Freedom for Sinners

reply to post by anonamousantichrist


Yeah, good thread I laugh too, but I cry as well - and I hope you have the sensitivity to cry as well.

Originally posted by miriam0566
really... its not a dig. your statements are not conducive with a person that has any experience with desire. for example...

On the contrary, I have a bit of internet addiction whereas it relates to casual games. This can be quite harmful and detrimental and it is something I struggle with regularly. While this is not equatably the same, I recognize that sloth is detrimental to my development as well as health.

its like saying

-lighting a match starts a fire.
-feeding the fire wood makes the fire bigger
BUT, that fire is NOT the cause of the house burning down.

Wait, are you now making the argument that the hundred million adult men who view pictures of naked women and naked women having sex are going to become rapists and that all pornography should be illegal?

what? i mean we are long past "different opinion". what you are claiming is just absurd. and i hope that by no means you think that i am taking the opposite polar degree. i agree that pornography doesnt mean you WILL go out and rape or molest, but to ignore the connection doesnt make sense. its illogical.

I am claiming that if people are given options, normal people would opt to choose the least harmful option; this is psychologically valid as a claim. Generally people will not seek to go out of their way to harm another unless there is a pre-existing psychological issue which results in forms of Sociopathy.

The connection you believe there is is tenuous;

A=B
B=C
Therefore
A=C

The above is a valid Logical conclusion. You are making a correlation that pornography will encourage someone to take advantage of a situation if they are presented with it; The statistical ownership of pornography in general tends to show that the majority of men or women don't take advantage of advantageous situations.

If your viewpoint were accurate, I as well as a majority of other people probably would've raped someone twelve times over by now. Yes, I own pornography. No, I don't think it is a big deal. As far as I'm aware I haven't gone out and raped anyone in the almost two decades since I've looked at naked people.

a person does not rape, molest, or kill unless there is a strong desire there before he does it, and what you basically saying is, pornography does NOTHING to put that desire there.... correction, you contradict yourself, because before you stated that porn fans the lust, but somehow you separate lust from desire.

You are making the argument the desire either comes from or is nurtured by the pornography; the problem is you don't recognize that there was a pre-existing problem that inclined this person towards the behavior. Just because some people commit murder with a fork doesn't mean you should make forks illegal.

first off, child porn IS different BECAUSE it has a victim. in my case, pictures were taken while i was abused. so if rape is wrong, then why is pictures of the rape ok?

Aaah, it comes out. It's different because you were personally affected by it as a child. Sorry, now I must take everything you say with a grain of salt; you have an emotional bias on the subject which is perfectly understandable, but a bias nonetheless. The same is true of rape victims having a reasonable discussion about rape.

To answer your question, however... What about child porn taken at nude beaches with the party not having sex? What of Animated child pornography? What of pornography of adult sex models age regressed to pre-pubescence having sex with an adult? What of artistic depictions of nude children? What of photographically identical CGI renderings of an indistinguishable from real child having sex with an adult?

Why is a picture of the rape okay... hmm, well, a picture of an act that was harmful is generally considered to be bad or illegal. If it is a erotic rape/snuff story that is different than someone actually being harmed. There *are* women who get off on reading rape stories, pretending rape fantasies and enjoying the thought of the loss of control; but I assure you these same women don't actually want to be raped and don't go out seeking to be raped. The same is true for men.

manga, and this guys apparent fetish is different (there is no victim) but is also the same (same desires and lusts). you choose to look at the harm but you ignore the foundation, the cause of the problem.

No. I would argue that the lusts are different. I would also argue that you are incapable of perceiving the difference due to emotional bias. What a normal person gets out of pornography is *Not* the same thing as what a person with a psychological control issue gets from it. Some of us go gambling, and a few of those people will sell their entire lives and lose it all on a bet... that doesn't make the latter people normal and they should never be considered in such arguments. We don't make rules, laws or even decisions based upon the narrow margin of humans who are malfunctioning. I do not carry a knife or gun with me at all times because I'm afraid of being raped or mugged, even if I do live in an unconcealed carry state.

you are basically preaching that fires dont burn houses (porn doesnt fuel desires) based solely on the fact that you LIKE to set fires (you want freedom to sin). doesnt sound at all logical to me.

No, I am preaching that fire does burn houses but an arsonist is not always involved. Sometimes a fire is just a fire.

logic is not based on consensus. at least it shouldnt be. stop using studies as a crutch and actually think about what you are saying.

I have thought long and hard about a lot of these subjects, well before I came across studies which clarified my position on things. My position has also changed over the years, largely due to the consideration of new information. It is why I enjoy learning more about any topic, because it reveals more of reality to me. That being said, all studies are not equal. Who conducts the study, what the cross-section is as well as if the conditions imply an innate bias to the study (Such as all people in the study are in JAIL) are things to consider.

To reiterate the original topic of the thread...

People should be allowed to sin. They own their soul, they should make the decisions of what to do with it... they should not have to suffer being preached at, antagonized, brutalized, ostracized, humiliated, shamed, alienated, vilified or at any point treated as human garbage. No matter what their sin is.

Humanity was given the capacity of reason and compassion, but also we were given the vices of intolerance and hatred. Our emotions are what we rely upon in order to feel compassion, but a greater majority of the time they lead us to exclusionary practices and the above happens.

