If you missed Dr Glenn Peoples speaking on Religion in the Public Square for Thinking Matters Auckland you can now watch it online.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Tonight: Dr Matthew Flannagan on Moral Relativism
Don't forget tonight's event from the Thinking Matters Auckland series on God, Morality and Society, Dr Matthew Flannagan speaking on Moral Relativism at Laidlaw College at 7pm.
Not sure if its your thing? Check out the video of Matt's talk Apologetics: Answering Objections to the Christian Faith.
Not sure if its your thing? Check out the video of Matt's talk Apologetics: Answering Objections to the Christian Faith.
See you there :-)
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Sunday Study: Did Christ Abolish the Old Testament Law? Part 2
As I concluded in Sunday Study: Did Christ Abolish the Old Testament Law? Part I , the Apostles rejected the claim that, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”[1] Following Peters position, they decide that Gentiles do not have to follow the Mosaic Law; instead it is affirmed,
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.
Here the Apostles state that gentiles do not have to follow the Mosaic law; however, they are required to abstain from certain practices such as sexual immorality, from idolatry, blood laws and the meat of strangled animals. I went on to note the rationale for this; it is claimed that Gentiles can be required to abstain from these practices because, “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”[2] In other words, because the gentiles have heard Moses preached they know they have a duty to abstain from these practices. If a gentile is familiar with Moses then he or she will know that there are some commandments that are binding on him or her, even if he or she does not himself or herself have to follow the law in its entirety.
In approaching this issue two hermeneutical points are worth noting. The first is articulated by Richard Mouw,
In approaching this issue two hermeneutical points are worth noting. The first is articulated by Richard Mouw,
We must insist that not all commandments which are found in the bible are to be obeyed by contemporary Christian's. For example, God commanded Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees, and commanded Jonah to preach in Nineveh; it would be silly to suppose that it is part of every Christian's duty to obey these commands.[3]
We are only required to obey those commands recorded in scripture that are addressed to us. Scripture records these commands as being addressed to Abram and Jonah, as such these commands were addressed to them and not to anyone else.
The second point is that not all commands in the Mosaic law are addressed to non-Jews. Alan Donagan notes, “While the whole Torah does not purport to be binding on all mankind, part of it does. Even in biblical times, the Jews had come to recognise those Gentiles who recognised that part of the Mosaic Halachah which applies to Gentiles and Jews alike.”[4] Jewish exegesis distinguishes between what the Rabbis called the Noahide law the Mosaic law. The former are the commands God addresses to all human kind, Jew and gentile alike. Jewish tradition teaches that these laws were given first, during the time of Adam, to all Adam's descendants and then again to Noah. The Mosaic law, on the other hand, is a covenant between Jews and God. However, as the Jews are a subset of all people, many of the Noahide laws are repeated in the Mosaic law although Israel is given a body of other laws which are binding on them in virtue of their special relationship to God. I think the exegetical basis for this distinction is sound; I will briefly cite three lines of evidence for it.
First, the Mosaic law begins, prior to the giving of the law, with the narrative in Genesis which implicitly teaches that there are commands that are binding on both Jews and non-Jews. In Genesis 1:28-29, for example, all human beings are permitted to eat vegetables. Genesis 2:24, as interpreted by Jesus and Paul, condemn divorce and promiscuity. In Genesis 4, Cain is warned about his desire to sin and later condemned for committing murder. The proto-history of the flood has all human beings being condemned for sexual immorality and violence. In Genesis 9, Noah and his descendants (who in the narrative are the entire human race) are permitted to eat any animals but forbidden from committing murder and are also commanded to punish those who do, further Ham, a gentile, is condemned for uncovering his fathers nakedness. The same picture is seen in the story of Dinah in Genesis 34 where pre-marital sex on the part of gentiles is condemned. The abduction of Sarah by Egyptian kings makes it clear that God requires gentiles not to commit adultery and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah condemns a mixture of rape, sodomy and inhospitable treatment of strangers by gentiles. Hence, when Moses delivers the law at Sinai it has already been taught that many of the commandments he elaborates on were already binding on Gentiles.
