Yuck

August 17th, 2011 at 3:51 pm by David Farrar

Have just heard that the Board have given Rev parole, and released him.

From all the reports I have seen, he has never shown much remorse at all, and his sexual abuse of children makes him NZ’s worst hypocrite.

He has served six of nine year sentence. Sadly under the law that applied at the time, parole is near automatic at two thirds. I think the Parole Board have turned him down seven times before.,

Remember this is the man who claimed that the sex with one of his victims was consensual:

“The law, as it has been explained to me, seems so different to what the Biblical law and indeed common perceptions are of rape,” he wrote.

“The fact that [the victim] consented is irrelevant.”

If we are lucky he will leave NZ.

Tags: ,

310 Responses to “Yuck”

  1. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Its actually much worse than you say DPF….as you probably know.

    I suggest you moderate this thread very closely if you want to avoid being unwittingly included in a contempt of court action….not everyone will be careful about what they say…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    You had better keep a very close eye on the comments in this one David, given who some of the victims were and the laws relating to suppression of their names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I see that the sentencing notes for Capill are not online – probably an indicator of suppression orders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wreck1080 (3,923 comments) says:

    How does such an abhorrent person reintegrate into society?

    It seems such a light sentence.

    NZ , land of free criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Wreck1080: You can see the rehabilitation process in action in this short video…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    …”If we are lucky he will leave NZ.”….

    Who would take him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Michaels (1,318 comments) says:

    YUCK YUCK YUCK indeed, next thing they’ll let that other creep Field out early.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. wreck1080 (3,923 comments) says:

    Come on, don’t compare this guy to Field.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    An insight into a diseased mind:

    Dear Friends

    I have decided to plead guilty tomorrow morning. The law as it has been explained to me seems so different to what the Biblical law and indeed common perceptions are of rape. The fact that [name deleted] consented is irrelevant.

    It is enough that we touched each others private parts – rape is then deemed to take place. Ignorance of the law or the effect of what I was doing to the girls is no excuse and so I must take full responsibility.

    There are many aspects of the summary of facts that will be printed in the papers or on TV I disagree with. Some will be pointed out at sentencing.

    For example, I believe the girls were a lot older than the age alleged but I have no way to prove it.

    Please also pray for my dear family who are very upset at the prospects of me leaving them.

    Thank you for your love and messages of support. They mean a lot to us. Thank you to Chris Baigent who is drumming up financial support to try and let us keep our home.

    Thank you to those who live in Chch who have been visiting regularly so I can see the children…

    For myself, I am praying my walk with God and my bonds with dear Judy and the family will be stronger. Please pray we don’t all drift apart.

    With our love and God’s blessing,
    Graham

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    At worst Field is a thief and a fraudster…this piece of vermin is 100 times worse…it doesn’t get much worse than robbing children of their innocence…but he managed to exceed even that…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Scott – that’s a pretty disturbing message. I’d hope his ideas have changed a bit in 6 years, but…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    yeah, there’s no way to compare Taito Field to Capill. There were legal, honest options for Field. If he hadn’t have been in his high political office, he would’ve probably done community service.

    Absolutely no way you can compare these entirely different cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Bob R (1,377 comments) says:

    It’s been six years already? I still clearly remember the footage of another person who had been in Court giving him a left hook & then getting tackled by Capill’s lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    it doesn’t get much worse than robbing children of their innocence

    Well that should apply to the scuzz bags who teach sodomy is ok provided you wear a condom in our schools and insist that “Heather has two mommys” belongs in primary school libraries.

    Capill is just part of that same picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. NOt1tocommentoften (433 comments) says:

    WTF Andrei – that old argument? How in any way is Capill’s sexual abuse related to same sex couples and consensual gay sex?

    Through the eyes of your church perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    And just as a further reminder for everyone reading his letter quoted in the above post…not only was this guy a lawyer, but a police prosecutor no less…he very well knew that at law his victims were not able to give consent….and his excuses regarding uncertainty about their age are clearly total crap for reasons most people know in this small country…

    crikey, that’s a very long bow Andrei…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Andrei should maybe take his bigotry elsewhere – perhaps go to the GD if you want this to be about declining morals, etc, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Andrei (980) Says:
    August 17th, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Well that should apply to the scuzz bags who teach sodomy is ok provided you wear a condom in our schools and insist that “Heather has two mommys” belongs in primary school libraries.

    Capill is just part of that same picture.

    You sound exactly like Capill back when he was leader of Christian Heritage, likewise Ted Haggard.

    Often the most fundamentalist of Christians are the worst hypocrites. You’ve got a bit of log in your eye there Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I doubt whether he will leave NZ. He still has family here..I can think of a few other contenders for the biggest hypocrite award.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Your statement was pretty low even for a Christian. The examples you point out may be social engineering at its worst but this hypocrite used his position to abuse children. He couldn’t stoop much lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    I just happen to think that our society worships sex to the point of idolatry and slimy creatures like Graham Capill are symptoms of that.

    I also do not think it is bigotry to try and protect your own children from sexual deviancy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Mike Johnson (44 comments) says:

    I just happen to think that our society worships sex to the point of idolatry and slimy creatures like Graham Capill are symptoms of that.

    You obviously have no idea who Capill is.

    He is a “Christian,” a “reverend” no less, who professes to be even more pious than you. He even ran a “Christian” political party and stood for Parliament. He railed and ranted against all the things you rail and rant at, while all the time raping five-year-old girls.

    It’s interesting that people like Capill — and many of his ilk in the US — who make the biggest noises are actually committing the very sins and crimes they protest about.

    I tend to be wary of people who protest like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    mike

    Yes – reminiscent of the mindset of Bert Potter or Clayton Weatherston. A narcissistic sense of entitlement and a sociopathic lack of empathy. Possibly incurable at this point in time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Capill is not a reason why religion is evil. But he sure doesn’t help.

    Just reading the thread – there’s more to this?? Good lord.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    This would be as good a time as any to credit the St John’s Anglican Church with uncovering and reporting his offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei – your comments re: sex remind me of this wonderful quote from Stephen Fry. He might as well have been talking about you:

    That’s the strange thing about this Catholic Church: it is obsessed by sex, absolutely obsessed. Now, they will say we with our “permissive society” and our “rude jokes” are obsessed; no, we have a healthy attitude, we like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly. Because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult – it’s a bit like food in that respect, only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are the anorexic and the morbidly obese, and that, in erotic terms, is the Catholic Church in a nutshell. – Stephen Fry

    …and I’ve just read your comment above which lumps gay people with paedophiles. How truly vile of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Yes, as Courage Wolf points out Andrei, such despicable comments from you invite suspicion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    if we’re really lucky, he’ll leave the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Capill was born in western Africa,
    can we send him back can we can we

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    What is it about Christchurch?

    Capill
    The guy shagging a donkey
    The refusal to pay prostitutes down there, they seem to murder them instead.
    A totally unnatural obession with rugby.
    Still the IV drug use capital of New Zealand.
    The ‘white power’ capital of New Zealand.

    It just makes you think

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Actually, I don’t think Andrei’s view is an example of bigotry at all. He gave an opinion, probably in the wrong thread and at an inappropriate juncture, but it is an honestly held view based on his own religious beliefs and falling within the tenets of his religion. I fail to see how that is bigoted.

    Now, this is bigoted: toad (2,955) says: FFS, another Christian fundie joins the contest. Will be fun to
    watch the contest between Perry and Bachmann. At least he’s not quite
    as much of a fruit loop as she is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    You’re normally smarter than this – I don’t know if what Andrei said is bigoted, but since when was “honestly held view based on his own religious beliefs and falling within the tenets of his religion” a get out of bigotry jail free card? If what Andrei said was bigoted, it’s still bigoted if backed by his church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    Andrei –

    I understand that when my little girl grows up, there’s something like around a 7% chance that she’ll bring a girlfriend rather than a boyfriend home to meet us.

    I would far rather that outcome, than for her to grow up believing that sex between consenting adults is something immoral and wrong, that needs to be hidden in dark carparks or other unsafe places like that.

    If that is “sexual deviancy” then I must say the “deviant” path looks a lot more sensible than your ideas…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Have you got kids Ben?

    If you do have and you want the best for them and their future happiness and adjustment in this wicked world then you try and do things to protect them.

    It’s not bigotry

    But again I’ll say it – the whole picture is one of a society which places undue emphasis on matters of “sexuality” in a manner which is totally unbalanced.

    And Graham Capill’s evil crimes are a symptom of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Lucia Maria (2,459 comments) says:

    What’s truly despicable is using the sins of one hypocrite to try tar everyone else in order to shut down the conversation which needs to be had. That whole thing about “consent” that Capill had going is what the libertarians go on about, what feminists go on about with regards to sex. Anything is permissible as long as there is consent, which is obviously bogus. It’s bogus when it comes to children and it’s bogus when it comes to other groups. Consent does not sanctify immoral acts as we all know, yet try to ignore when it’s our own sexual proclivity – as Capill did, and which is the primary lesson here.

    [DPF: I disagree entirely. Consent is bogus for children yes, but that is of a temporary nature. Consent is not bogus for adults or "other groups".]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. jaba (2,143 comments) says:

    you people are a little harsh .. cut his nuts off and he should be fine

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    And Graham Capill’s evil crimes are a symptom of that.

    Oh, so it’s society’s fault?

    I never had you pegged as a leftie!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei you are a walking advertisement for all that is wrong with Christianity. Your intolerance, your prejudice, your rhetorical contortions, your willingness to believe and promulgate lies. You tick so many boxes you could stand for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    the whole picture is one of a society which places undue emphasis on matters of “sexuality” in a manner which is totally unbalanced.

    easier to say this about the church repression often creates sexual problem’s witness catholic girls and fundie preachers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    you people are a little harsh .. cut his nuts off and he should be fine

    I say he should, in a just world, have been hung.

    But then, so should a lot of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria – oh dear lord, what a howler. Yea, us libertarians place a great deal of weight on consent. From ADULTS. For FU*KS SAKE.

    Pull your head out of your goddam ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Lucia Maria (2,459 comments) says:

    Now, now Ben. Stop thinking just about body parts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Andrei, I know where you’re coming from.

    But I think in this case, the issue was the rebellion and pride in the man’s heart. There is a mountain of evidence of that without even touching his sexual offending. He basically put himself outside the authority of any church (and caused serious problems in some he attended), which is the polar opposite of what someone in his position should have been doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lucia Maria (2,459 comments) says:

    Griff,

    easier to say this about the church repression often creates sexual problem’s witness catholic girls and fundie preachers

    Don’t know about the fundie preachers, but I can tell you the Catholic problem has more to do with a fear of actually proclaiming the Faith over the last 40 years than anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Ben, because we allow for religions of all sorts in this society and we allow people to adhere to those religions. If that religion has a particular position on a moral issue, and that position is not abhorrent to public policy, then we do not consider that to be bigoted, merely disagreed with. Much of Christianity regards homosexual behaviour as being morally wrong and sinful. Islam, likewise, agrees with that position. Other religions may not. That is their prerogative.

    However, by expressing a view consistent with that religion, Andrei may annoying or offensive, but he is not being bigoted- he is instead following the moral precepts of his religion.

    Toad, on the other hand, was displaying bigotry by objecting to a practitioner of a religion he dislikes/rejects. While his dislike/rejection is perfectly acceptable, his intolerance of adherents to practitioners of that religion is bigotry.

    I am intolerant of paedophilia, which by definition that makes me bigoted against it, but because society agrees with my my intolerance is mainstream and therefore acceptable. It is semantics, perhaps, but I don’t view Andrei as being bigoted. A little too persistent in expressing the view, perhaps, but at least he is consistent with his beliefs, and I give him credit for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Lucia Maria (2,459 comments) says:

    Ben,

    Since we are throwing around Stephen Fry comments as if they are divinely inspired, here’s another one:

    “If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.”

    [DPF: This is probably true. Like is the wrong word though. Most women do like sex. If women had the same sex drive as men, the analogy works better]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria – you’re a nasty, lying piece of work saying things like that @5:36pm. I don’t give a toss what other clever comments you find on google.

    [DPF: Tone down the personal abuse]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    Agree there is a need to be careful what is said and what is written…..

    All I’ll say is that Capill would be very wise to stay out of this neighbourhood.

    Very wise indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Lucia Maria (2,459 comments) says:

    Ben,

    I’m “nasty”. Obviously hit a nerve there, Ben. Is consent your mantra too?

    The Stephen Fry comment is not from Google, it’s from my blog. We did a post about it. Stephen Fry is a sex-crazed idiot who cruises for sex. A hypocrite in fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. B A Waugh (100 comments) says:

    I imagine that the parole board may have an issue with him leaving the country just after release.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Well, no, Ben, your comment against Lucia Maria is a little unfair. She may have conflated a couple of points, but to call her either nasty or lying is, I think, incorrect.

    You are right that libertarians place a great value on consent from/by adults. However, it is also true that the age of consent is higher now than it has been historically (around 12 years of age is, I understand, the historic norm as viewed by the common law). Indeed, a couple of hundred years ago some elements of what we call paedophilia would have been, and often was, seen as a peccadillo. That is not defending paedophilia at all, just that our view of what it is has changed slightly.

    But Lucia may have conflated libertarians with the so called ‘child liberationists’, who believe that children should be able to consent. The only question is at what age. I personally don’t agree with that, but when Lucia raised the issue I understood some of what was behind what she said.

    So I think your reaction was just a little OTT.

    EDIT: just on that, though, none of what I have said re historic position is to defend what Capill did. In any view, religious, non-religious or whatever, what he did was wrong and deserved a harsh punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    F E Smith, excuse me for failing the Godwin test, but had a certain leader of Germany been divinely inspired (and I believe there is some evidence he was, FWIW) he would today be held to be no less a bigot for it. I suppose it comes down to definition, but if bigotry is simply defined as a value judgment sufficiently contrary to the general population’s view then it is a rather weak term. It may well be a definition issue: I cannot help but think ‘racism’ when I hear complementary generalisations about minorities in the same way as when I hear insults. Nobody else seems to agree with me, though.

    Andrei did not argue, or rather assert, homosexuality is immoral. He argued homosexuality and paedophilia are connected. I am no less outraged by that because he really believes it, or because he belongs to an organisation that happens to be a church that agrees with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Andrei
    I don’t think you are bigoted at all.
    Have you read ”Eve’s Bite” by Ian Wishart? It is an excellent book for anyone who is concerned about his children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Fair enough, Ben, although I don’t see Hitler as being bigoted as much as evil. There is a real difference between historic anti-semitism as displayed consistently in Europe over a long period of time and what we today see as bigoty, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    They are connected Ben; only the gay propaganda machine would have us think otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    Where’s the Sensible Sentencing Trust when you really need it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Where’s the Sensible Sentencing Trust when you really need it?