I forgive all people who have sinned. This is different from condoning their every act. While I wish no harm on any other human being, I recognize that harm happens and worse; most people cannot perceive the ephemeral meaninglessness of physical existence and transcend beyond things that happen to their bodies.

The soul is immortal, the body merely a vessel... all sins committed against a vessel do nothing to the soul unless we allow it. If we wish to be tainted, corrupted, broken, twisted, deviated or anything else.... it is ultimately our decision what we decide to internalize in our lives.

Unfortunately, our culture is one of victimization and feeds deeply into the need to feel violated, victimized and scarred for life due to our experiences.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by TheColdDragon]

reply to post by TheColdDragon

Aaah, it comes out. It's different because you were personally affected by it as a child. Sorry, now I must take everything you say with a grain of salt; you have an emotional bias on the subject which is perfectly understandable, but a bias nonetheless. The same is true of rape victims having a reasonable discussion about rape.

You are a cold heartless person, and one day God's justice will visit you.

Miriam don't waste your time with this guy.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Would you be selected to a jury for the trial of a man accused of drunk driving, if you had in your past been the victim of a drunk driver? Absolutely not.

That is what is being said here. No need to jump into panic mode. Remember who your dealing with. Very cold indeed I agree, but necessary to maintain the current heading.

Remember this.

Proverbs 15:3 3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Miriam I know you know this.

Romans 8:28 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It is not a waste of time to offer help.

Proverbs 14:22 22 Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good.

Very interesting OP and I agree with where you are coming from

In The Gospel of John 12: Verse 47 Jesus said

And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him;; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

Having said that you need to take some of your own advise and allow Christians to be Christians equally as you demand sinners the right to sin. Most Christian mean well, and they are only following the bibles advise that a wise man seeks to save souls.

I suggest you examine where this "fear" is coming from, it certainly can not be directed at anything out side of yourself.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I bestow no more or less sympathy on a person for the things done to them than I would a regular person whose experiences are disparate but equivalent in different fields.

However, as another poster noted, having an experience related to a crime is grounds for dismissal of your opinions because of the likelihood of bias in your views. This is true in the court of law, and for a reason. People emotionally invested in an outcome are unlikely to be reliable witnesses.

So I hold the same in arguments or debates... if you have an obvious emotional bias and cannot mitigate it (If the subject being argued has emotional arguments used and claimed as valid arguments), your opinion is worth little on the matter at hand. You cannot distance yourself from your experiences and discuss it rationally it means you cannot have a rational discussion about the topic and you should recuse yourself of your participation.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Remember I said it was hatred at its core?

WASHINGTON (CBS/AP) More disturbing news has come out today on the man charged with shooting and killing a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum. The FBI has found child pornography on his computer, according to court documents.

www.cbsnews.com...


Oh this is just one case and that can't be used as an example of what others are going to do. Yeah right.

reply to post by jackflap


Correlation does not equal causation. A hindu could rob a bank, it does not mean all Hindu's are bank robbers.

There are people who are criminal in behavior in every social structure known to man, and to each sub-structure of that society. There are gay people that commit crimes, there are Christians that commit crimes. Their status as a person is not evidence of their criminality.

Having an attraction towards children does not mean one is predisposed towards criminality, although many people think this is the case because the only people they know with such predilictions are in jail (Creating a false correlation of Paedophiles always being criminals).

If somehow you think this is sound reasoning, you have a critical failure in your reasoning and logic. If, on the other hand, you are trying to appeal to emotional levels by drawing these correlations to eliminate sympathy for other human beings who you believe are evil... then I refer you to the Salem Witch Trials, the Cathars of Southern France and anyone in the history of the world who bore offensive practices to the common memeology of the times.

Nowadays most of us believe that Black people are people, that Women can be succesful and intelligent without using sorcery, and that having premarital sex doesn't preclude damnation to hell.

In the past, Black people were cattle, Women who said their piece and didn't know their place were possessed of the devil and a woman who was not a Virgin on her wedding night was a common whore and should be stoned to death.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Are you suggesting then that we should view people who are entertained by this sort of thing as normal? That they are no different then someone who likes to, for example, play video games? That we should not be concerned with the mental stability of someone who wants to have sex with children?

reply to post by jackflap


Yes.

Provided that they do no harm, why should it be YOUR business? Who are you to determine who is acceptable and who is not? Shall you then appoint yourself greater than other men and women, somehow worthy of the right to judge them and their sins?

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Good point. I guess it would seem a bit haughty to consider myself better then someone else. But I don't. What we need is a way to find out if these desires would lead the individual to carry out such an act given the chance.

Now lets say someone has a desire to jump off the rooftop of a building and splatter themself on the street below. Would that individual find solace in watching videos and movies that portray the very thing that the individual desires? Or would that individual be more inclined to carry out the act with the influence the individual recieved from "innocent" stimulus?

We are back to square one, no?

As far as judging someones sins. I would not. If you read my earlier posts I already said one sin is the same as the other. I cannot judge. I am a sinner as well. I can try to help my fellow man by pointing out that what they are into is not well with their soul or God.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by jackflap]