Chile' Abuse --NOT

Heh. Mah Daddy called me up jes' a chucklin'. He wuz talkin' wif some folks about when I were a wee baby chile, bout 7 months or so. Seems I went to squallin' and carryin' on. Nuthin' would placate me so Daddy jes' poured a bucket a cold water over mah tantrum. The story goes that the baby chile' were so stunned that she ain't neber had a tantrum since. (ain't swearin' to that, but thas' the story.)

When mah Daddy finish up his tale of how to stop a squallin' chile, folks was shocked. They stared. Finally, one of the croaked,

"Ya' mean ya' waterboarded yore baby??"

Heh...jes' like mah ole Daddy to say in reply,

"Ain't done her no permanent damage, an' she ain't thrown no fits since. Sometimes the kindest treatment is early intervention."


fishy said...

Seems like you turned out just fine. Course this is a blog so I am not knowing for sure.

I 'spect your Dad and mine might be from a common generation. My Dad determined early on none of his babies was gonna drown so he made sure all of us could swim at an early age. First thing he did, despite all the womenfolks a screaming otherwise, he dunked us all under the water and held us down a bit till our instincts made us fight for the surface.
Reckon it worked, we can all swim like ... well fishys ... and none of us is afraid of the water. We swim in pools, ponds, lakes, springs, rivers and oceans.

I reckon these days if he went to teaching children to swim , someone would report him to the authorities.

Floridacracker said...

Early intervention is the key. Worked on me, worked on mine.
Enough early intervention and the teen years are a piece of cake.

So simple and so lacking today.

pamokc said...

What's the saying.... something about "Give me a child until the age of 7, then I will show you the man?" Who was that, Kipling maybe? Early intervention REALLY REALLY needed in today's world.

TROLL Y2K said...

You was raised right. Papa Troll did the exact same thing with the same result. Clean water. Not that cold.

Aunty Belle said...


Heh heh...yep Fishy ain't a feared of water. Think yore pa and mine might git along jes' fine.


I wondered how other men might feel about this tactic. Early intervention is the ABSOLUTE KEY to well adjusted adults.


Yes, mebbe something similar in Kipling's Elephant's Child? OR Alexander Pope's "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree."


uh-huh, papa Troll knowed what he was soin'...ain't that odd--how so far ain't nobody been horrified by what Aunty's Daddy done?

moi said...

Darn it. There goes another button my slacks. You are cracking me UP these days!

Doom said...

I have known real child abuse, just about every kind, minus one, that a child can know. To be honest, I would rather have been abused than to have remained liberal. And, I think it takes hardship to develop body mind and soul. Being offended, however, is not a hardship no matter what liberals think. Put them to the sword, I say. The survivors, once properly developed, will chase down the fast cowards (liberals tend to run for everything... for peace, for gun control, for office).

Hey, I was just thinking out loud if probably rightly. Don't hate the messenger. :p

Aunty Belle said...


heh heh...yep, Daddy is a funny feller, so he makes great material.

oh mercY!I'se very sorry fer yore early sufferings. Thas' dreadful.
I'se thankful you is somehow overcome it. The rest of yore comments is so wise.

Mah Daddy were a Marine in WWII an' knew discipline would save ya--though our household were very FAR from some regimented camp. I recall much more "talkin' to" than physical discipline, thou we wuz whupped a time or two, an' I reckon by today's standards that would be "abuse".

But,hey, I think lettin' a kid watch a zillion hours on the tube or play endless loops of video/ playstation gams is a form of mind abuse--so, standards change.

Boxer said...

Didn't a certain Blogger "water board" her dog to keep her from digging holes? Even that didn't horrify me.

TROLL Y2K said...

You get LINK LOVE at The Troll Report today.

Big Shamu said...

So now we are defining torture by what someone's father did to their child?

Gotta wonder who Jesus would water board?

K9 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
K9 said...

you can shake a baby
on your apple iPhone
now its very chic
to do what once was "doan"

i applied at GitMo
for the gig of "waterboader"
but they say let em alone
we want law and order

so they sent em to disneyland
and paid them restitution
and applied what isnt due them
the us constitution

but what is this to us?
we're filthy native born
we the safest group on eath
that you can freely scorn

to boxer:

yes i drowned my darling
my grave digging yellow hound
it broke her of the digging
but the guilt, it was profound

K9 said...

er, "eath" = earth!

Big Shamu said...

Actually I was asking a rather serious question. Do the followers of one of the greatest pacifists known to mankind endorse torture of other human beings? Is that the philosophy that Christ preached? Is this not the philosophy that Catholics, Born Again Evangelicals, Protestants, on and on, Christians all, follow?

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Boxer Babe,

oh yeah, I 'member that pitiful story of the poor dawg--but she din't dig no more, and that made her a hound ever'body loved.


thanky! Love link love--an good luck to yore own Aunt Belle.

Shamu, Sweet thang,

thas' a real important question. An' I see ya asked it twice so, it deserves a response. Below is mah reply, but I hope others put in they own understandin' of Jesus is or is not a pacifist who would, or would not, permit physical restraint or punishment.

Ya' notice I doan use the word "torture". I doan consider waterboarding torture. Physical punishment, yes. Torture no.

In waterboarding there is no permanent damage--no tongues cut out, no eyes blinded, no genitals mutilated. AN' the prisoner knows they will not actually drown him, since he cain't give info if he is daid.

What happens is tha the body's autonomic responses go into overdrive to survive--it physically wears down the prisoner.

I consider it harsh, but not torture. Torture is what these same prisoners do to their own folks who displease the fanatics.

As to what Jesus would do or not--I reckon that the "gentle Jesus meek and mild" imagery has been oversold for the secularizin' movement within the churches. There is no scriptural basis for Christ as pacifist.

Revelation 19:15 dispels such an idea:

"Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

The prophetic book of Ecclesiastes has this famous reminder:

"There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."

While He did exhort His followers to turn the other cheek when insulted, this means do not escalate a personal argument by resorting to the same rude behavior--it does not mean to let another abuse or kill you.

