February 22nd, 2017

Milo Yiannopoulos and the age of consent

Milo Yiannopoulos has been uniformly excoriated for some remarks he made about sex between older men and teenage boys, in which he indicated that in some cases consent is possible. He’s lost a book deal, a speaking gig at GPAC, and has resigned from Breitbart as a result.

You can find a transcript of his remarks here. Judge for yourself what he said and what he meant, keeping in mind that Yiannopoulos is gay, and that he also claims (and I have no reason to doubt him on this) to have been sexually molested by an older man or men when he was a young teen.

Some have interpreted his remarks as actually advocating cross-generational sex. Such a thing is hardly unheard of (see NAMBLA). But I would instead characterize Yiannapoulos’ remarks as excusing or condoning cross-generational sex under certain circumstances rather than actively advocating it.

Yiannopoulos has claimed that he deplores pedophilia, but that term is defined as the abuse of (and sexual attraction to) children who are not sexually mature, and Yiannopoulos seems to exclude teens (or at least some teens) from that category. In this he shows a failure to appreciate the reason that the law against child abuse includes teens as victims in the crime of sexual abuse, and why physical sexual maturity has little to do with the law of child abuse.

There are several categories of sexual crimes having to do with consent. Rape is probably the first one that comes to mind. Child sexual abuse is certainly another, but it’s for a different reasons than with the rape of an adult: a child by definition cannot give consent. Even a sexually mature teenager cannot give consent to sex, although he/she can say “yes,” and even want sex physically. For teens—especially teenage boys, as most teenage boys can attest—if you stimulate the body, the body can certainly want something, and quite insistently at that. But children, including teens, are at the mercy of powerful adults—and by “powerful” I also mean psychologically powerful—who can manipulate and use them, cajole them and convince them, and therefore exploit them for their own pleasure. And that exploitation can be present even when the child or teen is actually saying “yes.” It can even be present when the child or teen thinks he/she is giving consent.

That’s why sexual contact between two fourteen-year-olds is not defined as child abuse, but sexual contact between a 25-year-old and a 14-year-old is. The key is the power differential combined with the inability of a 14-year-old to give consent.

Yiannopoulos said:

The law is probably about right, [the age of consent is] probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents.

As an abuse survivor, Yiannopoulos thinks he can say that consent can be given in such a case, apparently because he thinks he gave it. But that shows one of the problems with sexual abuse, and it’s not just the problem of an adult exploiting a child sexually. It’s the problem of an adult messing with a child’s mind. Because the relationships Yiannopoulos describes are actually betrayals of the child/teen in the guise of “helping” the child, betrayals that may even feel good to the child/teen in certain circumstances but exploit the child/teen’s psychological, emotional, and physical vulnerability.

In other words, if an adult wants to give a child or teenager “security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents,” then that adult should stay away from them sexually. Be a counselor, be a buddy, be a mentor, be any sort of helper you want. But don’t think you’re helping that child by using him or her sexually. That’s one of the oldest tricks—the oldest excuses—in the book.

I have a fair streak of libertarianism in my nature, but not about this topic.

[NOTE: And I’d prefer that the comments section here not turn into some sort of gay-bashing festival. I deplore sexual abuse of children and teenagers, and there’s plenty of blame to go around about such both in the gay world and in the heterosexual world. I’ve done a lot of reading on the question of whether gay adults are more likely to be child molesters than straight adults (which is of course not the topic of this post, but my guess is that the subject will come up in the comments), and in my opinion the jury is still out on that. If you want to read about the question in depth, I suggest this article for the “yes, they are more likely” side, and this article for the “no, they’re not more likely” side.]

29 Responses to “Milo Yiannopoulos and the age of consent”

  1. miklos000rosza Says:

    I saw a replay of Milo saying these thins, and my impression was that he was just… too relaxed if you, he should have stopped himself after saying he more or less agreed with the age of consent. He went on, however, to elaborate, almost unselfconsciously thinking out loud, rather than speaking like a politician. It was more like how someone might talk to you in a bar, open to being contradicted, seeking some nuance that not everyone would understand. I was surprised at the uproar which ensued. It’s too bad.