    Present, I believe. They’ve not hesitated to put the boot in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    F E Smith – anyone who overlooks the perfectly obvious point that an argument for informed consent requires the consenting person be an adult, and then uses that to imply acceptance of paedophilia, is lying and nasty. No two ways about it. No reasonable person could think that a libertarian thinks touching children is ok. No.

    Lucia Maria was not referring to differences of opinion over what adult means. If that is what she meant, she should have said it. And no she didn’t “conflate libertarians with the so called ‘child liberationists’” because it is liberatarians who oppose her absolutist views on value judgments. She doesn’t need you to go pulling out the ex post justifications.

    And I’m sorry but if you’re going to defend that sort of argument then you’re as bad as she is. And no, it aint OTT when someone decides to throw the paedophile label around. F*ck that. My only question to Lucia Maria is what came first, the stupidity or the religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Andrei is a bigot, by the usual definition of bigotry ie, intolerance of differing beliefs.

    Um, I believe that a good proportion of this thread would fit that definition, ben especially.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    scrubone

    Sorry, that was me. I deleted that comment after some reflection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    The words “bigot” “prejudice” & “hypocrite” are bandied around far too easily on this board.

    Re: Capill – what he did was wrong. Evil. But he’s being punished for it. And now the MOJ has decided to release him.

    Question: can a child sex offender ever be “cured”? Is there any way they can be integrated back into the community?

    Thieves can. Murderers can. Corrupt finance directors who cause unmeasurable stress and misery to thousands can. What about Capill?

    And DPF, “…NZ’s worst hypocrite…” is OTT. – “hypocrite with the highest profile” would be more accurate.

    [DPF: I stand by my description. I can't think of anyone else whose private actions were in total contrast to their public stance]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    scrubone: how so? Be specific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    mikenmild: Heh, who hasn’t been there!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    scrubone: how so? Be specific.

    Heh, another nerve touched.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Ben there is a stronger link between the catholic church and pedophilia than gay and pedophilia.catholic priest are measurable more inclined to pedophilia than the population at large.
    In fact the church has been hiding perpetrators for decades sheltering them from the force of law. This has happened within the church all the way up to the pope

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    scrubone: Not at all. How so? Or were you trying to be clever?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Andrei: I just happen to think that our society worships sex to the point of idolatry and slimy creatures like Graham Capill are symptoms of that.

    Well, I just happen to think that you fundamentalist Christians worship an evil God and hateful Bible to the point of idolatry and slimy creatures like Graham Capill are symptoms of that.

    Joana, Lucia Maria – it’s disgusting that you side with gay-haters such as Capill. The guy is a paedophile, probably because he had all that Christian bullshit instilled in him. Just like Antonie Dixon was molested by the JW’s, and the Catholic church has ruined thousands upon thousands of lives with its child molestation.

    It’s not too late to see the light, and rid yourself of the hatred that infects you. Whatever trauma you had as children, you do not need an imaginary God to get over it. You should see counsellors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Nobody mentioned pedophile, though that is what Capill is and something even worse – Ben!

    I was bought up a certain way – you know the old women and children first mentality which meant of course they were to be protected and certainly not exploited for any reason and that to do so would be utterly shameful and unworthy of a real man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It was reported on TVNZ that Capill had completed the Kia Marama programme for child-sex offenders. This programme has got a good record. It seems that at the very least, it helps offenders to live in a way that is safer for the community, even if it does not ‘cure’ them per se.

    One hopes that Capill has developed more insight over the years than he showed in that letter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Offline for a couple of days and back to this fascinating thread. Not the topic, more the learning about my fellow KBers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    scrubone: Not at all. How so? Or were you trying to be clever?

    I suppose I should feel clever since you’re playing dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Griff, you may be right, I don’t know. Empirical question I guess. I think it sad and wrong that the members of an organisation who are guilty of nothing be tarred by the same brush as the guilty.

    Hiding paedophiles was certainly a poor policy choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Ever wondered how you would deal with with things if one of your own kids happened to be gay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    The guy is a paedophile, probably because he had all that Christian bullshit instilled in him.

    See, now this is a bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. big bruv (13,928 comments) says:

    Scrubone

    Yeah, it was a dumb comment, however it is no worse than the usual fundamentalist crap we read from Lucia and the rest of the bible bashers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    tristanb “I just happen to think that you fundamentalist Christians worship an evil God and hateful Bible to the point of idolatry and slimy creatures like Graham Capill are symptoms of that.”

    You sir, are a dick.

    Who are you to call God “evil”?
    Who are you to call the Bible “hateful”?

    You are an insignificant speck of dust on a ball of dust orbiting around the sun.
    Within 100 years, you’ll be wormfood.
    Why does your opinion count for anything at all?

    Q. Pray, tell me how a “fundamentalist” Christian can worship said “evil God and hateful Bible” to the point of idolatry?

    Q. Do you even know the definition of “idolatry”?

    Q. How can you claim Graham Capill’s evil is a result of Christianity?

    Troll.

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Rufus (667 comments) says:

    mikemild 6:35

    thank you. Goes a little towards answering my previous question:

    Q. Can a sex offender like Capill be integrated back into society much like a murdered / thief / scumbag can?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    @scrubone

    How is that bigoted?

    I don’t like a particular idea that some people have. I don’t judge them on something they can’t chose (race, sex, sexuality). I just someone on their ideas. I can say I don’t like the ideas of Islam, but I don’t hate Iranians or Malaysians. Many people take the piss out of Scientology – they’re ideas, not people.

    But anyway, a religion that blames the actions of a Christian heterosexual paedophile on homosexuality in consenting adults is a religion just as bad as Islam and Scientology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    At rufus:

    Who are you to call God “evil”?
    Who are you to call the Bible “hateful”?

    Umm, a person. And fortunately now we are able to talk about God in a negative light without being murdered by Christians.

    Maybe if you read the Bible, and read what it said about God, you’d be in agreement. I assume that you haven’t, because the God in that boring highly-revised ‘propagandarous’ book is obviously one evil bastard.

    Within 100 years, you’ll be wormfood.

    Not if I’m cremated!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Just a thought God is claimed to have created everything thing if he created good it follows that he in fact created evil
    read the old testament that’s god having fun with genocide infanticide Fratricide and lots of smiting plagues etc not the most balanced deity known to man

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The Catholic priests are gay , well not all of them. I don’t hate gays whoever said I did , but I do hate the abuse of children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    How is that bigoted?

    You ascribed Capill’s actions to a belief which hold such things in abhorrence.

    How is that not bigoted?

    Did you even know that it was the actions of his church that resulted in his being bought to the attention of the police?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I assume that you haven’t, because the God in that boring highly-revised ‘propagandarous’ book is obviously one evil bastard.

    Not content to slander a religion, you also slander several academic disciplines. Nice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    read the old testament that’s god having fun with genocide infanticide Fratricide and lots of smiting plagues etc not the most balanced deity known to man

    Read a bit more carefully. There’s a heck of a lot more mercy from God than there is killing. Try Jonah for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    There is an awful lot of smiting though. Just saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    There is an awful lot of smiting though. Just saying.

    Also a lot of sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    But anyway, a religion that blames the actions of a Christian heterosexual paedophile on homosexuality in consenting adults is a religion just as bad as Islam and Scientology.

    Which religion blames the actions of a Christian heterosexual paedophile on homosexuality? I must have missed the memo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Returning somewhat to the topic of the thread..I have just heard it said on Nat Rad that “only 5%” of graduates of the celebrated Kia Marama programme which Capill has completed end up reoffending…My antennae go up whenever I hear a claim about the alleged effect of this or that programme which does not include over WHAT PERIOD graduates did not reoffend… A month? Six months? Five years?

    Does any know over what period those responsible for this wonderful programme claim that 95% of their graduates dont reoffend? If its 5% over a five year period, then the world should be beating a path to our door…perhaps its something to do with ithe programme’s maori name..

    My understanding is that the latest thinking is that paedophilia – like hetero and homo sexuality – is an orientation, and cannot be changed much less cured…Anyone with knowledge about Kia Marama graduates’ long term reoffending rates please enlighten us…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Further to Griff’s comment, I have to say I have real trouble reconciling some of the Christian god’s conduct with claims of his benevolence. God’s treatment of the Egyptians in Exodus is, well, truly sadistic. Not one house, says the bible, was left unaffected by his killing of the first born, and a great cry went up. I’ll bet it did. The Lord is a man of war, says Ex 15:3. Yes indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Did you even know that it was the actions of his church that resulted in his being bought to the attention of the police?

    I’d damn well hope they brought it to the police’s attention! It’s what any decent human being would do.

    Most Christians are nice people. Very nice people. But there’s a few who seem to join the church because they like to control people and like to express hatred. Capill was one of these, and that may have been why he was attracted towards a group where he had trust and control of others.

    My mother is a Christian, and I’m an ex-Christian. I have Christian friends and colleagues. I am not bigoted against Christians – although I think the ideas are stupid.

    My statement regarding Christianity causing Capill’s evil is probably wrong. It was said as a reflexive response to Andrei blaming Capill’s behaviour on homosexuality. I retract my statement regarding the causative relationship between Christianity and Capill, and apologise for this statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    David

    The best I can do is a link to this evaluation of the Te Piriti programme, which I understand is similar to Kia Marama.
    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/research/te-whakakotahitanga-an-evaluation-of-the-te-piriti-special-treatment-programme.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    krazykiwi:

    Which religion blames the actions of a Christian heterosexual paedophile on homosexuality? I must have missed the memo.

    This representative of Christianity obviously didn’t bcc enough of you:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/08/yuck-2.html#comment-865565

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    But there’s a few who seem to join the church because they like to control people and like to express hatred. Capill was one of these, and that may have been why he was attracted towards a group where he had trust and control of others.

    Actually, that’s quite funny. You really know so little about the man’s background, all you have to go on are your own prejudices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Good on you for apologizing..I wasn’t following it all but anyone who can reflect and apologize is doing well.
    DG I think the not being able to change is part of the progaganda. Isn’t it true that many gay people are actually bisexual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Read a bit more carefully. There’s a heck of a lot more mercy from God than there is killing. Try Jonah for example.

    Ouch. Terrible argument. We don’t offset the unders with the overs when thinking about fallible human criminals (including Rev Capill, by the way, who no doubt also did much good). I for one am certainly not going to suspend judgment on an omniscient, all powerful entity who could effortlessly have achieved the same good without any of the bad. Senseless slaughter isn’t made acceptable to me by other good deeds – that’s of zero consequence to all the people who died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Senseless slaughter isn’t made acceptable to me by other good deeds – that’s of zero consequence to all the people who died.

    I in fact did not say that the slaughter was an evil. In fact my argument was the opposite – that in the Garden of Eden Adam sinned and came under sentence of death (and he was warned). Anyone who was allowed to live after that was merciful.

    Oh, I know that doesn’t play well today. We’re so used to God’s mercy that we expect it as of right.

    But I guess we shouldn’t get into an extensive study of Biblical theology :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    From the corrections website article on Kia Marama:

    ” * In 1986, research showed that re-offending rates for sex offenders were around 25 per cent.
    * In 1998 research indicated that treatment was reducing re-offending by more than 50 per cent. Only 8 per cent of the prisoners who had completed the Kia Marama programme had re-offended, compared with 22-25 per cent of prisoners who had not been treated.
    * In 2003 analysis of prisoners who had completed the Kia Marama programme between 1994 and 2001 found that only 4 per cent had re-offended, indicating the programme had become even more effective with the introduction of bicultural therapy and standardised treatment modules.”

    Reference:http://www.corrections.govt.nz/about-us/fact-sheets/managing-offenders/specialist_units/kia-marama-special-

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I think David will be asking about longer term re-offending rates. While the results are commendable, they are over relatively short periods. The big question is how effective these programmes are over 10 or 20 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett
    They only allow taking part in the program to those that have shown some degree of knowledge re their offending
    that would be why Capill did not enter the program in till quite late in his incarceration

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    One way to analyse the concept of consent is to look at in terms of relative power relation between consenter and consentee, and within the moral context of their culture.

    Andrei
    FE Smith

    The instant you have pegged something as evil or wicked, you have given up rational analysis and thrown it to the devil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Capil is a pervy old kiddy fiddler who hid behind his religion to fuck over young people and as others have noted religions have form for this kind of obscene behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Fletch (6,408 comments) says:

    Interesting video I saw today – an interview with Cory Feldman (from Lost Boys and Stand By Me) who claims Hollywood was and is a haven for pedophiles – famous movie moguls. He claims he and Cory Haim (and Haim corroborated this in a TV show the two were on together) were being molested at age 14.

    The number one problem in Hollywood was, is and always will be pedophilia. It’s all done under the radar. . . But it’s the big secret.
    There’s a lot of good people in this industry, but there’s also a lot of really, really sick, corrupt people in this industry. And there are people in this industry who have gotten away with it for so long that they feel they’re above the law, and that’s got to change. That’s got to stop.
    I was surrounded by them when I was 14 years old. Surrounded. Literally. Didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were and what they wanted and what they were about. . . till I went, ohmygod, they were everywhere like vultures.
    There was a circle of older men that surrounded themselves around this group of kids. And they had power or connections to great power in the industry.

    See the video interview HERE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    This thread has nothing to do with God bothering.

    It about a freak who was a class A hypocrite, like all serious offenders, they don’t walk around with a big sign saying “I’m gonna fuck your children”, I will bet you now that there are other victims that no one knows about with this guy. he might have been a Rotarian as well but its just the God botheres and the God slammers who get stuck in .

    I wonder if what offends our host so much about Capill is that he was a politician who fooled many of those on the “inside ” ( and he’s from Christchurch, what is it about that place)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Put it away (2,880 comments) says:

    “Read a bit more carefully. There’s a heck of a lot more mercy from God than there is killing. Try Jonah for example.”

    You mean like when your god ordered his noble followers to massacre all the Midianite adults and male children but keep the girl virgins to rape? ( Numbers 31:17-18 ). Charming fellow this god of yours. Really I can’t imagine how his followers could end up like Capill…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Thanks Mikey and Nasska…but neither of them clearly state over what PERIOD this reduced offending occurred, although if the figures are accurate there is clearly a significant effect of the programmes (5.47% reoffending for graduates of te piriti vs. 21% for “untreated” inmates) …provided of course the time periods are the same.

