2, 7, 11,12, 13,16, 23). And they should aim for perfection in Christ (Matt.5: 48).
http://www.quakerinfo.org/quakerism/beliefs.html
Nowhere are these differences more marked than in the United States which contains four distinct branches of Friends. In worship, some Friends still practice unprogrammed "silent" meetings with no formal minister or liturgy, while other Quakers now have programmed services led by a pastor, similar to many Protestant denominations. In belief, some Friends place most emphasis on the teachings of Christian Scripture, while others give greater emphasis to the importance of the Inward Teacher ("that of God in everyone"), allowing for a wide range of religious perspectives.
Again, if you spelt the guyes naime rite, it'd be eazier to identifey him.
Also, what's a "lutheren"?
Ignorance, the name was spelled right, what do you think a Lutheran is? its a sect of CHRISTIANITY you ignorant atheist.
So what if he was a Quaker. Does he speak for all Quakers? When a Christian claims that San Francisco will be destroyed by the end of 2009, does he speak for all Christians, or just himself?
Stan the ignorant atheist is moving the goal posts, it doesn't matter if all of the quakers didn't know about it, it was still quakers that did it, not free thinking rationalists from the age of enlightenment. The rest of the quakers followed suit later. The point being, religious people started it.
Do you truly think this, that persons with widely differing viewpoints can nonetheless be "Christians"? What, if anything, separates a True Christian™ from a False Convert™?
ReplyDeleteIgnorant stan tries to change the subject, but it isn't going to happen. Either you are going to agree or disagree that only ignorant atheist and ignorant Christians look at the bible and think it condones chatel slavery.
Don't you think this is just a little presumptuous? You've gone from claiming that Christians (Quakers) were responsible for abolition in proto-America, to now claiming that "the first person to speak out against slavery was a Christian, Stephen I of Hungary."
Ignorance, you're once again trying to combine 2 separate points into one. The quaker point and the hungary point are 2 separate topics.
Now THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT(unrelated to the point about the age of enlightenment). Show me a non religious group or person that spoke out against slavery before Hungary and I'll concede that point.
So I ask, again, how many correct interpretations of scripture are there?
Who knows how many there are, but we do know what is NOT a correct interpretation.
The definition IS talking about a jester
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to call either Poe or retard at this point. If you don't know how to read a fucking dictionary, there is no way we can hold a meaningful discourse.
Enjoy your day, tool.
For poop and laughter, however, I shall respond to the remaining "points" you seek to make, before I dismiss you entirely.
The answer I gave "Well the Quakers are Christians" has nothing to do with which denominations they are, it was given to refute yours and AC's ridiculous claim about 'the quakers being part of the enlightement' and 'free thinkers in the age of enlightenment NOT RELIGIOUS GROUPS are credited as being the first to speak out'. (all errors in original; I don't even know where to start with respect to the punctuation and grammar...)
This is untrue.
First, the statement was made well before my suggestion that Quakers may qualify (individually) as members of the Enlightenment, so unless you're also claiming the ability to read the future, you weren't refuting a statement I had not yet made.
Second, while the statement meant nothing with regard to denomination, that was never suggested, and is not in dispute. Rather, the claim that "Quakers are Christians" calls into question the criteria by which STD categorizes a group as being "Christians." Thus, the question as to whether Mormons are Christians.
The greater point, which STD seeks to sweep under the rug, is two-part:
1. An unofficial statement by a small group of persons who themselves belong to a larger group does not implicate the larger group. If the 1688 petition were written today, it would include the disclaimer, "The views and opinions expressed are those of the signatories, and not necessarily the views of the Society of Friends."
Of course, if you wish, I will allow this to be considered otherwise, in which case you will be forced to admit that Andrea Yates speaks for Christianity when she claims that god told her to drown her children.
The Society of Friends did not officially denounce slavery until the late 18th century.
2. A "freethinker" may well be a member of a religious group, and my argument, all along, has been that the speaking out against slavery has not been due to biblical reference to slavery, but to enlightenment thinking, which the Quakers, despite whatever other flaws they may have, employed. You've consistently lumped myself, Pvblivs, AC, and others together, despite the fact that AC started this argument, and the rest of us are merely calling you out on your bullshit -- which is a remarkable chore.
Were the Quakers desit freethinking rational philosophers?
I don't know. Please define your newly coined term, "desit."
[J]ust because they rejected sola scriptora [sic] doesn't catapult them to some deist, freethinking rationalist category.
Strike two with "sola scriptora." I even pointed that error out to you last time.
No, it doesn't catapult them to any specific category, but it does move them away from being "Christians," in the view of many -- including Dan. The decision to do so, and the subsequent decisions made by the Friends, are what move them closer to the "Deist, freethinking rationalist" category you describe.
I'm not saying they are Deists, or freethinking rationalists, but that they are not "Christians" in a significant sense, and that your choice to define them as "Christians" is clearly made to benefit your own argument. If the Quakers had endorsed slavery, I suspect you'd be rejecting them as "Christians," rather than embracing them as you do now.
Anyway, the fact remains that Quakers employed Enlightenment principles in many of their decisions, and thus they could be legitimately claimed by either side in this debate.
Ignorance, the name was spelled right, what do you think a Lutheran is?
ReplyDeleteThe name was not spelled correctly:
Francis Daniel Pastoriu was one of the people that signed it. He was a QUAKER and prior to him being a quaker he was a lutheren
You meant "Pastorius" ("s" in bold for easier identification), and I was able to find him fairly easily, but there's no need to deny the mistake, since it's visible to everyone.
You also said, "lutheren," which I obviously recognized as a misspelling of "Lutheran," but you seem oblivious to both sarcasm and the ability to spell.
The point being, religious people started it.
And my point was that Quakers could be claimed by either Christians or Rationalists regarding the reasons for their pronouncement against slavery. The objection to your claim that the 1688 petition spoke for Quakers at-large is on solid footing, though. You may claim that a small group of Quakers spoke out against slavery in 1688, but you may not claim that Quakers, as a body, spoke out against slavery, until about a hundred years later.
Either you are going to agree or disagree that only ignorant atheist and ignorant Christians look at the bible and think it condones chatel [sic] slavery.
"Chattel" has two t's.
I will agree that ignorant people condone slavery in any form, and I will agree that the bible condones slavery, including both the "good" kind, of Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery, and the "bad" kind, of Hebrew-on-Gentile slavery, with the latter including many practices which are directly analogous to 19th century American chattel slavery. I will lastly agree that the explicit endorsement of slavery in the bible -- both OT and NT -- are wrong.