Second, the oracles against gentile nations entail the same thing. Amos, Ezekiel, Nahum, Isaiah and Job all condemn gentile nations for violating standards laid down in the Mosaic law. This only makes sense if some of the commandments in the Mosaic law are actually binding on gentile nations.
Third, a careful exegesis of the Torah shows that something like the distinction between Noahide and Mosaic commandments is implicit in it. Take the issue that sparked of the Council of Jerusalem, the kosher food laws. These laws occur in the 14th chapter of Deuteronomy. They begin with, “out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession. Do not eat any detestable thing.” This is followed by a list of animals declared unclean to eat then, immediately after prohibiting the eating of such animals, the text states, “You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.” The text, then, is quite clear; these kinds of animals can be sold to gentiles and gentiles may eat them; the Jews, however, are to refrain from eating them because of the special covenant relationship they have with God, “out of all the peoples on the face of the earth … ” If one reads the earlier sections of the Pentateuch, such as Genesis 9, it teaches that gentiles have been permitted by God to eat any animal. Hence, the Kosher laws are not addressed to gentiles and do not expound a command that God had given to all human beings prior to Sinai.
This is in stark contrast to the laws laid down in Leviticus 18. This pericope opens with God telling Moses “speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.” God then issued a series of commands to refrain from certain sexual practices such as incest (v 6-16), bigamy (v 18), homosexual conduct (v 22), adultery (v 20), bestiality (v 23) as well as a command to refrain from infant sacrifice (v 21). God then goes on to state,
The second point is that not all commands in the Mosaic law are addressed to non-Jews. Alan Donagan notes, “While the whole Torah does not purport to be binding on all mankind, part of it does. Even in biblical times, the Jews had come to recognise those Gentiles who recognised that part of the Mosaic Halachah which applies to Gentiles and Jews alike.”[4] Jewish exegesis distinguishes between what the Rabbis called the Noahide law the Mosaic law. The former are the commands God addresses to all human kind, Jew and gentile alike. Jewish tradition teaches that these laws were given first, during the time of Adam, to all Adam's descendants and then again to Noah. The Mosaic law, on the other hand, is a covenant between Jews and God. However, as the Jews are a subset of all people, many of the Noahide laws are repeated in the Mosaic law although Israel is given a body of other laws which are binding on them in virtue of their special relationship to God. I think the exegetical basis for this distinction is sound; I will briefly cite three lines of evidence for it.
First, the Mosaic law begins, prior to the giving of the law, with the narrative in Genesis which implicitly teaches that there are commands that are binding on both Jews and non-Jews. In Genesis 1:28-29, for example, all human beings are permitted to eat vegetables. Genesis 2:24, as interpreted by Jesus and Paul, condemn divorce and promiscuity. In Genesis 4, Cain is warned about his desire to sin and later condemned for committing murder. The proto-history of the flood has all human beings being condemned for sexual immorality and violence. In Genesis 9, Noah and his descendants (who in the narrative are the entire human race) are permitted to eat any animals but forbidden from committing murder and are also commanded to punish those who do, further Ham, a gentile, is condemned for uncovering his fathers nakedness. The same picture is seen in the story of Dinah in Genesis 34 where pre-marital sex on the part of gentiles is condemned. The abduction of Sarah by Egyptian kings makes it clear that God requires gentiles not to commit adultery and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah condemns a mixture of rape, sodomy and inhospitable treatment of strangers by gentiles. Hence, when Moses delivers the law at Sinai it has already been taught that many of the commandments he elaborates on were already binding on Gentiles.
Second, the oracles against gentile nations entail the same thing. Amos, Ezekiel, Nahum, Isaiah and Job all condemn gentile nations for violating standards laid down in the Mosaic law. This only makes sense if some of the commandments in the Mosaic law are actually binding on gentile nations.