    My suspicion remains however: how hard can it be to say “after five years X% of Kia Marama graduates had reoffended as opposed to Y% of a similar control group who did not undertake the programme”

    The lack of such clear language sets of warning bells for an old cynic like me…And then of course that is assuming “reoffended” means just that, not “didnt get caught”..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    scubone – in the interests of fairness here is what you said including what you quoted:

    >> read the old testament that’s god having fun with genocide infanticide Fratricide and lots of smiting plagues etc not the most balanced deity known to man

    Read a bit more carefully. There’s a heck of a lot more mercy from God than there is killing. Try Jonah for example.

    Then you wrote:

    in the Garden of Eden Adam sinned and came under sentence of death (and he was warned). Anyone who was allowed to live after that was merciful.

    I reject outright the idea that allowing Adam’s descendants to live gives God a free pass to kill, maim, and torture them. It would be bad enough if Adam’s descendants actually had a say in the matter. Then it’s just coercion. But they didn’t, so its just plain murder of innocent people. There is no sense in which Adam’s descendants can be held responsible for his mistake. They simply did not have a choice. Have you really thought this through? In any other context what you say here would be barbaric, I’d have thought. I have real trouble with the idea of a god that permits thousands of human beings to come into existence only to then destroy them, their children, their spouses. I honestly can’t see how that is not cruel or an expression of evil. In fact what greater evil could have been inflicted on those people? Not only was genocide inflicted onto the innocent, it was to no purpose: whatever goal God was trying to achieve could have occurred without their destruction. He is, afterall, omnipotent! You can’t have it both ways. At least Stalin or Mao could point to some greater goal and the imperfections of man which, they might argue, necessitated mass killing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Capill is rated as a low to moderate chance of re offending in the long term
    As the programme takes those who have a chance of rehabilitation and those that are considered unredeemable are not admitted the statistics are at best meaningless

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Pharmachick (235 comments) says:

    Oh no, no no no no no.
    Capill’s out with only 2/3 sentence served? After interfering with FIVE year olds??

    no no no no no no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Can we talk about Graeme Capill or at least sex offenders and their treatment rather than the old and new testaments?

    Yes, you got it right Mikey….I want to know how effective they are over the long term. That te piriti programe paper for example dates back to 2003, almost ten years ago…Again, it cant be hard to track the arrest rates for the graduates of the programme at that point up to now…(long day, sorry about the poor grammar)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Andrei blaming Capill’s behaviour on homosexuality.

    I did no such thing – I said his offending was likely a consequence of a permissive society that over emphasizes sexuality .

    I could also point out that as boundaries are loosened they are pushed.

    When pornography was illegal kiddie porn was not a problem as far as I have ever heard but when you can easily and legally access porn the boundaries get pushed and the porn has to become more perverse to maintain its illicit flavour.

    It’s the old slippery slope thing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    DPF: Perhaps in addition to the daily General Debate thread you could include one for “Religious and Atheists”….kinda clear the board a bit for more specific topics…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    ben is still crying……

    Capill is a piece of shit, I’m sure everyone is agreed…..
    As for the Old Testament, it’s a pretty lucid mirror on the human condition & makes no attempts whatsoever to gloss over the foibles, and worse, of even the most righteous of the main protagonists….let alone the heathen. For that, and for that alone, it’s a magnificent work of literature…..especially from a time when only the good deeds of the subjects were worthy of chronicling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Sorry David, it’s only because we all love Jesus so dang much!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    David Garrett (467) Says:
    August 17th, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    I’m not sure you are correct there. I take the view that orientation is software and therefore changeable,as so many have shown in history. The fact that you can do so doesn’t make it safe or correct.
    However when you like something so much and when some people egg you on and support your beliefs about your behaviour it is harder to stop. A deceived person doesn’t know they are deceived.

    Capill was secretive and deceitful as well as controlling, in short he behaved evilly against two children.
    As for doing the course later, they like to time it nearer the period that they might let them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Dazzaman: no ones crying here. Fundie much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Ben: I find no place in scripture where a people acknowledged as God fearing were ordered to be slaughtered by God. In fact as I quoted, Jonah speaks of a situation where God removed his wrath after repentance.

    I’d make a longer answer, but it really isn’t on topic. You can come over to my blog and ask me there if you are really interested – or even better MandM if you want a professional :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Fair enough that the Christians are getting a bit of stick over Capill’s hypocrisy but the issue goes deeper. It’s not rocket science that pedophiles are going to put themselves into positions where they are going to be in contact with children & better still hold power over them. Obviously a church minister or priest has this & usually the trust of the parents as well.

    To add to the problem Christian parents raise trusting obedient children who are taught to respect their elders. No wonder the Capills of this world walk around with a bible or a schoolbook in their hands.

    By instilling all this religious crap into their children they are making them more vulnerable rather than less to those who wish to prey on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Andrei and those who condone his posts in this thread are an example of why Christians are scum. Only a Christian would post in a thread about a convicted pedophile and focus on homosexuality rather than condemning the criminal themselves. This is of course consistent with their ideology that God should be worshiped regardless of the crazy shit He did in the Bible.

    Reminds me of this quote by Tony Campolo:

    “I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”

    You can always trust Christians to have their priorities wrong. God cares more about homosexuality than third world poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Pharmachick (235 comments) says:

    @David Garrett…
    not NZ and not new (1 is 1993, 2 is 1995, 3 is 1996) … but not encouraging
    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/61/4/646/

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/63/5/802/

    http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r49/r49_e.pdf

    This last (1991) includes analysis from Kia Marama staff and to “un-science-ize” the last line … still recommends chemical castration:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027273589190119F

    given time, might be able to find something more up to date and NZ centric if you like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    With all due respect but religion is part of our culture and the lens through which some of us view the world, its events and our place in it and them. Thus it may appear in comment threads – which do of course at times go off on tangents.

    In this case the offender in question was a Calvinist minister and sadly a promoter of “family values” thus as you know apart from anything else hypocrite of the first order.

    And given that background a little religious argy bargy is almost inevitable – no?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    nasska: Capill was not a minister when he offended. So your thesis goes up in smoke.

    Sadly, the Capill situation is such that he could have been Richard Dawkins and still gotten away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Mike: If that was right, programmes such as “the Liion of Judah” (I think its called) aimed at “curing” homosexuals would be raging sucesses…but they arent…Back as late as the 60’s homosexuality was listed in DSM II as a mental illness…attempted “cures” were spectactularly unsuccessful which, I think, led to an understanding that it was an orientation not a disease.

    That said, my life experience suggests that Kinsey was right, and that most fall of us somewhere on a continuum between purely heterosexual and purely homosexual….where the hell sick f…s like Capill fall God knows (pardon me!)

    But how’s this for scary….homosexuality was once regarded as an illness, but is now – at least for most people in western secular socieites – just another flavour of sexual orientation….But Given that the only value many of the yoof have is that they are “non judgmental”, what happens when someone starts to argue that being turned on by children is also “just another variation of sexuality”, and that to comdemn is is “being judgmental”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf: Comment. Of. The. Day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    @ Andrei 7.41

    When pornography was illegal kiddie porn was not a problem as far as I have ever heard but when you can easily and legally access porn the boundaries get pushed and the porn ………

    For fuck sake, he wasn’t using images he was using real live human beings you nob.

    In a less permissive society his offending would have gone undetected due to the fact that he was 1. A Minister of some half arsed church. 2. A lawyer, they’re slippery bastards at the best of times 3. He was working in a police prosecutions section. In times of yore he would have been untouchable because relegious conservatives would not believed a “man” like this could behave like he did.

    Lastly, freaks are nothing new its just (again) that our open society sees more of them outed, like wife bashers times have chnaged and more are outed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Pharmachick: Thank you very much…I will have a look when this lively discussion quietens down!

    Andrei: fair point….its just that I think we can all enlighten each other a bit on this and other topics whereas “God is good and loving; no he’s not he’s an evil bastard” is never going to go anywhere…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    That said, my life experience suggests that Kinsey was right, and that most fall of us somewhere on a continuum between purely heterosexual and purely homosexual….where the hell sick f…s like Capill fall God knows (pardon me!)

    Seriously? You quote Kinsey approvingly while condemning Capill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    scrubone

    Okay leave Capill out of this equation….the thesis still holds good. Run it past the Pope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    scrubone 7:51, you’re just shifting goal posts. Make an indefensible statement, then make another. Its extraordinary, really. It’s still needless mass murder when they don’t believe! But yes, in the interests of saving David Garrett the trouble of, you know, scrolling, let’s end it there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Fletch (6,408 comments) says:

    @courage wolf – and yet most offending against children is homosexual in nature. Those in the media know this but do not mention it because homosexuality is the sacred cow they dare not speak against.

    eg, from the US –

    homosexual teachers
    have been involved in more than eighty
    percent of all recorded cases of teacher/pupil
    sex. And it may also explain why homosexuals
    are trying so hard to force the Boy Scouts
    of America to accept practicing homosexuals
    as leaders. Some homosexuals may see such
    acceptance as one more step toward achieving
    general social recognition and approval
    for homosexual activity, and nothing more.
    For homosexual child molesters, however,
    such recognition by the Boy Scouts would
    provide more ready access to children they
    can abuse.
    Anationwide survey of school principals
    showed that they received 13 times as many
    complaints about homosexuals sexually
    molesting students than they did about heterosexuals
    molesting students. – 24J. Dressler. “Gay Teachers: A Disesteemed
    Minority in an Overly Esteemed Profession.” Rutgers/
    Camden Law Journal, 1978, 9(3), pages 399
    to 445.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    the thesis still holds good

    Your thesis is “raise brats and we won’t have paedophilia”. Or am I missing something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    “The instant you have pegged something as evil or wicked, you have given up rational analysis and thrown it to the devil.”

    I disagree with you. I think evil does exist, whether you take it from a religious viewpoint or a secular viewpoint. Saying something is evil is a judgment call, true, but that is something that society does on a regular basis and something that I am content with. Whether you base the judgment upon a religious foundation or a societal one, I don’t care. Calling Hitler evil is a rational analysis. Calling Stalin evil is also a rational analysis. Their actions were so far beyond what anyone could consider acceptable that to find a word capable of describing them we must use words like evil or wicked.

    But I would be grateful for an outline of why you think your statement to be correct, if you would?

    Ben, I wasn’t defending what she said, I was saying that I understood her to be conflating two separate viewpoints into one (possibly because of a similarity of part of a word). There are people in the world who do argue that children can willingly consent to sexual activity, among other things. I find that argument abhorrent, but the fact remains that it exists.

    “She doesn’t need you to go pulling out the ex post justifications. ”

    She may not, but I am happy to do so, for all sorts of reasons (to quote Sir Humphrey).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    DG
    at some stage in the past someone linked to a review on justice and the science behind it. That had the statistics on the present programmes I have not been able to locate it on the justice web site. It may be under corrections I think this has wot you are searching for

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Straight out bullshit FLETCH absolute crap.

    1. Homosexuals do not fuck with children, paedophiles do, two very different things, ignorance on a level like that shows why there should be a IQ test to vote.

    Just explain how a thread about a freak gets you wanking on and blaming “most offending agaist children is homosexual in nature”

    Wrong wrong wrong, most offending against children is by their families, mothers and fathers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    You can always trust Christians to have their priorities wrong. God cares more about homosexuality than third world poverty.

    Strangely, the churches I’ve been involved with have sent many people to the third world for charity and missionary work. I suspect that many, maybe even most of the people working in 3rd world countries to alleviate poverty are in fact Christian or work for organisations started and funded by Christians.

    The fact that Tony Campolo thinks otherwise does not change my determination to follow the Bible on both matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Mick Mac says:

    “I take the view that orientation is software and therefore changeable”

    Errrm no, I don’t think so. Behaviour can be modified, but sexual orientation? I assume Mick Mac that you are heterosexual. Could you be ‘reconditioned’ to be gay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Scrubone:
    To be honest I dont know much about Kinsey other than what was in the movie, and that he was the first scientist (albeit an expert on gall wasps!) to seriously study human sexuality….I have skim read his major works but found them heavy going…

    I dont believe he ever said sex with children was OK did he? If he did, then I strongly disagree with him….for me it is one of the moral absolutes…even more so that killing people is (almost) always wrong…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Or am I missing something?

    Maybe I’ll try this another way…you can raise good children by getting them used to questioning authority or at least running problems past Mum & Dad. As Pauleastbay stated above back when children were brought up with ‘Christian values’ Capill would probably never been uncovered.

    Rude brats…No. Healthy scepticism…Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    To be honest I dont know much about Kinsey other than what was in the movie

    Ouch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    you can raise good children by getting them used to questioning authority or at least running problems past Mum & Dad.

    Sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Scott: As I have observed earlier, there have been failed attempts in the past to “reconditon” gays to be hetero….I am unaware of any attempts to do the opposite, but I assume they woudl be equally unsuccessful…

    If it wasnt defamatory (or at least get me in lots of trouble with the mates of the female politician in question) I would recount my good friend David’s Rounds story about his one and only attempt to “be with” a woman…to quote him, “I was ever so slightly interested until she thrust her whisky soaked tongue down my throat”….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    FE Smith

    Certainly. Morality is relative in my view. Descriptive relativism describes the way things are, without suggesting a way they ought to be. It seeks only to point out that people frequently disagree over what is the most ‘moral’ course of action.

    I subscribe to a moral code based on self-respect and respect for others. This is arbitrary, but pragmatic.

    Hitler and Stalin I wouldn’t describe as evil, rather as amoral, or solipsistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Back as late as the 60′s homosexuality was listed in DSM II as a mental illness…attempted “cures” were spectactularly unsuccessful which, I think, led to an understanding that it was an orientation not a disease.

    That decision David was purely political and not scientific, homosexuality being one of many paraphilias, including pedophilia but many other essentially harmless behaviours that was so classified.

    All remain so classified except for Homosexuality with the accepted position being that if they do not cause the patient or anyone else harm or distress they are best left alone. Which seems both humane and reasonable.

    However from a purely rational standpoint the ultimate function of sex is reproduction, with perhaps some socialization aspects to it. And non reproductive sexual activity is thus maladaptive and thus by definition perhaps an illness.

    The socialization and reproductive aspects of sex are why every culture that has ever existed has put fences around sexuality and sexual behaviour – some quite cruel eg female genital mutilation, others obviously sensible such as restricting who you can and cannot marry e.g. your sister. As well as things like marriage age, age of consent and so forth.

    Until very recently our culture had a legacy of monogamy, which I believe is the most humane and best way of organizing things. We rememeber Homosexual Law reform but have forgotten that Adultery was also a crime not so long ago.