  2. John Guilfoyle Says:

    “unselfconsciously thinking out loud” – I’d say that’s pretty close to the truth but for someone who has made his money being outrageous he couldn’t stop himself & kept going into the minefield…boom.

    All the old cliches come to mind: every strength overplayed becomes a weakness…live by the sword die by the sword etc…and yeah…too bad.

  3. Kyndyll G Says:

    Not really addressing the topic of consent but rather other topics which have largely filled my thoughts about this subject…

    First off, this is such an obvious attempt to reach out and ruin someone who proved themselves to be a nuisance to the left that it’s actually rather chilling. “This guy is dangerous to us … a gay person off the reservation. We have to neutralize him. He’s outspoken and public, so if we hunt we’ll certainly find something that, if sufficiently spliced, diced, misrepresented and/or taken out of context will ruin him.” This can and will happen to anyone who annoys or begins to represent any kind of threat to the left, so if you’ve EVER posted online under your real name anything that goes against the leftist religious beliefs of the moment … yeah, it could be you.

    Second, while I am aware that there is secondary backlash by conservatives who were already uncomfortable with siding with a gay guy (and one who is anything but private and subtle about it), in other places I frequent, this whole kerfuffle appears to have been initially driven and pushed by lefties. The idea of people who, a couple of years from now will be calling us bigots and pedophobes for not embracing the equally valid culture of pedophilia* (because who doubts that they will, once it is politically expedient to do so) underlines the sickening hypocrisy of the left. It’s a political witch hunt and barring any actual allegations of crime on Milo’s part it should be shoved right back in their face.

    * Obviously I am not saying that pedophilia is an equally valid culture. I’m making the comment that it will be embraced as such by the left as soon as it suits their needs. Think I’m crazy? Wouldn’t you have thought I was crazy if I told you 10 years ago that the left would be fighting for the right of humans with penises to walk into any women’s restroom, gym or changing room, and have more right to be there than women have to protest their presence?

  4. AesopFan Says:

    miklos and John are both correct.

    Even as politically sophisticated as Milo is (by now), he forgot the first rule of The Arena: anything you say – to anyone, anytime, on any subject, for any reason, in any context – WILL be used against you by someone; and he had a lot of someones gunning for him.

    Which is too bad, because he was saying things that needed to be said, and stirring up anthills that needed to be stirred.

    Here is a cri de couer from a distinguished follower (and I say all of that deliberately)
    http://fencingbearatprayer.blogspot.com/2017/02/bully-culture.html

  5. AesopFan Says:

    kyndyll:
    The Left did not engineer this explosion, it was set off by conservatives livid about his speaking gig at CPAC.

    I repeat: never say anything to anyone that can be used against you by someone.

    Milo has enemies on both sides of the fence, and no true defenders inside the Conservative Fortress.

  6. Yann Says:

    I’d say that’s pretty close to the truth but for someone who has made his money being outrageous he couldn’t stop himself & kept going into the minefield…boom.

    I’d say that it’s just the opposite that happened. Milo is very good at being outrageous but keeping under control exactly what he says so he can escape easily. In the case of the twitter ban, for example, you won’t see the racist tweets reproduced, because that racist tweet was calling her “barely literate” after she misspelled half of the words.

    I’d say that this time he was not trying to be outrageous, those issues were too close and too personal to keep a cold head. It seems more that he has been trying to rationalize some kind of “it didn’t affect me” and didn’t realize up to what point it could be used against him.

    Food for thoughts: he was taken down using the only side where he was not behaving as a troll but as a real victim. So much for all the “victim caring” theater.

  7. Tuvea Says:

    AesopFan,

    I agree 100%.

    In addition, never post nor tweet nor make a comment that would embarrass you in front of your mother. In the past words could be overheard yet a person might be able to deny them later.