Third, a careful exegesis of the Torah shows that something like the distinction between Noahide and Mosaic commandments is implicit in it. Take the issue that sparked of the Council of Jerusalem, the kosher food laws. These laws occur in the 14th chapter of Deuteronomy. They begin with, “out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession. Do not eat any detestable thing.” This is followed by a list of animals declared unclean to eat then, immediately after prohibiting the eating of such animals, the text states, “You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God.” The text, then, is quite clear; these kinds of animals can be sold to gentiles and gentiles may eat them; the Jews, however, are to refrain from eating them because of the special covenant relationship they have with God, “out of all the peoples on the face of the earth … ” If one reads the earlier sections of the Pentateuch, such as Genesis 9, it teaches that gentiles have been permitted by God to eat any animal. Hence, the Kosher laws are not addressed to gentiles and do not expound a command that God had given to all human beings prior to Sinai.
This is in stark contrast to the laws laid down in Leviticus 18. This pericope opens with God telling Moses “speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.” God then issued a series of commands to refrain from certain sexual practices such as incest (v 6-16), bigamy (v 18), homosexual conduct (v 22), adultery (v 20), bestiality (v 23) as well as a command to refrain from infant sacrifice (v 21). God then goes on to state,
“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Here Israel are commanded to refrain from various practices that gentiles engage in and the reason given is that it is wrong for gentiles to do such things. God explicitly states that he condemned gentiles who did these things prior to the giving of the Mosaic law and that Israel was simply being held to the same standard as gentiles. The conclusion is that no one is to engage in these practices whether a Jew (“native”) or a gentile (“aliens living among you”).
Markus Bockmuehl calls laws, like Leviticus 18, laws of the “gerim” or “resident alien.”[5] These are laws in the Torah relating to gentiles living in Israel. Bockmuehl gives two broad categories of such laws, “The first extend social welfare rights to the gerim,” such things as a “fair trial,” protection from being overworked and support mechanisms for the disadvantaged, all of which are granted to gerim or resident aliens. The second are, “positive commands applying to the gerim along with the rest of Isreal.”[6] Bockmuehl notes several examples including various laws about idolatry, laws relating to homicide and assault, laws relating to sexual immorality, laws relating to blasphemy and many others. The paradigm of resident alien laws comes chiefly in Leviticus 17-20. These laws were the basis for the distinction Donagan makes between between laws that applied to gentiles and those that applied to Jews only.
I think this distinction explains the aforementioned basis in Acts 15. Conzelman notes that the instructions given to the gentiles by the Apostles Council in Acts 15 appear to be a fairly concise summary of the laws of the resident alien in Leviticus 17-20.[7] Leviticus 17:1-9 contains prohibitions on idolatrous slaughter. Acts 15 instructs the gentiles to, “abstain from food polluted by idols.” Leviticus 17:10-14 contains laws relating to the consumption of blood.” The Apostles instruct the gentiles to abstain “from blood;” Leviticus 17:15-16 contains laws relating to the eating of animals not properly bled. The Apostles instructed the Gentiles to abstain from the meat of strangled animals.” Leviticus 18 condemns various forms of sexual immorality; Acts 15 has the gentiles instructed to “abstain .. from sexual immorality.” This observation also explains the rationale at the end, “The Gentiles were not required to follow the law of Moses, but they were required to follow the requirements God has laid on all people.” This is summarised in the resident alien laws and the Gentiles can be reasonably expected to know these laws because they are found in the law of Moses and “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
This distinction also explains how the stance of the Apostles is consistent with that of Jesus. The Apostles are not abolishing the law or telling others to break them. The Gentiles are instructed to keep those parts of the Mosaic law that apply to them. They are simply recognising that the Mosaic law is not binding on gentiles, something the Mosaic law itself teaches. It also addresses the charge of selectivity made by Mohr.