Romans 12:9 calls is to hate all that is evil and to defend what is good. We could get hung up on the definition of evil and good, but I 'spect most of us'uns will agree that rammin' planes into tall buildings an' killin' 3000 innocent people whose big evil was they went to work that day--most of us'uns would classify that as evil.

Jesus never indicated that should stand by an let evil murderous people, ideologies or nations terrorize and decimate others.

Yes of course Jesus said, "blessed are the peacemakers" He did not intend that as a call to pacifism. A moment's reflection an' we realize that if we pursue "peace" at any cost, that we becomes the slaves of those who never hesitate to use violence against us, to take our peacefulness an' turn it against us.

K9 said...

yes. waterboarding is a day at the beach compared to what, oh say, about several thousand saints endured -just for not renouncing Christ

chopped off boobs
gouged out eyes
torn into a million pieces

well, you get the picture.

im sure they (the saints) would have preferred to be given faith sanctioned meals, clean clothes, bibles, an ocean view and a battery of liberals fighting for them to get rosaries and have grottos built etc etc---all benefits the detainees have enjoyed. oh yes! hallal meat, korans, prayer rugs...each and every religious demand.

the long and short of it is people see what they wanna see. you cant make a case with a mind set in stone.

funny that Obama loves Churchill. a look at british torture would be enlightening. and by the way, while obambi grandstands on morality -rendition in foreign countries on behalf of the US continue on unabated.

Big Shamu said...

An interesting response. So you believe that waterboarding as practiced by our government not torture. Yet our own military teachs that it is torture and developed programs to resist it when used on our own soldiers. Will we be bringing back some of the other torture methods of the Spanish Inquisition? The Rack perhaps? No physical damage? No possibility of death? Then why have a physician observing, at the ready with instruments on hand to perform a tracheotomy? Is it also my understanding that since 168 died and 800 were injured at Oklahoma City that we should have waterboarded those involved to discover subsequent plots to kill Americans?
As for Christ as a pacifist, I don't think he, the man, not his subsequent followers, ever taught that torture had a place in his philosophy. I did enjoy your mention of the book of Ecclesiastes but I suspect that reference would be better argued on a discussion board of the Talmud since it was part of the Hebrew bible and not something Christ mentions.
As for turning the other cheek, is that not what Christ did when arrested? Did he not admonish his disciple that those who live by the sword die by the sword? He could have let his disciple fight and not picked up a sword himself but by his own words he says act as I act, still teaching until the tragic end. Do as I do. Christ was about to die. He had told his disciples that one of them would betray him. They knew he would be tortured and killed. After Christ's death, did they take up arms? No but they did take up a sword and that sword was the word of God. Choose Christ and his father or not, a war of words for minds and hearts. A war of choice, not of violence. Who chose violence? The Romans and other persecutors of early Christians. It's interesting that as time marchs away from the actual time of Christ, Christians find less and less intolerence for violence. I guess this means I should stop calling him the Prince of Peace.

Big Shamu said...

Or that torture that was endured for not believing in Christ. Christians torturing non-christians. Spanish Inquisition style.
I'm asking why followers of Christ reject his teachings of peace. Just because Christians have been tortured for their beliefs in Christ doesn't make it right nor does it give them permission to torture others. Unless you're telling me you are rejecting the philosophy of Christ. Is that what you are doing?
By the way nowhere in my discussion have I mentioned Obama. I'm asking the people here if Christ stood before you and asked you directly if torture was part of the his teachings, if you really believe Christ believes in torture. Because that's the impression I'm getting. That Christ would waterboard someone if the ends justified the means.

TROLL Y2K said...

1) Ecclesiastes isn't in the "Talmud". It's part of what Christians call the Old Testament and Jews call the Ketuvim. Therefor, citing it is apt.

2) The Christ studied the Old Testament Writings diligently and proclaimed them not only true, but everlasting Scripture. He didn't come as the lamb to reject the Law, he came to fulfil it. He won't come again as the Lion to engage in self-righteous quibbling over water-boarding or to compare centuries of horrific misdeeds committed by heathen muslims to mistakes made by some specifically Catholic officials centuries ago.

3) Neither Christ nor the Early Christians nor any of the New Testament Writers were pacifists. Nor was "Peace" as in "not fighting back against heathen attackers" ever part of his or their Teachings.

4) Most of The Christ's and Paul's references to "turning the other cheek" and forgiveness were qualified by the word "brothers". I.E. You should attempt to turn the other cheek if another Christian acts towards you in an Unchristian manner and you should pray they return to the right path and repent and rejoin the true community of believers.
It DOES NOT MEAN doing so in defending ones self, one's family, or one's nation against heathen attackers.

5) As to "the ends justifying the means", Christians are without doubt allowed to use LETHAL means and yes that is to some extent to achieve the end result of fewer of us being killed. So, are we allowed to use NON-LETHAL means against captured heathens to achieve the same end? I'd say Yes within certain parameters. And Water-Boarding against a select few high-level enemy heathens would qualify. From a Christian perspective, the heathen we kill in defense of our selves, families, and nations is doomed to spend eternity undergoing torments far worse than water-boarding, after all. The heathen we water-board still has a chance to accept Christ and repent.

6) Condemning all Christians because of what a few Catholics did during the Spanish Inquisition is absurd. Comparing that to the consistent centuries-long atrocities committed by muslims is beyond aburd.

7) Yes, captured muslim prisoners who aren't part of any recognized Nation's armed forces can and should be treated differently than other categories of prisoners. It's not Unchristian to make that differentiation by any means. The Founders of the USA wouldn't have found it Unconstitutional either. Barbary Pirates WERE treated differently than captured Brits by some of the same men who WROTE the Constitution.

Aunty Belle said...


you've made such important observations that I want to take them point by point--but, I am on the way out of town-- please standby.


Aunty Belle said...

Whoops! Troll, ya' make important points too--I'll be back, but must be gone for a day. But feel free y'all to carry on!

TROLL Y2K said...

I forgot why I came by! I'll be announcing a THROWDOWN CULINARY CHALLENGE on Tuesday and you'll prolly want to compete!

Big Shamu said...