    But the Internet has a long, perhaps indelible, memory. What you do on it can, and will be, used against you.

  8. parker Says:

    I do not have an in depth knowledge of Yiannopoulos’ political activities. I stopped reading Brietbart about two years ago. All I know is he is cunning when it comes to making the left go moonbat. However, this incident makes me pity him. He was molested as a young teen and lured into the homosexual lifestyle. Perhaps at that young age he had strong homosexual feelings which were exploited for an older man’s pleasure. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    BTW, I do not condemn consenting adult omosexuality.

  9. Israel Says:

    What’s the age of consent for choosing ones gender? I think this is the slippery slope realized. If 5 y.o can be transgendered etc. Why can’t 13y.o- in some cases, say that he/she/zhe consented?

  10. Yancey Ward Says:

    Everything in life is a continuum, isn’t it, but the law by necessity can’t treat it that way. Why should the age of sexual consent 18 rather than 15? Why is age of sexual consent 18 rather than 21? I am sure we all have an opinion on both questions, and we might end up at 18 as a compromise because a line does have to drawn, doesn’t it?

    If you look at the ages of consent across the world, you find that different societies differ quite a lot- in Canada it is 16, in the US it ranges from 16 to 18. In Mexico it ranges mostly from 12-15; in South America mostly it is 13-15; in Europe 14-16. However, the world as a whole does seem to draw the line between biological sexual maturity and its lack.

    I think Yiannopolous was simply giving voice to the fact that we don’t actually agree where that line is drawn in any polity as long as it is drawn between sexually mature and sexually immature (which of course isn’t a bright line either since it spans about 3 years in the US).

    I lost my virginity at age 16 to someone almost 10 years older than myself. I was already at the age of consent in my state, so it wasn’t a question of statutory rape, but I also didn’t feel was taken advantage of either, and I am pretty certain I wouldn’t have felt that way even if I had been 3 years younger (I went through puberty at age 12). In this, I am not saying anything that is worse than what Yiannopolous said. And I think he realizes that the law really isn’t in a position to make such judgment calls, but should such bright lines be drawn?

  11. Yancey Ward Says:

    And, also, I think it is highly important to at least think about this- what if Yiannopolous were heterosexual and had had sex with an older female. How would the reaction had changed to what he said? I am confident it would have changed a lot, not a just a little or none.

  12. Richard Saunders Says:

    Neo – It’s all biology. I certainly agree that there is a great power differential between a 25-year-old and a 14-year-old, and that sex between them is child abuse. But – the fact is that our bodies are built to have sex and (at in the case of women) begin bearing children almost immediately after puberty.

    To our evolutionary biology, a male who has survived until 25 is a good hunter and fighter, and the tribe needs his genes to be combined with that of a prime-childbearing female. This is why throughout history, with rare exceptions, and in much of the world today, 14-16 is considered marriageable age for girls and 18-25 for boys.

    Since we are no longer being eaten by saber-tooth tigers, dying in childbirth, and, in any case, by age 40, our DNA’s programming for sex right after puberty no longer makes sense.

    Notwithstanding that that is so in our society, the programming is still there, and our over-sexed society amplifies it. Traditional morality used to keep the lid on, but now that is gone, replaced by the “zipless fuck.” Hence increasing statutory rape cases, male-female, male-male, and, AFAIK, for the first time, and with increasing frequency, female-male (middle and high school teachers and male students).

    Without traditional morality, cold showers, and saltpeter, I don’t see how the problem gets fixed.

  13. Ann Says:

    The worst of all this is that it has aroused some pity for Milo. Does he now get a pass on his trafficking in racist and anti-Semitic tropes?

  14. LCB Says:

    To the point of being betrayed by an older person for this older person’s gain, I have to ask:

    If Milo had never been approached by the priest and had sex with him, would he have turned out gay, bi-sexual or straight? That’s a deep question that only Milo could answer, but I doubt if he could really go there. If I was in his shoes, I know I couldn’t!