While I'm thinking about it, I will explicitly disagree that "ignorant Christians" viewed the bible as endorsing chattel slavery. Since information concerning the practice of slavery in the OT wasn't readily available to the 19th-century slaveholder, it is unfair to call him "ignorant." He reads and writes passable English, and he sees slavery directly endorsed in his bible. He should not be faulted for assuming, then, that its depictions of slave-beating directly relate to his nigger-stomping.
The fault lies first in the individual holding slaves, and not thinking that the practice is wrong, and second in the bible's ambiguity -- surely, if god is so smart, he could have left out slavery altogether, or better yet, explicitly said it was a bad thing, and the matter would be settled. Instead, though, he explicitly endorsed it, and he must have known that the endorsement which appears would be easily twisted to likewise endorse 19th-century American chattel slavery.
Now THIS IS A GENERAL STATEMENT(unrelated to the point about the age of enlightenment). Show me a non religious group or person that spoke out against slavery before Hungary and I'll concede that point.
Will do. How about Spartacus?
Concession, please.
Who knows how many [correct interpretations of the bible] there are, but we do know what is NOT a correct interpretation.
Okay... So as a rough estimate, would you say the number of correct interpretations is greater than one?
Since this is implied in your statement above, how do you justify your denouncement of the silly bible study? Could those people not merely be exploring possible other correct interpretations?
You also said that "we do know what is NOT a correct interpretation." How do [we] know this? What criteria or standards are used? If we can know which interpretations are incorrect, can we not determine how many are correct? Is your lack of knowledge here mere laziness in tabulation?
--
Stan
I'm going to have to call either Poe or retard at this point. If you don't know how to read a fucking dictionary, there is no way we can hold a meaningful discourse.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your day, tool.
Hilarious, this does not even constitute a logical coherent rebuttal to what I said. Typical, atheist logic strikes again.
Second, while the statement meant nothing with regard to denomination, that was never suggested, and is not in dispute. Rather, the claim that "Quakers are Christians" calls into question the criteria by which STD categorizes a group as being "Christians." Thus, the question as to whether Mormons are Christians.
Ignorance, you obviously can't tell the difference between good Christians, bad Christians and non Christians.
1. An unofficial statement by a small group of persons who themselves belong to a larger group does not implicate the larger group. If the 1688 petition were written today, it would include the disclaimer, "The views and opinions expressed are those of the signatories, and not necessarily the views of the Society of Friends."
Of course, if you wish, I will allow this to be considered otherwise, in which case you will be forced to admit that Andrea Yates speaks for Christianity when she claims that god told her to drown her children.
The Society of Friends did not officially denounce slavery until the late 18th century.
This is indeed hilarious and shows how deep stans ignorance runs.
1. The people that wrote this were quakers. This proves that it was religious people not free thinking rationalists from the enlightenment were the first to speak out.
2. Stan ignorantly claims these people did not belong to a larger group, this is an incorrect and IGNORANT STATEMENT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery
In the usual manner the Meeting sent the petition on to the Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting, where it was again considered and sent on to the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (held in Burlington, NJ). Realizing that the abolition of slavery would have a wide and overreaching impact on the entire colony, none of the Meetings wanted to pass judgment on such a “weighty matter.” The petition was sent on to London Yearly Meeting where again no action was taken and the petition was sent back to reside at Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
The petition went all the way up to the London Yearly Meeting. So your ignorance is proven again, had these people not been part of a larger group the petition would not have made it ALL THE WAY TO LONDON FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
3. Even if they were not part of the larger group, that is irrelevant, since it still proves my point, religious people, NOT freethinking rationalists from the enlightenment were the first to speak out.
2. A "freethinker" may well be a member of a religious group, and my argument, all along, has been that the speaking out against slavery has not been due to biblical reference to slavery, but to enlightenment thinking, which the Quakers, despite whatever other flaws they may have, employed. You've consistently lumped myself, Pvblivs, AC, and others together, despite the fact that AC started this argument, and the rest of us are merely calling you out on your bullshit -- which is a remarkable chore.
ReplyDeleteHilarious, stan blatantly omits key phrases. Notice how I have been saying FREE THINKING RATIONALISTS FROM THE ENLIGHTENMENT and in his response he simply says "a free thinker". The quakers do not qualify as free thinking rationalists from the enlightenment, nor did they engage in ENLIGHTENMENT THINKING since they referenced THE BIBLES GOLDEN RULE as their base for speaking out against slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery
In 1688, five years after Germantown was founded, Pastorius and three other men petitioned the Dublin Quaker Meeting. The men gathered at Thones Kunders' house and wrote a petition based upon the Bible's Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," urging the Meeting to abolish slavery.
No, it doesn't catapult them to any specific category, but it does move them away from being "Christians," in the view of many -- including Dan. The decision to do so, and the subsequent decisions made by the Friends, are what move them closer to the "Deist, freethinking rationalist" category you describe.
I'm not saying they are Deists, or freethinking rationalists, but that they are not "Christians" in a significant sense, and that your choice to define them as "Christians" is clearly made to benefit your own argument. If the Quakers had endorsed slavery, I suspect you'd be rejecting them as "Christians," rather than embracing them as you do now.
Hilarious ignorance here. Rejecting sola scriptora does not move anyone away from Christianity any more than rejecting creationism does. You're so ignorant you can't tell the difference between a good Christian, a bad Christian and a NONE CHRISTIAN. Furthermore, you're completely ignorant thinking that Dans or my opinion is what qualifies as a Christian. Furthermore, since you're so incompetent and ignorant, even if they were not considered Christians that STILL doesn't prove they adhered to enlightenment thinking. You're so ignorant you think that "OMG THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIANS SO THAT MEANS THEY WERE PART OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT!!" by your ridiculous logic, muslims are not Christians, but they were not part of the enlightenment, nor did they possess enlightenment thinking, nor are they moved closer to enlightenment thinking. You're so incredibly ignorant it is hilarious.
I'm not saying they are Deists, or freethinking rationalists, but that they are not "Christians" in a significant sense, and that your choice to define them as "Christians" is clearly made to benefit your own argument. If the Quakers had endorsed slavery, I suspect you'd be rejecting them as "Christians," rather than embracing them as you do now.
ReplyDeleteNope I woudl call them IGNORANT CHRISTIANS which is what I said in the last post.
Anyway, the fact remains that Quakers employed Enlightenment principles in many of their decisions, and thus they could be legitimately claimed by either side in this debate.
Nope, you're completely ignorant as to what enlightenment principles are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment
Although Peter Gay, writing in the 1960s, criticized Cassirer's work for ignoring the social context of his intellectual history , he too defined the Enlightenment as a unity, governed by a general hostility towards religion and the use of reason for the purposes of freedom and progress.[92]
The enlightenment and its principles are described as being hostile toward religion, it is also described as being led by REASON not faith.
“Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.”
your ignorance is hilarious.
You also said, "lutheren," which I obviously recognized as a misspelling of "Lutheran," but you seem oblivious to both sarcasm and the ability to spell.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant to the point, my inability to spell says nothing wrong about my point, and it is also irrelevant since you have displayed you know what the words are regardless of proper spelling.
And my point was that Quakers could be claimed by either Christians or Rationalists regarding the reasons for their pronouncement against slavery. The objection to your claim that the 1688 petition spoke for Quakers at-large is on solid footing, though. You may claim that a small group of Quakers spoke out against slavery in 1688, but you may not claim that Quakers, as a body, spoke out against slavery, until about a hundred years later.
Hilarious, your historical ignorance here was already dealt with in the previous post.
I will agree that ignorant people condone slavery in any form, and I will agree that the bible condones slavery, including both the "good" kind, of Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery, and the "bad" kind, of Hebrew-on-Gentile slavery, with the latter including many practices which are directly analogous to 19th century American chattel slavery. I will lastly agree that the explicit endorsement of slavery in the bible -- both OT and NT -- are wrong.
HILARIOUS IGNORANCE HERE!. Hebrew on gentile slavery were not directly analogous to 19th century American chattel slavery. This is just blatantly incorrect, silly, and ridiculous. I'll set this up on my blog just to prove your glaring ignorance.
Will do. How about Spartacus?
Concession, please
Where is the evidence of him abolishing or speaking out against slavery? you just linked his wiki page. I suggest you read up on your history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War
Although this is not contradicted by classical historians, no historical account mentions that the goal of the rebel slaves was to end slavery in the Republic, nor do any of Spartacus' actions seem specifically aimed at ending slavery.
So you've completely failed, which is what I've come to expect from you. Still waiting on that evidence.
Since this is implied in your statement above, how do you justify your denouncement of the silly bible study? Could those people not merely be exploring possible other correct interpretations?
You also said that "we do know what is NOT a correct interpretation." How do [we] know this? What criteria or standards are used? If we can know which interpretations are incorrect, can we not determine how many are correct? Is your lack of knowledge here mere laziness in tabulation?
It's called knowing the language and studying the historical context. EXAMPLE: if Hebrew word X has only 2 translations "happy and blessed" then interpreting it to mean anything else is an INCORRECT INTERPRETATION. You also move the goalposts, you asked how many correct interpretations of scripture are there?, not if we can determine how many there are. Not may fault you're too ignorant to ask questions in a logical coherent way.
I've been reading some of TD's quotes out-loud to one of my house-mates exactly as they are written. Here are some of our favourites:
ReplyDelete"Here is the mocking of his logic"
"Actually YOU'VE got nothing, you have no evidence whatsoever that I know nothing of logic, non, so YOU'VE got nothing."
"My interpretations are correct but they are not MY OWN interpretations, its unfortunate you're too ignorant to differentiate between the 2."
"Answer the whole question you stan, where did I say that my own interpretation is true?"
"Typical ignorant atheist. You're ignorant the context, line of discussion and basic fundamentals in discussion."
It seems a little unfair because it doesn't seem like English is TD's first language. It's still fun nonetheless.
I've been reading some of TD's quotes out-loud to one of my house-mates exactly as they are written. Here are some of our favourites:
ReplyDeleteTypical, the ignorant atheist resorts to insults. Since you're to ignorant to actually refute what I say with facts evidence or logic, you just attempt to ridicule what I say. Silly little ignorant atheist.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is only a punishment I utilize in the case of (very rare) purposeful violence.
So what made you come to the decision that violence against violence is the best course of action? My friend, who never ever struck her kids, said that she couldn't grasp the logic to hit her boy for hitting his sister and vice-versa. She felt that it sends the wrong message and such. She is an Atheist also. She really feels that striking children teaches them violence. Do you agree?
Here are some of our favourites...
ReplyDeleteWhat? You didn't include the statement that the definition of "fool" was referring to the word "jester"?
I'm disappointed. I liked your list, but I really thought the definition thing was one of his best yet.
Since I don't think anybody is that retarded, I will go with Poe, and let him be. It no longer amuses me to interact with him, but here's to hoping future nonsensical gems will turn up...
You know, like the following:
Typical, the ignorant atheist resorts to insults.
(For the record, I think English is STD's native tongue. I also think he's young and still in school -- high school -- and I think this explains some of his issues.)
--
Stan
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteThat being the case, Dan, what's the point in evangelizing at all?
I wondered that myself. The only thing I can say for that is two fold. For one this is what God instructs us to do always and second I cannot stand idly by and watch people go to hell forever.
It may even be for selfish reasons, you know so I can wash my hands and say at least I tried, but I doubt it. I want to believe I can make a difference but I know we do not. All the glory goes to God.
For all you know, God might value honest skepticism more than fawning subservience.
He indeed does! The entire Bible tells us to test and beware of false prophets and warns us of false teachers. I need to decipher Biblical evil and Biblical good. The only way we can do such a thing is by honest skepticism of mankind and observance of the fruit they bear.
You can't have it both ways. Of course, "both ways" here means the conflict between the fundamentalist insistence on belief in Jesus for salvation, and the humane desire to not see a murder victim further punished.
So you feel someone that robs a bank deserves punishment for eternity then? How about Al-Qaeda? Child molesters? Someone who lied to their boss?
If you feel there should be punishment for crimes, then that is what is being done. This 'murder victim further punished' is being eternally punished for the crimes that has been committed against God. You are setting a time on eternal punishment. If you get murdered, without Christ, you will spend eternity in hell. If you are the wealthiest man on earth with ample security to protect you and you die of old age with a fulfilling life, without Christ, you will spend eternity in hell. But if you suffer in this life with Christ, you will spend forever in bliss. The only thing that matters in this life is our God, called Christ. How does Santa fair, on the scale of importance, in your worldview? Your worldview cannot even account for the purpose of life.
BTW The only massive cognitive dissonance, that I have observed, is from Atheists struggling against their own conscience convincing themselves that there is no God.
Here they are again: is every action either good or bad?
Well since I am cornered, I will answer. Every action on this planet is either righteous or evil.
Given the fact that even Christians disagree about what is good and what is bad, how is one to know the truth?
Truth is revealed to us through the Holy Spirit. Also as Sye said: God has revealed many things to us (Which, if you haven’t gathered, includes me – and you for that matter) i.e. That He exists, that murder is bad, that love is good, that we were created in His image, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that He controls the universe. etc. etc.
And what does it matter, ultimately, if one does good or bad, as long as one believes in Jesus before one dies?
