NEWS: Graham Capill Calls for Ban on Bible: It's Pornographic!

[Robyn Banks]

GRAHAM CAPILL CALLS FOR BAN ON BIBLE
"IT'S PORNOGRAPHIC!"

CHRISTCHURCH - Christian Heritage Party Leader Graham Capill is calling on the public to boycott all Christian bookstores selling 'the Bible' - a publication he claims is "filled end-to-end with depraved pornography, and should be banned."

"While individuals are free to choose their own damnation by going to an R18 movie or hiring a smutty video," stated the Reverend Capill. "It is quite another thing to display a book to the general public on your shelves which, amongst other things, portrays the use of female slaves and captives as sexual toys,1 portrays polygamy and concubinage as something that's "normal"2, and graphically describes a depraved scene of drunken incest between a father and his two daughters."3

"What particularly disturbs me," added Graham Capill. "Is that this morally corrupt book can be freely picked up and read by children! We must ensure that free access to this material is restricted or, as I would prefer, removed entirely."

Ms Janice Sappho of the Office of Film and Literature Classification confirmed that the Bible was currently awaiting censorship classification.

"The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act lists six categories of material which are automatically objectionable," explained Ms Sappho.

"The Bible fails on all six."

"Within its pages, we found such demented acts as the taking of 32,000 virgins as booty by the Israelite army, the slaughter of their entire families in front of them - and some 32 of the virgins being offered to their tribal god.4 The book goes on to tell filthy stories of men who "eat their own dung, and drink their own piss,"5 and includes another story of 600,000 men being circumcised at a place perversely named "the Hill of Foreskins".6

"At one point in the book God threatens to spread dung on the faces of his own priests!7 It's sick stuff, like I've never encountered before," the clearly disgusted Government Censor commented.

Reverend Capill stressed the potential damage caused by the "morally turpid" material contained in the Bible, and claimed that "studies done around the world have shown the link between reading the Bible and sexual crime."

"What worries me is what happens to the mind of a Bible-reader after he reads of, for example, Onan having sexual intercourse with his dead brother's widow and deliberately "spilling his semen on the ground."8 What sort of ethic does that teach young people reading these words, I ask?

"What sort of ethic is taught from a book that describes a woman "seizing another man's genitals", and prescribes that "you shall cut off her hand; show no pity"?9 It's most un-Christian, that's what it is!"

"Although I would rather not, I forced myself to read all the pornographic material in the Bible. In one disturbing incident a woman is "wantonly raped, and abused all through the night", before being found by her master, cut up into twelve pieces and then sent to different parts of Israel.10 You can just imagine what sort of demented psychos this literature would produce if people took it seriously," lamented Reverend Capill.

"Why, one book [The Song of Solomon] even contains poems that glorify a love affair between two unmarried persons! Instead of the Christian view of sex - as a life-long commitment of love within a stable relationship - we read such sexually explicit descriptions as "Your two breasts are like two fawns,"11 and "They played the whore in their youth; their breasts were caressed there, and their virgin bosoms were fondled,"12 and "My beloved thrust his hand into the opening, and my inmost being yearned for him."13

"These lewd acts should be confined to the secrecy of the marriage chamber," protested Reverend Capill. "Yet we find this perverse material being offered on shelves to our children!"

"If the Bible is not banned immediately, the very moral fabric of society is at risk!" Graham Capill warned.


Ref: 1. 2 Samuel 5:13, Judges 19-21, Numbers 31:18; 2. Genesis 15:3; 29:20-28; 35:22 et al; 3. Genesis 19:30-38; 4. Numbers 31:17-40; 5. 2 Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12; 6. Joshua 5:3; 7. Malachi 2:3; 8. Genesis 38:9; 9. Deuteronomy 25:11-12; 10. Judges 19:25-29; 11. Song of Solomon 4:5; 7:3; 12. Ezekiel 23:3; 13. Song of Solomon 8:10.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Robyn:

Please provide source information for all copied articles, preferably the URL of the original source. Thank you.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hello,

The source for this nonsense is densitychurch.org, which appears to be a mockery of bible-thumping moralist Graham Capill, and should not be taken seriously in my opinion.

:duh:

from Guy

[Gavin]

If "Christianity" is the standard over the Bible, then what (instead of the Bible) defines what "Christianity" is? In my judgement, Capill seems (among other things) to be trying to judge greater by the lesser, or, more clearly, the source by the product.

Plus he doesn't understand the difference between historical narration and explicit endorsement.

:thinking:

[Robyn Banks]

Dee Dee Warren:
Please provide source information for all copied articles, preferably the URL of the original source. Thank you.
I am the original source.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

ghbearman:
The source for this nonsense is densitychurch.org, which appears to be a mockery of bible-thumping moralist Graham Capill, and should not be taken seriously in my opinion.

:duh:
The genre is satire. All satire is true.

Jonah is satire. It is true. But there was no big fish.

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

Were you there?

[Robyn Banks]

GrayPilgrim:
Were you there?
Satire is 'uncovered' by its internal signals.

Jonah is clearly satire. It has the signals.

Were you there when Odyseus went on his Odyssey? So how do you know it is false? (or do you?)

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[spl_cadet]

Robyn Banks:
Jonah is clearly satire. It has the signals.[/b]

Really? Are they comparable to the signals that females give off when they like a guy? Because that would explain why no one else has ever picked up on this.


[b]
Were you there when Odyseus went on his Odyssey? So how do you know it is false? (or do you?)

Yes I was you young whippersnapper!:)

[Ishmael]

If this is what we are going to keep getting from Robyn Banks I say we don't need him in our community. I am sure there are some fair minded skeptics out there...

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
Jonah is clearly satire. It has the signals.

spl_cadet:
Really? Are they comparable to the signals that females give off when they like a guy?
Fairly similar. Less smelly.

spl_cadet:
Because that would explain why no one else has ever picked up on this.
Incorrect. There are a number of scholarly articles that explain how Jonah is satire.


spl_cadet:
Yes I was you young whippersnapper!:)
I KNEW it was true!!
:rofl:

Robyn

[Sheepdog]

"- and some 32 of the virgins being offered to their tribal god.4"

Num 31:40 and the human beings were 16,000, from whom the LORD'S levy was 32 persons.
Num 31:41 Moses gave the levy which was the LORD'S offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

oops, so much for that theory. the "levy" was given to the priest, which was faily common-- there are several laws where a given offering (or portion of such) to God would be given to the levites.

"Satire is 'uncovered' by its internal signals.

"Jonah is clearly satire. It has the signals."

would you mind enlightening us peons on these signals? :argh:

"Really? Are they comparable to the signals that females give off when they like a guy? Because that would explain why no one else has ever picked up on this."

whats up, space cadet? :hi:

Incorrect. There are a number of scholarly articles that explain how Jonah is satire.

by any chance written by Dr. Larry Ph D, Dr. Moe Th D, and Dr. Curly MD? :whip:

you'll have to forgive me, when a person appeals to unspecified authories; i try to guess who they are. i'm probably not too far off, am i?

[Piebald]

Is that Sheepdog from CARM? If so, I'm Gollum! Good to see ya :)

[Sheepdog]

:cheers:

whatsup Gollum!? yup, this is Matt and Eric's lapdog. heh. i was wondering what you were up to. Holding from Tekton linked to this forum on his site, and i decided to drop in and check it out :)

i like these smillies, CARM needs to pick of a few of them :argue:

:spam:

:hi:

[Sheepdog]

ok, now that i am in a more serious mood, Banks, i'd have to admit that some material in the OT is unsutable for children. but still, don't you think it is a bit arrogant that your satire judges an ancient text based on modern standards? i mean, would you consider Rennasance(sp?) artworks to be indecent where they portray a person in the nude? most think they are masterpieces. a lot of people, including myself and even some skeptic friends of mine, also consider the Bible a masterpiece of literature.

oh by the way, so you know for future reference, you cannot censor in America something that, though it maybe indecent, contains serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific content; with exception to broadcast TV or Radio. (see laws on Obscenity). the Bible does fall into the first two, and possibly #3.

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
ok, now that i am in a more serious mood, Banks, i'd have to admit that some material in the OT is unsutable for children. but still, don't you think it is a bit arrogant that your satire judges an ancient text based on modern standards?
It is a satire on those fundamentalist Christians who wish to impose their own moral standards on society. The point is to show how morally relative ethics are - particularly in the Bible. So far from being 'arrogant', it's saying that we can't really object too much.


Sheepdog:
i mean, would you consider Rennasance(sp?) artworks to be indecent where they portray a person in the nude? most think they are masterpieces. a lot of people, including myself and even some skeptic friends of mine, also consider the Bible a masterpiece of literature.
The Bible is the Great Code of modern literature.


Sheepdog:
oh by the way, so you know for future reference, you cannot censor in America something that, though it maybe indecent, contains serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific content; with exception to broadcast TV or Radio. (see laws on Obscenity).
New Zealand is effectively similar. The only things censored these days are things that promote violence against someone or some group - hat literature for example.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
"Satire is 'uncovered' by its internal signals.

"Jonah is clearly satire. It has the signals."

Sheepdog:
would you mind enlightening us peons on these signals? :argh:
Sure. Here's a couple of main indicators.

The story concerns repentence. Jonah is told to preach repentence, but ironically, despite everyone else in the story repenting (the ship's crew, the Ninevahites, even their animals, and God), Jonah refuses to.

In addition to this, also see the symmetrical structure, in four parts - with the themes played out within those 4 parts.


Robyn:
[Incorrect. There are a number of scholarly articles that explain how Jonah is satire.

Sheepdog:
y any chance written by Dr. Larry Ph D, Dr. Moe Th D, and Dr. Curly MD? :whip:
you'll have to forgive me, when a person appeals to unspecified authories; i try to guess who they are. i'm probably not too far off, am i?
You're quite a long way off. :)

Try:
1. Edwin Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield, England: The Almond Press, 1981)
2. John C Holbert, " 'Deliverance Belongs to yahweh!' Satire in the Book of Jonah", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 21 (1981), 59-81

Robyn

[Sheepdog]

It is a satire on those fundamentalist Christians who wish to impose their own moral standards on society. The point is to show how morally relative ethics are - particularly in the Bible. So far from being 'arrogant', it's saying that we can't really object too much.

ok, sorry for the missunderstanding. still, you have to realize that "fundamentalists" as well as anyone else in society has a right to participate in the determiniation of what is socially right and wrong. chastizing a certain group for "imposing" their perspective is unfair, because you are also imposing your perspective on them.

now, in regards to ethics and realativity, i prefer not to get into the absolute/relative distinction and just say that ethics are (or, should be) objective and conditional.

let me explain, some absolutes do exist, like rape and "cold blooded" murder are always wrong independant of circumstances and culture (here, "cold blooded" murder excludes killing in self defence, just war, or capital punishment dealt by a governing authority).

moral relativism, on the other hand, is a cop out. by making morals relative, you allow each and every individual to define morals as one pleases. if this occurs, then rape may be justified by simply saying, "moral are relative, and you have no right to judge my opinion of what constitutes 'rape'." in essence, all relativism does is give people an excuse to evade social ethics when they are inconvenient.

you say ethics are relative, but if i punched you in the face, you would probably punch me back. when you do, i'd ask you why would you fight back? you cannot answer the question without appealing to some objectively true ethic (namely, my right to throw punches ends where your nose begins).

but, what if you lived in nazi Germany prior to WWII, and you were hiding Jews in your cellar? would you lie to Nazi soldiers for the sake of the Jews hidden in your house? there are cases where some sort of "evil" is necessary (like in this hypothetical), where the lesser of the evils ought to be chosen. though lying is typically a sin, in this case it would be a worse sin to not lie.

thus some ethics are dependant on context. however, since they are not dependant on the individual (that is, not relative nor subjective), ethics are also objectively true. (note, objective ethics can only exist if there is an ultimate authority to determine what these ethics are. we Christians propose that the Christian God is this ultimate authority).


Sheepdog:
oh by the way, so you know for future reference, you cannot censor in America something that, though it maybe indecent, contains serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific content; with exception to broadcast TV or Radio. (see laws on Obscenity).



New Zealand is effectively similar. The only things censored these days are things that promote violence against someone or some group - hat literature for example.

well, not all that similar. since the majorty of Americans are moderate to conservative families with at least some religious influence, most of the media industry in our country is self-censored, despite freedom of speech. (i.e., you won't profit much if your audience won't watch). the exception being broadcast TV and Radio, which is censored by the FCC, but mainly because radiowave transmission is considered a scarce resource, and thus those who are priveledged to use them must assure "public convenience, interest, and necessity" first and foremost.

a Kiwi, huh? i have a friend i know over the internet who lives in New Zeeland.


The story concerns repentence. Jonah is told to preach repentence, but ironically, despite everyone else in the story repenting (the ship's crew, the Ninevahites, even their animals, and God), Jonah refuses to.

since Jonah had the audacity to ship out to the opposite side of the continent rather than Ninevah, i would expect him to be reluctant to repent. the irony of this very well coould be coincidental.


In addition to this, also see the symmetrical structure, in four parts - with the themes played out within those 4 parts.

this would indicate the writing style of the author chose to use. however, the writing style itself does not indicate whether this is fact of fiction based on fact.


Try:
1. Edwin Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield, England: The Almond Press, 1981)
2. John C Holbert, " 'Deliverance Belongs to yahweh!' Satire in the Book of Jonah", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 21 (1981), 59-81

heh, well i'll be begiggered. but you'd pardon me if i am still a bit skeptical about this though, right? (i do not have the time or resources to double check these citations)

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
ok, sorry for the missunderstanding.
That's OK. :)


Sheepdog:
still, you have to realize that "fundamentalists" as well as anyone else in society has a right to participate in the determiniation of what is socially right and wrong.
Absolutely. But I wouldn't want them imposing their ethical views on me. I find their ethical views quite unethical. :)


Sheepdog:
chastizing a certain group for "imposing" their perspective is unfair, because you are also imposing your perspective on them.
But I don't object to fundamentalist Christians propagating their views, even if those views are that ethics should be imposed on others. I actually agree that people should be able to propagate their ethical views, even if they believe that their views are absolute and should be imposed.

And I personally also believe it is good to satirise such views.

This is quite 'fair'. Maybe you are confusing my view with someone's else's.


Sheepdog:
But now, in regards to ethics and realativity, i prefer not to get into the absolute/relative distinction and just say that ethics are (or, should be) objective and conditional.
Ethics are decided by a culture. They are subjective and conditional.


Sheepdog:
let me explain, some absolutes do exist, like rape and "cold blooded" murder are always wrong independant of circumstances and culture
Nonsense. Rape was seen as perfectly moral by many warrior cultures. Cold blooded murder has often been justified in hierarchial society - where the greater good of stability has overridden the good of the lower-ranked individual's life.

That being so, some actions will more often be viewed in cultures as being wrong, because cultures are always influenced by our physical make-up, and our physical nature has limitations. The influence of our physical make-up on the development of our cultures is complex, however, and not easily reducible.


Sheepdog:
moral relativism, on the other hand, is a cop out. by making morals relative, you allow each and every individual to define morals as one pleases. if this occurs, then rape may be justified by simply saying, "moral are relative, and you have no right to judge my opinion of what constitutes 'rape'." in essence, all relativism does is give people an excuse to evade social ethics when they are inconvenient.
That is one reason why I am a moral subjectivist, not a moral relativist.


Sheepdog:
you say ethics are relative, but if i punched you in the face, you would probably punch me back. when you do, i'd ask you why would you fight back? you cannot answer the question without appealing to some objectively true ethic (namely, my right to throw punches ends where your nose begins).
Incorrect. I could answer that it is not acceptable behaviour in my society. That would not be 'objective'. It would be subjective.


Sheepdog:
but, what if you lived in nazi Germany prior to WWII, and you were hiding Jews in your cellar? would you lie to Nazi soldiers for the sake of the Jews hidden in your house? there are cases where some sort of "evil" is necessary (like in this hypothetical), where the lesser of the evils ought to be chosen. though lying is typically a sin, in this case it would be a worse sin to not lie.
Lying is not necessarily a 'sin'. Bearing false witness against a neighbour is a 'sin'.


Sheepdog:
thus some ethics are dependant on context.
All ethics are dependent on context.


Sheepdog:
however, since they are not dependant on the individual (that is, not relative nor subjective), ethics are also objectively true.
No ethics are objectively true. Ethics are a creation of culture.



Sheepdog:
(note, objective ethics can only exist if there is an ultimate authority to determine what these ethics are. we Christians propose that the Christian God is this ultimate authority).
Objective ethics do not 'exist'. The argument from ethics is therefore bunk.


Sheepdog:
since Jonah had the audacity to ship out to the opposite side of the continent rather than Ninevah, i would expect him to be reluctant to repent. the irony of this very well coould be coincidental.
Anything 'could' possibly be an interpretation. But there is only one 'reading'.


Sheepdog:
this would indicate the writing style of the author chose to use. however, the writing style itself does not indicate whether this is fact of fiction based on fact.
Fiction may be true, without having any 'facts'.


Sheepdog:
heh, well i'll be begiggered. but you'd pardon me if i am still a bit skeptical about this though, right? (i do not have the time or resources to double check these citations)
I wouldn't be citing a publication as well-known as the JSOT though, would I? Someone here would check it out.

You have my permission to be sceptical, certainly. But I am sure I have defended my claim that "there are a number of scholarly articles that explain how Jonah is satire."

Robyn

[Socrates]

Robyn Banks wrote:

"It is a satire on those fundamentalist Christians who wish to impose their own moral standards on society.

The question is not whether one should impose moral standards, but WHOSE morals should be imposed. :p Evidently RB has no problem with anti-Christians imposing THEIR morals on society. E.g. pro-lifers are often told that opposing pre-natal baby-butchery is "imposing their morality on pregnant women" and even fall for the "I'm personally opposed, but ..." bilge. But when do we ever hear God-haters say "I'm personally in favor of abortion, but I won't impose my view on the innocent unborn baby." :idea:

And I must wonder whether he/she/it objects to anti-rapists and anti-murders imposing their morals on rapists and murderers!

RB:
"The point is to show how morally relative ethics are - particularly in the Bible. So far from being 'arrogant', it's saying that we can't really object too much."

Humph, typical liberal. The only reason why he/she/it objects to inerrancy is to play pick'n'mix with the Bible, selecting what he/she/it likes. :bonk:

Of course, all the while, deliberately confusing: :argh:

1. what the Bible approves and merely records
2. the nature of progressive revelation of the Messianic program which results in different law codes for different stages
3. the fact that the Bible presents a hierarchy of absolutes (what Geisler calls "graded absolutism"), which in no way should be confused with moral relativism.

[Robyn Banks]

Socrates:
The question is not whether one should impose moral standards, but WHOSE morals should be imposed. :p
Any society must have at least one ethical system. For every culture there is at least one ethic.


Socrates:
Evidently RB has no problem with anti-Christians imposing THEIR morals on society.
What is your "evidence" for this assertion?

In fact, I do have a problem with anti-Christians imposing THEIR morals on society, so I'd be interested in learning how you came to your presupposition about me.


Socrates:
E.g. pro-lifers are often told that opposing pre-natal baby-butchery is "imposing their morality on pregnant women" and even fall for the "I'm personally opposed, but ..." bilge.
All Christians should be able to propagate their 'pro-life' views.


Socrates:
But when do we ever hear God-haters say "I'm personally in favor of abortion, but I won't impose my view on the innocent unborn baby." :idea:
False analogy, irrelevant & absurd. Babies are amoral. They are not moral creatures.


Socrates:
And I must wonder whether he/she/it objects to anti-rapists and anti-murders imposing their morals on rapists and murderers!
You confuse moral issues with legal issues. I want to kill rapists & murderers in my society, because I want to be safe. I have little interest in indoctrinating law-abiding citizens with my ethical system, unless they first express an interest.


Robyn:
"The point is to show how morally relative ethics are - particularly in the Bible. So far from being 'arrogant', it's saying that we can't really object too much."

Socrates:
Humph, typical liberal.
Do you often put people into boxes to help yourself deal with them? :rofl:


Socrates:
The only reason why he/she/it objects to inerrancy is to play pick'n'mix with the Bible, selecting what he/she/it likes. :bonk:
Absolute nonsense, born of an insular fear-of-other-mentality. One may still follow the Bible's message, even though one has realised that it contains errors. I know many anti-homosexual, pro-lifer errantist Christians.


Socrates:
Of course, all the while, deliberately confusing: :argh:
1. what the Bible approves and merely records
2. the nature of progressive revelation of the Messianic program which results in different law codes for different stages
3. the fact that the Bible presents a hierarchy of absolutes (what Geisler calls "graded absolutism"), which in no way should be confused with moral relativism.
Empty assertions, from some former Brainwashing Camp.

Robyn

[GrayPilgrim]

Oops, Socrates, that's not nice, fighting fire with fire! [So that there will be no debate through the eons of time that previous sentence was dripping with sarcasm, or was it?]

[Blake Reas]

In fact, I do have a problem with anti-Christians imposing THEIR morals on society, so I'd be interested in learning how you came to your presupposition about me.

Why do you have a problem with it? That in and of itself is a moral statment! Just wondering. God Bless!

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. Agape, remember!

:rofl:

[Blake Reas]

In fact, I do have a problem with anti-Christians imposing THEIR morals on society, so I'd be interested in learning how you came to your presupposition about me.

Why do you have a problem with it? That in and of itself is a moral statment! Why is it wrong? Anti Christians are just practicing their own subjective thoughts upon others you should have no problem with it! Just wondering. God Bless!

Was what Hitler did wrong? If so why Robyn? Just some curious questions I actually find your postion interesting being that you can deal with that type of inconsistency!

I see where you are coming from with the errancy thing, even though I do not agree. Two of my favorite theologians Barth and Bonhoffer held to the Neo-Orthodox view which may be a little different from what you beleive although I am not sure!

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. Agape, remember!

:rofl:

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
Why do you have a problem with it? That in and of itself is a moral statment!
I make lots of moral statements. Is that bad? :)


Blake Reas:
Why is it wrong? Anti Christians are just practicing their own subjective thoughts upon others you should have no problem with it! Just wondering
'Why is it wrong?" Good question. Because I don't like it!


Blake Reas:
Was what Hitler did wrong?
Yes.


Blake Reas:
If so why Robyn?
Because I don't like it.


Blake Reas:
Just some curious questions I actually find your postion interesting being that you can deal with that type of inconsistency!
What inconsistency?


Blake Reas:
I see where you are coming from with the errancy thing, even though I do not agree.
Good on ya!


Blake Reas:
Two of my favorite theologians Barth and Bonhoffer held to the Neo-Orthodox view which may be a little different from what you beleive although I am not sure!
Hmmmmm... Barth appeared to be saying a similar thing to me. I'm not so sure about Bonhoeffer.


Blake Reas:
P.S. Agape, remember!
*phew*... er... not that I'm erotophobic :rofl:

Robyn

[Blake Reas]

Robyn Banks:

I make lots of moral statements. Is that bad? :)


'Why is it wrong?" Good question. Because I don't like it!


Yes.


Because I don't like it.


What inconsistency?


Good on ya!


Hmmmmm... Barth appeared to be saying a similar thing to me. I'm not so sure about Bonhoeffer.

Blake: My question is do you accept the same concept of God that Barth did, A transcendent being? I remember you talking about how you thought pannenburg or Tillich where interesting(can't remember for sure). I am pretty sure he was orthodox in every other aspect of his theology. Although I do not think inerrancy should be a measure for orthodoxy.

Robyn there is one thing though that I want to add. Do you really think that every inerrantist is stupid? I get on Metacrocks message board and he does not seem to think so. You must admit there are some pretty intelligent scholars who hold to the view Ben Witheringto being one. I may be wrong but I feel that you want to paint them all as stupid (Like I said i could be wrong;) )



*phew*... er... not that I'm erotophobic :rofl:

Yeah I did not mean it in any other way! hahahaahah :rofl:

Robyn :rofl:

In Christ,'
Blake Reas

P.S. By Chance have you ever read John Gresham Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism? I am wondering if you are liberal or if you are orthodox and just reject inerrancy (ala Barth)!

[Blake Reas]

Actually wait if you don't want you do not have to answer your views about God(If you don't want to!) I do not see how you can believe in God (at least the one I do) and not believe in OB morality. I take it you are liberal since you deny morality.

The only thing that bothers me about what you said was about Hitler killing 6 million Jews I do not see how you can say there was not something objectively wrong about that. Could you explain? I find it really fascinating, have you been reading Nietzsche or something!:)


So since Hitler did not think it was wrong and most of Germany did not either, we had no right in stopping what he was doing? That is ludicrous (sorry that is how I feel. No offense to you!)!

In His saving Grace,
Blake Reas :huh:

[Robyn Banks]

Blake Reas:
My question is do you accept the same concept of God that Barth did, A transcendent being?
I'm currently observing Paul Tillich's 100 year moratorium on the discussion of the meaning of 'God'. Hopefully not until the end of the 100 years, though.


Blake Reas:
I remember you talking about how you thought pannenburg or Tillich where interesting(can't remember for sure).
I think it was Pannenberg.


Blake Reas:
I am pretty sure he was orthodox in every other aspect of his theology.
Pannenberg or Tillich? Pannenberg is more 'orthodox' than Tillich.

Tillich is more of an apologist for the Faith.


Blake Reas:
Although I do not think inerrancy should be a measure for orthodoxy.
I'm with you on that one. :)


Blake Reas:
Robyn there is one thing though that I want to add. Do you really think that every inerrantist is stupid?
I have never expressed an opinion on that. I consider that every inerrantist is stupid concerning their opinion about inerrancy. But, then again, the most intelligent people are stupid about some things. People rationalize well, and mistake it for rationalism.


Blake Reas:
I get on Metacrocks message board and he does not seem to think so. You must admit there are some pretty intelligent scholars who hold to the view Ben Witheringto being one. I may be wrong but I feel that you want to paint them all as stupid (Like I said i could be wrong )
Yeah - you are wrong - that was never my opinion. :)


Blake Reas:
P.S. By Chance have you ever read John Gresham Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism? I am wondering if you are liberal or if you are orthodox and just reject inerrancy (ala Barth)!
I don't much like liberals. And I don't get much out of orthodoxy either.


Blake Reas:
:Actually wait if you don't want you do not have to answer your views about God(If you don't want to!) I do not see how you can believe in God (at least the one I do) and not believe in OB morality.
Have you read Bishop Richard Holloway's "Godless Morality"? Actually, I don't really recommend that one, but like the title suggests, it provides a reason.


Blake Reas:
I take it you are liberal since you deny morality.
I affirm morality. I just don't see a particular morality as being objectively true.


Blake Reas:
The only thing that bothers me about what you said was about Hitler killing 6 million Jews I do not see how you can say there was not something objectively wrong about that. Could you explain? I find it really fascinating, have you been reading Nietzsche or something!
"There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya"
- Monty Python

What Hitler did was beyond our comprehension. It is so clearly wrong and abhorrent, that it seems objectively to be wrong in all circumstances. It seems like that to us.


Blake Reas:
So since Hitler did not think it was wrong and most of Germany did not either, we had no right in stopping what he was doing?
Rights do not exist.

(And 'we' did not stop Hitler for murdering Jews, but for invading countries. 'We' found out about the Jews later.)

But conflicts between ethical systems result in people stopping other people. Ethics is a reason for this.


Blake Reas:
That is ludicrous (sorry that is how I feel. No offense to you!)!
You have internalised your society's ethics well. Your society would be proud of you!

“The laws of conscience, which we pretend to be derived from nature, proceed from custom; every one, having an inward veneration for the opinions and manners approved and received among his own people, cannot, without very great reluctance, depart from them, nor apply himself to them without applause.”
- Michel de Montaigne, Essays (1588)

“Ethical codes are precepts reached by consensus under the guidance of the innate rules of mental development."
- Edward O Wilson, Consilience – The Unity of Knowledge (London: Little, Brown & Company, 1998), p275

Robyn

[Socrates]

Sheepdog:
since Jonah had the audacity to ship out to the opposite side of the continent rather than Ninevah, i would expect him to be reluctant to repent. the irony of this very well coould be coincidental.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robyn Banx
"Anything 'could' possibly be an interpretation. But there is only one 'reading'.

Well, Jesus affirmed Jonah as history. I.e. He regarded the three days and three nights in the great sea creature as real as His coming Resurrection. And he affirmed the reality of Jonah's preaching, saying that someone even greater was there, and the fact that the repentant Ninevites would stand and point the finger at His generation (Matthew 12:39-41, Luke 11:29-32). :read:

Now who should we believe: Jesus or some biblically ignorant solicitor who thinks babies have no value and can't do better than plagiarize apologetics sites.:bonk:

[Socrates]

Hello,

The source for this nonsense is densitychurch.org, which appears to be a mockery of bible-thumping moralist Graham Capill, and should not be taken seriously in my opinion.

from Guy

Guy, you're right that this is nonsense like just about everything from this vexatious critic, but please check your facts. Graham Capill is the leader of New Zealand's Christian Heritage Party, and was a minister in the Reformed Church. Banx has just written something even more witless :duh: than the scriptwriters for the West Wing -- see President bartlet's fallacious diatribe http://www.equip.org/free/DP801.htm for the common approach distinguishing moral and ceremonial law. This would probably be the way that Capill himself would deal with the crassness of this denseliberalnonsense.org :p J.P. Holding has made some very good points about how many of the principles behind some of the laws have applications today, e.g. building parapets on the roof is paralleled with fences on verandahs. http://www.tektonics.org/lawrole.html. The Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum argues reasonably that the Mosaic Law as a code was made obsolute by the Law of Christ http://www.ariel.org/ff00006f.html. :read:

[Blake Reas]

Pannenberg or Tillich? Pannenberg is more 'orthodox' than Tillich.

Tillich is more of an apologist for the Faith.

Sorry I was talking about Barth. Pannenberg is to out of bounds and Tillich (well I don't know about Tillich) was a different breed of "theist".

Actually you can't learn much from Nietzsche except that life is pointless! Although I have read a book about how you can use him and Deriddia to kill your own Idols. The guy who wrote it was a Christian it is called "Graven Ideologies" it was from IVP if you wanna check it out.:read:

Oh, well talk at ya later.

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[Sheepdog]

Ethics are decided by a culture. They are subjective and conditional.

in that case, the UN was in the wrong for punishing Nazi War Criminals, as they were merely abiding in the ethic that Hitler established. see what kind of evil you can justify when you make ethics relative?

and, since you are presupposing the none-existance of a supreme authority on what is ethical (supernatural, or otherwise), this all reduces to question begging and an empty assertion without merit.

i could also say, "it is absulotely morally wrong to pick your nose," and since it is about as grounded as your assertion above, they are equally invalid.

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
in that case, the UN was in the wrong for punishing Nazi War Criminals, as they were merely abiding in the ethic that Hitler established.
That is ethical relativism. Ethical subjectivism allows for someone to 'impose' their ethic on another. It just acknowledges that this stems from cultural preference.


Sheepdog:
see what kind of evil you can justify when you make ethics relative?
Yes. That is one of the reasons I am an ethical subjectivist, and not an ethical relativist.


Sheepdog:
and, since you are presupposing the none-existance of a supreme authority
Nope. I am not presupposing the non-existence of a 'supreme authority'. You are confusing me with someone else, perhaps?


Sheepdog:
on what is ethical (supernatural, or otherwise), this all reduces to question begging and an empty assertion without merit.
Strawman. I make no such presupposition.


Sheepdog:
i could also say, "it is absulotely morally wrong to pick your nose," and since it is about as grounded as your assertion above, they are equally invalid.
Strawman. I make no such presupposition.

[Bartholomew]

Hamster:
Is that Sheepdog from CARM? If so, I'm Gollum! Good to see ya :)

Woah, Gollum AND Sheepdog! Add that to Ric and Spl_Cadet and we have our own little CARM invasion force! :)

BTW Gollum, I love the avatar and title. :rofl:

~Matt

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Socrates:
Hello,

The source for this nonsense is densitychurch.org, which appears to be a mockery of bible-thumping moralist Graham Capill, and should not be taken seriously in my opinion.

from Guy

Guy, you're right that this is nonsense like just about everything from this vexatious critic, but please check your facts. Graham Capill is the leader of New Zealand's Christian Heritage Party, and was a minister in the Reformed Church. Banx has just written something even more witless :duh: than the scriptwriters for the West Wing -- see President bartlet's fallacious diatribe [url]http://www.equip.org/free/DP801

Guy> I am truly sorry for getting my facts wrong, :cry: what I meant to say is that Capill appears to reject phallic symbolism from what I read on the 'Net, and I was so angry with Robyn for posting that mocking site (together with phallic symbolism!) it came out wrong. And now I'm angry with myself for skewing things, and making Tekton look like it doesn't know what a fact is. eek, sorry JP, Socrates & Robyn. By "moralist" I referred to this:

Source: Nga Korero Aug 1998
In Tokoroa Aug. 5, Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill offered to provide a grass skirt to wrap around the carving Te Poupou Korero, which features a naked male figure with erect [edited for decency!]. Capill said common standards of decency should apply to Maori and Pakeha. "I challenge you to find a single other pole that is so sexually explicit," Capill said

I do try hard to get things right (kind of important when you're out to bust skeptics) - thanks for pointing this out.
BTW the equip.org url doesnt appear to work - might be my browser though

from Guy

[Socrates]

Guy> I am truly sorry for getting my facts wrong, :cry: what I meant to say is that Capill appears to reject phallic symbolism from what I read on the 'Net, and I was so angry with Robyn for posting that mocking site (together with phallic symbolism!) it came out wrong.


T'is OK. Yes, the denseliberalcrap.org is illegitimate as satire, because it distorts a person to make him say something that he's on record of not believing. And people like Robyn get slavery wrong too -- it was the "Bible-thumping moralist" Wm. Wilberforce who was most influential in getting rid of it. And guess who first said this motto much beloved by Robyn in NZ and by your ACLU legal bully boys:



‘Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life’.


It was the British 19th century Prime Minister, said in opposition to the anti-slavery activists.

Later on, the British used its powerful navy to impose its anti-slavery morality on other countries.



And now I'm angry with myself for skewing things, and making Tekton look like it doesn't know what a fact is. eek, sorry JP, Socrates & Robyn. By "moralist" I referred to this:


Source: Nga Korero Aug 1998
In Tokoroa Aug. 5, Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill offered to provide a grass skirt to wrap around the carving Te Poupou Korero, which features a naked male figure with erect [edited for decency!]. Capill said common standards of decency should apply to Maori and Pakeha. "I challenge you to find a single other pole that is so sexually explicit," Capill said



Yeah, well, it's wise not to take the largely humanist-dominated media at face value, esp. when the NZ CHP is concerned.




I do try hard to get things right (kind of important when you're out to bust skeptics) - thanks for pointing this out.

Yep, we're on the same side here!



BTW the equip.org url doesnt appear to work - might be my browser though.

Oh, I think I forgot to put the .htm on it, sorry. Try it now:
President Bartlet's fallacious diatribe (http://www.equip.org/free/DP801.htm)

[Sheepdog]

Robyn Banks:
That is ethical relativism. Ethical subjectivism allows for someone to 'impose' their ethic on another. It just acknowledges that this stems from cultural preference.

Yes. That is one of the reasons I am an ethical subjectivist, and not an ethical relativist.


...and the Nazis who tried to make the holocaust a "cultural preference"

but that aside, i would have reservations about taking the position you have-- if objective morality doesn't exist, then if the majority of a population believes that rape is ok, then rape is ok-- in fact, you just gave that majority the right to impose its views on rape onto other cultures. that may only be a hypothetical, but considering that Communism came close to being a world dominating system, i would be concerned about something similar happening again.

heck, what if Germany won the war, and it turned out that Hitler imposed his ethic on the Allies? since no ethic has an objective morality (as you posit) they are no more wrong nor right than the UN. but you wouldn't want to admit that, do you?



Nope. I am not presupposing the non-existence of a 'supreme authority'. You are confusing me with someone else, perhaps?


perhaps not; but if there is a supreme authority of some sort, whatever that authority says is objectively true, simply because there is no authority that may overrule the said supreme authority. even if the authority in question commanded that we decide for ourselves what is morally true, that itself is an objective ethical command.




Sheepdog:
on what is ethical (supernatural, or otherwise), this all reduces to question begging and an empty assertion without merit.

Strawman. I make no such presupposition.

since such is necessary to your argument, no strawman was commited.



[quote]
Sheepdog:
i could also say, "it is absulotely morally wrong to pick your nose," and since it is about as grounded as your assertion above, they are equally invalid.[/quote

Strawman. I make no such presupposition.

huh? this was itself a response to:


Ethics are decided by a culture. They are subjective and conditional.

my last statement was not a part of the above argumentation regarding supreme authority, and thus does not deserve the strawman accusation. i see no more reasoning for "Ethics are decided by a culture, they are subjective and conditional" than i do for "It is absolutely morally wrong to pick your nose." from my point of view both assertions have the same merit.

... then again, it would be nice from time to time to pull out a nice goober and flick it in some out-of-sight location ;}

[kiwimac]

All,

I quite enjoy a bit of satire & frankly, knowing Graham Capill, this sort of thing is not beyond him!

Volatile, you need to develop a sense of humour, remember, a "merry heart does you good, like a medicine"

Kiwimac

[Robyn Banks]

Sheepdog:
but that aside, i would have reservations about taking the position you have-- if objective morality doesn't exist, then if the majority of a population believes that rape is ok, then rape is ok--
Yes. Of course rape-as-bad is subjective. What is your problem with this?

And in the Old Testament we see that rape was not so much a crime against a woman, but a crime against the Father for damaging his goods (if unmarried), or a crime against the Husband for damaging his goods (if married).



Sheepdog:
in fact, you just gave that majority the right to impose its views on rape onto other cultures. that may only be a hypothetical, but considering that Communism came close to being a world dominating system, i would be concerned about something similar happening again.
I didn't give the majority any such right. The 'majority' produces morality in the first place - it doesn't need to be 'given' to them.


Sheepdog:
heck, what if Germany won the war, and it turned out that Hitler imposed his ethic on the Allies? since no ethic has an objective morality (as you posit) they are no more wrong nor right than the UN. but you wouldn't want to admit that, do you?
Incorrect. I do admit that. All ethics are subjectively determined. It is merely your internalisation of your culture's rules that makes you adverse to Hitler's ethics.

I think your aversion is good, because of my internalisation of my culture's values.


Sheepdog:
perhaps not; but if there is a supreme authority of some sort, whatever that authority says is objectively true, simply because there is no authority that may overrule the said supreme authority. even if the authority in question commanded that we decide for ourselves what is morally true, that itself is an objective ethical command.
And if my aunt was a man, she'd be my uncle.


Sheepdog:
my last statement was not a part of the above argumentation regarding supreme authority, and thus does not deserve the strawman accusation.
You presumed wrongly that I a priori reject a supreme authority. I don't.


Sheepdog:
i see no more reasoning for "Ethics are decided by a culture, they are subjective and conditional" than i do for "It is absolutely morally wrong to pick your nose." from my point of view both assertions have the same merit.
That ethics are culturally determined is a fact. That an ethic is abolutely true is a metaphysical assertion.



Sheepdog:
... then again, it would be nice from time to time to pull out a nice goober and flick it in some out-of-sight location ;}
As my grandfather often recites:
"A boy stood on a burning deck
Picking his nose like mad
Rolling them into little balls
And flicking them at his Dad"

I found this very funny when I was much younger. :)

[djconklin]

There are a number of scholarly articles that explain how Jonah is satire.

And how high is that number?

In a major paper on Jonah (my bibliography was 15 pages long--the whole paper only had to be 15 pages minimum) for a graduate school level course I do not recall (of course, I should mention that was ten years ago!) seeing even one respected scholar in the field who said such a thing--please post all (both?) of them. The only satire I can possibly think of is on Jonah himself for his attitude. BTW, there had to be some sort of fish in order for the story to work.

[Robyn Banks]

There are a number of scholarly articles that explain how Jonah is satire.




And how high is that number?

In a major paper on Jonah (my bibliography was 15 pages long--the whole paper only had to be 15 pages minimum) for a graduate school level course I do not recall (of course, I should mention that was ten years ago!) seeing even one respected scholar in the field who said such a thing

Mr Conklin - we are already well aware of your selective and one-eyed use of scholarship. You continually quote from conservative viewpoints, and then pick small quotes from non-conservative sources out of context. Your methodology has nothing in common with proper scholarship. At its best , proper scholarship weighs up the evidence without bias, in order to come to a conclusion. Your own pop-apologetic tactics stand in stark contrast to this: you first form a conclusion, and then only note down viewpoints which are consistent with this. This is the Magpie Method of Bible-Interpretation: if it's shiny and agrees with your biases, note it - if not, discard it!

So, it is completely unsurprising that your Magpie Method collected together 15 pages of bibliography on Jonah, but completely failed to find any articles which considered Jonah to be 'satire'.

By the way - this is the second time recently you have dredged up an old posting of mine from as early as Feb 03. I'm glad that you're educating yourself by taking notice of some knowledge that may have escaped your usual biased readings. Like what you're reading from me? Learning lots of new stuff? Realising that I'm right, and you may have to revise some of your ideas (here's hoping, anyway)?

Robyn Banks

[Glenn P]

I guess since you don't live in new Zealand, your ignorance is excusable.

www.densitychurch.org.nz (http://www.densitychurch.org.nz) is a parody website of www.destinychurch.org.nz (http://www.destinychurch.org.nz)

Destiny Church is perceived as being overly moralistic, hence the story on this page. Destiny Church has spawned a political party, Destiny New Zealand. However, Graham Capill has never been involved with this church or this party. As usual, the opponents of Christians in politics muddle their facts when making jokes. Mr Capill was once the leader of the Christian heritage Party in New Zealand, which has never had any connection to Destiny Church or Destiny New Zealand.

[Nobby Snark]

Good point.