    It was knocked off the books, I’d posit because a great many lawmakers were breaking the law as it existed when they repealed it that it was something they were eager to see the back of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    David Garrett: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/08/kinsey_sex_and.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    David

    Yes, I was echoing your observation. I doubt that Capil will re-offend even if his sexual predilection for children can’t be changed. He obviously isn’t stupid, so I’d say the consequence of further incarceration will be sufficient deterrent. Hopefully he can be left alone to try to repay his heavy debt to society, without idiot vigilantes exacerbating the tragedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    2008 recidivism rate sex offender
    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/research/reconviction_rates_of_sex_offenders.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Scrubone: do enlighten me more about why you have no time for the late Professor and his works …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    David Garrett (says:

    neither of them clearly state over what PERIOD this reduced offending occurred, although if the figures are accurate there is clearly a significant effect of the programmes

    A multi-state Australian review of sex offender treatment programs produced very similar results, including the size of the differential between treated and untreated sex offenders, so the figures seem right as far as they go, but you’re correct in saying that longitudinal studies simply don’t exist.

    Which is bizarre, given that sex crimes evoke stronger emotions amongst people than, it seems, do all but the most horrific of murders. One would think that determining the efficacy of sex offender treatments would be a high priority.

    A review of the research by Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw (Psychological Bulletin, Vol 105(1))* concluded somewhat ruefully:

    The differences in recidivism across these studies is truly remarkable; clearly by selectively contemplating the various studies, one can conclude anything one wants…

    …long follow-up periods require both financial resources and patience. However, judgments about the severity of sex offender recidivism based on follow-up periods of only several years are likely to be very misleading, given the extremely low rate of reporting for these crimes. Indeed progress in our knowledge about sex offender recidivism will continually elude us until adequate resources of time, money, and research expertise are devoted to this issue.

    If in your political or legal lifetimes you’ve encountered anyone who wants to do more than just posture on the issue for publicity or political gain and has the money, then let me know as I know of researchers who’d leap at the opportunity to carry out a proper longitudinal study of sex offenders and the efficiacy of treatment over a suitable period (in excess of a decade, at least).

    AS for Capill, the only clue the liertature review I referenced above can offer is:

    [Two studies kept separate] data for pedophiles, exhibitionists, and aggressive/assaultive offenders (i.e., rapists). In both studies, the recidivism rate for pedophiles tends to be lower than that for the other two offender types.

    And that, of course, is another problem. The term “sex offender” encompasses people who motives, personalities and criminality are about as varied from one another as it’s possible to get, so lumping them together, even if we get some figures at the end of it, tells us very little about the risk of a particular type of sex offender.

    * No link I’m afraid, I pulled it off a paid database.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Scrubone: thanks…you had already done so before I hit “submit:….so your view on Kinsey is what it is because of this book by a woman I suspect no-one has ever heard of?

    Given that one of its reviewers says it would have a social impact of 10 on the Richter scale one would have thought it was more widely known… Have you read the book by the way?

    However, as the blurb notes, Kinsey’s works are regarded as the seminal (sorry…) texts on human sexuality… Having said that, the rest of the blurb illustrates that sexual perversions – or variations, depending on ones point of view – have certainly been around forever….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    David Garrett said “To be honest I dont know much about Kinsey other than what was in the movie

    Just google Alfred Kinsey Monster e.g http://www.scribd.com/doc/38015406/eBook-a-Monster-Named-Alfred-Kinsey
    There is more than that about one of the most evil men who ever existed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay
    Have you read up on the convicted Christchurch scout masters? There has been quite a few.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Rex: Always informative…the “prove anything you want…” quote kinda sums up my view of this field of study…Also interesting that there are wide variations…if there was a “holy grail” of treatment for sex offenders one would think the approach would be quickly universally adopted across cultures…like AA for alcoholics

    As to the costs of a longitutudinal study, enlighten me here….how hard can it be to follow up all of the offenders referred to in the 2003 paper on te piriti and find out how many of them have not reoffended since? Am I missing something here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    so your view on Kinsey is what it is because of this book by a woman I suspect no-one has ever heard of?

    No, just one source demonstrating what I had already heard elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Not surprised Joana and even though I have told myself a million times not to exaggerate, when it come to freak behaviour Christchurch seems to lead the way with daylight second.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Ross: Your source is the same Judith Reisman as Scrubone’s…tends to suggest one obsessive academic rather than an authoritative rebuttal of the man…

    Bit like the 15 historians who regard Churchill as a war criminal against the 15,000 who regard him as the greatest statesman of the 20th century?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Come in Rod Steele, your fans await…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Pharmachick (235 comments) says:

    Rex,
    yes pay walls are a pain in the a**.

    Alas, that’s what led me to send David Garrett mainly abstracts – whilst I have access to the articles, it would break my access agreement to download then post on a free forum.

    There are a few longitudinal studies, mainly in the US. This being said, these studies are primarily conducted for limited periods (c.f. other types of longitudinal studies such as for heart disease or mental illness) and primarily through parole departments. Moreover, they have rather high drop-off rates. FWIW, even child health studies only average 40-60% retainment over periods approaching 10 years (sorry no link, but I have references, promise!) and these are families that are **invested** in the studies. Thus the low retainment rate in studies of pedophiles shouldn’t surprise us … it additionally handicaps the public health/epidemiology/psychology researchers further.

    One of the other major problems for the long-term study of Pedos is informed consent – can a prisoner truly give informed, non-coerced consent? Moreover, almost by definition; studies involving parolees involved some element of coercion – ergo it is difficult to conduct an ethical, robust and rigorous study. And before anyone on the thread says I am a “bleeding heart” for the Pedos – I didn’t say I was personally concerned about the coercion aspect, however; professionally, all of us in these fields need to abide by best practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Andrei
    ‘However from a purely rational standpoint the ultimate function of sex is reproduction, with perhaps some socialization aspects to it. And non reproductive sexual activity is thus maladaptive and thus by definition perhaps an illness.’

    Are you in fact human or an animal at all. mayhaps some asexual alien life form. Go to the zoo and watch the monkeys then tell me that sex is purely reproductive. Better yet read up on human sexual behavior there is little doubt that sex for fulls far more than a purely reproductive role in society.
    Humans are built to enjoy sex shocking I know but nevertheless true. As modern contraceptive methods allow sex to be removed from the chance of reproduction. It has also allowed it to be viewed as some thing other than safely preformed only in marriage. That your religion stops you enjoying this is your problem not us atheists problem

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    David Garrett, please do not bring up David Round’s stories (hilariously disgusting as they can be, this blog may have young people reading it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Pharmachick: you sound like a scientist and I am certainly not one…but again, how hard can it be to track the graduates of te piriti as at 2003 and find how many have reoffended since? If the data is publicly available the bloody Privacy Act has no application….

    Then I suppose the names of the said graduates would be hard to obtain….thinking on the hoof here, but perhaps allowing yourself to be tracked could/should be a condition of parole for sex offenders? Or for that matter, for any former inmates, just to make it fair…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Ross: Your source is the same Judith Reisman as Scrubone’s…tends to suggest one obsessive academic rather than an authoritative rebuttal of the man…

    Meh. You want to ignore someone who copies pages from his book detailing sexual experiments on infants, you go right ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei I think your basic thesis here is wrong. Society, or rather the people and institutions in it, has in the last 30 years taken just about every possible step to stamp out paedophiles – it imprisons them, shames them, and doesn’t forget who they are. Victims are listened to where once they were not. Paedophilia is on par with murder and rape in public abhorrence. This abhorrence is so widespread that one of the largest, oldest and most powerful institutions has been brought to its knees, or at least made to kowtow.

    This complete reaction against paedophilia coincides with a massive increase in consumption of pornography, thanks mainly to the invention of the video cassette player and then the internet.

    This contradicts your idea, which is that moral decline has allowed paedophiles to thrive. Paedophiles have not thrived, quite the opposite, even though legal porn is consumed in far greater quantities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    FES: My kids are in bed at 9.15…where everyone elses should be…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Fine, I’ll dig up the link: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2010/10/table_34.html

    Now, off to puke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    Suspected as much. So you neither approve nor disapprove of Capill’s actions?  Of course, I disagree with you, but my background as a criminal lawyer may simply reinforce my disagreement.   But thanks for the info.

    Solipsistic, eh? Like this guy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    David Garrett asks:

    As to the costs of a longitutudinal study, enlighten me here….how hard can it be to follow up all of the offenders referred to in the 2003 paper on te piriti and find out how many of them have not reoffended since? Am I missing something here?

    Pharmachick alludes to some of the issues above. It’s not really sufficient to say “Offenders A through D reoffended, while E and F didn’t, so the program is lacking”… in other words, rate of capture of recidivists isn’t a very useful measure (I say “rate of capture” not “rate of reoffending” because sexual offending is under-reported).

    And even if we can get the offending / not offending data right, it’s not a lot of use unless we can account for variables. How many offended only after using drink and/or drugs? How did those who didn’t offend manage not to do so? Sheer willpower? Strategies learned in prison? Or just “scared straight” by their time inside?

    That requires personal interviews over periods of decades and, as Pharmachick observes, you then have to start with a large enough sample to allow for all sorts of attrition (death, moving away, being lost track of by the study, refusing to continue to participate etc).

    For a longitudinal study to produce some usable information that could inform policy-making and treatment modalities would require a large sample size (so I’d suggest combining NZ and Australia) and a willingness to fund it for the long term (so probably bipartisan political agreement). And that’s just the beginnging… making sure the programs being monitored didn’t cease, or change so radically that data across time was invalidated… ensuring compliance amongst released offenders…

    It’s about much more than data-matching at Corrections (even though Corrections don’t understand that, and publish recidivism data based on exactly that).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    What does “meh” mean?? Obviously a yoof term….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Fletch, even if you are correct that paedophilia tends to be homosexual in nature – and since when was the media the arbiter of anything truthful? – so what? Nobody would make the same argument about anything else, whether it be race or religion or gender or political preferneces i.e. even if it were established that political party X voters were more likely to be paedophiles, that political party X should be banned, or religion Y, or race Z, or gender A. Yet, somehow, Christians get a free pass to attack gay people? How does that work? If mere weight of opinion is all you’ve got then you don’t have an argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    Rex: Yes I see…the fact remains – and I think we can probably agree – the data we have so far on the long term effectiveness of these programmes proves f…all?

    I’m afraid when it comes to paedos since I have become a father I tend to forget rationality and my education and think simply of pragmatic solutions like Breaker Morant’s “rule 303″….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    David G, fair enough re the kids, but David’s stories are just something else and may even affect those of us not hardened by the harsh realities of the criminal law… :)

    Re ‘meh’, see this .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Resiman may or may not be right about Kinsey… I can’t really be bothered to read her rants because Kinsey is so outmoded now I don’t know of anyone teaching him any more… but amongst her list of “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries” (they must have had a special deal on capitals when she wrote her website) alongside Kinsey she lists authors ranging from JM Keynes to Ralph Nader, Michel Foucault and Charles Darwin. But my personal favourite has to be “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill.

    Where’d this fruit loop get her degree? The same university as Dr Seuss?! (who seems, oddly, to be missing from her list given the known risks of eating green eggs and ham).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    As well as F E Smith’s link try: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meh

    You may want to bookmark the site as it is invaluable when you need to interpret new slang.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @David Garrett:

    Oh we absolutely agree that present data on long term effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs tells us nothing. In fact it simply doesn’t exist.

    The issue is whether it ought to. I think it should… I prefer my policy making to always be based on empirical research…

    it comes to paedos since I have become a father I tend to forget rationality and my education and think simply of pragmatic solutions like Breaker Morant’s “rule 303″…

    ..you, it seems, don’t always favour a research-based approach but rather an emotive one (and yes, I’m a father too).

    In some jurisdictions there are programs for people who feel they are attracted to children but haven’t acted upon that desire. They can seek help in complete privacy and will never be “outed” unless they confess to a crime. I hear, anecdotally, that they have a reasonable success rate.

    So, putting aside talk of bullets and nooses, if we knew what was effective in preventing reoffending, it woulld also inform us as to what might work to prevent the first offence.

    And that’s where I have to refrain from another rant about the SST, 3S et al… the focus ought not to be on righting wrongs done to victims (which can never truly be done, much as I support Restorative Justice) but preventing victimisation from ever occurring. And in this case that requires us to properly fund the research and to turn the lynch-the-pedo rhetoric down so anyone driven by such urges will seek treatment before they offend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Andrei (2,664 comments) says:

    Andrei I think your basic thesis here is wrong. Society, or rather the people and institutions in it, has in the last 30 years taken just about every possible step to stamp out paedophiles

    An old saying
    Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest

    I’m not that old but sometimes I see on public free to air TV stuff which would have been hard core porn when I was a kid.

    And porn is essentially boring so to spice it up it has to get edgier and push ever more boundaries. And when it crosses the bounds of illegality and is personally risky to view the spice factor goes way up.

    Same goes for freely available sex – people get jaded and to keep the interest up try novelties. You don’t think doing something illegal or dangerous adds spice.

    And how many politicians have come unglued doing something really dumb in the chase for a cheap thrill? That guy Weiner recently sending photos of his bits and pieces with lewd suggestions to girls young enough to be his daughters – Career Kaput.

    Why?

    The answer’s fairly obvious I’d have thought

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    On the contrary, based on my moral code of self-respect and respect for others, I condemn Capill for gross power abuse, both of the children and the general public. I acknowledge that this is arbitrary. In terms of descriptive relativism, in a society which reviles and condemns paedophillia, Capill has caused great harm, and will face the sanctions deemed necessary by that society, be it retribution or recompense or quarantine or rehabilitation.

    My assessment of Capill is that his moral disposition is deviant and harmful. Were his actions evil? No, because he acted self-interestedly, and for one whose self-interest is paramount, this can only be construed as beneficial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    Regarding Stalin and Hitler, I’ve changed my mind about solipsism. Perhaps Machiavellian would be more apt. Whatever their eventual aims, I doubt that they saw themselves as evil, even though they did great harm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Andrei so it is common ground that consumption of legal porn has increased. And it is common ground, presumably, that society is strongly intolerant of paedophilia, and increasingly so. Standards may well have changed on legal porn, but if that is associated with less tolerance of paedophiles then your basic idea cannot be right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    Do we know if his wife is welcoming the creep back into the family home?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    BeaB: very good question…he was turned down for parole last time because “he did not have a stable address to go to”…suggesting that Mrs C had seen the light…but he has said “stable address” now…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Might I just add something I have to say and forgot, and this is nothing to do with God or homosexuality, WHY IS THIS GUY GETTING OUT ALREADY!? It seems like only yesterday that the bastard was getting cracked in the head down by the Avon River.

    We need to punish these people who destroy lives.