Mohr asks, “do ministers who cite what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic and dietary laws of Leviticus”[8] and concludes, “those who regularly cite the Bible to condemn an activity like homosexuality do so by reading it selectively.”[9] This simply shows a lack of understanding of both the law and the new testament teaching on it. As I noted, the dietary laws laid down in the Mosaic law command Jews to abstain from various foods, they do not command gentiles to do this. The laws on sexual immorality, however, clearly apply to both Jews and gentiles. If Mohr wants to see selective exegesis, perhaps an examination of contemporary “liberal” Christians who dismiss the laws on homosexuality as non-applicable but oddly consider the laws against incest, bestiality, adultery and human sacrifice to be binding despite the fact that they occur in the exact same context.
[1] Acts 15:5 NIV.
[2] Acts 15:21.
[3] Richard Mouw “Biblical Revelation and Medical Decisions” in Stephen E Lammers and Allen Verhey On Moral Medicine (Grand Rapids MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987) 56.
[4] Alan Donagan The Theory of Morality (Chicago: Chicago University press. 1979) 4-5
[5] Marcus Bockmuehl Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Baker Academic, 2000) 153.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Hans Conzelman Acts of the Apostles Vol 2 The International Critical Commentary (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1998) 734.
[8] Richard Mohr “Gay Basics: Some Questions, Facts, and Values” in Morality in Practice ed James Sterba (Wadsworth).
[9] Ibid.
Markus Bockmuehl calls laws, like Leviticus 18, laws of the “gerim” or “resident alien.”[5] These are laws in the Torah relating to gentiles living in Israel. Bockmuehl gives two broad categories of such laws, “The first extend social welfare rights to the gerim,” such things as a “fair trial,” protection from being overworked and support mechanisms for the disadvantaged, all of which are granted to gerim or resident aliens. The second are, “positive commands applying to the gerim along with the rest of Isreal.”[6] Bockmuehl notes several examples including various laws about idolatry, laws relating to homicide and assault, laws relating to sexual immorality, laws relating to blasphemy and many others. The paradigm of resident alien laws comes chiefly in Leviticus 17-20. These laws were the basis for the distinction Donagan makes between between laws that applied to gentiles and those that applied to Jews only.
I think this distinction explains the aforementioned basis in Acts 15. Conzelman notes that the instructions given to the gentiles by the Apostles Council in Acts 15 appear to be a fairly concise summary of the laws of the resident alien in Leviticus 17-20.[7] Leviticus 17:1-9 contains prohibitions on idolatrous slaughter. Acts 15 instructs the gentiles to, “abstain from food polluted by idols.” Leviticus 17:10-14 contains laws relating to the consumption of blood.” The Apostles instruct the gentiles to abstain “from blood;” Leviticus 17:15-16 contains laws relating to the eating of animals not properly bled. The Apostles instructed the Gentiles to abstain from the meat of strangled animals.” Leviticus 18 condemns various forms of sexual immorality; Acts 15 has the gentiles instructed to “abstain .. from sexual immorality.” This observation also explains the rationale at the end, “The Gentiles were not required to follow the law of Moses, but they were required to follow the requirements God has laid on all people.” This is summarised in the resident alien laws and the Gentiles can be reasonably expected to know these laws because they are found in the law of Moses and “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
This distinction also explains how the stance of the Apostles is consistent with that of Jesus. The Apostles are not abolishing the law or telling others to break them. The Gentiles are instructed to keep those parts of the Mosaic law that apply to them. They are simply recognising that the Mosaic law is not binding on gentiles, something the Mosaic law itself teaches. It also addresses the charge of selectivity made by Mohr.