Well God does know your heart and thoughts so deviousness can be easily seen. You must approach God with a broken and contrite heart. (Psalm 34:18) But repentance is repentance. If you repent and trust in Christ with your heart, mind, and soul then you are indeed saved as promised. The legal transaction of all of your crimes have been paid for, as you know.
Why shouldn't I eat, drink, and make merry, and maybe kill a bunch of people, if I get my ticket to Heaven before I die?
Again, God know your heart. Now, lets evaluate your worldview with that same variation of the question.
Why shouldn't someone secretly rape babies for fun and run for Senator if they will just die anyway without repercussions in your worldview? That way they get it all: a life of sin and pleasure without a single shred of any punishment. There is merely only the possibility of punishment if caught by someone here. Michael Jackson sure got away with evil. What a full rich life he must lead, within your worldview.
Sweet dreams
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am torn with respect to spanking. I am very against the use of an implement of any kind -- you know, the "rod [of punishment]" -- and I think it (spanking) should be used as infrequently as possible.
I was spanked, with a paddle most of the time -- a 4x18 inch rectangle of 1/2" plywood with a handle extension -- and I'd like to think I'm well-adjusted. My youngest siblings have not been spanked, and while their behavior is no worse than mine was, their attitude toward punishment is much worse -- they effectively treat the possibility of punishment with contempt.
I suspect that spanking is completely unnecessary, and that in its place measured, consistent scolding and removal of privilege is sufficient. What I cannot stand, however, is the bullshit, "I'm going to count to three..." routine -- a routine which my wife uses exclusively -- especially when the would-be punisher never gets to three, including, as my wife does, starting over after getting to two. I've spoken to her about it, and she seems satisfied that my presence, and the fact that the kids know that I will follow through with any threat of punishment, is enough.
She doesn't see it as I do, but since she works, and I stay at home, she isn't required to discipline them nearly as often as I am.
Anyway, even with the extremely limited spankings, my children are incredibly well-behaved. Just yesterday, the neighbor kids (we just moved) invited my kids out to play, and suggested they all race to the neighbor's house (across the street). My kids happily accepted the challenge, and all raced off -- until they reached the sidewalk, at which point my kids (ages 6 and 5) stopped cold, and said they have to look for cars, hold hands, and walk across the street.
Great kids. I would prefer not to brag too openly, but it probably helps that I always answer their incessant "why" questions, and that my patience in answering thus far outweighs their patience in asking, or in listening to the answer. I was especially proud when I heard my daughter say that something was true because it was in a book. When I corrected her, she looked at me with a puzzled expression, and then asked why anything written in a book is considered true, if some of it isn't.
You would not have appreciated the answer.
I digress. Punishment when disciplining children is necessary, but hitting one's child is not. It's recognizably difficult for those of us who were spanked as children to refrain from spanking, but there are alternatives. The biggest issue, regardless of whether one chooses to spank or not to spank, is in consistency and in compassion. Being consistent with one's chosen punishment technique, and being compassionate toward one's children -- that is, no unnecessary punishment, and an explanation for every punishment rendered -- are essential if a child is to develop properly...
...or so I've read, and experienced both as a child and as a parent.
I also think that using an implement to spank is tantamount to child abuse.
--
Stan
Well Stan,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments with exceptions, I will get to that later.
their attitude toward punishment is much worse -- they effectively treat the possibility of punishment with contempt.
Nice observation. (Proverbs 1:7 and since you like Job so much Job 28:28)
Lack of discipline breads gang members who are unafraid of the law and people like Scott Peterson who has no remorse for his wrongdoings, imho.
She doesn't see it as I do, but since she works, and I stay at home, she isn't required to discipline them nearly as often as I am.
It never registered that you stay at home with the kids before. We have even more in common then I thought. Maybe you can email me a picture of your family for find me on facebook so I can see who I am talking to for all these many years. I like to know who I am looking for in the after life.
You would not have appreciated the answer.
You are such a punk.
I also think that using an implement to spank is tantamount to child abuse.
Quixotic comments like that is dangerous and pushing it. You must realize that anyone could say the reverse, and if Christianity is true, then teaching of Atheism to children certainly is.
And I forgot to answer a question earlier.
And if god told you to kill your daughter?
I would be very suspicious and question my Christianity since God is requiring more then the death of Christ on the Cross. "More is required?" would be my first suspicious question.
Oh and Stan,
ReplyDeleteSince you stay at home I thought you would appreciate this new Magazine for progressive men like you. :7)
Dan
ReplyDeleteRe: violence teaching her not to be violent.
It doesn't hurt her. She doesn't cry. It stops her in her tracks if she's all charged up and attacking. It's more of a non-verbal signal, if you like. Reminding her that she would lose a physical fight with me so she might as well pack it in.
Once she's stopped we can talk about what she was doing, and why it was daft. She understands, but you can't discuss something reasonably if she's all hyper and charged up.
To be honest, I won't tolerate physical attacks regardless of the age of the person who is attacking - and I sure as hell don't want my kid growing up thinking she has the physical advantage over me. No chance.
Different kids have different characteristics, and require different punishments at different times.
As for your friend - that's her house, her rules, her kids etc - if it worked for her then brilliant, absolutely fantastic.
I should add, she's restraining herself more and more from violent attacks (clenches her lil fists and glares, but I just make her laugh and the tension goes away). Then we can talk about what made her mad.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of enrolling her into some sort of martial arts training when she's a bit older, as an outlet for some of that frustration and a way of helping her to learn more self-discipline. Also, it can't do her any harm to be able to defend herself in this day and age.
(For the record, I think English is STD's native tongue. I also think he's young and still in school -- high school -- and I think this explains some of his issues.)
ReplyDeleteStan, the typical ignorant atheist. He makes historically ignorant claims and when pressed to defend his ridiculous assertions with logic and evidence, he just cowers in the corner and decides to talk about insults. Hilarious.
Reminding her that she would lose a physical fight with me so she might as well pack it in.
ReplyDeleteThere was a point, for me, at which I realized my mother could no longer physically control me, and it wasn't long thereafter that I decided to show her. When she attempted to slap me for some alleged wrongdoing, I caught her hands mid-swing and let her know I wasn't to be slapped by her today.
She fairly lost it, and attempted to kick and bite at me in her fury. I would say now that her reliance on the physical punishment left her literally defenseless against my refusal to cooperate -- she had never discussed punishment with me, choosing instead to merely mete it out. When I took away her power, she turned into a veritable animal. She wouldn't have known what to say if she had the gumption to try.
When my father got home that night, she expected me to get a solid punishment from him, but he was far wiser. He knew what I had done, and why, and he realized the futility of knocking me down -- it would only have pushed me further away. Instead, he sat the three of us down for a discussion about my future in the home, while my mother glared at me non-stop.
