God the Pornographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
cOde

Your entire reasoning has been soundly defeated, you just don't want to accept it.

That's what the Pharisees and teachers of the Law said to Jesus and his disciples. They didn't swallow it either regardless of the cross. In spite of what you have been taught and may believe, expressions of righteous indignation and efforts to shout down do not carry any objective weight.
 
p.s. obviously I don`t have kids, and I dread the thought of ever getting a daughter. I will refrain from any further comments.
tis what makes the rubber meet the road.

Alice looks on and exclaims in amazement: "I just cannot believe these characters. I send a naked photo to a friend. A nosy school official finds it on Bob's phone and has a caniption. Before you know it, more officials look at my body and claim it pornographic and tell me I am peddaling child pornography. I'm not pedaling anything and these perverts stole my picture. Now these characters are arguing law. There's got to be some people that understand. They can't be all like this?"

Alice calls Bob on the phone and he tries to cheer her up.
starting to live in your fantasy?
 
Probally, haven't read any of the posts, God's a pornographer because of this girl? Well... No, not really lulz... What about this girls parents they "made" the girl are they too pornographers? Aunty jesse was the one who looked after her and cared for her and fed her so she grew and developed... Is she a pornographer?.... Stop trying to spread responsability to others....



w0o0o0 great beast lulz... I'll have what this guys smoking. What great beast?



I said "A bunch of girls in things is ok" Uhm open your eyes... Cause you getting confused mate.... I've never said that... I hate thongs. Thongs in my opion are not explicit... They are but a bit of material...... Having it wedged up your arse crack for everyone to see still isn't explicit, but it's ugly and nasty in my humble opinion.....

On the scale of things a girl taking photos for "boyfriends" is far more explicit.... And if she is UNDERAGE it is even more disturbing....

one love :D
Lex.

Alex

Probally, haven't read any of the posts, God's a pornographer because of this girl? Well... No, not really lulz... What about this girls parents they "made" the girl are they too pornographers? Aunty jesse was the one who looked after her and cared for her and fed her so she grew and developed... Is she a pornographer?.... Stop trying to spread responsability to others....

Alice's parents did not create Alice. They just were mediums through which the physical body of Alice was created. God must be the pornographer then regardless of how you want to pawn off the responsibility on to her parents.

w0o0o0 great beast lulz... I'll have what this guys smoking. What great beast?

The Great Beast is what you have termed the "norm." Simone Weil describes it in her usual laconic fashion:
The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.


Alice suffers since she has not as of yet become "one" with the Beast but rather still needs to "understand." You support the Beast and I respect Alice's need to understand. A basic diffeence between us.
 
cOde



That's what the Pharisees and teachers of the Law said to Jesus and his disciples.


LOL...

yea, well, you're NOT Jesus (pbuh)...
Your arguments actually have been defeated.


#1: Any real 'Alice' would not agree with you.
#2: Any real teenage boy would consider any naked female body as pornographic
#3: The Human Body's sexual purposes do not reflect negatively on God
because he created the concept of modesty along with sexuality.

Because you defy God by refusing to obey his laws on modesty,
you are looking at nudity as something natural, when it is not.
You accept part of God's creation which suits your desires, and
reject the laws of God which regulate your desire. For you Nick,
desire reigns supreme. And since this is the nature of "the beast"
for all your talk of warning others, you are a slave to it yourself.
 
Why would this 'Alice' chick send her pic to her 'friend', if she did not think the pic was pornographic? Also, why would she call these people who stole her picture perverts if she did not consider her
pic private **because its pornographic** Duh!

If Alice sent pictures to her friend of herself naked then there must be a certain level of trust and loyalty between Alice and her friends that they would not spread her pictures out into wider society without her consent.

Yet, I'd have to agree that even in this relationship of "trust," her pictures would be pornographic if some of her friends are male and they get an arousal from looking at her pictures.

But it isn't impossible even for there to be an Alice who has nothing against her pictures getting out into wider society. This is an Alice who has nothing against the general public seeing her naked. This seems to be the Alice that Nick_A seems to be talking about.

I suppose the problem is that society doesn't share Alice's values. The rest of the people in society don't want pictures of themselves naked available to the general public. Alice's nudity to these people is just rude and offensive, that someone would just expose themselves to such an extent. There is certainly a risk of Alice's pictures becoming child pornography, but apparently, Alice doesn't care. Alice's standard of modesty is far more relaxed than the rest of people in society.

