|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 30, 2013 17:03:11 GMT -5
Unfortunately we will NEVER eradicated CSA. At least until God stops wiring some poor unfortunate souls the wrong way! God is just keeping us busy! Job security.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 17:13:42 GMT -5
God is just keeping us busy! Job security. Isn't that what Satan complained about in the OT?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 30, 2013 17:23:51 GMT -5
Isn't that what Satan complained about in the OT? It's a tough job juggling control of the earth and the control of hell all at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 17:27:32 GMT -5
Unfortunately we will NEVER eradicated CSA. At least until God stops wiring some poor unfortunate souls the wrong way! God is just keeping us busy! Satan, rather, is keeping us busy. If men would give themselves completely over to God, then there would be far less CSA. If every man would, then there would be no CSA. CSA is purely from Satan.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2013 17:40:44 GMT -5
God is just keeping us busy! Satan, rather, is keeping us busy. If men would give themselves completely over to God, then there would be far less CSA. If every man would, then there would be no CSA. CSA is purely from Satan. No. CSA is biological. That's why it's dangerous to believe that if you give yourself to God you won't ever give into your biological urges. People are all biologically wired differently. Some are attracted to young children. Giving yourself to God is not the answer and could be dangerous if you believe that's what it takes to stop you. That should be obvious when so many men in pastoral positions have committed CSA. Maybe they thought the same thing you do that if they were just faithful enough they wouldn't be a danger to children. Then they found out how wrong that was.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 30, 2013 18:26:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 19:52:25 GMT -5
Satan, rather, is keeping us busy. If men would give themselves completely over to God, then there would be far less CSA. If every man would, then there would be no CSA. CSA is purely from Satan. No. CSA is biological. That's why it's dangerous to believe that if you give yourself to God you won't ever give into your biological urges. People are all biologically wired differently. Some are attracted to young children. Giving yourself to God is not the answer and could be dangerous if you believe that's what it takes to stop you. That should be obvious when so many men in pastoral positions have committed CSA. Maybe they thought the same thing you do that if they were just faithful enough they wouldn't be a danger to children. Then they found out how wrong that was. You mean to tell me that people are actually saying these days that adults being attracted to children is just some genetic thing one is predisposed to? Really?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 30, 2013 19:52:40 GMT -5
Whatever it is, a control element appears to be part of it, either a desire to control, or a need to be under the control of a person or system? It's understandable that power or control are huge issues in this world. Mankind has always felt so helpless that I believe that's why they started to worship things they thought did have control over them. At first it was the elements and as they evolved, religion became more and more complex. Appeasing those things that seem to hold humans 'hostage' has been going on for a very long time. So if people want to have more control in their lives, it's usually based on fear. My thoughts on it anyway. I agree, snow.
I really think that is where religion really started.
People still feel fearful & when they haven't the control over their lives that will help them be more comfortable with their surroundings, they tend to hand it over to a supernatural power. (or even natural "strong man" of some kind- like Jim Jones).
Such action relieves them from making decisions about how to act & gives them the comfort of a group where life is in more-or-less black & white.
Being in a group who all believe the same, also makes them more comfortable by believing that,
"Well, if all these people believes the same, it must be true!"
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 20:16:32 GMT -5
It's understandable that power or control are huge issues in this world. Mankind has always felt so helpless that I believe that's why they started to worship things they thought did have control over them. At first it was the elements and as they evolved, religion became more and more complex. Appeasing those things that seem to hold humans 'hostage' has been going on for a very long time. So if people want to have more control in their lives, it's usually based on fear. My thoughts on it anyway. I agree, snow.
I really think that is where religion really started.
People still feel fearful & when they haven't the control over their lives that will help them be more comfortable with their surroundings, they tend to hand it over to a supernatural power. (or even natural "strong man" of some kind- like Jim Jones).
Such action relieves them from making decisions about how to act & gives them the comfort of a group where life is in more-or-less black & white.
Being in a group who all believe the same, also makes them more comfortable by believing that,
"Well, if all these people believes the same, it must be true!"
Just because there is a lot of wrong, that does not make the right wrong. I had a bad experience with controlling Workers and gave myself over to their false ideas of God. I went different directions after that until I met quite a few different Christians who were either in groups or were just individuals unassociated with a particular group. I was very skeptical of anything that is about control and still am even in the church I currently am in. What I began seeing, though, is that God is so real and obviously working miraculously in the lives of many people. I have had miraculous experiences myself. I am learning things that were never taught in the Work, and, in fact, the things I was taught drove me away from God rather than towards him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 20:28:02 GMT -5
No. CSA is biological. That's why it's dangerous to believe that if you give yourself to God you won't ever give into your biological urges. People are all biologically wired differently. Some are attracted to young children. Giving yourself to God is not the answer and could be dangerous if you believe that's what it takes to stop you. That should be obvious when so many men in pastoral positions have committed CSA. Maybe they thought the same thing you do that if they were just faithful enough they wouldn't be a danger to children. Then they found out how wrong that was. You mean to tell me that people are actually saying these days that adults being attracted to children is just some genetic thing one is predisposed to? Really? Really. Pedophiles have several biological features which are similar to each other but different from the average of the population. Researchers haven't found the biological smoking gun yet, but it may not be so simple as there could be several factors together leading people to be attracted to children. If you have an attraction toward children (but don't act on it of course), you may possess some of those biological features but it is not typical of adults to be attracted to children. Similarly with homosexuality. Homosexuals are also biologically predisposed to their same sex attraction. They don't just dream it up so that they can have the privilege of being persecuted as second class citizens and perverts.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 21:28:57 GMT -5
You mean to tell me that people are actually saying these days that adults being attracted to children is just some genetic thing one is predisposed to? Really? Really. Pedophiles have several biological features which are similar to each other but different from the average of the population. Researchers haven't found the biological smoking gun yet, but it may not be so simple as there could be several factors together leading people to be attracted to children. If you have an attraction toward children (but don't act on it of course), you may possess some of those biological features but it is not typical of adults to be attracted to children. Similarly with homosexuality. Homosexuals are also biologically predisposed to their same sex attraction. They don't just dream it up so that they can have the privilege of being persecuted as second class citizens and perverts. Do you think they will eventually start passing laws that make it a hate crime to persecute pedophiles and let them carry on what they are biologically predisposed to do? Are you a pedophobe?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2013 22:02:37 GMT -5
No. CSA is biological. That's why it's dangerous to believe that if you give yourself to God you won't ever give into your biological urges. People are all biologically wired differently. Some are attracted to young children. Giving yourself to God is not the answer and could be dangerous if you believe that's what it takes to stop you. That should be obvious when so many men in pastoral positions have committed CSA. Maybe they thought the same thing you do that if they were just faithful enough they wouldn't be a danger to children. Then they found out how wrong that was. You mean to tell me that people are actually saying these days that adults being attracted to children is just some genetic thing one is predisposed to? Really? Never said anything about it being genetic. It is as Ram puts it, the way they're wired. Has nothing to do with God.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2013 22:06:55 GMT -5
Really. Pedophiles have several biological features which are similar to each other but different from the average of the population. Researchers haven't found the biological smoking gun yet, but it may not be so simple as there could be several factors together leading people to be attracted to children. If you have an attraction toward children (but don't act on it of course), you may possess some of those biological features but it is not typical of adults to be attracted to children. Similarly with homosexuality. Homosexuals are also biologically predisposed to their same sex attraction. They don't just dream it up so that they can have the privilege of being persecuted as second class citizens and perverts. Do you think they will eventually start passing laws that make it a hate crime to persecute pedophiles and let them carry on what they are biologically predisposed to do? Are you a pedophobe? Why would they do that? If it harms someone else, why would the law pass a law allowing it? Doesn't mean we need to persecute pedophiles. It does mean they need consequences though because they are causing harm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 22:11:03 GMT -5
