God the Pornographer

[Nick_A]

Between modern sex education and religous fundamentalism making sex something dirty, it amazes me that some kids have not yet gone off the deep end.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/?GT1=43001

It is the rage of the day for young kids to take nude pictures of themselves, give them to the opposite sex, and have them posted on the Internet. Of course not knowing how to handle it, the powers that be have said that they are engaging in child pornography. This means that a naked picture of a fourteen year old girl is by definition pornographic. Since this body was designed by God, it makes God a pornographer as well. As spock would say: fascinating.

Without the variable of intent, the body of a young girl must be considered pornographic and its creator a pornographer.

Do you believe it is right to call a young naive girl a pornographer for giving a naked picture of herself to a boy with just an innocent intent to impress?

Is this really primarily a matter for the police? Is this willingness to turn it over to them really just indicating our collective ignorance in being able to communicate to a young girl anything meaningful about sex, sex energy, and how to value her body?

I can see protecting young girls from predators but teaching the value of values should come from their parents and other adults. Somehow this basic understanding seems to have become lost in the shuffle. What happened? Can understanding about such basic aspects of life ever become common knowledge?

[JoeyKnothead]

i agree with carico
i think that sex education should be the responsibility of the family and legal guardians. and maybe the push for family's to teach themselves should be endorsed rather than in public schools.
the nations public schools have gone down hill alot since the 1950's and not just because of sexual education but it's funny that before sex ed the worst problem in schools was for example:

1950's
chewing gum and shooting spit wads

today is
rape, doing drugs, and school shootings.

i think this is a good site that shows some of the staggering differences that follow the introduction of sex ed and removal of the bible.
http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/tencommandments.html

Hum. The 1950's is when they put 'God' in the pledge of allegance.

I Guess that is the cause of todays problems.

LOL

It's funny how goat's sort of statistics never end up in these "good old days" debates.

[Defender of Truth]

This means that a naked picture of a fourteen year old girl is by definition pornographic. Since this body was designed by God, it makes God a pornographer as well.

I'm challenging the above quote (and from there the title of this thread) on the grounds that the logic is flawed.

The logic is flawed in more than one area alone. I will state two flaws which abrogate the entire claim. However, before I state the flaws, I'd like to point something out.

Nick_A made some very serious accusations. He claims that God is a big hypocrite. For if God said that pornography is wrong, and is a pornographer, He is a sinner. Therefore His sacrifice cannot save us from our sin, therefore He lied when He said that it could. He's not trustworthy, etc.
So, in a sense, Nick_A is putting God on trial. With some very serious charges indeed. I believe there are major flaws in his logic, and if there are, his very serious charges will be dropped.

The first flaw I detected is the following (1) the dictionary defintion of pornography in the context of the OP is

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

It doesn't say that a naked fourteen-year-old is pornographic, is says sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal is pornographic. God designed the fourteen-year-old girl, not the pictures, writing or other material. Therefore, God didn't do anything pornographic.

(2)If you design a dress and give it to a girl but a boy wears it because he's homosexual does that make you a homosexual? By no means. It's the same situation. God gave men and women sexual bodies, just like you made the dress. However, He intended sex for marriage, just like you intended the dress for the girl. Just because humans make "sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal", just like the boy put on the dress, doesn't mean God's a pornographer, just like it doesn't mean you're a homosexual.

Unless the claims made by Nick_A and the problems with it mentioned here can be rectified, then I would say that God is pronounced "Not Guilty" of the accusations brought against Him.

[Defender of Truth]

I see now that this thread was created in March, so Nick_A is probably no longer around to see my challenge. For that I apologize, however, is there anyone else who supports this view who will accept the challenge? If not, then I will asume the charges are dropped.

[Megaboomer]

well said just because you can taint and twist something that is good doesn't mean that the person who made it was the culprit.

[Megaboomer]

God intended sex for marriage. It is definately NOT a bad thing; only when it is used imporperly and immorally.

Exactly which scriptures say that sex was intended for marriage?

---1 corinthians 7:9- but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn [with passion].
---fornacation: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.
1 corinthians 6:9- Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, [fn] nor sodomites,
----other verses against fornication:
2 corinthians 12:21
ephesians 5:3
colossians 3:5