God the Pornographer

[Nick_A]

Between modern sex education and religous fundamentalism making sex something dirty, it amazes me that some kids have not yet gone off the deep end.

'Sexting? surprise: Teens face child porn charges - Today Technology & Money - TODAYshow.com

It is the rage of the day for young kids to take nude pictures of themselves, give them to the opposite sex, and have them posted on the Internet. Of course not knowing how to handle it, the powers that be have said that they are engaging in child pornography. This means that a naked picture of a fourteen year old girl is by definition pornographic. Since this body was designed by God, it makes him a pornographer. As spock would say: fascinating.

 

[Thomas]

Crock logic.

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'

It's not nakedness in itself that's pornographic, it's the cultural perception and usage — and I heard the radio show too.

The reason why kids are posting nude pictures of themselves, via mobile phones and the internet, is pornographic because of the reason behind the posting the pictures, which is reducing the person to a sex object.

The government, investigating who and why people are asking children to post nude pictures, or pictures of themselves engaged in sexual acts, alone or with others, found that the intrinsic beauty of the human person was not the reason, but that the viewer 'gets off' on the image.

Likewise some kids are resorting to this to gaina cceptance or respect(?) among their peers.

As the father of three daughters, I find it horrifying.

That you see God as the one to blame, I find laughable.

Not a very good avert for your psychological insights, is it?

Thomas

 

[c0de]

Crock logic.

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'

It's not nakedness in itself that's pornographic, it's the cultural perception and usage — and I heard the radio show too.

The reason why kids are posting nude pictures of themselves, via mobile phones and the internet, is pornographic because of the reason behind the posting the pictures, which is reducing the person to a sex object.

The government, investigating who and why people are asking children to post nude pictures, or pictures of themselves engaged in sexual acts, alone or with others, found that the intrinsic beauty of the human person was not the reason, but that the viewer 'gets off' on the image.

Likewise some kids are resorting to this to gaina cceptance or respect(?) among their peers.

As the father of three daughters, I find it horrifying.

That you see God as the one to blame, I find laughable.

Not a very good avert for your psychological insights, is it?

Thomas

Don't encourage him.... He is obviously just trying to get attention.
By engaging him in an argument you will just be playing into his trap.



@ Nick

This is just plain offensive and counter-productive.
Frankly I am embarrassed (for you) and appalled.

 

[iBrian]

Since this body was designed by God, it makes him a pornographer. As spock would say: fascinating.

It's a pretty poor statement to make - I don't ever recall any religious literature being filled with woodcuts of underage girls to spice things up?

 

[Nick_A]

You guys are really unbelievble. You are all so caught up in pre-conditioning that you can't see beyond political correctness. All I meant was that for anyone to assume the naked body of a fourteen year old girl was in itself pornographic is also saying that its creator must be a pornographer. It was a simple statement to try and show how foolish the argument is and the only reason something like that is said is because adults don't understand the nature of sexual concerns beyond the superficial and dogmatic so don't have a clue as to how to talk to a kid on this.

But no. You read the statement "God the pornographer" with a closed dogmatic mind and off you go defending God against the evil one. No conception that by describing the incident as such clarifies how backwards we are in dealing with the subject since it is lunacy to call God a pornographer. But that is what we do when we accuse some young naive kid of child pornography since she takes a picture of herself.

Perhaps too much theology and not enough common sense.

 

[c0de]

You guys are really unbelievble. You are all so caught up in pre-conditioning that you can't see beyond political correctness. All I meant was that for anyone to assume the naked body of a fourteen year old girl was in itself pornographic is also saying that its creator must be a pornographer. It was a simple statement to try and show how foolish the argument is and the only reason something like that is said is because adults don't understand the nature of sexual concerns beyond the superficial and dogmatic so don't have a clue as to how to talk to a kid on this.

But no. You read the statement "God the pornographer" with a closed dogmatic mind and off you go defending God against the evil one. No conception that by describing the incident as such clarifies how backwards we are in dealing with the subject since it is lunacy to call God a pornographer. But that is what we do when we accuse some young naive kid of child pornography since she takes a picture of herself.

Perhaps too much theology and not enough common sense.

Nice cover. Now allow me to reveal what actually happened here:

The only reason you posted this provocative (and pointless) diatribe/thread
is to illicit a response. When you got the response you were hoping for, you
countered with your usual pre-designed argument against the "dogmatic" and
"close-minded" mind-set of everyone who doesn't follow your Perennial Traditions.

The only reason you did this was to further the agenda of your own paradigm.
The fact that you are now resorting to such extreme measures all in the hopes
of gathering interest/attention for your viewpoint is a testament to the
waywardness of your creed, and nothing else.

I will not even be surprised if you were doing this half-subconsciously...

 

[Nick_A]

Nice cover. Now allow me to reveal what actually happened here:

The only reason you posted this provocative (and pointless) diatribe/thread
is to illicit a response. When you got the response you were hoping for, you
countered with your usual pre-designed argument against the "dogmatic" and
"close-minded" mind-set of everyone who doesn't follow your Perennial Traditions.

The only reason you did this was to further the agenda of your own paradigm.
The fact that you are now resorting to such extreme measures all in the hopes
of gathering interest/attention for your viewpoint is a testament to the
waywardness of your creed, and nothing else.

I will not even be surprised if you were doing this half-subconsciously...

This is really scary. Shades of what happened to the Jews and Armenians and the creation of scapegoats. "We know what you are." Ver R yor papers?

What is my agenda? I must prove that God is really a svolatch.

The article was posted on MSN and I thought it made for an interesting topic as concerns our nuttiness towards sex and our apparent need to destroy the psych of kids. I forgot I was dealing with the politically correct secular Interfaith accusatory mindset. My mistake.

On that happy note: Mods, please delete the topic. It has become embarrassing and kids suffer enough. We don't have to rub it in with our stupidity.

 

[c0de]

This is really scary. Shades of what happened to the Jews and Armenians and the creation of scapegoats. "We know what you are." Ver R yor papers?

What is my agenda? I must prove that God is really a svolatch.

The article was posted on MSN and I thought it made for an interesting topic as concerns our nuttiness towards sex and our apparent need to destroy the psych of kids. I forgot I was dealing with the politically correct secular Interfaith accusatory mindset. My mistake.

You have no choice but to fall back on this (most predictable)
of defenses. And of course, now I am the oppressor, and you the victim.

On that happy note: Mods, please delete the topic.

I second that. This was a pointless exercise from the start.

 

[iBrian]

Nah, I'll move it back to the public forums, where Nick A can continue his claim that God lusts after underage girls.

And claim that we're fascists for not biting the bait.

 

[Nick_A]

Nah, I'll move it back to the public forums, where Nick A can continue his claim that God lusts after underage girls.

And claim that we're fascists for not biting the bait.

All this means is that our foolish preconceptions regarding sex make it impossible to consider the naked body of a fourteen year old girl as a beautiful thing rather than pornographic. What does it mean for the body to be the temple of the Holy Spirit? We don't know so lack the ability to explain anything to a fourteen year old girl that makes any sense and rather assert that she is ugly and pornographic.

How psychologically sick we've become when we cannot even be capable of explaining the value of the body to a young girl but rather call her pornographic and since God created her body, the logical progression is that he is the pornographer. This is the senslessness we've come to consider as normal.

This cannot be discussed with such a mindset so just stick with condemnation and politically correct platitudes as you shove the kids into the darkness. What a bunch of babies we are. Not my way and surely nothing to be supported!

 

[TealLeaf]

I don't know. Isn't that why God created clothes? Clothes are after all pretty universally human. Even in the hottest most humid environments among the most primitive tribes no one walks around with their wong hanging out.

In all likelihood we have been wearing clothing as long as we have been a species. That is Homo sapien neanderthalensis wore clothing before we had even evolved.

If God indeed made mankind He no doubt had already provided him with swaddling, clothing and a collective sense of morality.

 

[Postmaster]

Well if by that age they haven't realised the cultural norms then they deserve harshness, kids do stuff like that because they are socially unintelligent and trying to gain unhealthy attension, saying its beautiful is deffo not the way to go about it, its disturbing. You can use your argument on teen killers as well.

 

[Thomas]

hi c0de —


Thanks for the heads up — I always give people the benefit of the doubt!

When you got the response you were hoping for, you countered with your usual pre-designed argument against the "dogmatic" and "close-minded" mind-set of everyone who doesn't follow your Perennial Traditions.

On the topic of Perennial Tradition, however, I am a follower, and am in touch with the School ... Comments like this would be given short shrift, and, believe me, they're a lot, lot less forgiving of pseudo intellectualism than we are here. Nick's thinking typifies everything they believe to be wrong with the modern world, and they're quite outspoken about that.

Thomas

 

[Bandit]

How psychologically sick we've become

You do an excellent job speaking for yourself and sticking your foot in your mouth at the same time.

You are the reason that parents have fear when they send their children to school. Following your psychology is why we had to create laws to protect children because they are too small to defend themselves and why your thoughts acted upon get people jail time.

 

[Bandit]

Nice cover. Now allow me to reveal what actually happened here:

The only reason you posted this provocative (and pointless) diatribe/thread
is to illicit a response. When you got the response you were hoping for, you
countered with your usual pre-designed argument against the "dogmatic" and
"close-minded" mind-set of everyone who doesn't follow your Perennial Traditions.

The only reason you did this was to further the agenda of your own paradigm.
The fact that you are now resorting to such extreme measures all in the hopes
of gathering interest/attention for your viewpoint is a testament to the
waywardness of your creed, and nothing else.

I will not even be surprised if you were doing this half-subconsciously...

exactly.
that is what happens in those thoughts. I picked up on it immediately in several other threads which is why I refused to waste my time on it and called it out the very first time I ever talked to them

 

[wil]

I don't know. Isn't that why God created clothes? Clothes are after all pretty universally human. Even in the hottest most humid environments among the most primitive tribes no one walks around with their wong hanging out.

In all likelihood we have been wearing clothing as long as we have been a species. That is Homo sapien neanderthalensis wore clothing before we had even evolved.

If God indeed made mankind He no doubt had already provided him with swaddling, clothing and a collective sense of morality.

I think those wear clothes to keep their wong from getting wacked. Same as women it is to keep dirt out of the nuunuu. It isn't a modesty thing, the folks live in communal nature, sex on the bed next to you, sexes bath together are nude together on a regular basis. Clothing is worn for protection from the elements, not each others eyes.

 

[greymare]

Nick A, you have a problem.

 

[wil]

This cannot be discussed with such a mindset so just stick with condemnation and politically correct platitudes as you shove the kids into the darkness. What a bunch of babies we are. Not my way and surely nothing to be supported!

Tis it not obvious from every thread, every discussion, from Obama's birth certificate to this one that you are simply light years ahead of us on the evolutionary scale.

For what reason would you spend your valuable time slumming with us?

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A, you have a problem.

Yes, it is the recognition of the damage we do to the young through our ignorance.

Sex is such a volitile issue that other then fundamentalist dogma and conditioned psychobabble, only a minority of parents can say anything sensible to the young on sex and the body.

How frightening it must be for a young girl be surrounded by so much nastiness and plastic who attempts to be real in the only way she can which is being naked in front of a camera.

Secularism has so conditioned you that you have no conception of the genuine psychological and spiritual needs of the young that all you can do is call her ugly for trying to be real, exhibiting pornagraphy, by the natural expression of a creation of our Creator making him a pornographer. You have no idea of the objective value of modesty and only seek to devalue it into some sort of secular perversion.

I have never read so much narrow minded babyish nonsense in all my life. I don't care if is directed at me or Christianity but when dealing with the young like this it is only embarassing and repulsive.

 

[earl]

Nick A, you have a problem.

Well for all the grief I've given Nick for his erm "unique" ways of looking at issues over time here, I truly don't think he was thinking along pedophilic lines when he posted this. Though the lad tends to have a typically bad tendency toward foot-in-mouth/keyboard disease. earl