Mohr asks, “do ministers who cite what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic and dietary laws of Leviticus”[8] and concludes, “those who regularly cite the Bible to condemn an activity like homosexuality do so by reading it selectively.”[9] This simply shows a lack of understanding of both the law and the new testament teaching on it. As I noted, the dietary laws laid down in the Mosaic law command Jews to abstain from various foods, they do not command gentiles to do this. The laws on sexual immorality, however, clearly apply to both Jews and gentiles. If Mohr wants to see selective exegesis, perhaps an examination of contemporary “liberal” Christians who dismiss the laws on homosexuality as non-applicable but oddly consider the laws against incest, bestiality, adultery and human sacrifice to be binding despite the fact that they occur in the exact same context.
[1] Acts 15:5 NIV.
[2] Acts 15:21.
[3] Richard Mouw “Biblical Revelation and Medical Decisions” in Stephen E Lammers and Allen Verhey On Moral Medicine (Grand Rapids MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987) 56.
[4] Alan Donagan The Theory of Morality (Chicago: Chicago University press. 1979) 4-5
[5] Marcus Bockmuehl Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Baker Academic, 2000) 153.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Hans Conzelman Acts of the Apostles Vol 2 The International Critical Commentary (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1998) 734.
[8] Richard Mohr “Gay Basics: Some Questions, Facts, and Values” in Morality in Practice ed James Sterba (Wadsworth).
[9] Ibid.
RELATED POSTS:
Sunday Study: Did Christ Abolish the Old Testament Law? Part I
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Top 10 NZ Christian Blogs - April 09
The MandM Top 10 New Zealand Christian Blogs for April 09, in the category of public discourse, are ranked by identifying Christian blogs then comparing Half Done's April 09 stats with Tumeke's April 09 stats and averaging them to obtain their overall April 09 ranking.
Rank. [previous top 10 rank] Blog MandM (Half Done Tumeke)
Rank. [previous top 10 rank] Blog MandM (Half Done Tumeke)
- [1.] NZ Conservative 14 (6 - 22 )
- [3=] MandM 15 (4 - 26)
- [3=] MacDoctor Moments 17 (16 - 18)
- [2.] Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later (HalfDone) 19.5 (12 - 27)
- [4.] Keeping Stock 28.5 (22 - 35)
- [9.] Say Hello to my Little Friend (Beretta Blog) 40 (33 - 47)
- [5.] Being Frank 43* (40 - ??)
- [8.] The Humanitarian Chronicle 43.5 (29 - 58)
- [6.] The Briefing Room 55.5 (47 - 64)
- [N.] Contra Celsum 60.5 (46 - 75)
* For blogs that only feature on one set of stats a score for the other set is estimated by factoring in the discrepancy between the two sets of stats given their different ranking methods; any blogs this effects are marked with an asterisk. We suggest that any blog not featuring on both should submit their blog to the ranking they are not currently on as it is not always possible for us to simply calculate the score that blog would have obtained.
Note: This list only includes Christian blogs that openly identify as Christian blogs on Tumeke's ranking descriptions. If you think your blog should be on the MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blogs rankings contact Tim Selwyn of Tumeke and ask him to change your blog description to include something identifiably Christian on his rankings. More here.
Note: This list only includes Christian blogs that openly identify as Christian blogs on Tumeke's ranking descriptions. If you think your blog should be on the MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blogs rankings contact Tim Selwyn of Tumeke and ask him to change your blog description to include something identifiably Christian on his rankings. More here.
Christian Blog Ranking Report for April 09 – Tumeke
Here are the top 10 NZ Christian blogs based on Tumeke's NZ blog stats for April; these stats are used in the calculations for the MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blog rankings for April 09:
- MandM 26
- Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later (HalfDone) 32
- Say Hello to my Little Friend (Beretta Blog) 47
Top 10 Tumeke. name of blog Tumeke rank
Of Note:
- A change in the number 1 spot - well done NZ Conservative!
- Lots of position changes throughout the top ten.
- All top 10 are well within the top 100; in fact, Christian News New Zealand, Samuel Dennis, Blessed Economist, True Paradigm, Gavin Knight all made the top 100 despite being just outside the top 10.