    It’s a natural human feeling to get revenge on someone who has broken one of society’s laws – it’s an innate need for justice that the “Justice System” just ignores. RW disagrees with the following point, but our sentencing need to take our instincts for retribution into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Just out in time for McCully to appoint him a RWC Ambassador. “ABstain for the game”!

    @Andrei 9:44 pm

    Where’s your Christian love and compassion for your fellow fundie Christian Capill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    How absurd. This creep should have been locked up for life. Silly lefties and their nonsense about how people can’t help their own actions and should be let off lightly.

    Andrei: I knew as soon as I read this thread that there would be a couple of nuts bashing Christianity and throwing around the word ‘bigot’, even though it has next to nothing to do with the topic. I just thought I’d reassure you that you’re not the only person in this thread with traditional views of sex. I hold similar views, and I don’t hate anyone. I’m not going to cower in fear of people calling me ‘prejudiced’ or ‘intolerant’, because I know I’m not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Pharmachick (235 comments) says:

    @Rex and David (and anyone else that is interested)….

    “That requires personal interviews over periods of decades and, as Pharmachick observes, you then have to start with a large enough sample to allow for all sorts of attrition (death, moving away, being lost track of by the study, refusing to continue to participate etc)”

    Not only that, but rather than a stratified analysis (i.e. how many we started with cut by how may dead, how many moved, how many refused to continue … etc) one needs to perform complex multivariate analyses (thats semi-important silly statistical language). Anyways, as regards the necessary complex stats and maths required: there are at least 2 problems with such an approach in NZ:

    1) NZ sociologists/psychologists etc are not well enough trained and/or sufficiently resourced (please don’t start yelling at me on KiwiBlog … I don’t know which one of these 2 it is, but I guarantee it is one of them) to either call on or access trained statisticians/epidemiologists and do the work (FWIW I suspect its a combination of both previous ideas)

    2) Research funding for science/public health/medicine in NZ is so pathetic as to make this idea untenable (as already mentioned by Rex, perhaps less bluntly)

    My other idea re: why we don’t track/study our pedopohiles is:

    3) NZ has a very restrictive “privacy” act and even Mums cannot get their daughter’s hospital info in emergencies if said daughter is over 18 and married (see: any Herald article, weekly since the act came in) or … The Govt. of NZ cannot access youth “benefits” for 16 and 17 year olds due to “privacy” issues (?!?)

    they’re some thoughts anyway.
    Cheers
    PS David Garret “I sound like a scientist” LOL cheers – who would have guessed that “Pharma” doesn’t necessarily stand for “Farmer”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Andrei: I did no such thing – I said his offending was likely a consequence of a permissive society that over emphasizes sexuality.

    Yeeaah… you know it isn’t really the time to bring all this stuff up. You’re saying the same things that Capill used to say.

    From Wikipedia: Capill chose to attend an Anglican church because his own was too accepting of “false teachers and those who are sexually permissive”

    Now there’s nothing wrong with having some the same views as someone evil. But at the moment, with the inevitable juxtaposition of your statements and Capill’s – it’s not a good look. I’m not sure why you chose this point to launch a tirade against permissiveness when this arsehole’s parents were missionaries, he went to a Christian school and studied “Divinity”.

    It must have been those permissive Prezzies!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Fundamentalist bigots such as Andrei are glad that they have managed to detract the thread by steering the discussion into homosexuality, because they are ashamed of their former leader for being a pedophile. It would be the equivalent of a hypothetical situation where Phil Goff is convicted of pedophilia, and then Labour supporters trying to make the debate unrelated to Goff by talking about homosexuality and ignoring the fact that it is about a pedophile being released on parole. Pathetic, and as expected from hypocritical, judgmental Christian scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Lucia Maria (2,459 comments) says:

    Tristanb,

    Don’t you believe in free-will, that you can be brought up a particular way and still turn out wrong? Happens to plenty of people to the shame and horror of their parents. Being born into a good family only makes the fall that much greater.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    Why are you people arguing about homosexuality?

    Capill preyed on girls, not boys. It seems fairly clear that heterosexuality was the underlying cause of his perversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    Oh. Andrei – if you believe that sex is purely about reproduction, you’re doing it *wrong*.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Hi Lucia,

    Don’t you believe in free-will, that you can be brought up a particular way and still turn out wrong?

    Yep. I do.

    But my point is that this fact destroys Andrei’s argument that Capill is the result of a permissive society.

    Being born into a good family only makes the fall that much greater.

    He was born to missionaries. Now they may have been good, but they may not have. I guess only Capill knows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    “Fundamentalist bigots such as Andrei are glad that they have managed to detract the thread by steering the discussion into homosexuality, because they are ashamed of their former leader for being a pedophile.”

    I am indeed ashamed that someone who calls himself a Christian molested children. It is despicable and someday he shall answer to God for it. But claims that Christians deliberately derailed this thread to shift people’s attention to other issues – such as homosexuality – are pretty out there. This thread was inevitably going to go off topic, I knew as much before I even started to read the comments, and so, I suspect, did many other commenters.

    “Pathetic, and as expected from hypocritical, judgmental Christian scum.”

    You really don’t find this the slightest bit ironic? It seems rather prejudiced and judgmental to me. Oh well. God bless you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 (41) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Claims that Christians deliberately derailed this thread to shift people’s attention to other issues – such as homosexuality – are pretty out there.

    You don’t find this at all ironic? The first comment Andrei makes in this thread:

    Andrei (987) Says:
    August 17th, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    “it doesn’t get much worse than robbing children of their innocence”

    Well that should apply to the scuzz bags who teach sodomy is ok provided you wear a condom in our schools and insist that “Heather has two mommys” belongs in primary school libraries.

    Capill is just part of that same picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    I think the point that Andrei was making is that with our permissive society all the norms and rules have broken down. Therefore we will see more of this type of behaviour. For example we have had a number of cases around the world of teachers having sexual relationships with pupils. This is what happens when there is no right and wrong. Liberals and radicals for some years have been attacking the traditional family and attacking traditional Christian norms as outdated and oppressive. At the moment we do have an anything goes type of society. Therefore what Andrei is saying is quite right. Our permissive society means that we will get more and more of this type of perverted behaviour.

    Graham Capill was raised in a Christian home by Christian parents. However he chose to defy his upbringing and indulge his perverted impulses. This is an example of free will. We can choose to do good or we can choose to do evil. Even the angel Lucifer decided to choose evil and rebel against God.

    I believe the true moral to be gained in this whole sordid saga of Graham Capill is that evil is real. I would also say that I do believe in divine justice. I think Mr. Capill has received that. He was beaten up publicly and then sent to jail publicly and his name is now one of shame and hypocrisy. He has received his just deserts. God is a God of justice. In the end we will all be judged. So best get right with God before it is too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    It is despicable and someday he shall answer to God for it.

    Such a pity God stood idly by and watched while Capill was molesting children. What a weak insipid loser – all powerful, but he allows crap like that to happen? And Capill only gets punished after he’s dead?

    Aredhel, do you agree with Andrei’s comments that Capill is a result of a permissive society? Or do you harbour the suspicions that many of us silently share – that something in his missionary and God-banging upbringing caused him to act the way he does.

    I have to comment on Mrs Capill. Apparently she still supports her husband 100%. What a terrible lady. I guess she doesn’t want a divorce after what happened, because divorce is causing the breakdown of society, second only to ‘permissivity’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Gosh Tristan — your comments are a trifle judgemental don’t you think?

    Your hatred of God is noted. However I give you this to think about. What if God did intervene in every evil act? The child molester we can understand and you might want him to intervene. But let’s take it further. What if someone wants to have sex with someone they are not married with? Do you want God to intervene then?
    When we are small children and nicking our neighbours apples — should God send an angel to tell us off and stop us from doing what we want to do?

    God has given us the capacity to choose. That is called free will. So we can choose to love God or we can choose to rebel against our Creator. That is the choice you have, that is the choice I have and that is the choice that Graham Capill had. Otherwise we are just robots.

    It is a bit like the bride walking up to the altar. She is so pleased to see her handsome soon-to-be husband, knowing that he freely chose her. But what if she then sees her father, tightlipped, trying to hide what looks like a shot gun? Could it be that her husband has been forced to marry her? Would that knowledge not ruin her whole marriage day?

    Love is not love unless it is freely chosen. Therefore we have the choice — to love God or to rebel against him. However there are eternal consequences to our choice. Heaven and hell are real places and they are both full of volunteers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Scott

    I think the point that Andrei was making is that with our permissive society all the norms and rules have broken down. Therefore we will see more of this type of behaviour. For example we have had a number of cases around the world of teachers having sexual relationships with pupils. This is what happens when there is no right and wrong. Liberals and radicals for some years have been attacking the traditional family and attacking traditional Christian norms as outdated and oppressive. At the moment we do have an anything goes type of society. Therefore what Andrei is saying is quite right. Our permissive society means that we will get more and more of this type of perverted behaviour.

    Andrei and you are quite wrong. Society has less tolerance now for paedophilia than it did 50 years ago, at least as measured by the substantial increase in research and in measures taken to prevent and punish it. It is hard to be certain but I rather suspect there is much less of it going on now than there used to be – at the very least the expected cost of doing it is now higher, so you’d expect less. Permissiveness is negatively correlated with deviance, at least in this case. Andrei’s thesis is plain wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Scott

    Why is God so shy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Scott – when there’s crime there’s a victim, and so someone’s free will has to be violated. Why does God always choose protect the criminal’s free will at the expense of the victim’s?

    In what sense is it a choice to love God when the alternative is to burn in hell forever? That is coercion. It is a free choice in the same way a bank teller can choose to decline his armed robber’s request. Robbers are not acting in the teller’s interests when they make their demands, they are acting in their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Scott

    …”I think the point that Andrei was making is that with our permissive society all the norms and rules have broken down. Therefore we will see more of this type of behaviour. “…

    Let’s concentrate on the subject of this thread…a certain Mr Capill. Now Mr Capill wasn’t part of this degenerate, broken down permissive society. He set himself up as a moral & righteous leader of the God fearing & God bothering sector of humanity. Because he ticked all the boxes of the morally superior Christians they accepted him into their midst & while they concentrated on denouncing homosexuality & other things they don’t like he fiddled around with their little daughters.

    As a professed Christian you have learnt nothing from this debacle. Not one of the billion odd electrons that your lot have disturbed in the wafflings above has mentioned the welfare of the kids involved. Not even a few words on how a repeat of Capill’s actions can be avoided. Just more pious platitudes & hate filled attacks on anyone who doesn’t fit into your ideal society.

    Just another day at the office for the God botherers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Scott
    …..”God has given us the capacity to choose. That is called free will. So we can choose to love God or we can choose to rebel against our Creator. That is the choice you have, that is the choice I have and that is the choice that Graham Capill had. Otherwise we are just robots.”…….

    You have given 2 choices there – love God or rebel. Does that mean if I dont love God then I am rebeling against him?
    If I live my life loving and protecting my family, respecting everybody else, not harming anybody but not loving a God that I dont believe exists, am I a rebel against God, what will happen to me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Ben — I am sorry but I don’t accept your thesis at all. Crime in all categories is about eight times what it was 60 years ago. Our social welfare agencies are run off their feet dealing with child abuse — physical and sexual abuse. So I do not accept in any way shape or form that paedophilia is on the decrease. In fact it is probably on the increase judging by our terrible record of child abuse in this country.

    I accept when there is crime there is a victim. However the point remains do you want God to intervene every time someone wants to do something wrong? How many times might God have intervened in your life over the last six months? We have free will. We can use it to do good — such as feeding little children in Africa. Or we can use our free will to do evil as Graham Capill has done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    nasska-the point that is being made is that our permissive society is affecting all of us. We’re all in this together.

    I’m not sure why you think we are not concerned about the victims. We are very concerned about the victims. As a Christian we understand that children are the apple of God’s eye.

    But Justice has been done. Graham Capill was publicly beaten up on television. He was then publicly sentenced and his name is quite correctly a byword for hypocrisy. So he has had his just deserts.

    But our concern for the children is profound. We want them to live in a decent society where they can be bought up by their mother and father who are married. This will give them the best chance in life. We think that a permissive society means that children are more likely to be neglected and abuse. That is what is happening today.

    So we want a radical change in society. Our human reason hasn’t worked. It will never work because we are too sinful. We need God to change our hearts and make us better people who will love our children and not abuse them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, but where is the evidence that a ‘more permissive society’ led to this disgusting offending? We are not privy to the details of Capill’s victims, but I should not be surprised if they were brought up in decent homes by mothers and fathers who were married.

    You can’t have it both ways – either this type of offending should be markedly more prevalent in ‘permissive’ homes, or by some stretch of logic the ‘permissive society’ is responsible for this even in households that do not subscribe to such values.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Scott

    …”I’m not sure why you think we are not concerned about the victims.”..

    Easy…your response & my comment were the first time they were mentioned on this thread.

    Agreed that Capill has served the punishment given.

    The Christian attitude to child rearing is another matter & it has been done to death above. Suffice to say that until your lot are absolutely certain that you have rooted out the kiddy abusers in your own part of society it would pay to tone down your condemnation of everyone who doesn’t measure up to Christianity’s ideal standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Child abuse was hidden it existed it happened but was denied. It was not that long ago that we had a christian law saying that rapeing your wife was ok
    Those that believe in god have a right to believe they don’t have any right to force there views on others. This is what the Christians are doing on this thread forcing there world view on others. That is why they have been attacked. This thread is about child abuse perpetrated by a christian leader who tried to force his christian view points on the rest of us yet had feet of clay not that uncommon in church circles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Scott

    Okay, seeing as you don’t have an answer for my first question, let me ask you this:

    Why does God intervene on behalf of the Israelites in captivity in Egypt in sending the succession of plagues, or part the water for Moses, or flood the earth like he did in Noah’s time, and yet fail to intervene on behalf of the Jews in the Nazi concentration camps?

    God seems strangely reticent these days. Why is this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    because science killed him?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Scott – God simply cannot exist – otherwise why would he allow people who profess thier life and love to God – and by doing so win the trust and love of others – only to betray thier trust by perpetrating hienous crimes on these people – examples that spring to mind are Capill and Catholic Priests – surely at a bare minimumn he would intervene to protect those who give thier life to God from those that give their life to God at the very least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Scott

    I appreciate your willingness to engage.

    I accept when there is crime there is a victim. However the point remains do you want God to intervene every time someone wants to do something wrong? How many times might God have intervened in your life over the last six months? We have free will. We can use it to do good — such as feeding little children in Africa. Or we can use our free will to do evil as Graham Capill has done.