    What I’m getting at, wouldn’t a 13 year old boy think “I MUST be gay since I enjoyed the sex”, convincing himself of this to deal with the betrayal of his priest and any shame he might have felt? It was after all a priest violating his vows and thus betraying both his church AND a sheep of his flock, Milo. (And it doesn’t matter if Milo was a member of his church. As a “Shepard”, he’s responsible for all people that he comes in contact with!)

  15. LCB Says:

    Shepherd! Really, I know how to spell…most of the time…

  16. Richard Aubrey Says:

    I am not as nuanced as Milo, not by a long chalk. We, to use an example, believe an
    individual under the age of eighteen is too naive and inexperienced to avoid being hosed when signing a contract. So a contract a minor signs is invalid. There may be exceptions, but we are taking no chances. But eighteen is, in some senses, arbitrary. Why not, say, twenty-five?
    Milo was, as far as I could tell, musing about both of those issues, and discussing the emotional issues of being abused and their fallout.
    Meantime, Harvey Milk actually did it and one of his victims committed suicide. He got a medal of freedom and had a ship named after him.
    Gerry Studs did it repeatedly with, according to reports, a congressional page, or perhaps more than one. He was reelected until he retired and was lauded as a hero when he died.
    Roman Polanski is a martyr in Hollywood.
    But here we have a guy musing about some issues…. It’s politics, not morality.
    Note. The gay community usually refers to such issues as “pedophelia”. That’s because pedophiles go after boy little boys and little girls. So it’s not a gay thing. But what Milo is talking about, and what the Catholics got into so much trouble over, was pederasty, or ephebephila. Both have to do with older boys and are strictly a gay thing

  17. Ymarsakar Says:

    Milo’s still got some of that Catholic Priest demon spirit in him, as a corruption of being associated or touched by such a one in his life. Thus Milo’s problem is his ties to the Catholic Church.

    Everything else is just Leftist pattern play. The Alt Right learns from the Left. But remember this, the Left learned it from Lucifer’s Own. You are not going to “out play” Lucifer.

    Milo points out other people’s weaknesses, and weakling humans feel themselves avenged of the Left by lambasting the Left or watching the suffering of the Left. But remember this, you too are mortal and human, and have your own fair share of “flaws” that Alinsky and Lucifer can penetrate and exploit. And by that, I don’t mean penetrate in a way Milo would like from a big black dick either.

  18. Ymarsakar Says:

    Sexual abuse that leads to brainwashing and reverse polarizing a person’s normal sexual urges, has plenty of proof these days. Both for lesbian women and also for homo men.

    It’s a variation of Stockholme Syndrome or the Left’s experiments on Patricia H.

    Some may indeed be “born” with a gender issue. That may have to do with the Original Transgression (not Adam and Eve, there were 3 original transgressions) or it may just have to do with some mechanical problem with the body/soul connection. But those are miniscule in numbers compared to the number of gays manufactured by human sorcery and science.

    What I like to call “mind control”. Do you know why orgies and sexual pleasure/pain can be used to control the mind? Because the neural conductions are EXTREMELY STROng, in terms of bandwidth, when it comes to reprogramming the human mind.

  19. Ymarsakar Says:

    Meantime, Harvey Milk actually did it and one of his victims committed suicide. He got a medal of freedom and had a ship named after him.
    Gerry Studs did it repeatedly with, according to reports, a congressional page, or perhaps more than one. He was reelected until he retired and was lauded as a hero when he died.
    Roman Polanski is a martyr in Hollywood.

    The problem is that the Catholics are on the same side/alliance as the Leftists and various other sub humans mentioned there.

    They worship the same sort of deity, so to speak.

  20. parker Says:

    Israel@2:03,

    Exactly.

  21. DNW Says:

    ” Ann Says:
    February 22nd, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    The worst of all this is that it has aroused some pity for Milo. Does he now get a pass on his trafficking in racist and anti-Semitic tropes?”

    He’s Jewish himself, according to Jewish religious law, isn’t he?

