Search results

Looks to me that the father was the one being the thug here and was not properly disciplined as a child.

You really don't get irony, do you?

Indeed; someone to definitely strike off my babysitting list! But, then again, we're all evil godless libruls who don't take the Bible seriously, so I doubt he'd want to set foot in our houses anyway...

Thanks! That's a relief!

If a child has that degree of physical violence inflicted on her in a sustained, vicious attack such as this, then you bet it's my business! In fact, if he'd done that in public in front of me, I'd have performed a citizen's arrest. Your view disgusts me.

What he did is not in the Bible in the way you think it is. I have physically disciplined my children as well and will continue to do so when necessary. My eldest son is 6 and I haven't had to do it for a good couple of years now and hopefully will never have to do so with him again. The younger...

In your warped, deluded mind, perhaps... Look, if you want to live under your own weird version of sharia law, be my guest and push off to Iran or Saudi.

She has cerebral palsy. No He does not! This has nothing to do with liberal -v- conservative, but has to do with civilised -v- barbaric behaviour. Don't try to drag your culture wars into this; it's a red herring. I'm sickend and horrified to see a so-called Christian endorsing criminal...

In what sick, twisted universe does a vicious beating with a belt and board, coupled with serious verbal abuse, on the legs and face of a disabled young woman constitute 'discipline'? And this is a man who presides over family law case involving child abuse??!!! Yeah, well, he should know all...

I see you're from Texas too. Is this kind of barbaric sadism endemic there, then?

Except, as we keep pointing out to you, it doesn't jolly-well work. That's the elephant in your sola Scriptura drawing-room.

This was an assault: way, way over the line of normal corporal discipline. He should be fired as a judge and be prosecuted for assault, battery and threatening violence.

...which means it's useless for all practical purposes as such a sole authority. Thanks for proving my point. [cp with TS; reply to Walter]

...which is why such children of God all agree, isn't it? . . . . . . . Not.

That takes us no further forward; you have couched it in such terms as to be meaningless. Who says what is or is not 'according to this word', and by what criteria? How are we to 'prove all things'? How are we to 'try the spirits'? Unless you can come up with a coherent mechanism to achieve all...

None of which answers my question: in what way is your fallible human interpretation of the Bible not a tradition of man?

So 'reputable' = 'only those who agree with me'. I see...

You're far more condemning yourself by these words since you - and therefore your private interpretation - are a 'fallible person' and therefore your fallible interpretation is for you the final authority for understanding God's Word. At least with Apostolic Tradition you have the...

Have a look at this piece. [Reply to DHK]

Wrong again. It is Scripture as interpreted by Christ through His Body, the Church. In your theological paradigm, it is Scripture as interpreted by you privately. How is your private interpretation not a 'tradition of man'?