Really. Pedophiles have several biological features which are similar to each other but different from the average of the population. Researchers haven't found the biological smoking gun yet, but it may not be so simple as there could be several factors together leading people to be attracted to children. If you have an attraction toward children (but don't act on it of course), you may possess some of those biological features but it is not typical of adults to be attracted to children. Similarly with homosexuality. Homosexuals are also biologically predisposed to their same sex attraction. They don't just dream it up so that they can have the privilege of being persecuted as second class citizens and perverts. Do you think they will eventually start passing laws that make it a hate crime to persecute pedophiles and let them carry on what they are biologically predisposed to do? Are you a pedophobe? It is against the law to persecute pedophiles right now. It is also against the law to harm children and those who do should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No, I don't fear pedophiles.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 22:16:27 GMT -5
Do you think they will eventually start passing laws that make it a hate crime to persecute pedophiles and let them carry on what they are biologically predisposed to do? Are you a pedophobe? It is against the law to persecute pedophiles right now. It is also against the law to harm children and those who do should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No, I don't fear pedophiles. If homosexuality were against the law, homosexual could possibly consider that persecution. In other cultures it was considered quite normal to have sex with children. Just saying that viewing pedophilia as a genetic predisposition is possibly leading in a direction where pedophilia becomes acceptable again. And if you say anything against it, then you are not being ethical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 22:20:53 GMT -5
It is against the law to persecute pedophiles right now. It is also against the law to harm children and those who do should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No, I don't fear pedophiles. If homosexuality were against the law, homosexual could possibly consider that persecution. In other cultures it was considered quite normal to have sex with children. Just saying that viewing pedophilia as a genetic predisposition is possibly leading in a direction where pedophilia becomes acceptable again. And if you say anything against it, then you are not being ethical. Your theory is as far off reality as all the theories about how gay marriage was going to destroy heterosexual marriage and lead to everyone having sex with pigs, sheep and goats. Our society understands that children are not ready for sex at certain ages and when it happens under the control of an adult, it is harmful to them. That isn't going to change anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 22:57:48 GMT -5
If homosexuality were against the law, homosexual could possibly consider that persecution. In other cultures it was considered quite normal to have sex with children. Just saying that viewing pedophilia as a genetic predisposition is possibly leading in a direction where pedophilia becomes acceptable again. And if you say anything against it, then you are not being ethical. Your theory is as far off reality as all the theories about how gay marriage was going to destroy heterosexual marriage and lead to everyone having sex with pigs, sheep and goats. Our society understands that children are not ready for sex at certain ages and when it happens under the control of an adult, it is harmful to them. That isn't going to change anytime soon. I am not talking about our society. I am talking about a future society that will possibly look back at laws against homosexuality and pedophilia as pin headed, undeveloped and narrow minded. Humans in other cultures are just as human as we are. We in our culture are just as capable of rejecting Jesus as anyone.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 30, 2013 23:32:47 GMT -5
If homosexuality were against the law, homosexual could possibly consider that persecution. In other cultures it was considered quite normal to have sex with children. Just saying that viewing pedophilia as a genetic predisposition is possibly leading in a direction where pedophilia becomes acceptable again. And if you say anything against it, then you are not being ethical. Your theory is as far off reality as all the theories about how gay marriage was going to destroy heterosexual marriage and lead to everyone having sex with pigs, sheep and goats. Our society understands that children are not ready for sex at certain ages and when it happens under the control of an adult, it is harmful to them. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Everyone knows that abortion is harmful to a child, but it is legal and happens under the control of adults. It didn't used to be legal but that changed sooner than many thought.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 31, 2013 0:25:43 GMT -5
Your theory is as far off reality as all the theories about how gay marriage was going to destroy heterosexual marriage and lead to everyone having sex with pigs, sheep and goats. Our society understands that children are not ready for sex at certain ages and when it happens under the control of an adult, it is harmful to them. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Everyone knows that abortion is harmful to a child, but it is legal and happens under the control of adults. It didn't used to be legal but that changed sooner than many thought And everyone knows- well, most everyone, some don't seem to know it-or maybe they just don't care(?)) that carrying a pregnancy to term can also be very harmful to the mother. St. Louis Post Dispatch: Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth?