I understand the book of Ecclesiastes is part of the Old Testament. The Tulmud is the record of rabbinic discussions regarding all things Jewish law, ethics and history. Since the author of the book of Ecclesiastes, written by a jew but in some dispute which jew but certainly not Jesus the Jew, citing scripture before Christ lived nor scripture he specifically cited makes it a discussion more for folks with much more knowledge than I have, thus the Tulmud reference.
As for Christ teaching as the law, why then the teaching of the casting of the first stone. The law was for adultry was death by stoning since the time of Moses. Did Christ pick up a stone and kill the woman? Are you saying that Christ came to carry on Mosaic law? Or expound upon Mosaic law? We can go on and on about how many Mosaic laws Christians disobey but I don't think you'll enjoy it. He came as the word of God. If you reject the word of Christ and thereby God, that is your choice.
Again, show me where the 11 disciples of Christ went out and took up the sword to lead great armies to slay the heathens that you speak of? What they did do was preach, teach and spread the philosophy of Christ. Were they persecuted? Most died horrible deaths but not by raising their hand against another but by NOT abandoning their faith and teaching in Christ. Again show me Christ's own teaching, story, parable where Christ says torture or violence against your fellow man is something he endorses. You have placed so much arguement on the word defend that you have truly lost sight of Christ's teaching. You twist yourself into knots to justify your hatred. Christ KNEW his followers were going to be persecuted, he KNEW they would be tortured, killed, destroyed but he prepared them. Their reward was not earthly reward but heavenly reward. You still want to wallow in hatred and loathing and frankly you sound much more like the very people you hate than you sound like Christ. Christians are justified to torture heathens? Non-believers? This is not Christ's teachings. I understand why you would want to reject Christ's pacifism, you get to hold on to your hate. I guess Christ's teaching about giving one's coat when someone has sued you for your tunic means nothing to you? Of course there is also Leviticus 19:18 but if you want to twist it into Love thy enemies to death it would not surprise me.

I didn't condemn all Christians by what went on in the Spanish Inquisition anymore than K9 condemned all non-Christians for prosecuting Christians. One doesn't justify the other anymore than Christians prosecuting other Christians. Show me what words of condemnation I used?

I am asking a specific question about torture and Christ's teachings. Troll has certainly answered how he would stand before Christ and extoll the virtues of torture of those he hates. To me it's not very Christ-like.

Big Shamu said...

I didn't mean to hijack your post. It just seems like a good place to talk about this kind of stuff. I look forward to your response.

Boxer said...

gotta say, I enjoyed it. And learned some things too.

TROLL Y2K said...


Nice technique. Tell me, what STRAWMAN said anything about the 11 disciples raising great armies? What STRAWMAN said anything about Christians following all the Mosaic laws?

YOU made the assertion that Christ was a pacifist and the early Christians were pacifistic towards everyone that attacked them. And said that you somehow know for a fact what Christ's views are on water-boarding in 2009 specifically.

I refuted the first two views with theological and Bible Times History arguments that are well within Christian orthodoxy. Subjects in which I am well-versed.

If you have some specific questions on those subjects, I'd be glad to educate you.

In between your false accusations, rants and strawman arguments, you did manage to ask one such question concerning the adulterous Woman. Here is your answer:

1) The Pharisees purpose was to trap Jesus. If he said Stoning was altogether wrong, they'd use that against him perhaps ending his Ministry before he wanted it to end. That may have been the reason they chose to accuse her in front of a crowd although that isn't stated specifically. If he told them to Stone her to death, they'd promptly turn him over to the Romans who did not allow Jews to do such things.

2) They had no intention of stoning her regardless of whether Christ fell for their trap. Indeed, they'd already violated the ancient Law by not charging the man as well. And violated it again by asking Christ to be sole Judge and Jury as to ascertaining her guilt and ordering the punishment. And yet again by dragging her before a crowd evidently unaware of the facts of the case.

3) Biblical Times historians believe that the more severe penalties like Stoning were never frequently carried out even in Mose's day. And, were extremely rare or non-existent at the time of Christ and Roman rule.

4) The lack of actual stonings has a moral and scriptural basis, as well. The OT is full of calls for harsh justice to be tempered by forgiveness and compassion if the sinner repents. Just as God himself showed forgiveness time and time again. To individuals, such as King David who was a huge sinner but sincerely repented. To the Nation as a whole, as well.

5) The encounter over the adulterous Woman isn't really much different than some other times the Pharisees came to the Christ with "questions" that were really traps. For example, the question of whether to pay taxes to the Romans had the same goal. One answer could be used to incite the crowd to turn on him. One would surely have him turned over to the Romans. In both cases, and others, he outsmarted them with answers they didn't expect.

K9 said...

if you ever wondered why europe is under siege - refusing to stand for western civ while islam laughs here's your answer. well, the dhimmi's can always say they were "polite"

Big Shamu said...

Man you love that strawman don't you. My main contention still stands, that you troll, would stand before Jesus Christ as a follower of said man and tell him that as a Christian torture is perfectly acceptable, that love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, live by the sword or die by it means only something to twist to suit your need to hate. And as a Christian, Christ does not need to physically stand before you since as you believe, Christ is everywhere and your declaration IS made to Christ.
These are your words:
"Christians are without doubt allowed to use LETHAL means and yes that is to some extent to achieve the end result of fewer of us being killed. So, are we allowed to use NON-LETHAL means against captured heathens to achieve the same end? I'd say Yes within certain parameters. And Water-Boarding against a select few high-level enemy heathens would qualify."

These are the words you have said to Christ. Death and torture.

I notice you didn't give me any examples of how the 11 disciples, while teaching Christ's message, defended themselves from stoning, impaling, or crucifixion. If it was such an important part of Christ's message to man, to defend yourself, family, community and nation by force why didn't the men responsible for spreading Christ's word follow it? The men closest to Christ?

Are you saying that Christ and the disciples did not follow Mosiac law? He was a Jew, was one when he was born, preached as a rabbi, was addressed by his own disciples as Rabbi? He died a jew on the cross. What other law would he teach? Are you also saying that the very laws that Christ preached should NOT be followed? Are you throwing out the Old Testament? I guess that's good for the printing companies since there's a whole lot of bibles that have to be changed.
Yes it is my belief that Christ was a pacifist by his actions.
You did forget to mention that the Romans did not allow stonings "without permission" from the Romans. Which is why Christ was judged by Pontius Pilot, permission granted, Christ crucified. Would the Romans given permission? I don't honestly know, I'm not up on my Roman history in the time of Christ.

As to your point of what biblical historians believe about the frequency of stoning, what I've read is that they can't find much written evidence of it. What there is record of is the adding of numerous restrictions onto carrying out such a punishment that reflect the doubts about stoning. If it were such an infrequent event, why the addition of such stringent restrictions?

I certainly understand the traps of the Pharisees and their evil conscience but what makes you think they wouldn't have carried out the stoning since they had already sinned by bringing just the woman? They already had their get out of jail card ready, Christ said we should carry out Moses's law? I also think it's funny that you don't want to recognize that Christ found the non-violent choice in all the choices he had. And that Christ did not bless the woman or forgive her of her sin. He told her to go and sin no more. Why? Perhaps John 12:47 might help you out with that one.

Boxer said...

**draws up a chair**

moi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
moi said...

Shamu asked a very specific question early on and I agree with her: it has yet to be answered.

I found Aunty's post funny because it reminded me of the times I've poured water onto dogs to stop a fight. Children and dogs are not evolved enough to self-modulate, to listen to reason. So when a child has a tantrum, when dogs fight, often the only recourse we grown ups have to stop their actions – especially if those actions endanger one's safety or sanity – is to intervene with something more shocking than the action being perpetuated. In which case something like a big ol' bucket of cold water is just the ticket.

When I read Aunty's post, I didn't believe that she was implying that water boarding was this kind of action, but that she was using the uproar over it to tell a funny story. Now that I realize Aunty does not consider water boarding torture but actually believes it is punishment, I must respectfully disagree. First of all, if it WERE punishment, there would be nothing to gain by its use except the cessation of an ACTION. But that was not the purpose of its use. Its purpose is to GAIN information. Therefore, in my opinion, water boarding is torture pure and simple.

(Sorry, that was me, above. A typo. Hate 'em.)

Aunty Belle said...

Mercy! Y'all is a feisty bunch. Why does I always miss the good long jaw?

In reverse order:

Moi, Cherie,
youse right--Aunty jes' wanted to tell a funny story, nuthin' more. Then when Sweet Shamu wanted to go in a more serious direction, her idea is that waterboardin' is torture.

I reckon I'se not persuaded it is. As noted, I see waterboardin' as a severe treatment akin to serious punishment (but NOT for the purpose of punishment, but in the sense of the word when we say in boxing a "punishing" blow). Jes' fer clarity, Aunty is not advocatin' waterboardin'--but I ain't overly angst about it as it does no permanent damage.

Frankly folks, which would you rather have happen to you or yore loved one--waterboardin' a la Gitmo, or anal rape that happens routinely in US jails and prisons to people who've done much less than kill 3000 people?

Aunty Belle said...

As to the exchange between Shamu and Troll --for the SHORT version read the last 3 paragraphs of this comment (the part after the ***)

On the question of how Christians should view torture in light of Jesus' teachings--first I doesn't think waterboardin' is torture (see above). All true torture is wrong.

(An' BTW, Troll loses 5 Porch Points fer an uncharitable tone to Shamu....grrrr.)

But the second is the broader question of a Christian's obligation to non-violence, or to quote Shamu, "love thy enemy, turn the other cheek." Iffin' this were an absolute then no Christian could ever be a policeman, a judge, a soldier.

Sweet chillen's, looky: the bible can be easily misunderstood when the whole of it is not well digested. The same Jesus who said to turn the other cheek also took a whip to the moneylenders in the temple precinct --thar's an image fer ya' of a not so mild and placid Christ. Jesus also said:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Mt. 10:34) The quotation is slightly different in Luke: ""Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;"

Now the question arises, is Jesus a pacifist or not? Does He want us to love our enemies and seek peace or not?

Jesus indicates that short of perfect justice, there will be no peace. His followers must work toward justice. No nation is ever perfectly just. Therefore the struggle for a more just, life affirming, life preserving justice will bring division an' the sword.

Thar's a whole lot of ground to cover on this topic, but I 'spect nobody will read a book on the topic. Mebbe it is best to keep to two points.

FIRST POINT is this thought experiment:

'member the story of the Good Samaritan? Adjust it a little bit to read that the Good Samaritan came upon the poor man on the side of the road just as the robbers began to beat him an' leave him for dead. But because the Good Samaritan has heard of the "turn the other cheek" teaching, he does nothing, lets the robbers beat the stuffin' out of the poor victim, thinkin' thas' OK since the victim is gettin' a chance to practice turning the other cheek. After the robbers grow tired and grab all the victim's shekels the Good Smaritan picks the man up and the story finishes in the familiar way.

What's wrong with this picture?

What if thugs is raping a 9 year old? Rather than use violence to stop violence, are we to stand by in a righteous stance and simple tsk tsk about how to live by the sword is to die by the sword? An' then pick up the battered chile afterwards and try to make her whole again?

Anybody think that a Christian faced with a burglar comin' in the door is obligated to forfeit his life an' that of his family to the armed burglar under the "love yore enemies" rubric?

Some deep discernment is needed to unnerstan' what Jesus meant. (more below on that)

Mah worry would be to make it up to St. Peter's gate and have to answer to Jesus for why I did NOT DEFEND INNOCENT LIFE.

So, in a limited scope, yes, Christians can employ lethal force against a *killing threat*--not to do so is be guilty of permitting the killing of innocents. No amount of negotiating would have stopped the 9-11 terrorists. Only lethal force.

But the scope is limited. We may NEVER employ more force than necessary to defend innocents. If we can stop the threat without lethal means, if we can disarm, dissuade, deflect, we must do that before a lethal means is employed. All life is precious, even that of thugs and murderers--but in a contest between a murderous assailant an' an innocent person, innocence takes precedence.

SECOND POINT is about governments vs. individuals.