    But then we have had questions like this mooted before; and even here, even with this pretty well informed group, and many who are themselves Jews, we’ve never been quite able to say exactly what makes a Jewish person Jewish; and when that quality leaves off and they can be consigned to the outer darkness.

    Now this, may amuse, annoy – or possibly even interest – some of you.

    I was searching Youtube for NDE stories for purposes of trying to abstract the psychological commonalities and this guy pops up. Not a back from the dead story; and not in anyway a much viewed presentation. But having just out of college worked for a Jewish guy who looked almost just like him I listened anyway.

    An interesting personality; MIT grad. Computer science background. Now: Is he still Jewish? Could he be anti-Semitic? As an ardent Catholic is he “guilty” of “replacement” theology?

  22. AesopFan Says:

    Here are a couple of interesting viewpoints.

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/22/everyone-wrong-milo-cpac/

    “Milo was wrong to say what he did. People say stupid things all the time. I personally interpreted what he was saying as descriptive – “this thing – young gay men exploring with older men – happens” – not prescriptive – “this thing ought to happen, is morally OK, and totally justified”. But only he knows what he meant, and he never should have dabbled in talking about this topic without in context issuing an obvious condemnation of the practice, which represents little more than preying on the underage.

    But there is also the wrongness at every other stage of this….
    CPAC was also wrong to disinvite him. These videos were not new. They were part of the public record. And for a venue that has featured Ann Coulter and David Horowitz and a number of prominent social conservatives who have said terrible and untrue things about American homosexuals, this was a statement that while toxic and stupid, should not have rendered Milo untouchable or too vile for a conference that, while once a font of conservative influence, now essentially exists as a place for interns to make poor decisions. Put him on at 10:30 in the morning on Saturday when everyone is hungover for 15 minutes and move on – featuring a speaker is not an endorsement, and just as Redstate was wrong to disinvite Donald Trump over his Megyn Kelly comments, so CPAC is wrong for featuring Donald Trump and refusing to include his biggest chortling gay fan. Congratulations, you have confirmed his anti-authority status even more.
    ..
    But let us not leave out Breitbart employees who threatened to quit if Milo was not fired – they too were wrong. Seriously, this is the thing that would make you quit Breitbart, a site that has destroyed the legacy of its namesake with a gradually increasing embrace of alt-right sympathies? You did not have a qualm about working for this website until this instant? Give me a break….
    This whole episode serves as a reminder of what Milo is and what he is not. He is not a conservative, a libertarian, or an ideologue. He is an attention seeker and a provocateur who in practice amounts to a blunt instrument to use against the left because he confounds them as something they argue cannot exist. He is impossible, so the fact that he exists is infuriating. And he is not going to go away.”

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/02/22/remember-salon-thought-pedophilia-next-big-trend/

    “What was strange was the number of decidedly left/crotch-centric persons and outlets who turned on Milo for a very mild hint of something they had given full-throated approval to not all that long ago. When Milo hit the fan this week Salon.com, strangely enough, was particularly gleeful with a story headlined Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos under fire after seemingly condoning sex with minors.

    Why do I say strangely? Because there was a time when Salon was actively pushing the normalization of pedophilia. (Read my story.)

    Yep. Salon memory-holed Nickerson’s ode to child rape so it could launch an attack on Milo and not be called to account for its hypocrisy.”

  23. Ymarsakar Says:

    AesopFan Says:

    They are all right, rather than all wrong.

    Milo makes money based on being an agent provocateur against the Left and universities, getting banned and persecuted is like a Christian thing, even if he isn’t a Christian. I think Milo said he is a Christian, but he may be able to buy his way into a corrupt church made by humans.

    As for people’s morality, it has already decayed to near zero in the US. That is why my morality doesn’t come from people here, people in the US, the Powers that be, your religious authorities, or anybody else people prop up, Leftist boy Fers or Right wing religious authorities either.

  24. Ymarsakar Says:

    As an ardent Catholic is he “guilty” of “replacement” theology?