Note: This list only includes Christian blogs that openly identify as Christian blogs on Tumeke's ranking descriptions. If you think your blog should be included contact Tim Selwyn of Tumeke and ask him to change your blog description to include something identifiably Christian on his rankings.
Now that Tumeke's April stats are out we will compare them with the HalfDone April report and publish the overall MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blog rankings for April 09 shortly.
Friday, 5 June 2009
David Bain Not Guilty
Well the verdict is in; David Bain didn't do it.
I will accept the ruling of the court but I am now more than ever keen to read the judicial decision which should be available in the next few days from the sites I have mentioned previously.
I will accept the ruling of the court but I am now more than ever keen to read the judicial decision which should be available in the next few days from the sites I have mentioned previously.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
No Tears for George Tiller
Since hearing of the murder of abortionist George Tiller I have been wanting to find some way to express my thoughts on the matter as while I am not sad that Tiller is dead, I do support the prosecution of his killer. Philosopher Ed Feser's post, "Two monsters," where he contrasts the murder of Tiller with the murder of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer describes my thoughts precisely (though mine are a bit more protestant). So rather than try to be as eloquent as Feser, I will simply recommend his blog post and paste some extracts below:
On November 28, 1994, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison by a fellow inmate. Unspeakably heinous though Dahmer’s crimes were, his murder can only be condemned. To be sure, by committing his crimes, Dahmer had forfeited his right to life. By no means can it be said that the injustice he suffered was as grave as what he inflicted upon his victims. But the state alone had the moral authority to execute him, and no private individual can usurp that authority. Vigilantism is itself a grave offense against the moral and social order, and Dahmer’s murderer merited severe punishment.
The recent murder of another notorious serial killer – the late-term abortionist George Tiller – is in most morally relevant respects parallel to the Dahmer case. It is true that Tiller, unlike Dahmer, was not punished by our legal system for his crimes; indeed, most of those crimes, though clearly against the natural moral law, are not against the positive law of either the state or the country in which Tiller resided. That is testimony only to the extreme depravity of contemporary American society, and does not excuse Tiller one iota. Still, as in the Dahmer case, no private citizen has the right to take justice into his own hands, and Tiller’s murderer ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
As in the Dahmer case, though, the victim of this crime was himself an evil man and does not deserve our tears.
Do I seriously mean to suggest that Tiller was as bad as Dahmer? No, because Tiller was almost certainly a more evil man than Dahmer was. ...
Feser lists several compelling reasons for this conclusion finishing with,
... Tiller added to his already unspeakable crimes the grave sin of blasphemy, insofar as he was (we now know) a churchgoer who evidently regarded his obeisance to Moloch as fully compatible with the religion of Jesus Christ. To my knowledge Dahmer never had the temerity to claim that a good Christian could be a cannibal. ...
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
How to Find the Reported Judicial Decision on the David Bain Re-Trial
The blogosphere has featured many posts on many blogs regarding David Bain's guilt or innocence regarding the homicide of his family. We have refused to participate in this speculation and have made our opinions on speculating on the Bain case before the court has ruled clear. I do not intend to break this self-imposed rule here today, you will not hear my opinion as to his guilt or innocence until after the verdict is in and I have read the reported decision (or unreported as the case may be) as despite the twitter updates, the articles, the live streaming and the "in depth" takes on the evidence provided by the media, unless you have sat in the court room and seen and heard only what the jury has had presented to it you cannot know one way or the other what the correct verdict should be.
However, when the case has been decided, I have no moral qualms about examining the court's report on the case and seeing what I think. As a law student it is pretty easy for me to gain a copy of a decision or a report on a case but it is also easy for the public; you just have to know where to look. So, here are three methods of gaining copies of the court's judicial report on the case online to save you having to navigate a law library or even leave your computer:
Judicial Decisions Online publishes all New Zealand Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (post 1 January 2003) and all High Court (post August 2005) decisions, provided they are not subject to limited restrictions, following delivery to the parties but not earlier than three days after the decisions are given. Simply search for the case - Bain, High Court, Christchurch, etc..
