Should Pornography Be Banned?

[Mountain Man]

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

Have you even read it for yourself? Or did you stumble across that sound-bite on a skeptical blog and got all giddy about it?

I'll repeat, it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?

I'll even add to that, are you able to defend the author's poor understanding of scripture and Jewish custom despite her supposedly "impeccable" credentials?

Sorry, but telling me to spend $50+ on a book that I doubt you've even bothered to read yourself isn't an answer.

[Charles]

I'll even add to that, are you able to defend the author's poor understanding of scripture and Jewish custom despite her supposedly "impeccable" credentials?

What she said was "Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers."

Can you show a specific biblical reference which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers? Note the focus on specific. It is easy to prove her wrong if you can find one. Where did she talk about Jewish custom, and what would that change regarding the question whether a specific reference exists?

[Mountain Man]

What she said was "Unfortunately, one can't find specific biblical references which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers."

Can you show a specific biblical reference which prohibit sexual abuse of children by fathers? Note the focus on specific. It is easy to prove her wrong if you can find one. Where did she talk about Jewish custom, and what would that change regarding the question whether a specific reference exists?

The fact that she -- and you -- are even looking for a specific reference or think that it's necessary just goes to show how ignorant you really are. It's the theological equivalent of a creationist asking why monkeys are still around. It's a stupid question. Anybody who can read even the plain language of Leviticus 18 and come away thinking that sexual abuse of one's own children is permissible is either deliberately missing the point, or is a moron. Which describes you?

[Charles]

The fact that she -- and you -- are even looking for a specific reference or think that it's necessary just goes to show how ignorant you really are. It's the theological equivalent of a creationist asking why monkeys are still around. It's a stupid question. Anybody who can read even the plain language of Leviticus 18 and come away thinking that sexual abuse of one's own children is permissible is either deliberately missing the point, or is a moron. Which describes you?

I did not make the claim it was permissible. That is a red herring and you know it. I was asking for a specific reference and was wondering why so many other specific claims were made but not this one. You have not been able to explain that. If asking for a specific reference shows I am ignorant then what goes for the one who wrote all the other specific references? Was he ignorant too?

What I have said is all rather simple so I do not understand your need for personal attacks and your need to change the context of what I said. Unless it is simply because you cannot answer.

[Mountain Man]

I was asking for a specific reference...

Yes, and it's a stupid question.

[Tassman]

Have you even read it for yourself? Or did you stumble across that sound-bite on a skeptical blog and got all giddy about it?

I'll repeat, it's your source, so the burden is yours to defend its methodology and conclusions. Can you?

I have no reason to. You are the one casting doubt upon the quote I referenced. I am satisfied with the fact that the book it's from was well reviewed, that the author is an active Protestant Christian with a Ph.D. and an experienced psychotherapist specialising in trauma recovery. In short, there’s no reason to suspect bias.

You have no reason to doubt the validity of her findings other than the fact you find it disagreeable to acknowledge that: “A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is… whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes.” p. 73 ‘Sexual abuse in Christian Homes and Churches’. - Carolyn Holderread Heggen

I'll even add to that, are you able to defend the author's poor understanding of scripture and Jewish custom despite her supposedly "impeccable" credentials?

The author is making no reference to the “understanding of scripture and Jewish custom”, dummy. The “poor understanding” of these things is on the part of the abusive fathers. But it is disturbing that a high percentage of such people are found in conservative religious groups with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes.

[Mountain Man]

I have no reason to.

In other words, you're basing so much of your argument in this thread on a short sound bite from a book you haven't bothered to read, citing a questionable statistic you can't defend, from an author who has a poor understanding of scripture and Biblical exegesis.

I think the only acceptable response to this is...

[Charles]

Yes, and it's a stupid question.

Or perhaps the stupid thing about the situation is that if you could just provide what I asked for you could prove the author wrong. Now you have to rely on personal attacks and talk about Jewish interpretation which is not relevant with regard to the point that there is no specific reference.

[NorrinRadd]

No, porn should not be "banned," in the sense of "prohibited by force of law."

Nanny State = Bad.

[Teallaura]

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?

*cough*Noah*cough*

[Tassman]

In other words, you're basing so much of your argument in this thread on a short sound bite from a book you haven't bothered to read, citing a questionable statistic you can't defend, from an author who has a poor understanding of scripture and Biblical exegesis.

I am satisfied that the soundbite was from was well reviewed book, the author of which is an active Protestant Christian with a Ph.D. and who is an experienced psychotherapist specialising in trauma recovery. In short, there’s no reason to suspect bias, especially as it reflects negatively on her own religious parameters. The author's credentials are good.

She herself, finds it "disturbing" given her background: “A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is… whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes.” p. 73 ‘Sexual abuse in Christian Homes and Churches’. - Carolyn Holderread Heggen

[Tassman]

No, porn should not be "banned," in the sense of "prohibited by force of law."

Agreed! Prohibition never works; it doesn’t stop the demand and fuels crime in order to supply the market.

[demi-conservative]

Modern Christians seem to be wedded a lot to Enlightenment ideas like freedom of speech and expression

Also equality.

[demi-conservative]

No, porn should not be "banned," in the sense of "prohibited by force of law."

Do you include child porn too???

[Tassman]

Do you include child porn too???

Child porn is already banned on the basis that it is exploitation of those unable to give informed consent.