April 07, 2013 2:45 pm • By Michele Munz Kristin Marlowe, 20, was seven months pregnant and being treated for a placental tear at Springfield Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mo., when she died of a stroke on Aug. 8. Doctors are unsure what caused the stroke. Her baby, Trennon, was delivered by emergency c-section and survived. Her husband, Nick Marlowe, 22, is still struggling from the shock. Kristin Marlowe was seven months pregnant and admitted for a small placental tear at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mo., when she began to complain of a headache. An hour later, she stopped breathing. Strong, healthy and only 20 years old — she died of a stroke. The maternal death rate in the U.S. is creeping upward — to more than double what it was 25 years ago. Systems identifying deaths have improved, so how much the increase can be attributed to risk is uncertain. But experts agree maternal deaths are no longer declining, are underestimated, largely preventable and disproportionately affect certain groups. “We have not seen a decrease in maternal mortality, and that is worrisome,” said Dr. George Saade, director of maternal-fetal medicine at University of Texas Medical Branch. He said black women were three to four times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy. “These two things are very concerning, particularly in a developed country like the U.S.” The 20th century saw a dramatic decrease in pregnancy-related deaths, largely because of improvements in sterile techniques — reaching the lowest point in 1987 at 7.2 deaths per 100,000 live births. The most recent figures available show the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births — placing the U.S. near the bottom among developed nations. The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent. That means each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death. The nation’s largest health care accrediting organization, the Joint Commission, warned hospitals three years ago about maternal deaths. Hospitals have since worked to identify risks and respond to emergencies. But experts say more needs to done to improve education, research and guidelines for care — much like the efforts that have improved outcomes for premature babies. Researchers call it putting the “M” back in maternal-fetal medicine.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 31, 2013 7:36:44 GMT -5
PUNISHMENT is not CORRECTION -- of the child. Punishment is correction of the appearance -- not an educating in the basics of responsible social behavior. False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. Slapping kids' fingers for messing up the coffee table is insane -- keep the trash out of the baby's reach. People are smart enough to fence cows away from freeway traffic, yet they expect babies to have an appreciation for adult style tidiness. Most parents are not having children to raise cattle but to raise humans with their attending moral sensitivites. An astute parent knows that punishment has its place in establishing the conscience of humankind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 7:43:24 GMT -5
PUNISHMENT is not CORRECTION -- of the child. Punishment is correction of the appearance -- not an educating in the basics of responsible social behavior. False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. Slapping kids' fingers for messing up the coffee table is insane -- keep the trash out of the baby's reach. People are smart enough to fence cows away from freeway traffic, yet they expect babies to have an appreciation for adult style tidiness. Most parents are not having children to raise cattle but to raise humans with their attending moral sensitivites. An astute parent knows that punishment has its place in establishing the conscience of humankind. This is why there is a clear distinction between acceptable physical chastisement and physical abuse. It worked for thousands of years. It is socially unacceptable now though, largely because many parents were not astute in their administering of physical punishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 7:49:57 GMT -5
PUNISHMENT is not CORRECTION -- of the child. Punishment is correction of the appearance -- not an educating in the basics of responsible social behavior. False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. Actually he's right, punishment is not correction. It will usually make matters worse. A great way to ruin a child is to inflict harm on him/her to "teach them a lesson". Wrong, it is a brutish and primitive parent who inflicts harm on a child to "establish their conscience". It establishes fear for those who are bigger and stronger than them, nothing more. It is a great way to kill conscience, or at least badly twist it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 8:11:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 31, 2013 14:02:48 GMT -5