    First people have to understand theology. To those that even read the scriptures, they do not understand it. Far more difficult is understanding the different theologies and doctrines of the mainline and offline religions today.

    For anyone that believes a human is the ‘Vicar of Christ’, you have cut yourself off from the Trinity, in whatever form you may ascribe to it.

    Mary Queen of Angels=Serpentine spirits that change forms as Lucifer was the bright one.

    Man:What prayer do you like?

    Entity:I like all prayers (coyfully)

    Well of course Lucifer or his servants like to be worshiped as gods and like all prayers… of course it is so. How does the Virgin Mary know human seduction to communicate things with coyness?Jean De Arc’s testimony of angels is similar, but also different. Of course different souls may be elevated to different positions, but there is still the test.

    There is a test to see if an angel serves Lucifer or aOmega. Shake their hand. If they have physical form and substance, then they are the servants of aOmega. If they do not allow you to touch them, they are under ban for transgressions against the aO. Job test basically.

    Roy Schoeman, you are in love with an entity like Ishtar, a Babylon fallen angel, not with the human mother of Jesus of Nazareth, she and her soul is safely tucked away awaiting the Final Judgment.

    But then we have had questions like this mooted before; and even here, even with this pretty well informed group, and many who are themselves Jews, we’ve never been quite able to say exactly what makes a Jewish person Jewish; and when that quality leaves off and they can be consigned to the outer darkness.

    Humans trying to determine divine laws using human reason and debate, are destined to fail. People can’t agree on nuclear weapons, yet humans expect to come to their own enlightenment based on arguing with their logick and magical reasoning skills… how quaint.

    You have no idea what the Outer Darkness is, because it is not something your abilities or your science degree can reach. A metaphysical problem.

    Because humans don’t understand theology, they try to debate issues they cannot comprehend. At least with human science, it is pretty obvious whether someone knows what the scientific method is and whether they obey it or not. They can test it, the way Higgs tested it at CERN against Hawking, over the existence of the Higgs Boson.

    As for people of one genetic tribe converting to Catholicism, or Catholics converting to Judaism, that isn’t really the problem. That’s only a problem for people that want money and power from these human resources and livestock. Their petty worldly contests about pride and supremacy are pretty meaningless.

    “Anything but Christ”. oA may have tolerated/heard your prayers, R, but I know someone who did and acted upon it. R got exactly what he prayed for.

    That video is one of the clearest and most blase expositions of meeting a servant of Lucifer that I have ever seen; Ishtar perhaps. I don’t say demon, since theologically demons are something other than the angels. Judaism and Christian theology conflict over this, but the Old Testament concept of demons were pretty informative.

    https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/christian-conversion-stories-david-wood/

    As for Christian conversion stories, I usually look for things that humans can’t do. The Holy Ghost coming upon the apostles and changing them, from Peter the man so afraid of the world he denied his mentor and master three times in public, to Paul’s conversion from a Jewish religious officer charged with internal zealotry and hatred of all Christians.

    R is correct that the Judaism view of Jehovah as being ever changing, yet miracles have stopped, is inconsistent. Miracles have not stopped, but they are personal revelations given for the individual faithful, not to be used as chess pieces in the game of world domination by human organizations looking to market themselves as the new bank of salvation.

  25. Richard Saunders Says:

    Ymarsakar — where you get your ideas about Judaism is a mystery. Judaism holds that God is extra-universal, eternal. and unchanging. As far as miracles having stopped, there’s this story:

    Before the Six-Day War, an Israeli general went to a rabbi and asked him, “Rabbi, can we win this war?”
    The rabbi answered, “We will win in one of two ways.”
    The general asked, “What are the two ways?”
    “We will win either by a natural way or by a miracle.”
    “How will we win in a natural way?” the general asked.
    “If we win by a miracle!”
    “And how will we win by a miracle?”
    “If we win in a natural way!”

  26. DNW Says:

    But then we have had questions like this mooted before; and even here, even with this pretty well informed group, and many who are themselves Jews, we’ve never been quite able to say exactly what makes a Jewish person Jewish; and when that quality leaves off and they can be consigned to the outer darkness.

    Humans trying to determine divine laws using human reason and debate, are destined to fail. People can’t agree on nuclear weapons, yet humans expect to come to their own enlightenment based on arguing with their logick and magical reasoning skills… how quaint.

    Ok …

    Well, “outer darkness” was a figurative term I used and used ironically, in order to refer to a more or less formal expulsion from Judaism (in the sense of having a Jewish identity) of some Jew or Jews, by other more conventional or observant Jews.

    Figurative then, because I did not mean banishment to some supernatural realm; “ironic” because of the by now well-recognized reluctance of some Jews to do what almost no one else – except some modern Catholic clergy – has a problem doing: saying ‘you are no longer part of me and mine, ever.’ That is related to boundaries recognition issues … pathological altruism (Catholic liberals esp) … all that …. stuff.

    That’s all.

    Now as for Schoeman himself I make no judgment at all as regards the substantive content of his “experience”.

    I placed mention of it in order to contextualize the matter of Jewish identity in terms of Ann’s remarks on Yianwhatever.

    His mother is Jewish. That makes him, according to Jewish law, a Jew, if I am not mistaken. Schoeman, claims to still be a Jew in every sense. He was raised culturally Jewish. He was as biologically Jewish as he could be (Perhaps other than being a Cohen) if one accepts, or contends, that that is a real category. [I have no opinion on the reality of that category myself]

    So, this guy advances and affirms essentially all, as he tells it, aspects of Jewish identity. Yet he claims to be a Christian too, as a result of having undergone a supernatural (as he sees it) experience.

    Tossing around accusations of anti-Semitism, becomes rather complex, when we cannot even agree on what constitutes an authentic Jewish person.

  27. Ymarsakar Says:

    where you get your ideas about Judaism is a mystery. Judaism holds that God is extra-universal, eternal.

    Judaism isn’t monolithic, but you just confirmed what I said about miracles, it is merely a different take of the same conclusion. Judaism doesn’t believe miracles exist or that individual divine revelation applies to humans in these times. There’s no difference between someone using natural laws to win and Lucifer using natural laws to win. Anyone can use natural laws to prove a point, even humans.

    The conflict is in between who is the Almighty, who is the aO. Is it Lucifer? The Babylon fallen angels who claimed themselves as gods and human hybrids? Is it Jesus of Nazareth? Who is it. And Moses declared that his god was mightier than the Egyptian gods, as Pharoah’s sorcerers could create miracles and magic, but then Moses serpent ate up the Egyptian sorcerer’s serpents.

    Judaism, at large, has to deny the existence of prophets after a certain point. Since after a certain point, every prophet started talking about Jesus of Nazareth.

    There’s also that incredible story about a Christian finding the Ark of the Covenant, and being allowed in whereas the Jewish authorities were prevented entry, plus the Arabs.

    If the blood of Jesus of Nazareth ever shows up and is analyzed as being human, and yet not human, what will the Jewish communities who believe in Jehovah think then? It will be interesting to see.

  28. Ymarsakar Says:

    As for my knowledge of Judaism, the prerequisite to understanding the Bible is to understand the original language and context, which means Hebrew/Aramaic, elohim, words, definitions, connotations, cultural context, previous works like the Book of Enoch, etc.

    I understand the ancient histories, the same histories that the Apostles and the prophets of Israel knew and understood. They often times are hard to understand because they don’t spell out the context. Modern humans know what a lemon is, but will future humans know what we mean by a “lemon” from Ford… Modern humans understand what breaking the speed limit is, but will future humans understand what a speed limit even is because we never put into numbers, we understand what it means after all.

  29. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymaraskar:

    A significant amount of you say about Judaism is incorrect.

    It is futile to get into an argument with you on this subject (we have in the past, and I have learned it is futile). So I’ll just say, on the subject of miracles, see this and this.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge