Should Pornography Be Banned?

[Charles]

Yes, I do, and for good reason. The sound bite you quoted gives reasonable cause for suspicion. But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?

Does this mean that anytime you post from Breitbart or whatever source we can simply claim that we find it suspicious for a good reason and leave it up to you to defend the methodology and conclusions by pointing to the fact that it is your source?

[Mountain Man]

Does this mean that anytime you post from Breitbart or whatever source we can simply claim that we find it suspicious for a good reason and leave it up to you to defend the methodology and conclusions by pointing to the fact that it is your source?

I'll leave it up to you to figure out why the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" is apropos here.

[Charles]

I'll leave it up to you to figure out why the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" is apropos here.

I will leave it up to the readers to conclude whether the fact that you are not answering strengthens or weakens your point. It appears you are going for double standards and go for some "I'll leave it up to you...." explanation when no real explanation can be given.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, what the heck, I'll give you a hint: Tass's source is inaccessible to a person with casual interest, and I have my doubts he's even read the source in question. Do some internet searching and you'll figure it out. Maybe.

Edit: Hmmm... and if the review I found on Amazon is accurate, the author ignorantly claims that the Bible does not prohibit incest, which gives me even more reason to doubt the validity of the source's other claims.

[Charles]

Oh, what the heck, I'll give you a hint: Tass's source is inaccessible to a person with casual interest, and I have my doubts he's even read the source in question. Do some internet searching and you'll figure it out. Maybe.

Inaccessible? It took me a few searches to find it available for §3.00: https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Abuse-...s+and+Churches

Why do you doubt Tassman has read the source? If you think so then why don't you tell us why you think so?

But again, weak as your points are, they do nothing to answer the question I asked you. You originally wrote: "Yes, I do, and for good reason. The sound bite you quoted gives reasonable cause for suspicion. But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?" I then wrote: "Does this mean that anytime you post from Breitbart or whatever source we can simply claim that we find it suspicious for a good reason and leave it up to you to defend the methodology and conclusions by pointing to the fact that it is your source?"

Nowhere did you mention the source being inaccessible (which once again it is not) as the reason why he should defend its methodology and conclusions. Your reason was: "But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions." So if the reason was that it was inaccessible it would have been a very good idea to give that reason and not another reason.

[Charles]

Edit: Hmmm... and if the review I found on Amazon is accurate, the author ignorantly claims that the Bible does not prohibit incest, which gives me even more reason to doubt the validity of the source's other claims.

Interestingly enough some pages of this source that you wrongly claim is anaccessible are actually available for everyone to read online (click on the cover of the book): https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Abuse-...s+and+Churches

Here is some of what it says on the issue you pointed to:

Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. Leviticus passages which speak to sexual prohibitions for the Hebrews refer to sexual contact between a man and a female considered the property of another man. Many relationships are identified as inappropriate for sexual relations - son and mother, nephew and aunt, grandfather and granddaughter, brother and sister and so on.

[Mountain Man]

Inaccessible? It took me a few searches to find it available for §3.00: https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Abuse-...s+and+Churches

Why do you doubt Tassman has read the source? If you think so then why don't you tell us why you think so?

But again, weak as your points are, they do nothing to answer the question I asked you. You originally wrote: "Yes, I do, and for good reason. The sound bite you quoted gives reasonable cause for suspicion. But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?" I then wrote: "Does this mean that anytime you post from Breitbart or whatever source we can simply claim that we find it suspicious for a good reason and leave it up to you to defend the methodology and conclusions by pointing to the fact that it is your source?"

Nowhere did you mention the source being inaccessible (which once again it is not) as the reason why he should defend its methodology and conclusions. Your reason was: "But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions." So if the reason was that it was inaccessible it would have been a very good idea to give that reason and not another reason.

I said that it's "inaccessible to a person with casual interest". In other words, it's not something you can lookup with a simple internet search. And I doubt that Tass read the book because, first of all, sexual abuse in Christian homes doesn't seem like a topic he would spend money to read about; and secondly, the only thing he cited was a popular "pull quote" that has been tossed around by anti-Christians all across the internet rather anything substantive that would support the claim.

[Charles]

I said that it's "inaccessible to a person with casual interest". In other words, it's not something you can lookup with a simple internet search. And I doubt that Tass read the book because, first of all, sexual abuse in Christian homes doesn't seem like a topic he would spend money to read about; and secondly, the only thing he cited was a popular "pull quote" that has been tossed around by anti-Christians all across the internet rather anything substantive that would support the claim.

I would guess a person with casual interest could find §3.00.

You must know Tassman pretty well if you know what books he would want to buy or not want to buy. I think you need some substance to back up your doubt.

And then you forgot this part of my post:

But again, weak as your points are, they do nothing to answer the question I asked you. You originally wrote: "Yes, I do, and for good reason. The sound bite you quoted gives reasonable cause for suspicion. But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?" I then wrote: "Does this mean that anytime you post from Breitbart or whatever source we can simply claim that we find it suspicious for a good reason and leave it up to you to defend the methodology and conclusions by pointing to the fact that it is your source?"

Nowhere did you mention the source being inaccessible (which once again it is not) as the reason why he should defend its methodology and conclusions. Your reason was: "But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions." So if the reason was that it was inaccessible it would have been a very good idea to give that reason and not another reason.

[Mountain Man]

Interestingly enough some pages of this source that you wrongly claim is anaccessible are actually available for everyone to read online (click on the cover of the book): https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Abuse-...s+and+Churches

Here is some of what it says on the issue you pointed to:

Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. Leviticus passages which speak to sexual prohibitions for the Hebrews refer to sexual contact between a man and a female considered the property of another man. Many relationships are identified as inappropriate for sexual relations - son and mother, nephew and aunt, grandfather and granddaughter, brother and sister and so on.

Thank you for proving my point. Her basic reading comprehension and exegesis is terrible. There's no way any reasonable person can read Leviticus 18:6-7 and think that sex with ones own child is permissible:

"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations; Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."

If the author thinks that sexual abuse happens in Christian homes because the Bible does not say enough against it then she's not worth taking seriously.

[Charles]

Thank you for proving my point. Her basic reading comprehension and exegesis is terrible. There's no way any reasonable person can read Leviticus 18:6-7 and think that sex with ones own child is permissible:

"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations; Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."

If the author thinks that sexual abuse happens in Christian homes because the Bible does not say enough against it then she's not worth taking seriously.

I am a little in doubt whose point you are proving. What the author claimed was: "Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers." I actually agree that the text you point to seems to forbid it. But in what way would you argue that it is specific? Now, you may ask why it needs to be so and argue that it is a kind of all-inclusive statement. However if you read it in context that interpretation would seem to question the need for the verses that follow:

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

King James, Leveticus chapter 18

So the closest we get is: "The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." But that is the son to father relation and not the father to son relation. Could you point to a specific biblical reference which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. If you think what you pointed to was specific enough, then why was it not specific enough to cover all the other situations described?

[One Bad Pig]

I am a little in doubt whose point you are proving. What the author claimed was: "Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers." I actually agree that the text you point to seems to forbid it. But in what way would you argue that it is specific? Now, you may ask why it needs to be so and argue that it is a kind of all-inclusive statement. However if you read it in context that interpretation would seem to question the need for the verses that follow:



So the closest we get is: "The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." But that is the son to father relation and not the father to son relation. Could you point to a specific biblical reference which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. If you think what you pointed to was specific enough, then why was it not specific enough to cover all the other situations described?

You are abundantly proving that you are adept at deliberately missing the forest for the trees. You are also proving your absolute ignorance of Jewish reading of such laws; they have rather consistently read the laws in as broad a manner as possible in order to avoid even potentially infringing them.

[One Bad Pig]

There may be something to it: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...ell-barna.html

However, the level of self admitted porn use seems to be significantly lower among clergy than among the population at large.

I can see where clergy might be more reticent about disclosing porn use than the population at large, too.

[Mountain Man]

I am a little in doubt whose point you are proving. What the author claimed was: "Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers." I actually agree that the text you point to seems to forbid it. But in what way would you argue that it is specific? Now, you may ask why it needs to be so and argue that it is a kind of all-inclusive statement. However if you read it in context that interpretation would seem to question the need for the verses that follow:



So the closest we get is: "The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." But that is the son to father relation and not the father to son relation. Could you point to a specific biblical reference which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers. If you think what you pointed to was specific enough, then why was it not specific enough to cover all the other situations described?

Your exegesis and profound ignorance of Jewish custom may be even worse than Heggen's. You probably think the verse that specifically forbade men from stealing cattle did not apply equally to women.

[Charles]

Your exegesis and profound ignorance of Jewish custom may be even worse than Heggen's. You probably think the verse that specifically forbade men from stealing cattle did not apply equally to women.

Now if you confronted my actual point it would be great. I said I actually found the verse you quoted to support your point. However in the context there are many specific references to particular situation but not the one in which the father abuses his son. It would seem strange that this situation is not mentioned when so many other are. But feel free to show a specific reference or explain the context. So far you have done neither. You would not need those personal attacks if you had such a strong case, would you?

What does the jewish interpretation do to change the point that if there was a specific reference it would be a lot harder for those abusing their sons to do so? Was the Bible not intended for later generations? Would the jews be troubled if this particular act was forbidden in a particular reference?

[Tassman]

Yes, I do, and for good reason. The sound bite you quoted gives reasonable cause for suspicion. But it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?

Check it out for yourself, it's readily available, as are the author's credentials which are impeccable:

https://www.readings.com.au/products...s-and-churches