God the Pornagrapher II

[Nick_A]

How old are your children Nick? Have you discussed this with them? Have you shown them the stories of women that committed suicide or lost careers or opportunities due to these pix being circulated?

I have. And also had my son and daughter sit and watch catch a predator with me. I could be 100% wrong in my parenting skills. As you say you think I am compelling my daughter to send nude pix of herself. I've asked her about this the last time you brought it up. She thinks you are a nut.

I apologize for what may be perceived as a personal attack, I am simply quoting a 15 year old girl on this matter. Nick, please tell me what your daughter thinks about this disscussion which you have such expertise.

If you explained me to me I'd believe I'm a nut too so I applaud your daughter.

You are instructing by secular standards which are true but just limited. Of coure young girls must be aware of predators. But inner morality refers to our inner life which is not societal but rather our psychology.

That is why appreciating what is meant by the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit is hard to understand. Its meaning is psychological rather than secular.

Understanding sex, sex, energy, and the body has a psychological meaning to me that is now more important than secular considerations as important as they are. I don't like to bring daughters into this but I will say that she's experienced inner morality and its worth. Consequently she has no need for sexting. She's experienced somthing of far greater value that respecting the body as the Temple of the Holy spirit helps to to maintain and develop.

 

[Francis king]

charlie leadbetter!!!

 

[wil]

If you explained me to me I'd believe I'm a nut too so I applaud your daughter.

She read your words of the last thread. They stand alone.

I don't like to bring daughters into this but I will say that she's experienced inner morality and its worth. Consequently she has no need for sexting. She's experienced somthing of far greater value that respecting the body as the Temple of the Holy spirit helps to to maintain and develop.

For some reason I'm sure you don't want to bring daughters into this. I will let my daughter read this thread as well. Will you? Please to have your daughter respond with her comments regarding the discussion and I will have mine as well.

 

[Nick_A]

She read your words of the last thread. They stand alone. For some reason I'm sure you don't want to bring daughters into this. I will let my daughter read this thread as well. Will you? Please to have your daughter respond with her comments regarding the discussion and I will have mine as well.

She's not here. She's married. But if your daughter wants to question me, by all means invite her.

 

[iBrian]

No grey, that thread wasn't about whether child porn is OK. It was about the idea that a child's body is now considered pornographic by definition so must be hidden as evil.

Not at all - you made child porn the focus of the thread which was sensationalist from the beginning.

The discussions have never been about whether a developing person's body is pornography or not - the personal body obviously isn't - but there are clear laws on the distribution of of images and video relating to underage girls, and that was the issue.

The purpose of such laws being, of course, to help prevent the sexual exploitation of children.

Pornography isn't about the subject, it's always been about the distibution of the subject. Making love to someone is not pornographic - distributing a video of it falls under that category.

 

[Nick_A]

God the Pornographer III

The clocks move ahead, spring fever is in the air, and the politically correct thought police are getting their second wind..

Brian wrote:

Not at all - you made child porn the focus of the thread which was sensationalist from the beginning.

The discussions have never been about whether a developing person's body is pornography or not - the personal body obviously isn't - but there are clear laws on the distribution of of images and video relating to underage girls, and that was the issue.

The purpose of such laws being, of course, to help prevent the sexual exploitation of children.

Pornography isn't about the subject, it's always been about the distibution of the subject. Making love to someone is not pornographic - distributing a video of it falls under that category.

Brina is expressing social consideration but what the thread is about is spiritual psychology. There is no psychological understanding since it has been proven that no one here has demonstrated any knowledge as to how to relate to a fourteen year old girl in a meaningful way about sex, sex energy, and her body. This is the psychological dimension. Without it, any meaningful psychology is denied. The thought police are concerned with social dictates but incapable of answering a young person's question as why a photo of their body is considered pornographic. So they prefer righteous indignation and police intervention. A kid asks: Why should the quality of her body be defined by what weirdos do? The kid has a good question. It has been proven no one knows how to answer such a question so we let the thought police censor it. This is good for maintaining calm political correctness but also good for producing more dead kids through the loss of any psychological understanding. Losing a few kids is apparently worth the sacrifice for maintaining the calm political correctness normal for sacrificng our ability for impartial reason as to questions similar to: "Who am I?"

Juan of course outdoes himself in this classic expression of righteous indignation.

The logic you are using is convoluted at best. Even if one wishes to disregard the passage in Isaiah that says G-d created evil *too,* it still remains that what you and others call evil exists in the world. G-d created the world, and part of the world is evil, so G-d created evil, so evil must be good. *NOT!* It totally misses the point that evil is the trial and separation, to be avoided at cost............

I'm not usually this blunt, but this subject bristles more than a few feathers. In the interest of keeping the peace, I am locking this thread.

Such an obvious lack of "feelgoodism" simply cannot be tolerated. Good is good and evil is evil so that is that. It is disruptive to even question such things. How could God be a pornographer?

Of course with a little effort one can see it gets much worse. How could Shiva in Hinduism be both creator and destroyer? This means Shiva does politically incorrect things. Shiva must watch Oprah more and get with it.

To make matters still worse it opens up the can of worms as to what evil actually is. To do that requires a karmic distinction between sociological goals and psychological potentials. Much too disruptive!

Talk about a can of worms! Political correctness could never tolerate it. Either a God conception or the Great Beast tells you what to do so what does psychology have to do with it? Just do it. Psychology only enters when you question their dictates because you are obviously disturbed. It is too disruptive to think otherwise and political correctness doesn't tolerate being disrupted so just censor it and be rid of it.


The great questions as to the relationship between the objective and subjective natures of good and evil have been thoroughly denied through political correctness. It is simply to disruptive to consider why God could allow for the human condition that supports porn and how personal psychology relates to it through specific example. So it remains condemned and censored as disruptive when it gets too specific as with this question of child porn..

I don't know about you dear reader, but I surely have no intent to support legitimate questions, the ignorance of which leads to suicides amongst the young, being censored because they are disruptive. If they weren't disruptive, they wouldn't be getting to the heart of the matter and perhaps revealing why we are unable to relate to a young girl in a meaningful non dogmatic fashion as to sex, sex energy, and their body, I cannot be that cruel. I will let the thought police bask in politically correct ignorance and righteous indignation. I'll stick with Obama's birth certificate and give righteous indignation its victory here. What does a few more dead kids matter as long as the calm of political correctness and one liners of self justification are preserved.

 

[c0de]

Re: God the Pornographer III

hmmm.. now this gives me an idea!!

*puts on oldskool hat*

Place your bets ladies and gents!
This thread will be closed in:

A) 5 hours - 2:1 odds
B) 10 hours - 3:1 odds
C) 15 hours - 5:1 odds

(all bets are final!)

----------------------------------------------


@ Nick

A kid asks: Why should the quality of her body be defined by what weirdos do? The kid has a good question. It has been proven no one knows how to answer such a question so we let the thought police censor it.

Correction: you don't know the answer to that question.

 

[earl]

Re: God the Pornographer III

Nick, when a nude pic is sent out with the intent to titilate, it's porn. No intent to spiritually enlighten anything in those situations. Of course, it doesn't surprise me, Nick, that even in this thread you try to bring up Obama's birth certificate. Sheesh, you're a trip. earl

 

[seattlegal]

Re: God the Pornographer III

hmmm.. now this gives me an idea!!

*puts on oldskool hat*

Place your bets ladies and gents!
This thread will be closed in:

A) 5 hours - 2:1 odds
B) 10 hours - 3:1 odds
C) 15 hours - 5:1 odds

(all bets are final!)

It'll likely be closed before any rebuttals can be made to the points presented in the other threads that are now closed, or before any rebuttals to any points made in this thread can be made.

 

[earl]

Re: God the Pornographer III

It'll likely be closed before any rebuttals can be made to the points presented in the other threads that are now closed, or before any rebuttals to any points made in this thread can be made.

Do you want 64 pages of a "God the Pornographer" thread because old Nick doesn't know when to stop? earl

 

[Paladin]

Re: God the Pornographer III

Whats large, grey, wrinkled, and doesn't matter very much?

 

[earl]

Re: God the Pornographer III

Whats large, grey, wrinkled, and doesn't matter very much?

Oh, I know that one-me. No, wait, I'm not that large of a person. earl

 

[c0de]

Re: God the Pornographer III

It'll likely be closed before any rebuttals can be made to the points presented in the other threads that are now closed, or before any rebuttals to any points made in this thread can be made.

I know my thread got closed just as I was posting a response and
I was like "nooooo!!!!" I was off by like 2 seconds!

 

[Paladin]

Re: God the Pornographer III

Oh, I know that one-me. No, wait, I'm not that large of a person. earl

Nope, it's an irrelephant!

 

[wil]

She's not here. She's married. But if your daughter wants to question me, by all means invite her.

Yeah, right, she's read your words and has no interest in more. So did you send your daughter the link to this page to ascertain her reaction as far as her children?

 

[iBrian]

Re: God the Pornographer III

Brina is expressing social consideration but what the thread is about is spiritual psychology. There is no psychological understanding since it has been proven that no one here has demonstrated any knowledge as to how to relate to a fourteen year old girl in a meaningful way about sex, sex energy, and her body. This is the psychological dimension. Without it, any meaningful psychology is denied. The thought police are concerned with social dictates but incapable of answering a young person's question as why a photo of their body is considered pornographic. So they prefer righteous indignation and police intervention. [/quote]

It's never been about this at all, and if this was your intention, you were extremely clumsy about it.

The bottom line is that distributing images of naked under-age girls is likely to be regarded by the law as falling under pornography laws, and however this relates to the development of the individual, the law attempts to also protect that individual.

If you want a thread discussing psychological dimensions without hiding your meaning and purpose behind emotive sensationalism, please do feel free to do so - but in the meantime, this thread is being closed, and please stop starting threads called "God the Pornographer" - which in case you hadn't noticed is an entirely sensationalist title which sets up a sensationalist discussion.