Doan ya jes' love how Jesus din't save no whole villages lock stock and barrel? Never does we read how He passed through a town an' lifted His arms in a grand sweep an' every one repented an' converted, or that whole towns-- every single lame, leper and blind man was cured. No... Jesus healed on a soul by soul basis. "Who touched me?" He asked the apostles as He passed along the road an' the woman with the flow of blood touched His hem...huh? Din't He know that dozens ws touching Him, grabbing at Him like a rock star or somethin'..but He asks "WHO TOUCHED ME"? Thas' because the woman touched Him with a penitent and sincere heart. Jesus healed her the same as blind Bartimaus (Mark 10:46-52) because of t heir faith in HIM as messiah, not as some passin' carnival barker.

How does this apply? 'Cause as individuals we develop our relationship with Christ. Not as nations or towns or even families. As an individual I can respond in a particular Christian way when I am threatened / persecuted for mah faith. I can love mah enemies an' pray for them an' give up mah life if mah enemies persecute me for mah faith.

In biblical times "turn the other cheek" was an exhortation not to return insult for insult. It is not a prohibition against self defense.

I may do as Jesus did, an' as His followers did when they was offered a chance to live iffin' they would deny Christ--they freely laid down their lives rather than to deny the divinity of Jesus. The apostles was cricified, burned, beheaded over their faith, not over a governmental matter, no for a matter of national defense.

See whar' I'se comin' from? The issue is personal not governmental. An' the issue for laying down one's life as a Christian martyr is not about a war or some secular grievance --but about the freedom to BE a follower of Christ. If I am offered the choice of death or recant mah faith, please God grant me the grace to keep mah faith, if not mah life.

* * *
In no manner did Jesus ever suggest that the just power of the state not be used on behalf of the people. Note this from the New Testament:

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he (the ruler) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Romans 13: 3-4)

That is rather stark-- in short,
Christian theology teaches that properly constituted states ( not tyrants like KimJongIl) have the right and obligation as God's minister to "execute wrath on him who practices evil."

fishy said...

Folks have been right chatty over on this post. I think all the biblical arguments have been made and readers will accept or reject in accordance with their own beliefs. I don't believe any persuading happened in this debate.

I think Aunty told a fine, humorous story which nutshelled the change in
American thinking from the time of her tantrum til now.

On the issue of "waterboarding",
I do not believe it is "torture" nor do I believe it is "punishment".

I think waterboarding it is a low-risk interrogation technique. I believe the stand-by medics are a precaution. Certainly this format of seeking information is a better choice than shooting them full of drugs which can net permanent brain damage.

Can you imagine the American response if we had experienced the planned 9-11 follow up attacks because we had NOT used every possible opportunity to derive information on such plans?

The Gitmo detainees did not commit "acts of war", and they are not "prisoners of war".
They are terrorists who committed pre-meditated murder of more than 3000 Americans. They are being detained because they cannot be turned lose to murder again.

It's a shame we ever placed them on Gitmo. It would have been better to have shipped them to some remote part of Antartica to a "survivors camp" to let them fish or fail thru a hole in the ice and unload thru another hole in the ice until they each and every one volunteered to become a popsicle.

One more thing, the Obamanation is using this issue as a distraction to divert attention away from their theft of our freedoms.

TROLL Y2K said...


I'm going to ignore your tone, what you now claim was your "main contention" and the first dozen or so questions. Some because they're absurd and others just for lack of time.

Answers to Questions:

1) No, it's extremely unlikely that the Romans would have given permission to the Pharisees to conduct a public stoning for adultery or any other crime under Jewish laws. But not because they'd already violated their JEWISH rules at least 3 times in the way they brought the charge. They didn't care about Jewish rules. They wanted ORDER and obedience to super-ceding Roman rules/laws.

2) Stoning was rarely carried out BECAUSE of the "restrictions". And the more important of them were in place for many generations before Christ's earthly ministry.

3) I think Aunty has already refuted your contention that Christ (even as the lamb) in actions and words, "always" chose the non-violent option.

In general, I think you make the mistake of button-holing Christ as he was when he manifested himself in human form as the lamb who would sacrifice himself for our sins. Much of what he said and did THEN including some things he said and did that your wrongly modernize into "pacifism" were for his purpose THEN. But scripture says that the Christ existed in a different way since the beginning.

If you believe that Christ was merely a MAN who preached for 3 years and then died, there is SOME
basis for your assertions but you take them a bit too far.

Christians don't believe that. We look at the whole picture.

1) Witness to incredible violence apparently in accordance with his Father's plan prior to those 3 short years.

2) Lamb of God who sacrificed himself for our sins during those 3 years.

3) His current manifestation as the Risen Son of the Living God in the years since those 3 years.

4) A future manifestation where he'll be the LION with a Flaming Sword amongst unprecedented violence.

TROLL Y2K said...


P.S. Am I being blocked from posting at Karmic Kitchen because I'm debating with you here?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeez, that's classy, if so!

moi said...

What happened on 9/11 put us in a position we've never been in before. As Fishy says, those we held at Gitmo fall into none of the traditional categories under which we've held men and women in times of war.

Basically, we were – and are – feeling our way in this brave new world of terrorism, and I'm not insensitive to the choices we've had to make in order to prevent some of these folks from wreaking further horror.

But we are still the United States of America. We are still supposed to be the example to the rest of the world in how to swiftly and humanely mete out justice. Instead of using 9/11 as an excuse to let our baser instincts run wild, we should use it as an opportunity to try harder not to slip into the blood and mud with all the other pigs.

So let's forget for one moment about "What Would Jesus Do?" What about what WE would DO? What is the difference between torture and a technique of interrogation? There are nuances, I'm sure, but we have not defined them. We, a nation of laws, signed an international treaty against torture and that is the law that stands.

Look, when a man who is suspected of being part of a multiple-person burglary ring is brought into the police station for questioning, he is not subjected to water boarding or sleep deprivation or any other "interrogation" technique to give up the rest of his gang.

If water boarding were in fact nothing more than a strong interrogation technique, why not use it on this man who has been terrorizing private property owners? Why not use it on serial killers? But we don't. We question these folks and if they don't talk, i.e. confess, the state assigns the district attorney to his case and he's put in jail, given or not given bond, and then brought to trial.