Let's suppose, for example, that you went to a Muslim country. In Muslim countries, anything less than wearing a hijab or burkha is considered to be immodest or even a kind of nakedness. A woman who shows her arms, legs and hair is considered to be trying to be seductive.

I am sure that the reaction that a lightly-clad Western woman would get in a Muslim country would be similar to the reaction you get in Western countries toward child pornography and paedophilia. In a Muslim country, to omit a hijab is to be naked. This isn't to say that Alice's actions don't lead to child pornography and that it's ok.

I'm not talking about the paedophile here. I'm talking about Alice. I wonder if this is what Nick_A wants? The OP wants to talk about the risk of paedophilia. Nick_A just wants to talk about Alice. Alice's standard of modesty is more relaxed even than the mainstream Westerner.

There's not much you can do about this Alice, the Alice who has nothing against her nude pictures getting into the general public's hands. However, I can't say the same for the Alice who entrusts her pictures to a small circle of friends. That Alice is foolish. She shouldn't be sending pictures like that at all if she can't trust her friends.

If we ignore the risk of paedophilia, I think it all comes down to your personal values as well as your personal standard of modesty. The Alice who doesn't care if her pictures get out into wider society is obviously an extreme case.

I can't condemn that Alice if that is how she thinks. Actually I can't condemn any Alice there could ever be, because Alice is Alice. It's a case of moral relativism.

And by the way, this does not make God anything! It makes humans sexual creatures. That's all. God created us as such, but commanded us to be modest with our sexuality. Get it Nick??? Modesty, mean anything to you???

Apart from pictures of naked people, there are other kinds of pornography, pornography that isn't illegal, even in public. Take for example, a man and woman kissing in public, or the Song of Solomon in the Tanakh/Old Testament.

Who doesn't love an erotic romance or love story? Kissing in public is something some people enjoy watching. That is pornography and it isn't against the law. Pornography is the imagination and fantasy of something sexual that you want or want to do yourself. Who doesn't like a wet, sloppy, passionate kiss, exchanging the juices in each other's mouths as a way of exchanging souls?:):eek::D

Maybe while they're doing it the tongues start reaching over to the other side . . . wet and slippery, sliding back and forth, back and forth, as if, all of a sudden, life was a roller coaster ride. They want to keep doing it, as if there's no letting go, until you go weee weee weee . . . all the way home. You find a new universe, a new reality, in the mouth of another person.

How's that for pornography? Do you want me to write a novel about this? Have a think about that tonight before you go to bed. It may be a new source of extraordinary entertainment. It's going to be an adventure of a lifetime. Making love was never so good.

Maybe you'd call it immodesty, and pornography, but it's legal isn't it?

What about M15+ movies with adult themes? That's legal for adults. Sex scenes depicting intercourse, depicting the night of passion you'd like to have for yourself. The funny noises men and women make when they're making love.

This content is out of bounds for little kids. I suppose, obviously, it goes both ways. Not only do you not want people having pictures of kids naked, but you don't want kids watching adults naked and having sex.

It's human nature spilled out into the open for eyes that are too young.
 
LOL...

yea, well, you're NOT Jesus (pbuh)...
Your arguments actually have been defeated.


#1: Any real 'Alice' would not agree with you.
#2: Any real teenage boy would consider any naked female body as pornographic
#3: The Human Body's sexual purposes do not reflect negatively on God
because he created the concept of modesty along with sexuality.

Because you defy God and refuse to obey his laws on modesty,
you are looking at nudity as something natural, when it is not.
You accept part of God's creation which suits your desires, and
reject the laws of God which regulate your desire. For you Nick,
desire is your beast, over which you have no control.

Yes, the naked human body is a natural creation and unless God is a pornographer, must be considered objectively good.

I'll say one thing for you cOde, you make me happy I'm not Islamic where I would have to blindly obey without understanding. I shudder at the thought.
 
Yes, the naked human body is a natural creation and unless God is a pornographer, must be considered objectively good.

I'll say one thing for you cOde, you make me happy I'm not Islamic where I would have to blindly obey without understanding. I shudder at the thought.

insulting islam in that way, does not help your case.
 