I agree with that for the most part Ram. However, I sometimes wonder if people of certain personalities just naturally gravitate towards systems that tell them what to do, think etc. Or systems that justify what they want to do in the first place. I believe that's true. Folks that love the 2x2 system are either love living by rules, or feel the need to act out against rules. People who wonder why rules exist, or wonder why people need rules, generally have a rough time in meetings. (Yeah, I've run personality tests on some 2x2s, and they're mostly in the rule-needing group with some needing the acting-out part.) The 2x2s are fairly low in the questioning and experimenting personalities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 14:21:34 GMT -5
I agree with that for the most part Ram. However, I sometimes wonder if people of certain personalities just naturally gravitate towards systems that tell them what to do, think etc. Or systems that justify what they want to do in the first place. I believe that's true. Folks that love the 2x2 system are either love living by rules, or feel the need to act out against rules. People who wonder why rules exist, or wonder why people need rules, generally have a rough time in meetings. (Yeah, I've run personality tests on some 2x2s, and they're mostly in the rule-needing group with some needing the acting-out part.) The 2x2s are fairly low in the questioning and experimenting personalities. Always keep in mind the descending order of subservience, starting from the top down. You must know your place, fit in. Have a faith which questions not, just obeys! Boy, it's all starting to come flooding back!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 31, 2013 14:27:20 GMT -5
I believe that's true. Folks that love the 2x2 system are either love living by rules, or feel the need to act out against rules. People who wonder why rules exist, or wonder why people need rules, generally have a rough time in meetings. (Yeah, I've run personality tests on some 2x2s, and they're mostly in the rule-needing group with some needing the acting-out part.) The 2x2s are fairly low in the questioning and experimenting personalities. Always keep in mind the descending order of subservience, starting from the top down. You must know your place, fit in. Have a faith which questions not, just obeys! Boy, it's all starting to come flooding back! Welll...if you start feeling like professing again, I might be able to help you find a gospel meeting and/or a convention. Don't worry - nothing much has changed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 14:44:35 GMT -5
Always keep in mind the descending order of subservience, starting from the top down. You must know your place, fit in. Have a faith which questions not, just obeys! Boy, it's all starting to come flooding back! Welll...if you start feeling like professing again, I might be able to help you find a gospel meeting and/or a convention. Don't worry - nothing much has changed.Fortunately I have! I made the mistake of attempting to return....or rather,resume, once. Thankfully that experience finally liberated me.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:02:55 GMT -5
I know there are people of your mentality, but they are normally people who are more interested in conformative behavior than in an empathetic conscience.PUNISHMENT is not CORRECTION -- of the child. Punishment is correction of the appearance -- not an educating in the basics of responsible social behavior. False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. You're right - such as spanking a kid for running out in traffic. It's neither a moral issue nor a matter of higher level thinking -- it's a life and death matter if you're negligent enough to give him the opportunity to run out in traffic.
Slapping kids' fingers for messing up the coffee table is insane -- keep the trash out of the baby's reach. People are smart enough to fence cows away from freeway traffic, yet they expect babies to have an appreciation for adult style tidiness. My point was that if parents are smart enough to prevent their cattle from getting into trouble, they ought to be smart enough to prevent their children from needing punishment for something they do not understand. Some parents keep punishing them for the same thing over and over again because the kid does not have the mental capacity to make the connection.Most parents are not having children to raise cattle but to raise humans with their attending moral sensitivites. An astute parent knows that punishment has its place in establishing the conscience of humankind. Kids are NOT punished to give them moral sensitivities -- they are punished to make them do as they are told. An astute parent knows that keeping ones junk on the coffee table is not a moral issue -- it's simple a matter of the parent not wanting to pick up the mess or pay for broken things. An astute parent knows that actions taken by someone who does not have the ability to understand the morality of an issue, does not make it a moral issue -- it's still a matter of self-interest on the part of the parents. An astute parent knows the difference between an obedient do-gooder and a conscientious thinker. Any dumb animal can be trained to behave -- people with a conscience are nurtured, not whipped into shape. You can't beat anyone into learning anything but obedience.
It's not even a moral issue for adults to throw things on the floor -- it's a matter of whether they want to or not and whether it belongs to them.
|
|