We have used the excuse with the terrorists that the damage they can cause is way more horrifying than your average serial killer, thief, etc. and because of that, we need stronger techniques to both pry out info about their cells and plans and to punish them for their deeds.

I disagree.

The mark of a nation both just and strong is the ability to hold tight to its ideals regardless of the situation. And, as a nation of LAWS, if we need to change our position, we need to get the permission of the people to do so. It's one thing to do things in secret. It's quite another to go public and petition for permission. Let's see which of our leaders are strong enough to handle doing that.

Anonymous said...

People need to remember that Jesus was gentle to those who were sorry for their sins like the woman about to be stoned. To others he was very stern. Mostly Jesus was gentle. He loved all kinds of people and wept for Jerusalem because he knew that their sins would bring them destruction. Please people, treat each other gently on this thread.

Big Shamu said...

Sorry Aunty, I'm not convinced by your arguments that 1) waterboarding is not torture or that 2)Christ was not a pacifist. By your logic, the one single incident of Christ raising his hand against his fellow man could be no more serious than the switchings I got with a willow branch for some transgressions as a child. Are you also telling me if a burglar comes into your house, you're there and the burglar says Just give me all your money and I'll leave, you decide that you'll run for your gun to shoot him? Thereby making the decision that money or possessions are worth more than either your life or the burglar's life? Is that what Christ taught? The rape of a child or frankly anyone, do you think I would stand by and allow it? Of course not but you certainly wouldn't see me carrying a gun around for just such an occasion, cocked and ready to kill.
Turn your good Samaritan story around one more time, what if Christ came upon men beating and robbing the man beside the road? Do you believe that Christ kill the men doing the beating? Cut them with swords? Beat them with fists? OR would he place himself between the beaters and the beaten and use the word of God to admonish them of their sins of violence and hatred.
That's what kills me about this whole conversation, that so many have so little faith in Christ's teachings, so scared to use Christ's greatest weapon against violence that he could have given you that you fall into violence and hatred to justify your fear. How could you fear so much when Christ's heaven is your reward? Again Christ's follower's rewards are in Heaven not for possessions or money here on earth certainly not for waterboarding or torturing other humans.

As for your last passage, Romans 13: 3-4, it's a fascinating chapter especially in regards with some folks feel about our government. So I'm guessing the tea parties are out if you're following Romans 13:7? Yet the Apostle Paul was speaking of the Roman authorities who were not yet Christian authorities. I don't think he was talking about if Christians took the place of the Romans. Why. Chapter 12 of Romans but especially Romans 12:21 Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:20 doesn't say ...if your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink and then waterboard him until it satisfies your needs.

I understand you folks want the ability to defend yourself from harm. But in doing so you've turned yourself into Romans nailing Christ to the cross. Weren't they just defending themselves from a rebellious jew spreading dangerous ideas, a threat to their way of life? Was their torture of Christ just a method of finding out what rebellious plans he and his followers could be hatching? And according to Troll, were not the disciples not justified to defend their teacher? Take up the sword and save him from the narrow streets leading to the hill and death by crucifixion? They did not. They subsequently spread the word of God not by the sword but by love of their fellow man.

fishy said...

I get your point, do not let the damage inflicted by terrorists evolve America away form it's beliefs.

I'm good with that.

However, I find a tremendous gap between the burglary gang and the terrorists. Burglars are greedy opportunists and are thus motivated
to eventually confess or do time in relationship to likely punishments. They will use their cagey street smarts and self first mindsets to choose to talk or serve based on what they think will net the best outcome.

Jihadists are different. They are "mission" focused and the more "missions" they accomplish the better they believe are their chances at an everlasting parasdise. Their "mission" is to kill as many of us as possible.

They are not opportunists they are , in their minds, holy warriors and they have zero motive to save self. In fact don't they believe to not divulge any information is part of the path to paradise so other planned mass murders can get credited to their scorecards?

You are right, and not right, about this being new territory for America.

In 1786 Thomas Jefferson gave this testimony to the Continental Congress explaining the justification given to him, by the Barbary ambassador to England,
Sidi Haji Abdul Rahmna Adja,
concerning thier preying upon Christian ships,

" ... That it is founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it is written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners. That it is their RIGHT and their DUTY to make war upon whoever they could take as prisoners and that every Muslim man who should be slain in battle are sure to go to paradise".

This is not new. If memory serves, the United States Marine Corps was founded to defeat this enemy ... ie from the shores of Tripoli...

It's been a long time since I studied this history but I do believe a very young America was forced to defend itself( our ships) and the freedom of practice of Christianity
against the Barbary Pirates (jihadist terrorists of their day).

The "ambassador" of the Thomas Jefferson quote is the acknowledged HERO of today's Gitmo detainees.

Is waterboarding harsh? You bet! But it is not torture. Does it in some way diminish America? For some, for others it isn't enough so I guess that makes waterboarding the middle ground.

I agree with anonymous,
Peace Be With Us All.

Big Shamu said...

Troll. I'm sorry that you feel that my humble questions and arguments are absurd or not worthy of your time. It's ok. You've testified before Christ to what you believe. It is for him to Judge you, not me.

As for commenting on the Karmic Kitchen I have no idea what you are talking about. I have deleted no comments nor set up any blockage of certain participants. As recently this morning Moi commented on a post so I have no idea what technical difficulties you are having on your side of the computer. But the attempt to make me look petty and small in your response to such has been duly noted. That being said, I certainly reserve the right to delete comments on my blog as I'm sure you would accord any other blogger with respects to how they run their own blog.

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Hey Shamu,

So pleased to have a chance to continue the discussion wif' ya an others interested in the topic.

But first, can we back up a minute?

Sugar, Aunty ain't advocatin' waterboardin', ain't defendin' it. I'se said this a few times, so I'se growin' a mite weary when ya use waterboardin' as an indication of Aunty choosin' a violent course in life--please revisit mah comments wif' care. It's jes' that I ain't ready to condemn American policy of waterboardin' as "torture." But I ain't advocatin' waterboardin'. Thar's a difference.