Alex



Alice's parents did not create Alice. They just were mediums through which the physical body of Alice was created. God must be the pornographer then regardless of how you want to pawn off the responsibility on to her parents.
you created her -your imaginary child who sends you and others like you imaginary nude child pics.
 
Alice suffers since she has not as of yet become "one" with the Beast but rather still needs to "understand." You support the Beast and I respect Alice's need to understand. A basic diffeence between us.

the difference is you, rocko, advocate child porn. that is the base difference.
 
I'm not talking about the paedophile here. I'm talking about Alice. I wonder if this is what Nick_A wants? The OP wants to talk about the risk of paedophilia. Nick_A just wants to talk about Alice. Alice's standard of modesty is more relaxed even than the mainstream Westerner.
That's close to it Salty. The horror exposed in this thread is that we are willing to try anything to avoid becoming actually able to understand sex and the body so as a parent can become able to offer meaningful experiential guidance to a fourteen year old girl experimenting through sextexting. We are even willing to sell her out to the state so they can prosecute her for child pornography rather than become able to offer meaningful experiential guidance.. We will not admit that we don't understand these things in any sort of meaningful manner and have sacrificed our capacity for understanding to the state to tell our young what to think and do.

Alice wants to understand: she craves understanding. What she gets is condemnation towards her pornographic body, righteous indignation, and slogans. Someone before asked what kind of daughter could she be. I say a damn good one sjnce she is capable of acquiring understanding..
 
Alice's parents did not create Alice. They just were mediums through which the physical body of Alice was created. God must be the pornographer then regardless of how you want to pawn off the responsibility on to her parents.


Not really... The only pornographer here is the girl.... That is the logical conclusion I find... Then again if you have an opinion that there is a god, I still cannot see how that god is to blame...... He created this vessel for good.... Her rear... If for outwards traffic... Not taking photos of for others to have fantasy of inwards traffic... That is the person who is looking at the photos fault, not a gods. And of course the girl is at fault for doing such an act, not god.... If I came and kicked you square in the nuts, should I be done for GBH? Or should god be done for GBH, after all he made my foot.....

You are the one trying to "pawn off responsibility"

Alice suffers since she has not as of yet become "one" with the Beast but rather still needs to "understand." You support the Beast and I respect Alice's need to understand. A basic diffeence between us.

No comment as I really ain't getting into this "great beast" crap lol...
 
So you lack confidence in yourself being able to be a "correct" and responsible parent? :)

No quite the opposite, I have a track record for being a responsible elder. I know if I ever get daughters the chances are that they are going to cry and curse at me around college time, sooner or later. They`d be lucky if they get married by age 35. I might actually try to get them married as fast as possible because of that. But lets get off this subject.


Since Nick_A`s perverted performance actually made me think about what the girl could possibly think after all the incident,

1. COULDN`T THE GIRL SUE THE SCHOOL AND LAW OFFICE AND HER PARENTS FOR PASSING HER NAKED PICTURE AROUND AS EVIDENCE WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ACCUSERS IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY THEREFORE MAKING ANYONE WHO SEES IT A PERVERT INCLUDING THOSE WHO PASSED IT AROUND FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS. Or did the parents and courts make sure that everyone who saw the pictures were female, and even if that were the case therefore making any judgment biased.

2. FOR MEANS TO ACCUSE CHILD ABUSE ACTED UPON AND WITHIN A GROUP OF TEEN AGERS WHO ARE IN FACT YOUNG ADULTS AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH, IN ATTEMPTS TO CAUSE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TOWARDS THE YOUNG ADULT WOMEN AND UPON HER PEERS.

3. FOR TRENCHING AROUND IN A MINORS PRIVACY WHO HAPPENS TO BE A HUMAN BEING WITH THE SAME RIGHTS.

4. PIRACY OF ONE`S NAKED PICTURE CLAIMING THAT IT IS OFFICIAL BUSINESS.


That`s what could happen if the girl was over 18, so I think the parents and the school are technically going on a power trip.

I`d sue the school if it was public, and the courts for wasting tax dollars for petty crimes that don`t even begin to meet the criterias of a misdemeanor.

Use tax dollars for a skinny dipping on overdrive, eh!? Put the judge and the parents in jail.

TK
 
TK

Since Nick_A`s perverted performance actually made me think about what the girl could possibly think after all the incident,

Hey if my perverted performance actually made you question the glorifiction of "normalcy," then something worthwhile has happened along the way.
 
Salty + Nick



@ Salty

You are missing the real point Nick is trying to make.
His aim has nothing to do with any 'alice'.. He is trying to show
how religious edicts and laws of God are pointless. He thinks that
he has a better moral code to offer, and this entire exercise is a
thinly veiled attempt for that purpose.

He pretends like he is humble follower of Christ, when all the
while, his real allegiance is to his own "beast"... However, he is so
incredibly ineffective, that all of his efforts usually come to naught,
and that is why he is a non-factor. In fact, he actually serves to
do more damage to his creed, then his opponents could ever do.

Weil, Socrates and Plato would roll in their graves if they know
that someone like Nick is representing them in public. The fact
that he associates himself with Jesus PBUH... I mean, seriously...




@ Nick

I'll say one thing for you cOde, you make me happy I'm not Islamic where I would have to blindly obey without understanding. I shudder at the thought.

For you Jesus PBUH was no different then Socrates.
So in my books, your not technically Christian...

btw, obedience is a pre-requisite of all the Abrahamic faiths...
That is what "faith" is... you can't have "faith" in something you
can see... hence the blindness of it. (that is why its called "faith")

sigh... you have become so boring Nick...
 
That's close to it Salty. The horror exposed in this thread is that we are willing to try anything to avoid becoming actually able to understand sex and the body so as a parent can become able to offer meaningful experiential guidance to a fourteen year old girl experimenting through sextexting. We are even willing to sell her out to the state so they can prosecute her for child pornography rather than become able to offer meaningful experiential guidance.. We will not admit that we don't understand these things in any sort of meaningful manner and have sacrificed our capacity for understanding to the state to tell our young what to think and do.

Alice wants to understand: she craves understanding. What she gets is condemnation towards her pornographic body, righteous indignation, and slogans. Someone before asked what kind of daughter could she be. I say a damn good one sjnce she is capable of acquiring understanding..

you mean a good one since she sends nude pics to young classmates that rock spiders can get ahold of.
 
TK



Hey if my perverted performance actually made you question the glorifiction of "normalcy," then something worthwhile has happened along the way.


Well......... you offended plenty of people on the way.

My reaction would have been the same for something like this at anytime, one request from the girl who might be a relative and noone would ever hear about it again.


My suggestion to you is that you might wanna keep God`s dirty laundry out of a Christian forum.. As I think I said to you before, even the most beautiful girls in the world actually use the bathroom, but emphasis on that is unwanted. But you got your kicks..


TK
 
I`d sue the school if it was public, and the courts for wasting tax dollars for petty crimes that don`t even begin to meet the criterias of a misdemeanor.



TK

the school has nothing to do with it. passing nude pics of children is more than a misdemeanor.
 
the school has nothing to do with it. passing nude pics of children is more than a misdemeanor.

Yes, then the judge and officials wouldn`t be getting of the hook that easy for making a big deal out of naked teen agers would they?

Are you implying that I support passing around nude pics of infants? get off my back please, I`d punch someone in the face if I was the victim and not stop until it stops.

Lets keep the subject to young adults. unlike the judge and the parents in this small town who have nothing better to do.


TK
 
cOde

You are missing the real point Nick is trying to make.
His aim has nothing to do with any 'alice'.. He is trying to show
how religious edicts and laws of God are pointless. He thinks that
he has a better moral code to offer, and this entire exercise is a
thinly veiled attempt for that purpose.

As usual, you're missing the point. The essence of religion is extremely important. Preventing our self destruction may indeed depend on our ability to "understand" it and acquire the inner morality to further it.. At the exoteric level of the Beast, it becomes perverted. The efforts to attain inner morality our denied through our attachments to external life. Our God given potential to reflect inner morality becomes perverted into dictates of external morality that eventually turn into their opposite producing events like the Spanish Inquisition, feeding Christians to the lions, and flying planes into buildings.

Stressing the need to awaken is not a moral dictate but the beginning of what allows for the experience of inner morality which is a threat to your dependence on blind external control.

Christian faith is not a blind faith in something but an awakened faith that leads to the faith OF Christ rather than restricted to a blind belief IN Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top