    What I want isn’t at point here, the choice of course is God’s. And in each crime committed His choice in regards to free will is to respect the criminal’s free will at the expense of the victim’s. This question is how to reconcile the proposition that God is benevolent with his decision to protect the criminal’s free will.

    The answer, I think, is that the two are not reconcilable. If in fact they are but for complex reasons (as is frequently argued by believers) that God has not revealed to me and many others who struggle with this question, then I will burn in hell for eternity because it helps prevent me believing in God. All of which was, of course, foreseen by God, creating another problem: a God who grants free will and then hides himself knowing that well-meaning people like me cannot find him and so will burn in hell forever. Putting it mildly, that’s not a reasonable process I would say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    Scott – your assertion that NZ crime rates have increased by eight times in the last sixty years us categorically untrue.

    Please check the statistics. You might be surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    mikenmild — the bar is now so low that everything is permissible. The only thing we agree on is that paedophilia is evil.
    I believe that this type of offending is on the increase because of the permissiveness of our society. If having sex with everybody is okay — then why shouldn’t the age of consent be a lot lower? In fact why should there be an age of consent? Why shouldn’t I do whatever I want to do?

    This is the problem — where there are no rules, where God is only a swear word, there is no heaven or hell, there is nothing to stop us from doing whatever is in our evil hearts.

    Liberals want everything to be okay with the sole exception of paedophilia. Christians believe that the bar should be a lot higher. That we should honour God with our bodies. He created us and he has the right to let us know how he has made us to live.

    Therefore we need to put sex in its proper place — in a loving married relationship. That’s the proper place for sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Scott Chris — why did not God intervene in the Jewish Holocaust? I believe God wept for his people who died in those camps. I believe they show us that evil is real.

    However God did do something. Out of the Holocaust and the ashes of World War II the nation of Israel was reborn in 1948.

    Hitler was defeated through a providential alliance of Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. God used even the evil Soviet Union, a godless atheistic regime, to defeat Nazi Germany.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Griff-forcing our views on others? Well I’m sorry but I do not accept liberal tolerance as the last word. Liberal tolerance is a vehicle for the hegemony of secularism. That is the idea that religion is private and only secular reason shall determine public policy.

    But consider this. What is God really is the Creator of all things? What if God really wants to know us through his son Jesus Christ? What if we were made to worship God?

    If the above is true then until we worship God life will not make any sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Wayne 91 — I accept that Graham Capill and Catholic priests who betrayed their faith by molesting children are a stumbling block to believing in God.

    However there are lots and lots of examples of Christians, people of faith, who have denied themselves and dedicated their lives to selflessly helping others. They do this because they believe in spreading God’s love to others and have taken Jesus example to heart.

    Jesus died for the little children and be assured that all who sin against little children will receive their full punishment — in this life and the next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Ben — I do appreciate there is a complex theological question here.

    However God does give us free will. So we can choose good or we can choose evil. We can choose to be a criminal or we can choose to be a law-abiding citizen.

    God gives both the criminal and the “victim” free will. So faced by a criminal we have a choice about how we act. We can stand up to thuggery. We can stand up to violent intimidation.

    I always think the basic point is God wants us to love him. He loves us, he sent his son Jesus to die for us. But love must be a choice for it to be love.

    So we can choose God or we can choose the devil. That’s the choice — good or evil. Love or indifference.

    But love is risky. For myself I realise that in my heart I am basically a sinner who struggles to love God. Thankfully he loves me with a greater constancy that I sometimes have for him.

    Interestingly enough he does love you too Ben. He loves everybody — even those who do not love him. He is hoping that you will love him back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    gump — and this will have to be a last word for a while because I have work to do. I don’t think we quite realise how much as a society we have deteriorated over the last 50 to 60 years.

    I have heard personal testimony from John Jamieson, the former Minister of police, who when he was 18 years old and fresh out of police College was on the beat in South Auckland at night-time. He had no radio, no backup, no weapon apart from his baton. At some times, he was the only police officer on duty in South Auckland.

    But crime was very light — public drunkenness was the main problem.

    Go and visit an old-timer in suburbs like Manurewa. They will all tell you what a great neighbourhood it was in the old days. Now police helicopters fly over every night.

    Up till the 1950s a policeman could count on the fingers of two hands the numbers of murders in a given year. The murder rate as an example has gone up astronomically.

    My friends grandfather used to go on holiday. The only security measure he took was he shut the front door. He didn’t lock it mind. But he closed it as opposed to having it open all day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Scott

    My question was:

    Why did God intervene on behalf of Moses, but not on behalf of the holocaust victims?

    You didn’t answer it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Having actually worked with Capill (he threatened me with three legal suits in 100 days) – didn’t like people who stood up to him – his real problem is a Napoleon complex. His offendeing would have been about control, more than sex. He has to control everyone and everything around him, to create a self-aggrandising environment, typical of the deeply insecure.

    Other than gross hypocrisy, his ‘christianity’ (I bold invert those commas) has nothing to do with paedophilia, which is symptomatic of humanity generally, not specfically christians (the Catholic priest myth aside).

    We could equally argue Dean Jonathan Kirkpatrick nee Barnett’s homosexuality is linked to his fraud, which patently it is not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Scott, God did intrevene on behalf of the Holocaust victims: its called the Allied invasion of Normandy, Italy and the Russian Western front.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Jesus died for the little children and be assured that all who sin against little children will receive their full punishment — in this life and the next.

    I’d just like to point out that what you have written here is apparently bullshit according to probably your pastor. All Capill has to do and probably has done is accept that Jesus Christ has died for and atoned for his sins and then he is sweet, he can go to Heaven. On the other hand, because non-believers such as ben and nasska and myself and others in this thread who have not committed pedophilia do not believe in God we will go to Hell because we’re not robots.

    You are also the perfect example why people will not go to Church to believe in God. All you have done is come into this thread to try blame homosexuality and the permissiveness of societal values on what has happened, when if you were a true, upstanding Christian you would apologise on behalf of Capill and accept responsibility that your religion has fucked up bigtime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    iMP

    Scott reckoned that ‘God used even the evil Soviet Union, a godless atheistic regime, to defeat Nazi Germany’, and now you say that God intervened on behalf of the victims of the Holocasut. So why didn’t he defeat the Soviet Union at the same time or, even better, defeat both regimes without the deaths of 50 million people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Scott, John Jamieson was obviously never near Wanganui in the 1840s. Gomorrah with bellbirds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (408) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Scott

    My question was:

    Why did God intervene on behalf of Moses, but not on behalf of the holocaust victims?

    You didn’t answer it.

    Take it a step further Scott Chris, apparently Christians believe that the fact that Adolf Eichmann (the ‘architect of the Holocaust’) had accepted Jesus into his heart right before his execution meant that he would have been admitted straight into the Kingdom of God (Jesus having paid the full price), and the 6 million ‘Heathen’ Jews he helped kill, who did not have a ‘relationship with Jesus’ and who did not accept Him as their ‘Lord and Saviour’ (and in fact, being of the Judaic faith, would have flat out rejected this notion of Him being the Messiah) would be separated from God for all eternity because without the free will of choosing God while being tortured in the gas chambers (which is the result of a permissive society) they would’ve been robots.

    Seriously though, only a Christian would come into a thread like this, and instead of either expressing sympathy for the victims, or expressing anger at the criminal, only a Christian would come in to further judge and attack society and carry on Graham Capill’s role on his behalf. It’s a deserved reputation that Christians are often considered the most judgmental people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP

    Scott, God did intrevene on behalf of the Holocaust victims: its called the Allied invasion of Normandy, Italy and the Russian Western front.

    Ouch. He sure took his time then, at enormous cost to the victims. To what purpose, I wonder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    iMP

    I disagree. God does not intervene. Man does. God must be a social libertarian.

    Voltaire sums it up: “In the beginning God created man in his own image. Man reciprocated.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Mik, God did defeat the Soviet Union, he used a cowboy from California called Ronald.
    If you want a constantly interventionist god so noone ever gets killed and flowers bloom everywhere,
    there is no point in Creating a humanity with sovereign will, an earth to live in, conscience, emotions.
    He’d have made automatoms and called himself Kim Jong-il. That’s the whole point of everything; humans
    bowed and connected to the Divine, so we don’t get individual Capills or Stalins.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    You can’t have it both ways: God being credited for good interventions, but free will responsible for everything good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Scott said — the bar is now so low that everything is permissible. The only thing we agree on is that paedophilia is evil.
    I believe that this type of offending is on the increase because of the permissiveness of our society. If having sex with everybody is okay — then why shouldn’t the age of consent be a lot lower? In fact why should there be an age of consent? Why shouldn’t I do whatever I want to do?

    This is the problem — where there are no rules, where God is only a swear word, there is no heaven or hell, there is nothing to stop us from doing whatever is in our evil hearts.

    Liberals want everything to be okay with the sole exception of paedophilia. Christians believe that the bar should be a lot higher. That we should honour God with our bodies. He created us and he has the right to let us know how he has made us to live.

    Therefore we need to put sex in its proper place — in a loving married relationship. That’s the proper place for sex.

    ———————————————————

    Your system of morality is extremely flawed in my view.

    What I choose to do with my life is based on what I think is right and what I think is right is derived from the things I value in life – such as life itself and the happiness of myself and other people. My morality, therefore, is the process of determining what type of actions I can undertake to uphold those things which I value.

    Your morality on the other hand is mindless and rule-based. That is to say that you act according to the “rules” simply because they are supposedly the rules. What if the rules change? Who determines what the rules are? God you say? So where is this god? I don’t see him, so clearly I’m relying on you to interpret him for me. Or alternatively you rely on some preacher to tell you what God said or indeed both of you rely on an ancient book of fairy tales to tell you what he supposedly said. Sorry but that is moronic.

    Moreover, you highlight the inadequacy of your morality by your inability to make a sensible argument against child rape other than “God says it’s bad”. How about this for a good reason: little girls don’t like stinky old men like Capill raping them and as human beings these girls are entitled to a happy life as we all should be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    iMP says:

    “there is no point in Creating a humanity with sovereign will, an earth to live in, conscience, emotions.”

    So why intervene at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Scott – so your position is that the free will of victims of crime is not affected? The bank teller staring down the barrel has free will? I’m not sure that’s right, to be honest.

    I always think the basic point is God wants us to love him. He loves us, he sent his son Jesus to die for us. But love must be a choice for it to be love.

    Agree wholly with the last sentence. But the choice God offers is not between Heaven version A and Heaven version B. It is belief or eternal damnation. Please do not pretend this is anything but coercion. It is the same kind of choice the held up bank teller is given. You are arguing black is white by pretending this is simply a matter of free will. Duress is unquestionably part of the Christian view on this.

    Interestingly enough he does love you too Ben. He loves everybody — even those who do not love him.

    I don’t know how you know this. Much evidence is to the contrary I’d have thought. Does God love children born with Aids or cancer? Did he love Egypt’s first born? Why does God hate amputees? Always the disconnect with the description of God’s character and how the world works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Scott – another thing, liberals do not say that “everything is okay”. What they generally say is that people shouldn’t hurt other people and that they should be civil towards one another in order to achieve common goals. This generally means that people should mind their own business and not dictate to others how to live their life if those people aren’t hurting anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (410) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    iMP says: “there is no point in Creating a humanity with sovereign will, an earth to live in, conscience, emotions.”

    So why intervene at all?

    Sorry Scott Chris – I think you are failing to follow iMP’s logic here. Basically it goes like this:

    * If something bad happens, it’s a human’s fault because they were given free will.
    * If something good happens, it’s because God intervened.
    * If Germany was invaded by the Allies, it’s because God caused them to.
    * If Jews died in Germany, it’s because of free will.
    * If Graham Capill committed pedophilia, it’s free will’s fault.
    * If God intervened, He would be Kim Jong-il.

    Something like that. Basically everything good = God, everything bad = free will. Furthermore, if something bad happened and no good was there to remedy it, it’s because otherwise we’d be robots under Kim Jong-il. God is willing to allow pedophilia and the murdering of Jews because He is strongly against creating robots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    There are two many posts for me to respond to, and I’m due at a lecture in half an hour, so I’ll just respond to what was asked of me directly (besides, most of the posts are so angry with God there’s not really much point responding, as I’ve learned from my time on the Richard Dawkins website:)

    “Aredhel, do you agree with Andrei’s comments that Capill is a result of a permissive society? Or do you harbour the suspicions that many of us silently share – that something in his missionary and God-banging upbringing caused him to act the way he does.”

    Neither. Nothing in Christianity condones paedophilia, so his Christian upbringing couldn’t have anything to do with it. I think his actions are simply indicative of the fact that as the Bible claims, human nature is broken and people from all belief systems — including atheism — do incredibly evil things. What he did simply demonstrates how much he and the world need Jesus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Here are a few more examples:

    * If you manage to find a carpark, God intervened.
    * If you failed to find a carpark, it’s ‘cos of the free will of the other drivers.
    * If an African child was saved through being adopted, God.
    * If it died of starvation, free will.
    * If Rick Perry becomes the next US President – believe it or not – GOD.
    * If he loses the election, free will.

    Are you sort of following?

    Basically what you have to do to be a Christian is to blame people for bad things that happen and thank God for good things that people do, or vice versa. You have to basically generally fail to make an appropriate distinction between acts of God and acts of people.

    Of course anyone can see that the act of attributing things to God is just as an expression of subjective pleasure when the way things are happens to line up with what a person thinks they want. I’m sure people are constantly praising God for things that are actually bad for them, or seem good for them individually but are ultimately bad for society – and conversely, complaining about things that are good for them or society.

    Aredhel777 (42) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Nothing in Christianity condones paedophilia, so his Christian upbringing couldn’t have anything to do with it. I think his actions are simply indicative of the fact that as the Bible claims, human nature is broken and people from all belief systems — including atheism — do incredibly evil things. What he did simply demonstrates how much he and the world need Jesus.

    It’s OK to have sex with “women children” that are obtained in war.

    And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites … And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males … And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones … And Moses was wroth with the officers … And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

    When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it … And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. Deuteronomy 20:10-14

    How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them of our daughters to wives? … And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh. Judges 21:7-11

    Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh … And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught. Judges 21:20-23

    It’s OK to sell your daughter (no mention is made of age) to a man for him to use as a sex slave.

    if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant … If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed … If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Exodus 21:7-10

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Further to Weihana, actually Christians are (thankfully) highly selective about the rules they take from the bible. Christians generally do wear more than two kinds of cloth, and do not stone their rebellious children to death (Deut 21:18-21). And what is up with Deut 25:11-12?