That was the point of the original post: Aunty ain't suggestin' parents pour buckets of cold water on 7 month olds. Aunty is definitely sayin' that mah Daddy, who did do that, warn't "abusive" nor shoulda his chillen's be removed from him fer his cold water technique. We do not have to jump to judge as "abusive" every harsh method we disagree wif'.

As fer the burglar comin' in mah house, Shamu--aw, ya hurt me! I said nuthin' about choosin' mah possessions over his life. WHy did ya even suggest such a thang? I said I'se choosin' the life of mah innocent family over the life of the burglar iffin' he/she is willin' to kill us fer our piddlin' possessions.

SO---golly, it hurts mah feelin's some to see ya suggest I was defendin' possessions--ya know, that ain't what Aunty was sayin' at all.

I'se always happy to have a high spirited exchange, thas' the good of well meanin' folks gettin' together on matters of import. So I wanna assume the BEST about others and the reasons fer their opinions. To that end, let's all us'uns read wif' care what others have said.

Shamu, ya wrote, "that you fall into violence and hatred to justify your fear."

Honey, I ain't fell into no violence against a soul. Ain't lookin' fer violence and I doan fear nobody who is well meanin'.

I does fear violent evil people. More, I fear letting violent evil git an upperhand by using pacifists. Are you saying you doan fear evil seeking a victim?

Shamu, that language of accusin' others of "violence and fear" you mentioned is often found in the PR spin of various groups that seek to liberalize policies that they find distasteful by demonizin' folks like Aunty who advocate holdin' to a standard that promotes good order in society.

As to my Good Samaritan re-write and yore own re-write, ya make mah very point. Of course one stops the battering by interposing one's self and attempting to stop it--mebbe it will work. But if the robbers refuse to be persuaded, then Shamu, finish the story--what happens next? I cain't imagine that ya is willin' to forfeit the innocent man so ya keep yore pacifist ideals?

I'se mystified that ya suggest Aunty is "cocked and ready to kill." How'd ya git such an idea when this is what I wrote above:

"We may NEVER employ more force than necessary to defend innocents. If we can stop the threat without lethal means, if we can disarm, dissuade, deflect, we must do that before a lethal means is employed. All life is precious, even that of thugs and murderers--but in a contest between a murderous assailant an' an innocent person, innocence takes precedence."

Notice I ain't imputing to you any action or lack of action. I am asking ya, when evil will not be stopped by yore good example or yore persuasion, does ya simply stand aside an' let evil rampage?

I ain't aimin' to git theologically technical in this format. But a wee bit of depth of definition may not be misplaced here. "Violence" is not a flat one dimensional concept.

Violence is evil when it's a disordered physical assault against innocent lives. But all "Force" is not uncalled for when use of military force is ordered to the protection an' defense of innocent. Part of the problem here is that some folks will see all "violence" as the same--it ain't.

That Jesus did engage in righteous anger against the moneylenders is not some sorta one time slip up. He knew exactly what He was doin' an' He done it wif' grave deliberation. It carried an important message about His *authority* to judge the proper use of the temple. In order to defend the holy temple, Jesus used force.

An on the Roman's citation, Shamu, the point is that God uses the gubmint as the keeper of order. THe Romans 13:4 citation has been studied for two millennia now. The gist of it is that for any resort to force to be justified it must be the decision of the proper gubmint authority and fer a just cause,wif' the right intention to avoid unnecessary levels of force an' have as its goal the positive outcome of obtainin' peace for innocent citizens.

The relative Christianity- or lack there of- of any gubmint is not St. Paul's point. His point is those who perpetrate evil, and disturb the proper order of society wif' their evil, will be punished by the state.(The tea parties is not out of line because they are protected by the Bill of Rights)

Let's 'member that God used the Babylonians who took the Jews into captivity -God permitted a pagan gubmint to be His instrument to chastise the Children of Israel when they fell into apostasy.

Now ain't that interestin'? DOes it hold a note of caution fer us'uns in the USA? WEstern Civ? (Once known as Christendom) Aunty worries it may be so--that we'uns have allowed apostate livin' to become approved as "modern" life. I does worry we may be headed fer a rude adjustment.

This is a tough topic--but I remind us all that we can disagree wif'out thinkin' the others is of bad intentions.

Lastly, Aunty ain't tryin' to persuade anyone of any position. I is explainin' how I arrived at mah own position, an' that I din't arrive at mah position from a tendency to violence but from long an deep thought.

An...really it is a grand thang that we can all jaw like this.

Anonymous said...

Auntie, now I see one point I had not considered before. that is I can choose not to defend my life. but if I let the attacker hurt others because I don't want to act violently against the attacker then my guilt is of permiting murder. I saved the attacker but I helped to kill the victim. did not think of that before.

Big Shamu said...

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I'm glad to hear that you don't advocate waterboarding. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Unfortunately you placed the words waterboarding and torture in the
Labels section of the post. If your meaning of the post what was or is
child abuse then perhaps the words child abuse would have been a better label choice.

If you weren't suggesting to defend yourself against a burglar then I
missed the point of the story. If the burglar (your choice of word)
comes to steal your possessions then you would not kill him but let him leave with your possessions? If that is the case then you are right I did misunderstand you.

Again, don't let me finish the Samiritan story but let Christ finish it. Would Christ kill or harm another to save another? I know what I believe and that's there most likely there would be two men dead on the road but two men rewarded in Heaven.

That you balance your premise of Christ not being a pacifist on one
angry outburst in the temple vs. his very words to his disciple in
Matthew 26:52-53, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” is disconcerting.

If you do not want to see this as a denouncement of violence to save
his own life, we will have to agree to disagree. If these words of
Christ were meant only for himself and not his followers, then we again will have to agree to disagree. If you choose to take the meaning of the sword in Luke 12:49 - 53 as an actual physical sword not as a metaphor for either division and strife of father against son and mother against daughter for believing in Christ, or as a metaphor for God's judgment then we agree to disagree. I believe that the disciples after Christ's death practiced and preached Christ's teaching to the point of torture and death but certainly not taking up the sword to defend themselves, their family or followers.

Annoymous I'm not sure how you make the leap to being guilty of murder in the eyes of God by defending someone to the point of your own death and being unable to save the life of the victim you defended. YOU didn't chose to kill someone, someone else made that choice and they will be punished by God.

