So then first, what is this Overton Window? That window, named after Joseph “Wiki” Overton — who coined the phrase — refers to the range of ideas that are palatable, thinkable, acceptable, or otherwise within the pale, when it comes to public discourse. Outside the window, you’re just a hate-filled weirdo. In the area of the curtains, you’re an extremist but they will still deal with you.
Now we live in unstable times, which means that the window moves around. Some powerful forces want this to represent a drastic cultural remodel, an extreme makeover, and so they want to put the window clear on the other side of the house now. Think about it. Five years ago, how many people even knew what transgenderism was? And yet now we must be seething with hatred because we don’t want some disturbed guy in a Minnie Pearl hat peeing in the same room as our five-year-old daughter.
In order to get regular people to go along with this drastic renovation, the progressive element in our society has resorted to one of their standard persuasive techniques, one which is sometimes still known by its older name of “cudgeling.” Of course you are cudgeled if you object to the moving of the window. But — and here is how the window actually gets moved — they will also cudgel you if you know somebody who once said a nice thing about a fellow who spoke at a conference once with someone who objected to the moving of the window.
This last poor sap may not have been quite as hateful as the anti-remodeler himself, but he is part of a system that “legitimizes” such views. And — perhaps you may have anticipated this — such views must NEVER be legitimized. They are, much like Emmanuel Goldstein, doubleplusungood.
This is how Christian players and kinda players who care more about respectability (as determined by the current location of the window) than truth (as determined by Scripture) are persuaded to keep their distance from Christians who are putting up resistance that is actually effective. If you are looking for worldview stability, you will not find it there. This susceptible kind of Christian is as stalwart as a cat chasing a laser pointer. Their mewling quest for relevance has all the backbone of a wet napkin on the counter.
And this brings me to the subject — as much as it brings a blush to what can be seen above the beard of my maidenly cheeks — of moi. Now some might want to say, as a simple matter of word craft, that beard and maidenly cheeks don’t really go together. This simply shows how much work we have left to do, people. Have you ever seen such enmity, animosity, rancor, bile, meanness, malignity, spleen, mordacity, or venom? Well, no, but for myself, I identify with all those characteristics ONLY in a manner consistent with the fruit of the Spirit. If someone can be a gender bender, why can someone else not be a tender bender? Or perhaps a tender gender bender bender. I call this cis-bending.
I have been called “controversial.” Fine, but why? Some say it is because of alleged plagiarism, and others because I am a rapist-defender, and others because I am a paleo-Confederate, and others because they heard I deny sola fide, and yet others because they understand I am a racist who wants to bring back the slave trade. They pelt me with excrement and offal so they can accuse me of stinking. Yeah, well.
There is a particular play that is currently being run on us. Look what is sitting at the top of my Twitter feed at the moment.
“From here on out, take note of who still endorses or recommends @douglaswils, then mark and avoid.”
To point out that this is what people are trying to do is not “whining.” I do not find the existence of such tactics unusual or odd in the slightest. Welcome to earth, kid. But boil it all down. The reason I am controversial is that I fight. Not only so, but I show every indication that I will continue to fight in the future. I promise to fight, and I promise to fight all out, and if you don’t want to get any of those particular cooties on you, you will continue to have many other evangelical options. Such alternatives to fighting include throat-clearing, at-the-end-of-the-daying, on-the-other-handing, seminar-toodling, and panel-discussion-counterpointing. The only downside is that your men turn into pencil-necked wusses and your women into the kind of women who first make and then tolerate pencil-necked wusses.
A movie documenting precisely the kind of thing we are dealing with was made last fall and is now available on Amazon Prime. You can check it out here. If you want to know why I am controversial, you can find out here. If you want to know my demeanor in the midst of controversy, you can find out here. If you want to know the character of my enemies, you can find out here. If you want to know if I love them, you can find out here. And don’t assume you know what the flag background in that cross means.
I am in the midst of a great fight, and I intend to fight effectively. Ah, someone might retort, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Right, but as the joke continues, who wants to catch flies?
Some say that my polemical style is unbiblical, and they say this because they were taught in Sunday School that the law and prophets are summed up in the one word nice. Christ could have had a much more Christ-like ministry if he had just tamed it down a little in Matthew 23. To this I reply that it is at least an intelligible claim, and so we could have a Bible study on it. What does the Bible actually teach about this?
But because what the Bible teaches is not really their core interest, the objectors then retreat to the claim that such tactics are counterproductive — you turn people off, you chase them away, you provide a poor testimony, and also nobody likes you. And here is where I would do my best imitation of the Pauline you-are-making-me-talk-like-I-am-out-of-my-mind thing. According to this recent ranking of Christian blogs, Mablog is now in the Top 10 Christian blogs.
If Mablog is not creditable in the first place, why is so much time and energy being spent to discredit what goes on here? Nobody takes you seriously, said the chairman of the oppo-research team. We have hundreds of people working on what a clown you are.
Yes, but another rejoinder might be — your position on that list is not an indicator of truth, right, because you are #10 and Rachel Held Evans is #9. Well, sure. Of course. Ladies first.
Psalms 4 Answer Me When I Call To the choirmaster: with stringed instruments. A Psalm of David. Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have given me relief when I was in distress. Be gracious to me and hear my prayer! O men, how long shall my honor be turned into shame? How long will you love vain words and seek after lies? Selah But know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself; the LORD hears when I call to him. Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on… Read more »
https://xkcd.com/357/
This will end up being the best comment on the thread.
And, not at all surprisingly, you catch a LOT of flies with rotten fruit–even if that fruit started out as pleasing to the eye and good for food and desirable.
