Posted on 06/29/2010 7:27:56 AM PDT by GonzoII
WASHINGTON -- A group of scholars, social scientists, and psychologists are sounding alarm bells that pornography is much more harmful to society than most people think.
The group recently revealed before the National Press Club startling new evidence of how widespread porn has become in the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
--Religion Moderator
The end effect is the culture at large.
I'm quite sure they will be ostracized by their peers because of this.
“You know it when you see it” is the best our legal minds have come up with in 200 years. Definitely not easy!
Cueing libertarians to complain that the Religious Right is trying to take away their nudie books in 5...4...3...
Too much can cause blindness....
One should be judged by their actions, not their thoughts. Thats got to be the bottom line in all of this.
Yet that is the best definition of it, and it’s pretty much universal. But the “clearly define it first” crowd are just using that as a shield to defend their habit. Sad, but that’s how our society is now.
Do you want to stand in front of your Maker reading it?
If my mother is liberal then National Review falls into that category!
I don’t think you do, unless you want to turn over power to someone to do your thinking/feeling for you.
Of course, the viewing of pornography is an action. ;0)
Well it’s sure not like He doesn’t already know, is it?
That should settle it.
“Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.”
I don’t normally post on religious threads because they can go down hill rather quickly. But according to the above logic if someone was a Satan worshipper and posted that it was ok to sacrifice children on an alter, we could not “tear down other’s beliefs.” This may be an extreme example but the principle is the same. There is no moral equivalency when it comes to religion. Jesus said that you can only come to the Father thru Him and if you deny Him before men then He will deny you before God. There are moral absolutes is life and this is one of them. I don’t accept or recognize false religions or false doctrines because to do so is risk eternity in hell. I will always be antagonistic towards those who spout apostacy, blasphemy and heresy. Which is why I don’t get into arguments on religion threads. I will go back to lurker mode now.
Human nature is such that if one is in a room with the door closed, nobody knows what you're doing, right?
Even if you do it in the bathroom by yourself with the door locked ?
I don't think you cannot disagree with someones belief and state the fact in an Ecumenic thread, my understanding is that it's more about the tone of disagreeing.
Care to comment Religion moderator?
I don't think you cannot disagree with someones belief and state the fact in an Ecumenic thread, my understanding is that it's more about the tone of disagreeing.
Care to comment Religion Moderator?
Probably not. :-D
God created those very hotties Himself. If He thinks they are beautiful, who am I to argue?
Porn is like a sugar high. At first is seems rather euphoric with excitement but when the lust subsides it leaves the user with a sense of disgust and ugly. Cheap thrills addictions can result in not so cheap outcomes.
God sees beauty very differently than flesh does.
With a slight variation in our physiology, we would ‘see’ the skelatal structure and such of each other. Echo location animals ‘see’ the inner structures of each other. God ‘sees’ the inward parts not even visible with x-rays ... He sees the soul and spirit of His creation. Outward trappings are deceptively subject to the whim of the culture. ‘Hotties’ may have dead souls and doomed spirits. For Christians, with such we are not supposed to be connected.
God does a lot of things differently. He’s God.
Nevertheless he did imbue the fairer sex with significant physical beauty, and imbued all humans with a keen ability to appreciate it.
God is the greatest artist out there.
Exactly.
God doesn't look at outward beauty. He looks on inner beauty which is what really matters.
Matthew 5:28-29
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL."
God created outward beauty. Of course He sees it.
Of course, you have to put greater import on inner beauty. That does not negate God’s great artistry. It’s as silly to deny it as it is to obsess over it.
After struggling with it for years, the Supreme Court had a better idea: that pornography is determined by community standards. But importantly, these standards are bracketed by national standards of tolerance, on one side, and intolerance on the other side.
And there is considerable wisdom in this decision.
On one side of the argument, even if a community is wholly Muslim, they have no right to demand that all women must wear burqas, because to appear with fewer garments is “pornographic”. The national standard, and the freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights, do not permit such inhibition.
However, alternatively, the US may prohibit such things as our society as a whole find illegitimate and repulsive. Pardon me if I refrain from citing examples.
Yet in the vast gray area between these brackets, the Supreme Court has decided that the people retain the right to decide for themselves what they consider pornographic and what they do not. And while many of us may clench our noses at what people in San Francisco consider to not be pornographic, this decision in their place is in their domain.
Oddly enough, because these standards change over time, many civic leaders are loathe to create precise ground rules for what is locally believed to be pornographic. But they also use this to unfairly oppress adult businesses, who want clear ground rules so that they may closely adhere to the law. And this creates problems all the way around.
If a community decides it does want adult businesses, those businesses should be free to open and conduct business there. If the community does not want such businesses, they should also be free to ban them entirely.
God says not to lust after women. Or men. Pornography does just that. It entices people to look on others as nothing more than attractive beef. And that was not God's purpose.
Sure
Disagreement should be expected on "ecumenical" and "caucus" threads in the Religion Forum.
The difference is that antagonism is not allowed on "ecumenical" labeled threads.
For instance, an "ecumenical" RF thread poster might say that "Kittens and puppies should be sacrificed on an altar to God" and another might respond "Not at all. That would be an abomination to God." The exchange would not be antagonistic.
However, if the respondent said "Your beliefs are bloody pagan obscenities, your 'god' is some B horror movie script writer, you don't belong here or anywhere in a rational society" - that would be antagonistic, not allowed on an "ecumenical" RF thread but acceptible on an "open" RF thread.
Thank you.
But what if their god really is some B horror movie script writer?
A group of scholars working for the Witherspoon Institute, it seems. In other words, with a religious agenda a mile wide, however disguised by the pretence of objectivity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.