Courts of New Zealand publishes judicial decisions of public interest and you can enter your email address and subscribe to be notified when new decisions are added. Visit the site, click on "from the courts" click on "judicial decisions" click on "judicial decisions of public interest" - the subscription box in in the left hand column.
The New Zealand Legal Information Institute is a joint project of the University of Otago Faculty of Law, the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law and the Australasian Legal Information Institute. NZLII is not updated as quickly as the other sites but given the interest in the David Bain trial I would expect the judgement to go up pretty shortly after it becomes available.
RELATED POST:
David Bain 111 Call "I Shot the Prick" - Court Decisions Available Online UPDATED
However, when the case has been decided, I have no moral qualms about examining the court's report on the case and seeing what I think. As a law student it is pretty easy for me to gain a copy of a decision or a report on a case but it is also easy for the public; you just have to know where to look. So, here are three methods of gaining copies of the court's judicial report on the case online to save you having to navigate a law library or even leave your computer:
Judicial Decisions Online publishes all New Zealand Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (post 1 January 2003) and all High Court (post August 2005) decisions, provided they are not subject to limited restrictions, following delivery to the parties but not earlier than three days after the decisions are given. Simply search for the case - Bain, High Court, Christchurch, etc..
Courts of New Zealand publishes judicial decisions of public interest and you can enter your email address and subscribe to be notified when new decisions are added. Visit the site, click on "from the courts" click on "judicial decisions" click on "judicial decisions of public interest" - the subscription box in in the left hand column.
The New Zealand Legal Information Institute is a joint project of the University of Otago Faculty of Law, the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law and the Australasian Legal Information Institute. NZLII is not updated as quickly as the other sites but given the interest in the David Bain trial I would expect the judgement to go up pretty shortly after it becomes available.
RELATED POST:
David Bain 111 Call "I Shot the Prick" - Court Decisions Available Online UPDATED
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Auckland Bloggers Drinks
This Thursday come to the Auckland bloggers drinks:
What: A social gathering of bloggers and bloupies (those who read, comment on and hang out with bloggers)Open to any blogger who happens to be in Auckland. See you there :-)
When: 4 June from 6.30pm (we usually get there at 7 pm)
Where: Galbraiths, 2 Mt Eden Road, Mt Eden, Auckland
Monday, 1 June 2009
Christian Blog Ranking Report for May 09 – HalfDone
Here are the top 10 NZ Christian blogs based on HalfDone's NZ blog stats for May; these stats make up part of the calculations for the MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blog rankings for May 09:
- MandM 5
- Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later (HalfDone) 20
- Say Hello to my Little Friend (Beretta) 33
- Being Frank 43
Top 10. name of blog HalfDone Rank
Of Note:
- Not much change but The Briefing Room came back into the top 10 and there was a little jostling for position.
- Again, all the top 10 Christian blogs were also within the top 50 overall.
- The following Christian blogs all made the top 100 but were outside the top 10 Contra Celsum, Semper Vita, Put up Thy Sword, Sustain:If:Able Kiwi, Developing the Mind of Christ, Kiwi Polemicist, Gavin Knight, Star Studded Super Step, Christian News, True Paradigm - considerably more jostling for position went on there!
As to the rise of the NZ Christian blogs within the secular NZ blogosphere, Scrubone notes:
I have noticed that Christian blogs have risen up these rankings over the last few months. I don’t know why. The data here gathered as objectively as possible and is posted promptly, and can be verified by anyone who wishes to (and corrected by myself). I suspect that the MandM Christian rankings have played a part in encouraging christian blogs to link to each other, and encouraged christians who read one of these blogs to read others, and this has helped push up scores.Note: This list only includes Christian blogs that are openly identified as Christian blogs on HalfDone's ranking list.
When Tumeke's May stats are out we will compare them with HalfDone's and publish the overall MandM top 10 NZ Christian Blog rankings for May 09 later in the month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