Gee, I hope not.
Great comment.
My literalist soul, though, says balsamic vinegar is cheating, because whoever made up that saying probably didn’t have access to it, and balsamic has actual fruit matter in it.
I think I better warn some who might not be familiar with xkcd — some of the comics are NSFW, so if you paruse the rest of the 1500 or so of them, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
NSFW?
Not safe for ???
(Walruses?)
“Work.” Some workplaces have pretty strict standards about what their employees view on company computers.
That begs the question. Why should we want to catch flies, anyway? proverb would make more sense if it discussed the apprehension of a more desirable creature. Puppies, for instance, or koala bears. Who wouldn’t love to own a nice fuzzy koala?
You can catch more koalas with tranquilizer darts than with airhorns.
Can’t you just sort of pull them off the tree? Not exactly built for evasive action, are they?
Yeah but have you seen them when they’re wet? I wouldn’t want to get within ten feet of one…
My sister, who used to live in Australia, told me that koalas smell very bad. I think a panda would be a lovely pet if you have a bamboo forest to feed it with.
Really? How disappointing. I always assumed they would smell like cough drops, eating eucalyptus all day long.
Catch them to dispose of them, I think. I’ve heard of catching — oh, I forget what it is, some household pest, but this summer will probably remind me — by putting out a bowl of vinegar. They gather in the bowl and then you get rid of them.
Beer gets rid of slugs.
If you have slugs as a “household pests,” you have bigger problems than a bowl of beer will solve. ;-)
Is it ever fitting to say, “From here on out, take note of who still endorses or recommends this or that Christian intellectual, then mark and avoid”? Granted, on the surface it sounds pretty Draconian, pretty Orwell, but at the same time, if somebody at CC was endorsing and recommending RHE links, would that be okay?
Doing that kind of thing makes people think that if they boycott an argument they are somehow winning it. All they are really doing is covering their ears while saying “I’m not listening.” I think that is always a childish response, not a mature way to deal with disagreements. It’s an ad hominem attack where the accusations are left to the imagination. I mean they must be terrible if I’m supposed to excommunicate them and all their friends. Yet that isn’t to deal with someone’s points at all. Conservatives should learn what they believe well, read RHE’s blog and learn… Read more »
Or just try being open minded, read both (and more) and sometimes agree and disagree with all of them, maintain loving dialogue, and accept that neither the readers nor the writers really know for certain who’s correct much of the time.
Nobody gets killed by reading a Blog they disagree with.
Life goes on.
Never be so open-minded that all of your brains fall out.
Acts 7:57 is a template.
Draconian and Orwellian are giving this poor man too much credit. This is school-marmian. This is the pastor in Footloose. I would even say it was an anaemic, pale, squeaking antithesis of Chestertonian – except that would be elevating a silly tweet past its station.
In regards to your “but at the same time”. Seriously? Equating a hypothetical what-if to an actual fatuous fatwa?
Seriously, Mark. Seriously.
I do think some people have lost and hurting sheep in mind when they read your scathing critique of our twisted culture. The distinction of how to interact with the lost, those who are caught in sin and don’t know better, and false prophets is an important one. I have in the past been the kind of Christian who sees everyone as a wolf. That was wrong, but there are many who see only sheep and cannot defend against wolves because, hey, it’s got a sheep’s clothes on.
I suspect there were at least a few people who had the “lost and hurting sheep” in mind as they joined the crowds to hear what Christ was teaching. So we do have Jesus’ example of how to speak to such mixed audiences. Jesus demonstrated a patient tenderness, and delivered piercing rebukes and woes, depending on the circumstances. While the people of His day were probably not skilled in the art of identity politics and victim culture, I just don’t see Him softening His delivery just to avoid triggering someone in the crowd. Instead, I believe Jesus would have expanded… Read more »
The Defenestration Of Prague was a Protestant thing…
Coming to a theological seminary near you!
Better yet, BOTH of them were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague
Well, I only read books and blogs that some random twitterer has informed me I should avoid, least I ruin my reputation or something.
That particular twitterer seems a bit obsessed.
Wilson contra mundum.
“From here on out, take note of who still endorses or recommends @douglaswils, then mark and avoid.”
That’s interesting. I’ve kinda been doing the opposite. Marking those (Christians) who avoid (and slander) you. It’s good to know, for the future, who I will be able to count on (or in this case, not be able to count on).
i cringed a little in the public handling of the sexual offenders – but i heartily endorse fighting against the “coercive utopians” who want to redefine every color and emotion and marital state…
Because you fight.. on a blog. Hilarious. You’re a man… Roar! Not some pencil necked geek ‘made that way’ by women! That evil sex. So afraid of them aren’t you? *shudder* And yes, because of plagiarism, siding with rapists against victims, marrying them to impressionable young parishioners, and supporting the idea of slavery as a mutually beneficial institution. Yes. And yes, driven to do/support awful things because of your particularly unkind strain of christian beliefs, arrogance and narcissistic desire for attention. Yes. Merely controversial. Sure Doug sure. Trump is also top 10 with a certain crowd. So is the KKK.… Read more »
LOL! Ah Rand, I have yet to see any fear of women coming from Wilson, nor does he seem to be a big Trump fan! I do know a group of men who are both however, and they seem to meet the stereotype you are looking for much better. The alt right, some of those yahoos are unbelievable. They’re terrified me, maybe you won’t scare them so much :)
What are truly terrifying are made-up versions of Christianity, including those that eliminate parts of the Bible requiring honest witness. Instead, they lump together their foes (Trump, KKK, Farrakhan, alt-right..hey, that works!) and base everything on guilt-by-association. Maybe we should call this sect the Cult of ME!
mkt, I can say with great certainty that Memi is no fan of cults.
(if that was your implication.)
It doesn’t matter if she’s a fan or not. When one makes allegation after allegation and refuses to provide evidence (links, quotes), they’re in direct violation of the 9th Commandment, Matt. 18 and other parts of Scripture. That’s exactly what she does–and she mocks anyone who call her out.
Cults have beliefs and practices outside of orthodox teachings. She may not follow a known cult or follow a cult leader (other than herself), but her behavior is entirely cult-like.
mkt, consider this a friendly caution and take it or leave it.
Anyone who suggests that Memi is the least bit cult like, really does not know what they are talking about.
Thanks for the caution, but I’ll let Scripture and the consensus of the church determine what’s orthodox and what’s not.
Well, OK. Here is one germane scripture: James 4:10-12 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. 11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister[a] or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? Please offer any germane scripture which you think informs. Can you… Read more »
“Maybe we should call this sect the Cult of ME!”
Actually that would be far preferable to trying to hide complete garbage behind Christ’s name. It’s a harsh truth, but people who hold Rand’s views have often seen the behavior of so called “Christians ” up close and personal. It’s not fair for him to try to paint us all with same brush, but stereotypes like that exist for a good reason.
The point was not that Wilson philosophically has anything in common with Trump, the KKK or NOI (other than faith and awful racial ideas in Farrakhan’s and the KKK case,) but that they too are ‘popular’ with their core adherents. Hardly anything to crow about.
RandMan seems to have swallowed the narrative he was given. Regarding the various alleged citation errors (I must say alleged because, by my research, over 90% of the accusations were hasty and invalid) have been on the part of co-authors with Wilson, not Wilson directly (although he acknowledges his contributory role as editor). Also, none of the citation errors were shown to be malicious in nature. This is evidenced by the abundance of proper citations contained in the same publication, often to the same source material where other citations were missing. The vast majority of citation errors have to do… Read more »
Thank you Katecho, it is really hard to take certain posters seriously who either have no reading comprehension or clearly don’t care for the facts when it doesn’t fit their agenda.
Anything other than a blanket condemnation of slavery is unacceptable. Wilson needs to find a silver lining in it because of his biblical literalism and his need to square that circle. Your support for him here is also pretty foul. Yes the rehabilitation that can come for a multiple victim, compulsive child rapist who admitted being sexually excited by his own infant son. I don;t need to know the parties. Do you need to know the parties involved in the Jeffery Dahmer case? No doubt with no scriptural prohibition against it, Wilson would have found it acceptable to marry him… Read more »
As someone who knows the parties involved, I can say that while knowing the parties isn’t necessary, knowing the truth is…something which you have the most tenuous relationship with, O shrill one. There was no admission of excitement: that’s something which didn’t happen. If we look at the court documents, instead of hysterical newspaper articles without substantiation, it was a non-event which turned into a major talking point for you and others who love lying, who stroke and polish their lies until they gleam. Keep scrubbing your turds, RandMan. You aren’t getting any cleaner.
I have read the available court docs. It (the Sitler affair) is quite a major event as is any child sexual abuse. He was a church member and NSA student who molested very young children in the houses in which he boarded. Sitler’s victims were in multiple states. Sheriff’s department records show that Sitler molested children of all ages: newborn infants, young boys and girls, including relatives. A serial pedophile. Wilson proudly married him off to prove some arrogant scriptural idea to himself. Now there is a real woman yoked to this damaged and dangerous human and a child, one… Read more »
RandMan wrote:
Heart open? Religious metaphors aside, RandMan first needs to produce a foundation for authoritative prescription. Why do we need to keep looking? Why do we need to open our hearts? Is there going to be some kind of final judgement? Is someone going to judge our hearts and our secret thoughts?
I thought RandMan was supposed to be an atheist.
You are reaching katecho. You join a few desperate others here with this line of fire, this attempt to tar atheism with the brush of religious thinking. It is of course, the opposite.
Stick to misrepresentation and insisting upon explaining god with god. The TAG approach is more confusing and therefore succeeds at being misleading; one has to wade through all the obfuscatory trip wires to get to the core circular logic.
I’ve tried to inform RandMan that I am not a fan of TAG because I don’t believe that God is the conclusion of any argument that doesn’t already presuppose Him. As others besides RandMan may notice, I have never offered to derive God’s existence at all. If RandMan thinks that I have, he is welcome to quote me providing any argument with God’s existence as the conclusion. He won’t be able to. If RandMan wants to continue falsely ascribing to me arguments that I’m not making, I actually don’t mind. It’s simple for me to correct RandMan’s repeated error, and… Read more »
Wow. That is the biggest pot calling the kettle black manuver yet katecho. So you don’t have to derive god’s existence at all… Is this some cheap debate trick? Do you believe god exists or not. Or is it that you are creating some special fantastical case that your god just “is” and you are exempt from providing evidence of your belief? Or is this a little apologetic semantics mousetrap. I am truly looking forward to this answer… pretty sure the goalposts are going to be running all over the field. You continuously argue that logic, morals, and science ultimately… Read more »
I accept this as RandMan’s admission that he can’t quote me ever attempting to derive God’s existence, or place God’s existence as the conclusion of some argument. So once again, his empty TAG accusation falls to the ground. It appears that RandMan really doesn’t understand the role of presuppositions at all. This is very telling about his overall level of competence on the subject of reason and logic What if someone presupposes the law of identity in order to do logic (which everyone who trusts logic must do). Would RandMan be carrying on and mocking them in the same way… Read more »
So you refuse to answer then? I admit to noticing that you are weaseling away from admitting that you believe in your christian god as it would follow from there that his existence presupposes everything to any thinking christian. You sit on a ‘sophisticated’ pile of circular logic. Sorry. You are free to get up and walk your intellect around at any time.
It appears that you are a dishonest debater and are more concerned with winning the apologetic game then claiming your belief in god.
If RandMan thinks I’m playing a game, then he needs to quote where I have offered the circular argument that he keeps accusing me of. He needs to show his work in order for his claims to stick. Empty insults won’t do. Holding an axiom is hardly sophisticated, or circular. Even first order logic requires holding to several presuppositions. The fact that I presuppose God’s existence does not mean that I presuppose everything. That’s nonsense, and continues to reveal RandMan’s lack of competence in this area. Once again note that RandMan refuses to quote me ever deriving God’s existence as… Read more »
I didn’t claim you presuppose everything. Just god. Your problem is that you then use that to try prove an disprove things. It is a simple, circular and as dumb as that. Dress it up however you want. katecho: “If my christian bible were not true, logic and morality would not be meaningful. Logic and morality is meaningful. Therefore, the bible that I base my presuppositionalism on just MUST be true!” Me: “no. that is the very definition of circular logic.” katecho: “randman can’t explain his work.” Me: “I just did.” katecho: ” see! randman refuses to show his work.… Read more »
Why is RandMan attributing arguments and statements to me that I never made? Why does he put my name beside his own made up words? Apparently he can’t quote me saying what he has accused me of saying, so he has to put words in my mouth. How intellectually bankrupt, not to mention dishonest.
And he has the nerve to accuse me of playing games just to win an argument?
So, no real response? You tell the story which was proven (serial pedophilia) and then add your unfounded accusations onto the end. Why do you love to lie so much? Do you have no conscience? Does it make you feel righteous to have a target of wrath?
“Anything other than a blanket condemnation of slavery is unacceptable.”
By whom? Why? RandMan needs to identify his fundamentalism so we can see it.
Seems katecho has his own little mini-me? You appear to be circling the same drain of pre-suppositionalism Jon (minus the requisite 5 paragraphs of self-congragulatory third-person blather. Better step it up.)
And to directly answer your question, by any human being that has empathy for another. It’s called empathy and compassion Jon. You need abrahamic scripture both new and old testament to tell you to practice it? Or only how to manage your slaves.
The Romans considered empathy a vice; your feeble pleas would have been laughed at as they tortured you, slave, before killing you. To them slavery was fully justified.
Arrrgh! Yes timothy, it may be a turn-on for you to imagine me in chains, tortured, and laughed at. But it is irrelevant except to maybe point out that the bible was written by mere men who’s moral sense considered slavery par for the course in their society. Or dictated by a wicked god who condones the practice and suggests how it might be done correctly. You pick?
St. Paul in Philemon invented the West. Your sentiment is directly traceable to him. It is there where slavery was killed and the dignity of every man and woman in Christ affirmed.
You have ignored the discussions and comments by others (particularly Jane Dunsworth) where the O.T. Law created protections for women that never existed.
Finally, lose the mocking rhetoric; you cannot shame me.
I’m sorry, but your circular reasoning catches up to you here. Entire cultures have risen and fallen and still exist that do not think like you do. Your emotive “empathy and compassion” that you think is universal is yours only because you live in a protected, Western, Christ-haunted country. Try to step outside of yourself and consider the guy across the ocean who disagrees with you. What do you tell him?
Entire civilizations have risen and fallen who do not think like you do either Jon. So what? Empathy and compassion is a for precept of many thought processes. For example Buddhism which requires no belief in a deity, predates christianity and has no roots in the west. Taoism is yet another that is built on compassion across the ocean buddy. It is wrong to enslave another human for all the obvious reasons: It exploits and degrades human beings. It violates human rights. It leaves a legacy of disadvantage and exploits children. I would tell the guy across the ocean the… Read more »
“It violates human rights. “?
Is that anything like “carbon blob” rghts? ; – )
Quick fact check, O.T. “internal to Israel” “slavery”,was primarily about debt payment and had a maximum 7 year term, it was not permenent.
External to Israel “slavery” was an option as opposed to being executed after a war was won by Israel. Considering their own history, Jews are not that big on slavery. ; – )
Anyway, the captive slave clause was like a “survival of the fitest” thing.
Almost Darwinian huh? ; – )
Keep reaching A dad.
“Keep reaching A dad.”?
For what? Additional pertainent fact? Randi:
Those facts are sufficient for you. For their strength is made perfect in your weakness!
;-)
Who cares what the terms of the slavery were? And who practiced it. Slavery was commonplace throughout all cultures. That doesn’t help you. The point is: where was your god and his perfect morality? Where is his injunction against this barbaric abomination. He doesn’t provide one. Merely instructions on how to do it correctly. Empty.
Randi, slavery is commonplace now, in Islamic and atheist culture. Where are you? Full? I suppose that you are, in a manner of speaking! Oh, and Jesus said He came to set the captives free, amoug other things! Look it up! So the point is, you are simply wrong. Jesus does provide an injunction against slavey, especially with regard to us not making ourselves slaves to sin! I expect even cap’n crouch will agree with that! Luke 4 14Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15He was teaching… Read more »
uh huh. Tell that to Paul. The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul, (or whoever wrote the epistles,) at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. In matthew 18:25 JC uses slaves in a parable. He has no second thoughts about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold. Elsewhere JC recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (luke 12:47) or even killed (natthew 24:51). It is no wonder Wilson feels so confident… Read more »
I read those passages just now, and all three come from parables. It seems to me that Jesus is speaking descriptively, not prescriptively. He is not recommending that the people in these stories be beaten or killed; he is saying that if the person in the parable does x, then y will follow. I could say that if you get caught defrauding the IRS, you will face horrific financial fines and penalties. You can’t deduce from that statement whether I support such penalties or whether I just accept them as a part of life
Sorry, out of town again! Well Randi, here is the Washington post 2014 world slavery map. Russia and China are right up there. In as much as they are communist states, they are atheist states. Frankly I was expecting North Korea to appear higher per capita than it looks. Do notice that this map has the USA as having more “slavery” than Canada. I wonder if that is due to the slavish devotion of some to atheistic ideas? ; – ) I suppose if Jilly went back to Canada, we would look even worse. ; – ) In other lists,… Read more »
Pew Research Center’s 2011 survey which estimated that 73.6% of Russians are Christians, with Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTSIOM)’s 2010 survey saying 77% Christian.
So yes there’s that little bastion of atheism. Russia.
If we grant that Russia is only atheist on paper (i.e. policy), will RandMan address China?
Pew would likely count you as a “Christian” in the same sense as they are counting “Russians” Randi. But I guess the atheist/communist party was only 10% of the Russian population. I guess that’s a monument to how bad the idea is.
Sounds like you did not even attempt to label China, India and Pakistan as “Christian”.
But still, they are my fault somehow. Right? ; – )????
Nothing personal adad. Just talking.
;-) at least we are not saying the other are Bieber fans!????
“Who cares what the terms of the slavery were?”
I’m guessing the slaves might care a great deal.
The idea that a certain kind of christian would even try to parse out ‘acceptable’ terms of enslaving other human beings is the very problem with the bible and the cul de sac of biblical literalism.
Yes, but perspective is everything. I suspect that many of those currently being held as slaves today would give anything to be afforded some the protections outlined in the bible.
ME only because I have read your other posts and know that you personally seem to be coming from a good place do I hold myself back here. Imagine if something as inarguably awful as rape (only one of many types of collateral damage in practice of slavery,) was the subject here and was ‘afforded protections’ by someone’s holy book. Your equivocation might read: “I suspect that many of those currently being raped today would give anything to be afforded some the protections outlined for rape in the bible.” The concept of humans as property… for ANY reason is about… Read more »
Well, you are confusing “property” with “exploitation.” “Property” does not necessarily denote dehumanizing people, it also represents protection and provision. Today in the West, rape victims are perceived as property of the state. If you rape someone it is considered a crime against the state. It is the state that steps in to prosecute or not. Without being designated property of the state, victims would also have no protection from the state to ever avail themselves of. To contrast what it looks like when victims are not perceived as the property of someone or some entity, just go look at… Read more »
Human beings as property is dehumanization.
RandMan pronounces that voluntary indenture is categorically inhumane, but gives no rational basis for his rhetoric. I wonder if RandMan also believes that requiring students to pay back government student loans is also dehumanizing. If he is against voluntary indenture loans (with only a promise of future labor as collateral) then RandMan must also be against college loans too, right?
Nope I didn’t say that. Typical misrepresentation katecho. Get a new move. As to being drawn into an idiotic argument how student loans and slavery are equivalent? I think not.
Could it be that RandMan is still working to pay off a student loan? Of course no one wants to think of themselves as a debt slave, but that is the practical effect of the modern system. A payment is made up-front on the promise of future obligated labor. No other collateral is involved. It’s pure servitude that not even bankruptcy can dissolve. Of course the government doesn’t call it slavery, just like they don’t call their lottery system gambling.
You did say that. You used the term ‘slave’–which, in the Bible includes voluntary and involuntary indenture. You may not have intended that,but that is your failure, not katecho’s. The ideas are part of a continuum; freeman, Wage slave, debt slave, bond servant (voluntary indenture), involuntary indentured slave.. They imply a relationship between the slave owner and the slave. The slaves sense of freedom-or how far removed they are from being a free man-lies along that line with max freedom to the left and no freedom to the right. Those are the inter-human dynamics. Christ blows that crap up. Do… Read more »
I would offer one clarification to the continuum that timothy describes. It is counterintuitive, but still true that the more I recognize my debt to God, and the more I humble myself to become a slave of righteousness, the more free I become. Slavery is not a problem if one’s master is the one to whom we legitimately owe everything, especially our loyalty. This is because freedom, biblically defined, is not the mere ability to choose from some wide array of arbitrary options, but rather freedom is the power to choose to do what is right. Mankind is not generally… Read more »
http://adam4d.com/heart/
Do you regard putting people in prison as punishment for crime to be a form of slavery? They can’t leave, and until very recent times, they were forced to work. Every minute of their time is controlled, and they are subject to constant, intrusive supervision.
No jilly I do not recognize imprisonment as slavery. Societal punishment for crimes (however imperfect) is different then keeping humans as personal property.
We could definitely discuss the problems with our judicial system which are many, uneven sentencing and lack of effective rehabilitation. The privatizing of prisons and turning them into economic cash cows for communities and states where they reside. There are serious problems there. But slavery no.
“No jilly I do not recognize imprisonment as slavery. Societal punishment for crimes (however imperfect) is different then keeping humans as personal property.”
What about keeping humans as state property?
If a young person was convicted of stealing a car and was sentenced to mowing lawns at city hall for free as an alternative to prison, isn’t that sentence a form of slavery?
“Young person”?
Wouldn’t it be great if Bernie Madoff was mowing lawns and washing dishes instead of languishing in club Fed? ; – )
Yes!
RandMan wrote: No jilly I do not recognize imprisonment as slavery. Note how RandMan favors holding people captive against their will, but not in such a way that they labor to actually make restitution to those they have wronged. How barbaric. RandMan places himself among the unbelievers who apparently can’t distinguish between voluntary indentured servitude, forced labor to pay back a moral or civic debt, and forced labor because of race or kidnapping. RandMan supposes (incorrectly) that Scripture never condemns racism or kidnapping. Regardless of his ignorance on the matter (willful or not), there is no need for us to… Read more »
Yes katecho, your usual argument with it’s morality based on your presupposed god with it’s morals suspiciously resembling that of a 3000 year old sheep-herder. To wield your usual obfuscatory rhetoric in the service of muddying the waters on a subject as clear cut as the ownership of another human being is pretty obvious and maybe a step beneath your usual apologetic bulls*t? You may insinuate the the more immoral sections bible does not support slavery beyond ‘required restitution’ but you would be either ignorant or purposefully dishonest. I am pretty sure it is the latter. Shall I quote some… Read more »
RandMan is free to make any argument he thinks may eventually stand. I’m not going to do his homework for him. I would point out that RandMan is still lacking a rational argument, from his own purposeless, accidental universe, to support the idea that matter ought to move other than it moves. In other words, RandMan is struggling to even get out of the starting gate to begin moralizing, prescribing, and proscribing things, as if matter in motion even had any control over how it moves, and as if its motions were somehow going to be graded and judged. Regarding… Read more »
I have trouble understanding what the huge moral objection is to debt slavery. It’s a way of being provided for while you are working to pay off your debts, including job security. Is it lovely and wonderful? No. But if debts have to be paid, it is a way to survive in the meantime.
Arguably it is more humane than throwing people into debtors’ prison as the British did for centuries. Their families starved unless they went to prison as well, the debtor was unable to earn any money to pay off the debt, and there was no prospect of ever being released from this cycle. Let alone the kind of debt slavery that was very common until recent times–where the company you worked for operated the only stores in town. When the song said, “I owe my soul to the company store,” that was a reality for a lot of people. Or the… Read more »
Entire civilizations have risen and fallen who do not think like you do….. So what?
Their opinion of your moral reasoning as well. “You don’t like slavery. So what?” they say.
It’s wrong to enslave for obvious reasons? Why? Your concern for human rights and your defense of children and the disadvantaged is heart warming, but it flies in the face of natural selection.
In fact human atrocities like the holocaust are deeply rooted in Darwinism. One need only look to the Bible for moral clarity here.
The roots of the the holocaust are in the anti-semitism of Martin Luther. I would also point out Hitler’s belief in god and Gott Mitt Uns on the belt buckles of the SS. Also the body of the church did much to look the other way. Do your research.
Luther’s antisemitism was theological not biological. It wasn’t till the 19th century and the writings of Darwin and Nietzsche that Semites were viewed as biologically inferior to Aryans. Do you really believe that the murder of 6 million Jews stemmed from the protestant reformation and not the ubermensch? Yes, the “Gott Mitt Uns” motto was displayed in WW2 as it was in WW1 and actually dates back to early Prussia. The argument that Hitler overtly declared himself a servant of God is a bogus one. But let’s say for arguments sake that this is true, and we put the 6… Read more »
RandMan was likely taught in government school that Hitler only killed Jews. RandMan seems completely unaware that Hitler probably killed as many Christians as Jews.
“Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches 1″[2][3]—that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism……….
For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.”
; – )
Interesting. Progressives always accuse conservatives of behaving like Nazis when it is they who are Nazis…oops.
; -) ????! Don’t worry Tom, when the initiator commits the initial offense of Godwin’s law, pointing out the offense is not the same as committing it.
In any case, “God wins”! ????
You have to figure He planned it like that huh?!
????????????
Randi, speaking of “science”, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on “Godwin’s Law”! ????
Bully for rejecting the Bible. Yay you. Much brave. I still do not see, nor do you offer, any kind of universal morality that applies across cultures. For example, what are these “human rights” of which you speak? Where does one find them? How do you assume that *your* version of human rights must apply to the folks across the Atlantic who might object? If they see you as you are — just another Western imperialist, trying to cram your morality onto people — what in the world do you appeal to? You use way too much passive construction to… Read more »
RandMan wrote: Anything other than a blanket condemnation of slavery is unacceptable. In order for something to be “unacceptable” in any authoritative sense, there would have to be some standard or expectation regarding man’s behavior. Since man is just an accident of a purposeless universe, there is no such standard or expectation in RandMan’s worldview. That RandMan continues to use words involving prescription and acceptability, etc, etc, betrays his underlying faith commitments, as well as a religious hangover that he has not yet freed himself from. RandMan continues to run and hide whenever we point this out, but covering his… Read more »
Circular logic. Presuppositional god. TAG. You’re it. I will proudly claim my own religious hangover thank you very much! I have been the one to announce it katecho. You may misrepresent as a basic ingredient for your apologetics, but I absolutely will call you out on that one. It’s mine, I own it. Hands off. Your willfully ridiculous mischaracterizations of science to support your silly insistence on my ‘faith’ is almost Deepak Chopra-ian in scope. Almost… No-one, even your fellow christians here truly believe that an atheist operates on ‘faith’ unless their sense of logic has been utter corrupted by… Read more »
“No-one, even your fellow christians here truly believe that an atheist operates on ‘faith’ unless their sense of logic has been utter corrupted by a classical christian education.”
Oh, I do. An atheist operates on total faith. I really have not been corrupted by “classical christian education.” Actually it was militant atheism homeschooling.
Sorry ME. Atheism means nothing more than the rejection of the concept of all gods due to lack of any evidence whatsoever. Your position and anyone else who has not thought it though is akin to saying not believing in astrology is a ‘faith’ based position. Apparently I have to keep reiterating the concept of the burden of proof.
That’s actually a logical fallacy, Rand. Atheism really is a leap of faith. The only logical way to reject God is to convince yourself you have proof that He does not exist. You have no proof. That is why your brain is always scrambling trying to find evidence of why you are justified in your disbelief, often manifesting itself as “why Christians are so awful.” Even though you may not be aware of it, your brain knows it is irrational to reject God based on evidence you know you don’t have, so you must go forth and attempt to confirm… Read more »
Actually no it isn’ a fallacy at all. Respectfully ME. You are kind to me here and I appreciate it. Let me clarify a couple of points I am not sure you are getting from me. I do not find most christians awful. I find the ideology distasteful. I find the christian (and most religious)ideas awful. Big distinction… to me. There are some christians who may be awful people and some who may be kind, but they are all beholden to the ideas in their book. The other very important thing that you bring up is proof. I don’t have… Read more »
More Christians have found slavery acceptable than have found it unacceptable. Who are you to say they were wrong?
Utter rubbish. Just complete poppycock. If anyone wonders why there are atheists in the world claiming Christians support slavery THIS is why. If anyone wonders why Wilson faces a backlash, THIS is why. If anyone wonder why the Left exists, THIS is why.
So, before we point fingers and claim people have a faulty moral compass we should take a good look at the face of so called Christianity. I can’t say ashv is a Christian, but I can say people will think he is.
Sure I’m a Christian. Regarding slavery as morally unacceptable is a 19th century English innovation. What do you regard as “rubbish” about that?
“Don’t know much about history…”
So how was it that the Christian west outlawed slavery long before the 19th century and before England was actually an identifiable nation?
Certain forms of slavery (such as kidnapping, racism) have been condemned by Scripture, so we should expect to find faithful Christian cultures trying to outlaw those forms in their civic laws at various points when they came to power. There were anti-slavery movements in the South, for example. I’m led to believe there were even more of these in the South than in the North, because of the immediacy of the problem. It’s also interesting to note that permanent indenture was originally prohibited in North America. It was only later that it was first tolerated in the case of Anthony… Read more »
Was manorial serfdom (as practiced in the Christian west) different from slavery in kind, or merely in degree?
It was different in kind in many ways. The mere fact that slavery was expressly outlawed by church and state at the time that manorial serfdom was beginning to arise, shows this.
At any rate, if no Christians questioned slavery prior to the 19th century, it would have been impossible for a Christian culture to want to outlaw it, whether in fact or merely according to some definitions. You don’t outlaw any aspect of something that is entirely non-problematic to everyone around.
Well, you’re moving the goalposts a bit. A ban on holding Christians as slaves for prudential reasons isn’t the same as regarding slavery as a social arrangement as intrinsically evil, which is what I’m saying the English abolitionists innovated. So I don’t think that the bare fact of the ban on Christian slaves makes the case that serfdom was different in kind — though I do grant that there were many key differences.
There wasn’t merely a ban on “holding Christians as slaves,” but on slavery as such, long before the 19th century.
I don’t think I’m the one moving the goalposts. I wasn’t the one who made the blanket (and counterfactual) statement that no Christian before the 19th century considered slavery morally unacceptable. If you want to back off from or modify that statement, fine. I won’t consider you disgraced or everything you say invalid, if you admit you overstated the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
Chesterton would say in kind. His Short History of England is great.
I would also note that the specific thing outlawed was holding Christians as slaves, Muslim slaves turned up in Europe from time to time.
Slavery as such was in fact outlawed in medieval times, in many times and places, by Christians, and often with overtly Christian rationales.
Some people flouted the law. It happens occasionally.
“And by you’re reckoning, without god you would murder, rape children, thieve , engage in homosexual wilding and… (wait for it reformed christians) gossip and slander! What would stop you? Only your faith in god prevents you from incest, burning animals alive and ransacking your nearest Walmart.”
Yes, those are all things people without God actually do and have always done. And the day you’re not looking forward to is increasingly upon us. Deep trouble indeed.
RandMan wrote: And by you’re reckoning, without god you would murder, rape children, thieve , engage in homosexual wilding and… (wait for it reformed christians) gossip and slander! What would stop you? Indeed, what would stop us, or obligate us to behave otherwise? We have certainly asked RandMan this question enough times, and each time he has failed to provide an answer. Apparently he thinks that it is enough to simply emote, shake his head, and cast shame in our direction. But his question is a good one, and his credibility and persuasiveness hangs on his own ability to answer… Read more »
Physics depends on Mathematics for its expression.
Mathematics depends on symbolic logic for many (most) of its proofs.
Symbolic logic is presuppositional.
You’re argument against presuppositions rests on presuppositions.
So I guess this means that we all “evolved” from “presuppositional stew”, not primordial stew! Right? ????
It means that RandMan’s dismissal of presuppositional arguments because “science” is self-refuting.
Poor guy.
And by you’re reckoning, without god you would murder, rape children, thieve , engage in homosexual wilding and… (wait for it reformed christians) gossip and slander! What would stop you? Only your faith in god prevents you from incest, burning animals alive and ransacking your nearest Walmart. Sad katecho for you! I am not looking forward to the day if any of your stripe of christian loses faith… we as a society are in deep trouble! Please sit up front tomorrow. Goes both ways, RandMan. If you became a Christian tomorrow, you’d start killing all the gays, because God and… Read more »
Your false dilemma is of course just that. Like moderate muslims in relation to islamists and jihadists when it comes interpreting the quaraan and hadith, what would be my scriptural prohibition for not murdering gays and witches, holding slaves, genocide on god’s alleged orders etc.? Gets quite fuzzy there doesn’t it. Would you be able to unequivocally condemn me for my interpretation? How would you condemn someone else’s unprovable revelation as false when you hold your own? You have given away your right.
what would be my scriptural prohibition for not murdering gays and witches, holding slaves, genocide on god’s alleged orders etc.? And what would be my atheistic prohibition from doing similar things? Gets quite fuzzy there doesn’t it? As you may be aware, Paul himself gives us an answer as to what we should logically do if Christianity is proven false. 1 Cor 15: 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have… Read more »
“And by you’re reckoning, without god you would murder, rape children, thieve , engage in homosexual wilding and… (wait for it reformed christians) gossip and slander! What would stop you?”
I’m sure you’re aware, but gossip and slander are the most popular sins among the religious.
It is completely absurd to repete the ‘according to you it’s only God that keeps you from doing x horrible thing’ argeumemt. You’ve been around here long enough to know people have a better understanding of human nature and morality than that.
You are correct of course I don’t believe that argument. Merely following through on katecho’s silly apologetic debate club salvo.
“Because you fight.. on a blog. Hilarious. You’re a man… Roar!”
So does this mean we get to call you RandManRoars for here on out?
Siding with rapists against victims? Hillary Clinton? She’s top 10 with a certain crowd. Driven to support awful things, such as the murder of little babies for the convenience of grownups…unkind…arrogance and desire for power…check.
RandMan is on record saying that Hillary Clinton, the woman who infamously sided with the Rapist-in-Chief against his victims, is the best choice we have for President. To the best of my knowledge, neither Trump nor Sanders have sided with rapists against victims, so for RandMan to excoriate Doug while claiming Hillary is the “best choice” we have makes one wonder just how functional RandMan’s moral compass is.
You don’t realize it, but you sound nuts.
Doesn’t that ad hom break the 9th commandment for you, or am I nuts?
It’s not an ad hominem, just a scientific observation about appearances. You do sound crazy.
This explains Wilson’s intense dislike for Trump: they are too similar for comfort.
Now THAT is outside the window! You need to say something really nice about Wilson now, to make up for it. ;)
I have before, but I’m past that phase in my life now.
Past the phase of having anything nice to say? The retreat into cynicism seems to be a phase that corresponds with a sudden inability to recognize any allies. In my experience it also corresponds with an inability to be knit together in a local church body, because everyone is so insufferably asleep, corrupt and compromised. Of course, I could be completely mistaken about ashv. In spite of his cynicism and unsupported empty jabs at Wilson, he may still look up to respected allies that he believes are truly conservative, God fearing, and uncompromised by liberalism. I’ve invited him to share… Read more »
katecho, if I thought y’all had no interest in fighting the false religion of liberalism, I wouldn’t post here at all. I don’t visit the comment threads of National Review or Daily Kos or whatever, for that reason — no allies there.
Call it cynicism if you like, but my main interest is in encouraging y’all to let go of your conservatism (which is a principled stand on the liberal platform of yesteryear) and move rightwards.
If you need allies, I recommend starting with Dabney, Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and perhaps Carlyle.
Uh, can you recommend any allies who are above ground? ;)
God? ; – )
Well, that does sound like the better recommendation, as long as we remember the order of things. Joshua 5: 13-14 comes to mind.
That vitalist attitude won’t get you far in 2016, friend.
Neither will ghosts and inspiration alone. That’s the thing.
(And to be clear, I respect many reasons to dislike Trump, but for anyone to prefer Cruz over Trump is completely laughable.)
Laughable? How about dignity of bearing, or consistency, respect for those who disagree with him, to say the least? You might disagree, but to say that there’s no perceivable reason is just talking through your hat.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day also had “dignity of bearing” and “consistency”; I see no reason for Christians to value those attributes particularly — even if I were to grant that Cruz had them. So far it seems that Mr Trump has about as much respect for those who disagree with him as those who express said disagreement.
“move the overton window” and there is “move the overton window–by about 4 parsecs” (:
Thought experiment: when was the most recent time in American history that Trump’s stated positions were within the political mainstream? (To start, I’ll note that Carter banned Iranian immigration.)
Immigration/Amnesty–>Ike Operation Wetback.
Nationalism vs Globalism->Reagan (Bush and the neocons instituted globalism)
Federalism->probably have to go back to pre-civil war for that..maybe pre-progressive era.
Sound money-> pre-fed and pre-Nixon (decoupling from real money)
what did I miss?
Sounds about right to me, though I’d note that federalism is alive and well for cannabis smokers today. Trump only appears so extreme because he’s chosen to oppose rather than appease the news media.
They want to cut off debate. Let’s get it out there more.
#IDigDoug
LOL! I like that. Maybe he should print up some bumper stickers.
I always thought that the purpose of using honey to catch the flies was so they would get stuck in the sticky and you could dispose of them easily.
I was at the beach a few days ago and I observed the waves. A nice little innocent wave would stroll in and then a loud power-hungry wave would literally engulf her, as the marginilized victim wave succomed to her opressor. Of course, this didn’t always happen; sometimes the big wave yielded to the small one and allowed her her time in the sun and sand. Of course, all that was me impressing morality onto a purely physical phenomenon. Waves gonna wave, and any behavior they exhibit is just them being carried along by the laws of physics. Even if… Read more »