I think the point of all this is to say that while a little slap and spank now and then might work, relying on it as one's only tool in punishment is a recipe for disaster later on. While a child may today be outmatched by his parent, tomorrow he may be able to put up a decent fight. On the day he realizes that, and chooses to do something about it, the parent had better be prepared with an alternative form of punishment. By avoiding the physical punishment altogether, though, this troublesome day need never come.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. Your story reminded me of something Eddie Griffin said when his Mom almost ran him over with a car when he hit her. (around 5:20, but listen to all of it) He said "My mother whooped me out of the penitentiary" I am glad I was able to find it on Youtube. Your mom should of done the same thing. It appears that the problem is your fear never turned into respect (milk to meat). My respect for the Lord today started out as bone chilling fear years ago. I am sure you can handle the language of the video. This entire video about spanking is funny and worth listening to.
"Stan ignorantly claims these people did not belong to a larger group, this is an incorrect and IGNORANT STATEMENT."
ReplyDeleteOh, you gotta love this line. Now, if you actually read Stan's comment, he said that these people did not speak for the larger group, not that they did not belong to the larger group. More specificly, their beliefs as a sub-group were not representative of the beliefs of the larger group as a whole. "An unofficial statement by a small group of persons who themselves belong to a larger group does not implicate the larger group." [Emphasis added] The claim that Stan said that they did not belong to the larger group was a lie.
"Typical, the ignorant atheist resorts to insults. Since you're to ignorant to actually refute what I say with facts evidence or logic, you just attempt to ridicule what I say. Silly little ignorant atheist."
There is no substance here. TD is just making insults, the very thing he criticizes in others.
"Stan, the typical ignorant atheist. He makes historically ignorant claims and when pressed to defend his ridiculous assertions with logic and evidence, he just cowers in the corner and decides to talk about insults. Hilarious."
How are everyone's irony meters doing? I mean TD has described his whole methodology here. The previous quote demonstrates that.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteQuixotic comments like that is dangerous and pushing it.
Quixotic?! But I've never even been to Ecuador...
Anyway, I don't think that comment is quixotic, or dangerous, or pushing it. Since we must define child abuse -- the physical kind, as opposed to the sexual or verbal kind -- in some manner, and since no matter how the line is drawn between "appropriate corporal punishment" and "inappropriate physical abuse," some will feel as though their chosen system has been restricted, the bullet must be bitten.
Should only one-handed weapons be allowed? Only non-magical one-handed bludgeoning weapons with a minimum native initiative of 17 and a maximum damage of 2 hit points?
Should we develop a National Spanking Implement, which features a set of sensors and a microchip, such that its frequency of use, force of impact, and number of swings per offense are measured and tracked, and prior to its use the wielder must submit to a built-in breathalyzer? Should we likewise develop National Spanking Clothing for children, which will not so much pad their derrières (or cheeks, thighs, or backs-of-the-hand, depending on which areas of the body are designated as National Spanking Regions), but will instead combine with the tracking already in place on the NSI, for better metrics?
This dangerously fascist concept is really not a terrible idea, if you think about it. It's better than willy-nilly allowing parents to use a belt, a cord, a rope, a whip, a spoon, a "paddle," a short length of PVC, a switch, a ruler, etc., and instead limits the implement to the officially sanctioned variety only.
As it stands right now, a parent can wield any of the above weapons with no danger of legal recourse, unless the child a) complains noisily enough at school, or b) has visible bruising. While I may or may not agree that certain implements may be acceptable, someone else will not. The simplest option, which does not prohibit corporal punishment directly, is to limit the use of implements.
You must realize that anyone could say the reverse, and if Christianity is true, then teaching of Atheism to children certainly is [abuse].
ReplyDeleteThat's silly. People do say the reverse, and U.S. law has found that the state may impose restrictions on personal beliefs where it deems such restrictions appropriate. Hence, laws requiring seat-belt use, for instance, or restricting the rights of sacrifice or sacrament use in certain religious ceremonies.
So what you're really objecting to is a possible restriction on your "right" to wield a bludgeoning weapon against your minor children.
[Humorous aside: My wife's uncle is a longtime participant in local Boy Scout Troops, with his own son and with other local families, and one of his functions was as a rifle range operator. When I scoffed at his use of the word "gun" to describe a firearm, and insisted that the object should be referred to as a "weapon," he fairly shuddered, and noted that BSA rules stipulate that a firearm is not to be referred to as a "weapon," but as a "gun," a "firearm," or a "rifle."
It seems they, too, are afraid of respecting the object for what it is, and of explicitly acknowledging its primary function: to harm a living thing. This prohibition on a word -- an appropriate word -- is tacit admission that they fear the weapon, rather than respecting it...
...that, and the NRA will pull its funding if they call firearms "weapons."]
Call it what it is. Spanking with the hand is hitting one's child with the intent to cause pain. Spanking with an implement is wielding a bludgeoning weapon against one's child in an attempt to cause pain. If one or the other makes you squeamish, then perhaps the practice should be restricted. If not, then surely you can provide an exhaustive list of those implements which should be allowed, and which should not. Please include appropriate limits on size, shape, material, torque, moment of inertia, and angular acceleration, so that loopholes are not generated.
--
Stan
Sure thing Stan, and like I said before, it accounts for maybe 1% of her overall punishment.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in our house it accounted for maybe 80% of all "discipline", left bruises on occasion, and continued until our early teens.
He knew when I was maybe fourteen that I'd take him on if he carried on. He's a big bloke but I was angry and unpredictable by that point. Once he lost that as a form of discipline, everything else crumbled and I did my own thing.
Fast forward to the ex, he hit, and I fought back (never instigated but too stupidly proud to cower). He always won, but never left unscathed. Eventually I left. He used emtional and physical violence as "discipline" methods too.
If my kid was ever so screwed up/unhappy that she seriously felt like taking me on (with full understanding of the possible consequences); I'd book us straight into family therapy and really reflect on what went wrong.
And let me reiterate, the only time I personally have swatted her hand is when she's hit, kicked or punched me first - and only to snap her out of the hyper state that accompanies such baby-assaults. We always discuss (as much as one can with a three year old) why she got upset afterwards and resolve it one way or another.
Apparently she behaves perfectly in nursery, I think she's just testing the dynamic of our relationship at home because of the high level of freedom she's given with her choices. However, there are lines - they're just so far from what she normally does that she hardly ever crosses them, as she usually makes responsible choices. We talk about consequences and empathy often, and it generally gets through to her.
Stan, any advice is appreciated though, don't feel like I'll bite your head off. Dan, any advice that don't involve more hitting or measured amounts of God-fearin' are welcome too :p
At the end of the day, I'm a young single mum, unhappy with her own upbringing and lacking any examples in reality of good child-raising techniques. It's impossible that I'm getting it all right.
Your mom should of [sic] [attempted vehicular homicide on her minor son].
ReplyDeleteFunny how it sounds different when I say it...
It appears that the problem is your fear never turned into respect (milk to meat).
No, the problem is that she didn't respect me. If she had, she'd have attempted a reasoned discussion regarding my alleged behavior, rather than resorting to violence, and when that was taken away as an option, resorting to mania. I respected her, and allowed her to spank/slap me for quite a while -- easily a year -- before I decided I'd had enough. Teenage years are difficult on parent and child alike, and while this partially mitigates both my mother's and my own actions, she is not instantly absolved because she is the parent.
Anyway, it's water under the bridge at this point, and whenever we discuss it, she pretends she had the upper hand, and I only smirk, letting any others in earshot think she did, while letting her know she didn't. I suppose she doesn't need the reminder, but it's the way our relationship has matured -- mutual, respectful ball-busting.
RE: If god told you to kill your daughter...
I would be very suspicious and question my Christianity since God is requiring more then the death of Christ on the Cross. "More is required?" would be my first suspicious question.
So you'd question the will of god. Me, too. Since, according to your current beliefs, god has ordered his minions to kill their children before, you shouldn't think it too strange -- hence my augmenting of the scenario -- but you must recall that to Abraham, the command was indeed very odd. To wit, he was commanded to do something he must have believed to be wrong, and rather than question god's will, he immediately got to packing, contemplating for three days the murder of his son.
Our ability to question things is what has led to multiple interpretations of the bible -- multiple "correct" interpretations, if we believe STD -- and it is what has led to general rejection of some of the more dislikeable passages. We insert ourselves into the position of the subjects in the bible, and say, 'Wait a minute; I'm not going to off my son. This must not be god speaking to me.' Thus, we reject that story as preposterous, and find that other stories are equally embellished, meant for a simpler, more naïve audience.
--
Stan
[Corporal punishment] accounts for maybe 1% of her overall punishment.
ReplyDeleteI gathered as much, and as I've said, I resort to minor spanks on occasion, too. I think the real issue is consistency, and with a reasoned explanation each and every time. The worst thing a parent can do is to punish a child, without the child understanding exactly why he is being punished. I always make sure my kids know why they are being punished before I actually punish them, and at this stage of the game, the mere threat of a spanking produces more tears than the two swats ever could.
The toughest thing, when disciplining my children, is maintaining a sombre expression. There are times when I positively love the "misbehavior," and hope that the spirit of curiosity and inquisitiveness which prompted it continue, but that my direction lead them to better powers of discernment. It's really hard not to laugh.
Once he lost that as a form of discipline, everything else crumbled and I did my own thing.
Exactly -- don't let yourself fall into that trap. It sounds like you have alternative forms of punishment already in place, so hopefully this will be a non-issue. Just remember, though, that you have to always be ready for a particular form of punishment to become useless. If any one form is over-used, or if the child outgrows a fear of that form of punishment, you'd better have something ready to use in its stead.
At the end of the day, I'm a young single mum, unhappy with her own upbringing and lacking any examples in reality of good child-raising techniques. It's impossible that I'm getting it all right.
The examples you're lacking didn't get it all right, either. It's your relationship with your child, so maintain it as you see fit. I wouldn't presume to say that my method is any better than anyone else's, but if my results are equal or better, and I've done so without resorting to physical punishment, I will say it's a better candidate.
--
Stan
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteYea, raising kids are difficult at times but they need direction. Single parenting must be madness, you have my respect. One thing for sure is don't get discouraged like CK Lewis. :7)
Stan:
ReplyDeleteLet us indeed call it what it is. Any action which attempts to create a disincentive for undesirable behavior is an attempt to cause pain (of some sort -- some pains are psychological and emotional; physical pains heal most quickly.) If taken to extremes, saying "no" can be regarded as "abuse."
I haven't been writing much lately, anywhere, and I'm not in the mood to write but I don't want to miss this chance to speak about spanking kids, I have five kids and we never laid a hand on them.
ReplyDeleteMy parents never laid a hand on me and it is obvious that spanking is always counterproductive because it always leaves feeling of resentment in the child. Even though you tell them you spank them because you love them, they hold resentment. Resentment is bad, very bad. It always stifles a child's ability to develop properly.
There are many options for discipline but there is no one better than showing the child that we will sacrifice ouselves for their well being. This is a wildly successful and it is something they relate to in a highly personal way, and they end up empathizing with the parent.
The problem with raising kids with out corparal punishment is that it takes much more effort and many parents do not have the propensity for it as it takes patience, and...sacrifice. But, when applied it sends a message and the course correction sought is usually achieved right then and there for good.
I have tons of experiences I could relate here but I will relate one when my youngest son started throwing temper tntrums in the grocery store when he couldn't have everything he wanted to.
First of all, through age tw to three depending on the kid, ignoring bad behaviour is usually the best course. There is no way they can relize they are not the center of the universe and most parents even help to create that illusion in the first place, but I digress. At about two and a half years old my son always wanted to go grocery shopping with me. I like buying and cooking with very fresh ingredients so I would go often. Over a few visits I could see the pattern developing so I made a plan and here is what I did.
We planned a special meal for Saturday evening and we all picked a special thing we wanted.
Of couse son wanted to go so I told him, if you raise kane I am going to warn you one time and if you do not heed my warning, I am going to leave the shopping cart where is sets and we will come home and have milk and crackers for dinner.
As I knew would pr'y happen, he raised kane when I refused him something, I warned him, he didn't quit it so I left the cart right there and took him to the car and we went home and had crackers and milk for dinner and if you could have been there to hear what he had to say, I am sure your jaw would have been on the floor.
There is not one friend of ours that have not asked over the years, "How in the hell do you do that?"
Friends and family loved taking our kids on outings and have them stay at their homes, etc.
Continued:
ReplyDeleteI can show you the report cards where the teachers wrote. "A pleasure to have in class."
As for my son, you would never believe how a two + year old kid will be saying stuff like "I'm sorry you didn't get your favorite meal, Dad, and Mom."
Suffice to say, that boy never, ever again raised kane in any store and in fact, he immediately began to be very much fun to have along when shopping and still is till this day.
His older brother was slacking in school at one point and I told him that if he didn't start getting his homework, etc done properly that I would take all the electronic stuff out of his room and have the TV disconnected, but that my TV in my den would be disconnected too.
I watched him closely and found he'd missed turning in a couple homework assignents so I took the TV out of my den and his game and TV out of his room. And set them in the hall.
In the evening I would set in the family room or my den reading or writing and he would walk through and ask why I wasn't watching the ballgame or something and I told him that it was his fault that I couldn't watch the game and I wasn't going to have any TV on where he could see it, so I would have to suffer with him for his laziness.
I came home from work the next evening to find him not only with his room all tidied up, and him setting at his desk with a pile of books, but he had put my TV back in my den and implored me to please watch what I wanted to and he wouldn't care.
His grades came up a bit by the end of that period and by the next period he was in the top of the class and mostly stayed there until he graduated.
That is except for one grading period the following year.
If I ever wanted to burst out laughing at a kid's actions this was it.
I got home from work one after noon and there are his TV and game sitting in the hall!
He'd got his report card and got a "D" in his least favorite subject, and he knew damn well he got that grade because he slacked off.
The moment I saw that TV in the hall I knew that the lesson I had shown him almost a year before was a life long lesson. No spanking required.
I could write a book of similar experiences, but I don't have to because anyone interested in learning how to disipline their kids can read the works of Dr. John Rosemond. I did not have his books when my older kids were youger but over the years I found his work and used it to some degree.
I have found it very consistent with my own concepts.
If you check out his stuff you will find he is a christian man and he evens sttes that a swat on the butt for a 2 year old to interrupt a bad behaviour will probably not do any harm, but sanking after that age is gonna bring trouble.
Dr. Rosemond's concepts about raising kids are very insightful and I have bought his books for my kids, when they started having kids.
Trust me, you think you have accomplished something when you spank a kid, but you are going down the hard hard road. One act of sacreifice and teaching empathy and that the child hurts others beyond them selves when they misbehave is a far better lesson, in my experience. I am sure you have all figured it though by now that this concept is not available to a lot of parents because they are, in the end, although they will tell you different, not willing to make certain sacrifices for their kids. It is far easier to make them fear you.
Bye
Disclaimer/ Qualifier
ReplyDeleteYes, Dan, there was a day when people did not understand child development or sociology in general and if you will look at the carnage and grief that King Daved caused in his campaigns it is not surprising that they would have thought it necessary to beat their kids and wives into submission.
It was vile then and it's vile now.
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that and yes I was fully aware of your viewpoint on spankings from past comments. Just a short 5 years ago I would have agreed with you but in further study of the Bible I found out I was not trusting God, but mankind's viewpoint.
Although you story sounds great on paper it is not real world. I fully admit that modern psychology fully agrees with you, but they also created and encourages the self esteem movement that are raising bullies and destructive people. The Bible is clear and has never been wrong or debunked...never. It is the Word of God that I will follow until the day I die to be with my maker. I see no damage from my fatherhood thus far. Even if I did it is my choice and if my kid wants to join a gang in the future I will beat his ass until he cannot sit for a month. (Proverbs 29:15)
I wish your 5 the best. I am sure you will blame something else, other then the non spanking, when something arises. The Bible declares that you hate your children with your wisdom.(Proverbs 13:24)
Are you absolutely sure you are not raising narcissistic children?
Dan, My youngest son graduates from HS next Friday.
ReplyDeleteNot real world?
So I and my kids are issusions? Not real?
Those kids are the least narcissistic I know. They know the value and hard work.
Two of my kids have adopted kids and my oldest daughter adopted a boy, lierally, out of a crack house in Philly.
This is not theory. This is how we raised these kids in practice and if you would like to talk to any one of them I will set it up.
They have all had their share of problems over the years but they handle them in a mature and objective manner. They have never borrowed money from us and they are highly independent.
Sel esteem? They learned self esteem through hard work.
Oh I forgot, you're training yourkids to think of themselves as worthless. Pardon me.
It is much wiser to raise kids to respect you rather than fear you.
By the way, the proverb about "spareth the rod" is Old Testament. You are the first to say that all those OT laws are not meant for Christians, 'cept for the ones you cherry pick.
If you are spanking your kids it only shows that you don't have decent parenting skills/
No matter what you do, I would bet anything that any parent that reads a couple of Rosemond's books will learn one hell of a lot more about highly successful ways of disciplining kids than you will ever find in the bible because the bible basically says nothing, other than to spank them and you know as well as I do that it takes far more than that.
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteI am considering what you are saying. You sparked a memory when I wrote in my past post:
"The only time you would follow the Old Covenant (which doesn't apply to us anymore) is if it is repeated in the New Covenant..."
If I am to follow this rule then you may be right. I need more deep thought and prayer on this manner.
Nice job, you are getting me thinking. I will consider Rosemond's books.
"The only time you would follow the Old Covenant (which doesn't apply to us anymore) is if it is repeated in the New Covenant..."
ReplyDeleteIf I am to follow this rule then you may be right. I need more deep thought and prayer on this manner.
I remembered that, too, Dan, and I also note that this sentiment on your behalf is why I stick around. Tools such as STD would never admit such a thing. The honesty is welcomed and appreciated.
It has to make you wonder, though, four things:
1. Why would those laws ever have been necessary in the first place, if they were to be abolished by their omission in, or exclusion from, the NT?
2. What other laws have you been peddling which would be nullified by this approach?
3. Why have you not considered this before, so that you could avoid the embarrassment of (2)?
4. Is this honest approach not an interpretation of the bible? Are you not guilty of denying your own thesis in this thread, by making this honest admission?
Don't get me wrong, I encourage such reflection and honestly critical introspection, but a truly honest approach is a dangerous trek for one such as you. You would do well to recognize the peril, and prepare to admit a great many previous statements of yours to have been wrong, if your research holds.
--
Stan
Well, it did not take long in prayer and research to find the possible answer for my temporary conundrum.
ReplyDeleteHow can I possibly get around spanking now with the knowledge of Hebrews 12:6-7
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?"
My research will continue.
I am not some drone, I use critical thinking to evaluate truth as we should and instructed to do so in the Bible. I am a man and will admit my failures and mistakes.
I actually embrace failure and mistakes because they teach us. We learn and grow with knowledge of right and wrong. It is common sense to do so. In this case, I cannot be convinced yet that spanking is bad for kids.
I should of added 8-11 also
ReplyDeleteFor whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteChastening don't need no rod, Sonny Jim... also, grammar Nazi that I am, it's "should have" not "should of" ;)
Froggie:- any spank-free ideas for handling a three year old who is pulling your beautiful, long blonde tresses so hard it's bringing tears to your eyes? Oh, she's saying "no!" when you shout at her to get off and it hurts it hurts soooo much!
Stan:- noted and noted. You speak sense m'man.
Plus I came across this:
ReplyDeleteThe Hebrew word for “rod” is anything that "branches off." And remember that the bottom is part of the back, so it's entirely reasonable to apply this passage with a switch to the backside of a child. The object is not to damage the child, but rather to give appropriate negative reinforcement to show that they have done wrong.
For some children, the mere sight of a rod is enough to bring them to repentance, in other cases, it takes a few firm blows before they feel it enough to decide not to do that wrong action again. Note that the Bible encourages the use of a rod, not of your hand.
Your children should not be afraid that you are going to hit them when you reach your hand out to them . Don't strike them with your hand; use your hands for giving them hugs – they need lots of that!
God's Word is a wealth of wisdom, if you understand how powerful and necessary it really is. Plus, just Google "self esteem movement" to see the failed logic of Froggie et al.
CwC,
ReplyDeleteI'm not comfortable dispensing advice on this becaue I don't have knowledge of the dynamics.
Always look for trends.
What precedes the hair pulling incident?
At 3, she might not be doing it because she is angry at you.
You may be acting as if it is a game.
most of these behaviors can be eliminated by recognizing precursor events. Does she do it when she is frustrated?
In any case, the instant she does it she must be immediately corrected and told that it hurts.
Set her on the floor and ignore her. She might cry and that is OK.
There is no way that a kid should be allowed to pull hair even for one second. In the case of physical abuse the act must be addressed swiftly and with absolute authority.
The instant she touches your hair you must restrain her and tell her NO in a very low and measured voice.
Later, when she wants your attention, before she gets on your lap, etc, tell her in no uncertain terms that you are not going to let her on your lap until she promises not to pull your hair.
The main question here is why is she pulling your hair at this age?
Frustration or anger?
Often the child who does this gets so much attention that the action becomes a way of gaining
the spotlight.
CwC,
ReplyDeleteHere is an article on hair pulling:
http://www.babycenter.com/0_hair-pulling_11553.bc
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe verses you quoted don't speak to spanking kids.
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."
If you're relying on that to justify spanking then you can't spank your daughters.
By the way, I have never subscribed to the "self esteem" movement.
Kids acquire self esteemthrough hard work and as a parent it is my job to show them the work to be done, and why and how it benefits them and others.
The SE movement are the folks that don't like kids competing fairly because they ,ight lose the game and feel bad.
That is wrong.
Kids must learn how to lose and learn that they will rarely be the "best" at any particular activity.
But, if they aspire to be the best, they are going to work harder that 99% of the people they are competing with.
Hard work pays off and there is no free luch.
All of my kids have figured out that the harder they work, the luckier they get.
I have never sheltered the kids from defeat or criticism.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAccusing me of being a part of the SE movement is slander, at best.
Nothing I have said would indicate my subscription to that philosophy.
If you want to raise your kids to consider themselves worthless pieces of shit, so be it.
I'm outa here.
If anyone wants to look at alternatives to beating their kids there are many recources on the net. I would beware of the SE stuff as Dr. Rosemond would also recommend.
Though the SEers are anti spanking, their philosophy goes far beyond that.
Kids need to learn to fail; why they failed and what decisions did they make to set them up for failure.
Strange how quiet this thread got when the troll left...
ReplyDeleteIt's quiet enough that we can now hear the faint sound of Dan's tears being shed as he loses another battle.
--
Stan
Dan
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to interpret one datum one way, but when a lot of data keep on verifying the original point, that's something else.
Its wonderful that you finally admit there is a Creator then Reynold. I appreciate that honesty. :7)
It's a good thing you're joking, otherwise I'd be concerned about your honesty there. It's evolution plus an old earth and old universe that keeps getting verified.
(ex. the confluence of radiometric dating methods, and astronomical methods for the age of the earth, etc)
Indeed there are a vast amount of assumptions made with these examples.
Yes, "assumptions" about the laws of physics and whatnot that, if they weren't true, we wouldn't have things like nuclear power, radiation therapy, X-rays (or any techology that deals with radiation) today because they all deal with radiation and the isotopes that give off radiation. Same with a bunch of those dating methods. Then there is the corroboration between the radiometric dating methods and other methods. There are independent checks on radiometric dating available.
You should perhaps read Roger Weins article. Don't worry, he's a christian like you.
Assumptions along with presuppositional interpretation of data equals disaster.
You should tell that to your friend, SyeTenB.
Could you imagine if a forensic scientist added his bias to the evidence?
Like you creationists do with yours? Remember, it's you guys who have the oaths that you have to take before one can join groups like ICR or AIG...
The data, or language, must stand on its own and speak to us without our input. We need to listen instead of interpret.
Yep.
more
Funny enough, YECs have gone after Weins, but look at one of them:
ReplyDeleteNote how Walker has already made up his mind, and starts acting childish:
The subtitle ‘A Christian Perspective’ makes it clear that this paper is intended for Christians. The paper aims to persuade them that the world is billions of years old, contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. Someone cheekily said a more appropriate subtitle would be, ‘A Pseudo-Christian Uniformitarian Propaganda sheet’. Although Wiens appears to have impressive credentials we must check all claims (including mine) against the Scriptures: ‘test everything’ (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Like the Bereans, who ‘examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true’ (Acts 17:11), the authority for the Christian is the Word of God, because we know that His word is true.
Ironically, Walker praises RATE:
Unfortunately this paper does not address the results of the groundbreaking Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) creationist research initiative, published in 2005.
"Groundbreaking"? Good grief.
YECs face the frightening possibility that any honest and carefully performed research may fail to support, and perhaps even undermine, their sacred biblical interpretations. YEC Vardiman (2000, p. 24) openly admits:
'Failure to achieve success on this problem [i.e., age of the Earth] might bring embarrassment to the creationist cause and delay the development of a new generation of young Christians.'
Clearly, YECs cannot allow any of their 'research results' to challenge their biblical interpretations or offend the religious views of their fundamentalist sponsors and other allies. In contrast, no authentic scientist would ever promise not to produce results that might offend their sponsors or other members of the public.
The links he gives are out of date, so I'll give them here.
Rats in RATE's 'Research'
Note from that first link:
The RATE committee even has a doctrinal monitor to look over their shoulders to make sure that their "science" does not conflict with the official party line. That is, a Hebrew language scholar will participate " ... to make sure the RATE Group stays on course" (Morris, 2000, p. viii).
Source:
Morris, J.D., 2000, "Prologue" in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (eds.), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mo, p. iii-viii.
What was it you were complaining about with presuppositions Dan? Why would they need a Hebrew language scholar to keep on track in a physics project?
Ancient Ice Ages AND Submarine Landslides, but NOT Noah's Flood
It'll Take a Miracle to Save their "Science"