By the way Troll, you might want to look up how St. Stephen died.

Anonymous said...

Who is that rude whale telling you how to label your own posts?

Aunty Belle said...

Yes, Anon, pacifism as policy is often adopted as a moral position but it ain't moral when in it lets innocents be killed.

Shamu, (chuckle) now really, if the TITLE of the post is Child Abuse why is ya' strainin' over the tags thas' man to be ironic? Hopin' youse readin' the post not jes' tags.

Youse ignorin' what makes ya uncomfortable. Jesus din't make no mistake or have an "angry outburst" when He took the whip to the moneylenders. He set an example of righteous rage. Would ya have us believe Jesus would defend the temple but not a human bein' like the Good Samaritan?

On the burglar illustration--what? Ya think that burglar is friendly? Jes' sashayin' in to say "hi, I jes' wanna steal a few thangs heah, but doan worry I won't harm you folks none, even if youse seen me and can report me and my identity to the police" Shamu, please, now.....you cannot turn yore back on an obligation to defend and protect the INNOCENT people in yore care. I'se weary of how ya favor only the life of the assailants. It reminds me of Alice Walker's juvenile comments in Village Voice that all we needed to do was remind Bin Lade that he has done much good an oughta not be so naughty. Tell that to the families who lost loved ones.

Jesus did not say to the Centurion, "Well, fella, ya put down that sword then an' only then will I heal yore servant." (Mt. 8) Jesus respected the Roman Centurion as a soldier and a person of authority to use force to keep the public order. AND Jesus said that the Centurion was a man of great faith.

See also Jesus' command: "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

Then we have Acts 10, whar' there is another Centurion, Cornelius who is described as a devout man--an God sends an angel to him, then sends S. Peter to him--but never sends no memo to put doen his Centurion's sword and stop whackin' the evil people. Nope. God honred and took real good care of Cornelius to soldier who surely warn't a stranger to use of the sword to achieve peace.

ALL scripture is inspired by God even the Old Testament, Shamu. (see 2 Tim. 3:16 which informs of of this) This means that the citation of Ecclesiastes that I offered in the early stages of this thread is still pertinent:There is a season for everthing, including "a time to kill". You cannot toss that out. Jesus quoted from the OT, and said He came to fulfill the law )of Moses) and not to overturn it.

I'se reminded of Judith, the holy widow who beheaded Holofernes--because that evil killer threatened innocent life--so this holy woman did what needed to be done:

"She went up to the post at the end of the bed, above Holofernes' head, and took down his sword that hung there. She came close to the bed and took hold of the hair of his head, and said: "Give me strength this day, O Lord God of Israel!". And she struck his neck twice with all her might, and severed his head from his body (Judith 13,6-8)

Shamu, I ain't attemptin' to persuade you to adopt mah viewpoint. Jes' showin' why ya cain't keep tryin' to condemn those Christians who would defend innocent life from evil killers.

Big Shamu said...

It's true that we are far apart in our beliefs as to Christ's non-violent philosophy. I'm pretty sure we could argue until the cows come home, are milked and then sent out to pasture again and still be confident in each respective beliefs. I don't think you, Aunty, live your life in fear or hatred or anger. I wish I could say the same for many others in life. I do respect the fact that you and I can talk with respect and civility. If you believe I've mocked your position or beliefs in any way, believe when I say that was not my intent. I hope we can talk again in the future.

Big Shamu said...

By the way, is there anyway we can get paid by the word for this? (joke, I'm joking)

Aunty Belle said...

No, No, Shamu, I doan think youse mocked mah belief...jes' jumped to some conclusions about me that were mistaken. Main idea heah is that I pray and hope fer peace, respect others, etc., but am prepared to defend innocent life if need be.

Heck yeah!! How can we get paid by the word?? Heh.

Anonymous said...

buy ambien can order ambien online - ambien cr sales

Anonymous said...

diazepam online diazepam dosage sleep problems - diazepam prices

Anonymous said...

buy lorazepam online ativan side effects blood pressure - ativan vs xanax whats better

Anonymous said...

buy alprazolam online no prescription xanax pills side effects - xanax 1 mg vs klonopin 1mg

Anonymous said...

buy zolpidem online zolpidem er dosage - zolpidem + low price

Anonymous said...

diazepam 10 mg lorazepam diazepam drug - buy diazepam 10mg tablets

Anonymous said...

lorazepam drug withdrawal symptoms of ativan - ativan and alcohol od

Anonymous said...

ambien zolpidem ambien cr vs zolpidem tartrate er - does generic zolpidem tartrate look like

Anonymous said...

ativan medication buy lorazepam paypal - xanax ativan overdose

Anonymous said...

buy xanax 2mg buy xanax cheap online no prescription - xanax davis drug guide

Anonymous said...

ativan mg ativan dosage equal to xanax - ativan 2.5 mg

Anonymous said...

buy xanax online no prescription cheap is generic xanax as strong - xanax bars v 2090

Anonymous said...

buy diazepam online can you buy valium online no prescription - diazepam mg dosage

Anonymous said...

xanax generic best way pass drug test xanax - best place order xanax online

Anonymous said...

diazepam 5mg diazepam standard dosage - diazepam 10mg tablets sale

Anonymous said...

order xanax buy xanax xr online no prescription - xanax online pharmacy no prescription

Anonymous said...

buy ativan how can i order ativan from india - buy lorazepam online india

Anonymous said...

buy xanax bars online xanax 57 - xanax 2 mg 3 times a day

Anonymous said...

discount ativan ativan sublingual 1mg lorazepam 1mg - ativan for alcohol hangover

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online buy ambien in tijuana - what will 10mg of ambien do

Anonymous said...

valium depression can you buy valium online no prescription - valium with oxycodone

Anonymous said...

order ambien what is ambien 10mg - generic ambien not working

Anonymous said...

buy diazepam valium 10 mg online - valium dosage kids

Anonymous said...

ambien cost eve online music ambien 069 - ambien for sale online no prescription

Anonymous said...

soma without prescription soma online no rx - generic somatropin human growth hormone

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online generic of ambien cr - generic ambien no prescription