    Anyway, it is rather disingenuous for Christians to claim they follow the rules in the bible. Christians pick and choose which biblical rules to follow, so they must have some independent criterion separate from the bible to work out what rules they choose to go with. Exactly the same as us non-Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Courage Wolf

    Thanks – That explains it for me. God is responsible for the good stuff. The Devil is responsible for the bad stuff.

    If it wasn’t real, I’d almost have mistaken it for primitive symbolic philosophy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ben

    And please remembe: ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    So boring when anti-religionists quote OT regulations from 3000 years ago as a stick to beat Christians with, a bit like quoting Shakespeare and criticisng his spelling as diff. from modern spelling. These were rules to regulate barbarous ancient societi es and they are there as historic records, not rules for today! Like, the Canannite religio required you to burn your first born child to Molech alive, sometimes they were roasted. No wonder the Hebrews had rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. Scott Chris (6,150 comments) says:

    Aredhel says:

    “Neither. Nothing in Christianity condones paedophilia, so his Christian upbringing couldn’t have anything to do with it.”

    The Word Of God:

    Numbers 31:17-18

    17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Scott, your reasoning is puerile. Life is not as simple as bad=human; good= God. God does lots of bad things because they are good; and people do lots of good things that are bad. Life is complex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    I laugh at the “Christians follow rules,” as if non-churchies don’t. We all follow rules, life can’t function otherwise, its just a case of which moral framework is best, what works, and so far Christianity= Western civilisation; London riots = I am my own rules. Free TV anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    The Old Testament laws were fulfilled by Christ and are considered not binding on Christians today. Regardless of whether they were or were not however, I find it absurd to claim that it was the inspiration of some verses from the Old Testament that led some guy to go out and molest little children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    ben

    Many Christians would be rapt to follow the Bible literally, especially the patriarchs of the organisation, as it gives all power to the men whilst women & girl children are chattels similar to the situation that exists in Islam today. It is only secular law that stops them.

    This is reflected in the lack of concern over the fate of the kids who have had their lives wrecked & the hand wringing over tripe such as repentance & eternal souls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    iMP (232) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Scott, your reasoning is puerile. Life is not as simple as bad=human; good= God. God does lots of bad things because they are good; and people do lots of good things that are bad. Life is complex.

    Of course. Who can forget that God used the atheist Soviets to alleviate Jews from Nazi rule?

    iMP (232) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I laugh at the “Christians follow rules,” as if non-churchies don’t. We all follow rules, life can’t function otherwise, its just a case of which moral framework is best, what works, and so far Christianity= Western civilisation; London riots = I am my own rules. Free TV anyone?

    Here’s a few more rules Scott Chris:

    * If a Western nation is at a period of stability = Christianity.
    * If a Western nation is in turmoil = atheism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. Daigotsu (459 comments) says:

    “My understanding is that the latest thinking is that paedophilia – like hetero and homo sexuality – is an orientation, and cannot be changed much less cured…”

    My aunt is a pyschologist who works with paedos and she has told me that yes, this is the thinking. Not everybody who abuses children sexually fits this definition, but some people seem only capable of arousal when dealing with kids.

    The difference is the homosexual and heterosexual orientations don’t hurt anybody when acted out, whereas the paedophilic ones do (regardless of what Capill tells you). So while paedophiles can’t be cured, they can be taught to manage their orientation in a way that doesn’t hurt anybody. I have real empathy for these paedophiles who know that what they want to do is wrong but manage, although probably not without a struggle, to control themselves. Of course we never hear about them because they’re not in the news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Aredhel777 (43) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    The Old Testament laws were fulfilled by Christ and are considered not binding on Christians today. Regardless of whether they were or were not however, I find it absurd to claim that it was the inspiration of some verses from the Old Testament that led some guy to go out and molest little children.

    Yet you do not find it absurd to claim that:

    Andrei (987) Says:
    August 17th, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    “it doesn’t get much worse than robbing children of their innocence”

    Well that should apply to the scuzz bags who teach sodomy is ok provided you wear a condom in our schools and insist that “Heather has two mommys” belongs in primary school libraries.

    Capill is just part of that same picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    I fail to see the logic in the story of Christ as but forth by Christians let me get this right
    he was gods son
    he died for our sins
    he returned to god
    he lives in haven

    There is no sacrifice inherent in going home to dad to live in a better place. If he new he was going back to god it would surly be something to look forward to
    Jesus was very much against organized religion. against the persecuting of people deemed wrong by society. his views were closer to humanist than religious Yet that is not apparent of the christian message as seen on this post. Christians endlessly persecute those they disagree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    And plus – the purpose of those verses was not to show that they inspired pedophilia – but rather in response to iMP’s claim that we would not be able to find any verses in the Bible that condone pedophilia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Rather than acknowledge the irrationality of your arguments, Courage Wolf, you’ve simply deflected. With that, therefore, I bow out. Before I do so, however, I want to assure you and the other atheists that I love you deeply and unconditionally, regardless of our religious disagreements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Griff, you missed a bit…
    “he was gods son/he died for our sins
    he returned to god/he lives in haven”

    He’s coming back to “rule the nations with an iron sceptre” (code for strong rule), and
    left his Spirit from 33Ad~ as a restraint and modifying influence among humanity until He returns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Griff (398) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    I fail to see the logic in the story of Christ as but forth by Christians let me get this right
    he was gods son
    he died for our sins
    he returned to god
    he lives in haven

    OK so here’s how it works.

    God created man. But He did not want man to become a robot. So God being an all-perfect and all-good being created Satan/evil. So that man could be corrupted. Then He made Himself a man, so He could take out His anger on man for being evil (who He created) by killing Himself, as a sacrifice to Himself, to quench His anger towards man.

    It’s pretty simple really. Just remember the catch-phrases ‘free will’ and ‘love’ and throw them around in every sentence or so and you’re all set with a phd in Christian logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Aredhel loves us. I can do without professions of love from anonymous strangers – does anyone else find that a bit icky?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Courage Wolfy, interesting analysis re nations vs atheism or faith. But even as a basic historian, take a look at the impact of Christianity on nations (in a practical and political sense) verse anything else that isn’t Christianity (Communism, Pol Potism, Kim Jong-ilism, Nazism, Islam, Jim Jonesism, etc.). There’s a pattren. It’s called a moral and societal framework THAT WORKS! (historically).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    CWolf: Man corrupted himself…deep fried Twinkie bars. I rest my case members of the Jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    iMP (234) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Courage Wolfy, interesting analysis re nations vs atheism or faith. But even as a basic historian, take a look at the impact of Christianity on nations (in a practical and political sense) verse anything else that isn’t Christianity (Communism, Pol Potism, Kim Jong-ilism, Nazism, Islam, Jim Jonesism, etc.). There’s a pattren. It’s called a moral and societal framework THAT WORKS! (historically).

    Don’t you mean it was because of capitalism/colonialism versus separatism/socialism? If you’re going to attribute economic growth to religion, then why not also say: Hey, as a historian, look at the skin colour of countries that have flourished versus countries that have not. Interestingly, white people work, coloured nations fail! Therefore white pride is the pattern! Racism WORKS (historically)!

    iMP (235) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    CWolf: Man corrupted himself…deep fried Twinkie bars. I rest my case members of the Jury.

    God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I’m sure you’re all familiar with. I think it’s a nice idea – the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.

    Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His ‘family’ rather bigger. But I guess I’m basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We’ll see.

    My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 – and please note I don’t wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I’m going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.

    My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn’t it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing – the knowledge of good and evil? God says ‘if you eat from it you will surely die’. Which is true of course – when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it “You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” And perhaps that’s true too – there’s no certainty they’ll die; there’s a slim chance they’ll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion – don’t listen to everything Mr Big says; don’t submit to being His slave. Do what you want.

    Some possible solutions to the puzzle:

    1) My argument is wrong: God didn’t want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn’t want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.

    >>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they’re better off without the choice, isn’t that kinda stupid?

    2) God knew all along that they’d take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they’d take it and learn some important lessons – painful though it would be for all concerned – which would ultimately be to their/humanity’s betterment.

    >>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?

    >>Question: is it even plausible to say we’re somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it’s sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid’s bike, knowing they’ll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?

    3) Perhaps it wasn’t so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.

    >>But in that case, why not just say ‘kids, you have the following two options – you decide’? Instead, He says ‘you must not take option 2′.

    4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they’re not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.

    >>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she’s not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we’re currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future – possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    iMP seems to believe that only christian nations can be civilised, speaking as a ‘basic historian’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    India didn’t do too bad with Hinduism nor China with Confucianism. Both muddled through okay until the Christians & Muslims stuck their oars in. The Incas had a fairly advanced society which involved religion.

    Religion merely keeps the peasantry quiet worrying about the next life while the political rulers carry on doing their thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Angels intervened to help the Brits defeat the Germans..There other examples of angels helping one particular side in a war..Many of the young US guys came back Christians after angel experiences in the 1992 gulf war…read up on angel experiences..personal ones are one thing , but I always found the war ones more curious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP – it is your book! The OT is quoted frequently by Christians on all kinds of things. Some of its rules are still followed, and the OT is considered authoritative. None of this is controversial. If Christians cite the 10 Commandments but choose to ignore other weird rules, as they do, then the point is made. There must be some independent reason for ignoring those other rules. Which part of this do you dispute?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    not so mikenmaid, just a cumulative impact of one particular moral framework as a whole, on a whole lot of countries thru time. Broad brush stuff. New Zealand verse Yemen. The diff. is religious (philosophical) historicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP:

    I laugh at the “Christians follow rules,” as if non-churchies don’t.

    Nobody said that. Total non argument, grats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    ben, the bible is actually 66 books, not one, spanning 2000 years approx. You can’t just treat it as one piece of meat: its made of prose, poetry, prophesy, apocalyptic writing, songs, history and letters. You have to use your mind and discernment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Aredhel

    I find it absurd to claim that it was the inspiration of some verses from the Old Testament that led some guy to go out and molest little children.

    Nobody made that argument, AFAIK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    MM
    very icky

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Ben, how about this quote then, from Weihana…

    “What I choose to do with my life is based on what I think is right and what I think is right is derived from the things I value in life – such as life itself and the happiness of myself and other people. My morality, therefore, is the process of determining what type of actions I can undertake to uphold those things which I value. Your morality on the other hand is mindless and rule-based.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    And iMP, I’m not beating you with any stick. My point is simply that Christians do not follow all the rules given to them, and thankfully so. Christians pick and choose what they go with, precisely as non-Christians do. If you’re going to cite the bible as the reason you don’t commit murder, then be consistent and point to the passages in the bible that give you a free pass on other rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    # iMP (235) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I laugh at the “Christians follow rules,” as if non-churchies don’t. We all follow rules, life can’t function otherwise, its just a case of which moral framework is best, what works, and so far Christianity= Western civilisation; London riots = I am my own rules. Free TV anyone?

    ——————————————-

    Pfft.. bullshit.

    The advance of western civilization has been in spite of Christianity not because of it. It wasn’t Christianity that taught us that the Earth is a planet which orbits a star that is one of billions in a galaxy that is itself one of billions of galaxies in a vast universe billions of years old.

    It also wasn’t Christianity that gave us human rights and democratic government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP: on Weihana’s quote, I disagree with him/her on the last point. I think Christians go through the same process non-Christians do in deciding what’s right and wrong. Christians can point to the bible after the fact and claim inspiration, but there must still be some test applied outside the bible that filters some of the bible’s many rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Everyone appropriates the Bible carte blanc, so we’re all psuedo-happy clappers and churchies, anyway, yes, you too Steve and Wolf.

    “Road to Damascus Experience,” “Seen the Light,” “a broken heart,” “a cross to bear,” “fly in the ointment,”
    “Leopard can’t change its spots,” “nest of vipers,” “thorn in the flesh,” “wold in sheep’s clothing, ” “Voice crying in the wilderness,” “My brother’s keeper,” “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” “Swords into ploughshares,” “By skin of your teeth.”…

    Could go on all day, but Google button will wear out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Weihana, you’re completely wrong. Christianity is totally responsible for human rights and democracy, and schools, health care, the end of slavery, the freedom to oppose rulers, freedom of speech, universities, peasant literacy, womens’ rights, the right to vote, hosts of scientific breakthroughs…you’re buying in to that “secular” myth, which has only been around for 50 odd years or so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    I don’t know what that means iMP 1:44pm. Bottom line: Christians pick and choose their morals just like non-Christians do. Believing in God and quoting the bible doesn’t give you any advantage in the morality stakes. You’re just doing what we all do, which is to decide what values and morality works for you, and surround yourself with like-minded people. Citing God as your authority on values is a bit of a sham when you’re applying a filter of your own design behind the scenes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    The impact of Protestanism alone, on the world and modernity is MASSIVE!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Well except Ben that they choose a morality informed and communicated through a canon of sacred texts, called the Bible, which informs a dogma of what is right and what is wrong. Stealing is wrong; murder is wrong; cheating is wrong (on yr taxes or wife), etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    iMP – what about what I said?

    Just to expand on what I said:

    No prescriptive statement (i.e. a proposition that something *ought* to be a certain way) can be derived from a descriptive statement (i.e. an observation of reality). So lets assume God exists. The fact that he exists and that he makes a certain commandment does not mean one can logically derive that commandment (i.e. that prescriptive statement) from the fact of God’s existence. That a supposed “God” says it, does not mean it is anymore logical than if I said it, or if you said it, or if anyone said it. Thus if God came down and told me I should kill an innocent child that wouldn’t be a reason for me to do it. I would tell him to go fuck himself.

    Thus, the only concept of morality which makes sense is one which acknowledges the conditional nature of all moral statements – i.e. that something *ought* to be a certain way only **IF** you, as an individual, want it to be that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    iMP
    Your faith causes you to say that your list of society’s discovery’s are christian. My basic knowledge of history tells me otherwise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP: have we not just finished discussing all the other rules you ignore? On what authority other than your own do you overlook the rule against wearing two kinds of cloth? On what authority other than your own do you not overlook the rule against murder? And please don’t say God’s authority – we’ve just established you’re ignoring a great deal of what he’s commanded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    iMP
    You are not facing up to ben’s question. You say that ‘Stealing is wrong; murder is wrong; cheating is wrong’ and imply that it is wrong becasue the Bible says so. But you also say that ‘You have to use your mind and discernment’ when deciding what biblical injunctions to observe.

    You can’t follow a divinely inspired creed while choosing tofollow only the parts of that creed with which you agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Well Ben, because you’re just pulling out an historic rule related to the ancinet Hebrews in 1400 BC about cloth (biblical history) and then criticising Christians (2011) for not following it, when the bible does not say Christians should (ala stoning, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath etc etc). In fact the Bible (later) actually says they shouldnt. So, you have to take the Bible as a whole, you can’t just skip around. The cloth thing is not a rule. It is an historic cultural record of something relevant 3500 years ago to a specific group.

    As I said before, the bible is a whole lot of different things (think Library, rather than Phone Book).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Bottom line: Christians pick and choose their morals just like non-Christians do. Believing in God and quoting the bible doesn’t give you any advantage in the morality stakes.

    It in fact gives puts you at a moral disadvantage. You can justify your dubious morals (“The law, as it has been explained to me, seems so different to what the Biblical law…”, or “God hates fags”) by saying it was said so in the Bible, without feeling the need to justify how your decision was made.

    And as for this God gives us free-will shit. Surely the simpler explanation is that God does not exist, and that taking lessons from an ancient book, updated with part 2 as an anti-Jewish allegory (Jesus killed by “Judas”, Pilate convince by the jews to kill JC etc) is a stupid idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Weihana, I get what you’re saying. But Christainity is based on the divinity of a man called Jesus, who demonstarted such power and wisdom that he claims (and receives) the divine authority to tell us what is or isn’t. This is the New Testament canon, and it is this framework (as opposed to Roman paganism, or Assyrian king worsip) that has underpinned western civilisation (among other nations) in a general sense. To boil it down…

    Jesus is God
    What he said is right, that is morality.

    This is Christ-ianity. and the text is the Bible. People choose it or reject that,
    Except, that that particular belief is what underpins the society we live in (and the Uk, Australia, America, etc.).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    So, for example, a man’s property is his right; if you steal it from him, the Police will come and pepper spray you.
    This is essentially an agreed collective moral absolute, generally based on a Judeao-christian (religious) ethic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  280. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    iMP: If, then, we assume that we have to take the Bible as a whole then, given that it was written a long time ago, how can it possibly still apply to “Christians of 2011″, given that massive societal changes that have occurred over the last 1800 years or so? After all, do you encourage that one should drink wine and break bread whenever you meet, or have you interpreted that into a modern day equivalent (grape juice?) Clearly, then, you must decide how you interpret this historical text in today’s times, and this decision is necessarily being made independent of the content. Thus, Christians create their own morality in the same way that non-Christians do: They decide what is good and bad and then intepret their sacred text accordingly.

    Note: I’m conveniently ignoring the fact that the Bible was assembled by folk much more recently, and am assuming in addition that whatever criteria they used for inclusion or exclusion of text and translation of said text was “divinely inspired”.

    Let’s also ignore the fact that there’s about 1239124104 other religions out there that claim to be on the one true path ™ as well. I seem to be in agreement with most Christians on the non-existence of those 1239124104+ gods – I just take it one step further and rule out yours as well :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  281. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Mikenmild, I think the disagreement here is:
    1. You guys are saying there’s a whole lota stuff in the bIb;e (cloth, circumcision, stoning wayward people, etc)
    2. But you Christains pick and choose what you follow.

    We’re saying:

    3. Yes there is, but you have to discern what is a moral code, what is history, what is poetry, etc. (Use brain)
    4. So, its not a case of Christias picking and choosing (hypocrisy) and therefore being morally relative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  282. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I was looking up some weird laws and found these:

    In Arkansas:
    you may not keep an alligator in your bathtub
    it’s unlawful to walk your cow after 1:00 on Sundays.
    female teachers who bob their hair cannot be given a raise
    a man can beat his wife in Little Rock provided he does it with a stick no bigger than 3 inches across and not more than once a month.

    I have no idea whether these are true, or directly inspired by the Bible, but they are impressive rules.

    I can imagine the Arkansas State Code being handed down through the generation until these injunctions become holy writ to people living 3,000 years from now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  283. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Leftyliberal, good points. The bIble was written over about 2000 years by 40 different people. The precepts apply regardless of culture or time (they are timeless), this is the bIble’s appeal and power. So, its a case of wisely discerning context and application.

    1. Providing a tithe to support widows and orphans is now pastoerd by the State thru taxes. CHANGE.
    2. Prostitutes are no longer stoned, because morality is now managed individually rather than tribally. CHANGE
    3. Honour the Sabbath; Jesus changed the rule and relevance (He is now the Sabbath). CHANGE
    4. Circumcision to set apart the Jews from other tribes covenantly. There is now neither Jew nor Greek.” CHANGE.

    Discernment, context, while upholding the precepts and intent.

    1. Thinking of others and suppporting the weak is your goal
    2. Prostitution is a bad social idea and corrupting.
    3. Get rest 1/7th of the time (incl. work aninamsl). have holidays.
    4. Be set apart to God against the general corrupt rush to anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  284. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP, it is an old rule, agreed, and so I will take that as confirmation that you consider laws which are anachronistic or old as laws that can be ignored. Your own rule, no? Not one given to you by God, I presume? Your own filter in action, I presume. Great, thesis finally confirmed.

    Like you, I, a non-believer, wear more than two types of cloth, and any attempt to force me to do otherwise would be rejected by me as anachronistic and incompatible with today’s society and my own tastes. Like you, I too reject murder.

    However, I think you may be wrong about the OT not being relevant to Christians. Jesus was quite clear Christians should consider the OT as law. He said, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as “the commandment of God” (Matthew 15:3) and as the “Word of God” (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: “Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18). source

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  285. adc (595 comments) says:

    I thought he was already out and working (until very recently) for Saatchi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  286. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    1239124104 religions only one is right your chance is one in 1239124104
    piss poor odds to base your whole life on

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  287. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    So, for example, a man’s property is his right; if you steal it from him, the Police will come and pepper spray you.
    This is essentially an agreed collective moral absolute, generally based on a Judeao-christian (religious) ethic.

    And an ethic shared in most if not all cultures. You are confusing correlation and causation. Rights to enjoy the fruits of one’s labour is a widely if not universally shared ethic, sometimes codified in law, sometimes not. Usually thought of as a natural right. Certainly not confined to Judeo-Christian faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  288. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP:

    3. Yes there is, but you have to discern what is a moral code, what is history, what is poetry, etc. (Use brain)
    4. So, its not a case of Christias picking and choosing (hypocrisy) and therefore being morally relative.

    I agree this is what is happening. But it follows from this that the basis of your moral code is your brain, not scripture.

    You’ve just said, “use brain”.

    Which is exactly what everyone does in deciding what is right and wrong. So an argument over who’s values are “better” or more worthy is really an argument over who’s “use brain” rule is better.

    In other words, your moral code has a human basis. Just the same as everyone else. This is one reason why an appeal to the authority of God’s moral code is unconvincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  289. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Ben the key point is your last line, “until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).”
    That’s why Jesus yelled that from trhe CRoss. “It is accomplished.” Your quotes before that are pre-Crucifixion. Everything changed afterward. He became the fulfilmnet of the Law and a whole new universe started. So, we can then have modifying scriptures like, “…we have been released from the law so that we serve in a new way of the spirit” (MODIFYING STATEMENT by Christ).

    Again, a great example of reading the bIble AS A WHOLE not with a magnifying glass and picking. That’s why Christians appear “inconsistent” between OT and NT. It changes (radically).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  290. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    But ben, there is no disparity between “human basis” “brain” and God. They are all entwined. Of course God wnats us to use our brain in interpreting His WAy of doing things (law). You have to. So, to say “because we have to think, the Bible rules are irrelevant’ is silly, or “the real rule is that we must think.” They go together. It about WHAT you end up thinking about and choosing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  291. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    iMP

    It’s been like pulling teeth but you’ve finally come out & admitted that the OT is irrelevant & largely a collection of tribal horseshit from 3500 years back. Why not then consign it to the bin & concentrate on the NT which doesn’t resemble the ‘pick & mix’ selection at a supermarket?

    To a believer the NT is a reasonable way to run a society – why complicate matters?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  292. redeye (629 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me what Danny McNally got for meting out that bit of rough justice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  293. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    iMP (249) Says:
    August 18th, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Well Ben, because you’re just pulling out an historic rule related to the ancinet Hebrews in 1400 BC about cloth (biblical history) and then criticising Christians (2011) for not following it, when the bible does not say Christians should (ala stoning, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath etc etc). In fact the Bible (later) actually says they shouldnt. So, you have to take the Bible as a whole, you can’t just skip around. The cloth thing is not a rule. It is an historic cultural record of something relevant 3500 years ago to a specific group.

    Isn’t it rather ironic, then, that you’re just pulling out a historic rule related to the ancient Hebrews in 1,400 BC about homosexuality and then criticising people (2011) for not following it, when the Bible does not say people should (ala having gay sex etc). The homosexuality thing is not a rule. It is a historic, cultural record of something relevant 3,500 years ago to a specific group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  294. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP 2:48: hmmm, nice response. (totally off point: in an even more whole reading of the bible (Matthew 27:46, Mark 25:34, Luke 23:46) Jesus does not say that! And in various versions I’ve seen he said ‘finished’ not accomplished on the cross, but fulfilled or accomplished in Matt 5:18 – so a) the connection seems tenuous to me, and b) for such a vitally important question he was incredibly vague about it. Couldn’t he have set this out more clearly before his death??)

    But whether the OT is binding or not is actually beside the point. Presumably we could get into NT rules that are also routinely ignored by modern Christians as well. Some OT rules in fact are followed by Christians today, and the OT is routinely cited in church, and it is considered by many Christians as authoritative. Perhaps you take a different view. You’ve acknowledged followers do select the rules they follow and that is really all I was trying to establish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  295. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    iMP

    But ben, there is no disparity between “human basis” “brain” and God. They are all entwined. Of course God wnats us to use our brain in interpreting His WAy of doing things (law). You have to. So, to say “because we have to think, the Bible rules are irrelevant’ is silly, or “the real rule is that we must think.” They go together. It about WHAT you end up thinking about and choosing.

    Then we agree. What you don’t see, apparently, is that destroys your claim to God’s authority. You’ve just admitted that’s an authority you ignore any time your brain tells you so. And if God is entwined in your brain then he is entwined in mine too – we are all God’s children are we not? – and so your values are derived with the exact same authority or lack of authority as are mine.

    Courage Wolf makes a good point as well: Christian hostility to homosexuals is actually unrelated to the bible: it is a product of the human filter you’ve just said gets applied. Christians have simply decided not to overlook that part of the bible, that part being no less ancient and anachronistic than other rules you do ignore. Agreed, iMP?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  296. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    iMP – “But Christainity is based on the divinity of a man called Jesus, who demonstarted such power and wisdom that he claims (and receives) the divine authority to tell us what is or isn’t.”

    And how is that nonsense any different to Islam or any other made up fairy tale which says So’n’So, who claims to be a prophet, is the arbiter of right and wrong? Fact is that after Jesus (if he actually did exist) the world didn’t change. The endless suffering continued for centuries until science and reason started to break down the superstitutious nonsense that religion had imposed on society and which had prevented it from improvement. Modern western civilization is more a representation of how society has relegated religion to the sidelines rather than a representation of how Christianity has enabled the west to prosper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  297. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    Redeye

    He copped two years but he had a fairly long list of convictions up to until that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  298. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Christians use the bible as a lever and faith as the fulcrum
    Atheist use science as the lever and reason as the fulcrum

    So to atheists Christians just wave around the bible with nothing to base it on

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  299. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  300. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Hmm, the formatting on this page appears to be screwed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  301. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Weihana, how you can say the world didn’t change after Jesus, is simply…well…my brain explodes. For a start, within 300 years the entire Roman empire was Christian, followed by the Germans, the Franks, the Britons…dominoes. Looked at your calendar lately?BC/AD indicative of the impact of Christ on history and change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  302. Scott (1,804 comments) says:

    Sorry guys — have to keep moving. Reflect on what I said this afternoon. I appreciate loving God can be difficult because we are sinners whose default position is not to love God.

    However I have done my best with the explanations I have provided given my constraints of time and head space.

    But you asked me for answers and I gave them. Many of you don’t appear to be satisfied. Reflect on this — if I could have answered completely your questions would you have become followers of Jesus? If yes — then sadly I have not been able to answer your questions fully. If no — then the issue is not logical reason but more of a heart issue.

    Some people just do not want to follow Jesus. Is your heart right? Because the answers to these questions have eternal consequences. Heaven and hell are real places and they are both full of volunteers.

    — Scott out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  303. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Griff, I love the way you so casually claim “science” and “reason” for atheists, but Christians as medieval fairytale idiots. Puerile ignorance. The world of science is FULL of Christians, as are the rational sciences: like Prof of Philosophy Dr. Dallas Willard, or Prof Tolkien, or C S Lewis, or Sir Issac Newton who wrote a treatise on Daniel and Revelation, the list is lengthy. The civil rights mvmnt in Americam for example, was led by a baptist preacher renamed after a Protestant reformer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  304. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    Beamed you up, Scotty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  305. Griff (7,798 comments) says:

    Do you know of project steve
    In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin’
    One of the main theses in Lewis’s apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity. In the first five chapters of Mere Christianity Lewis discusses the idea that people have a standard of behaviour to which they expect other people to adhere

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  306. redeye (629 comments) says:

    Redeye

    He copped two years but he had a fairly long list of convictions up to until that point.

    Cheers for that.

    Did he have an association to any victim or just a vigilante?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  307. nasska (11,579 comments) says:

    redeye

    I don’t think any mention of that came out in the court case. Apparently McNally didn’t know who Capill was until some people he was in the court waiting with pointed him out. Probably an attempt to be a hero but who knows?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  308. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    Griff, I love the way you so casually claim “science” and “reason” for atheists, but Christians as medieval fairytale idiots.

    I love it too. It’s so true.

    There’s obviously some logic circuit missing in the Christian brain. For instance Capill’s inability to see how he was hurting others, or the inability of many here to realise how ridiculous claims of how Capill’s disturbed mind is the result of “permissiveness”.

    And of course all that Bible nonsense, and the church’s strange traditions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  309. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    iMP

    “Weihana, how you can say the world didn’t change after Jesus, is simply…well…my brain explodes. For a start, within 300 years the entire Roman empire was Christian, followed by the Germans, the Franks, the Britons…dominoes. Looked at your calendar lately?BC/AD indicative of the impact of Christ on history and change.”

    ————————————————–

    You seem to be shifting the goal posts. The issue was, originally, about western civilization, by which I presume you meant this modern, prosperous, technologically sophisticated, tolerant society that we currently enjoy.

    Yes many things were changed by Christianity but not necessarily for the better. It certainly cannot be credited with the achievements humans have made in modern times. If anything it was a hindrance to progress and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into modern society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  310. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    iMP – the overwhelming majority of scientists are non-believers and many which are credited as being “religious” have more of a vague belief in the unknown rather than accepting the religious dogma one gets from the Bible and other such religious texts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote