Apr 16
I was just thinking about kids and their perception of right and wrong. I’m specifically referring to times when their parents tell them not to do something. It would be quite rare for a child to think, “Mom and/or Dad said not to do that, so I just won’t do it.” Instead they’ll ask, “Aw, [...] [...more]
Posted: under Faith, Morality.
Tags: forgiveness, parachute, sin
I was just thinking about kids and their perception of right and wrong. I’m specifically referring to times when their parents tell them not to do something. It would be quite rare for a child to think, “Mom and/or Dad said not to do that, so I just won’t do it.” Instead they’ll ask, “Aw, Why not?” They’re not really wanting a logical and reasonable explanation or rationale. They instead hope to wear Mom and Dad down so they will give in, or to give Mom and Dad the opportunity to realize that they don’t have a good reason, and so change their mind. Then when the parents stick to their guns, the kids will often show some sign of disappointment. In their immaturity, they can’t seem to comprehend the dangers of certain activities. Johnny can’t understand why Mom thinks it’s too dangerous to jump off the roof with a sheet for a parachute.
In the grand scheme of eternity, our lives here on earth are our childhood. Some of us never grow up. And given the opportunity some of us would still jump off a roof with a sheet as a parachute just to find out what we missed out on during our childhood. But at some point in the process of growing up we should begin to understand that there are things we just shouldn’t do because someone might get hurt; physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. We go ahead and do them anyway. We come up with excuses for why we should do them.
God, our Father, tells us that there are certain things that we should not do, and that there are thing we should do. Yet we think we can get away with doing what we want to do. We presume He’s not watching anyway. Or we assume He’ll just let it slide unless someone actually does get hurt. And when someone does get hurt our response so often is, “Oops. I goofed.” Our response should be, “Father forgive me for I have sinned.” And not only when someone gets hurt, but we should seek forgiveness for sins when we realize we have done something contrary to God’s will.
Different people have their own definition of sin. Some limit sin to only those actions that cause harm to someone unless done in retaliation for harm someone has done them. Then it is justified. Others will have a mile-long list of do’s and don’ts for their definition of sin. To some, sin is anything from which we derive pleasure. Romans 14:23 says “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”. And as clear as that sounds, I’ve heard contradictory perspectives on that phrase, without much regard to its context. My simple take on that is this: If you think it might be sin, you’d better not do it. For you cannot do it in faith if you believe it might be sin. We are justified by faith, and doing acts of faith is much better than doing sinful acts to prove your faith in God’s grace and mercy. Instead, It’s His kindness that leads us to repentance. (Romans 2:4)
Tracy Henness
Feb 11
I had a thought this morning while getting ready for work. At this time it is not a well thought out thought. I’m sure it has its flaws, and it would be controversial, and might even be eventually ruled as unconstitutional. It involves the rampant problem of Internet pornography. The problem that this idea addresses [...] [...more]
Posted: under Morality.
Tags: legislation, pornography, proposal
I had a thought this morning while getting ready for work. At this time it is not a well thought out thought. I’m sure it has its flaws, and it would be controversial, and might even be eventually ruled as unconstitutional. It involves the rampant problem of Internet pornography.
The problem that this idea addresses is that of restricting access to minors. The current system obviously does not work. First of all, the existing rules are regarded more as guidelines rather than enforcible laws. About the only ones that are to any extent enforcible are those involving child pornography within the United States.
Some sites are “responsible enough” that they require credit card access. This would deter some minors in that if charges were to show up on their parent’s monthly statement there’d be some explaining to do. This also acts to deter some adults because they want to hide their wandering eyes from their spouses. But obviously this strategy does not deter enough people since there is such a proliferation of these sites available.
Many sites simply grant access only to those who will click a button affirming that they are at least 18 years of age. The problem with this is that if someone is willing to sin in viewing porn, are they going to be deterred by having to lie about their age? After all, how many times have they heard their own parents publicly imply that they are younger than they really are? Yet these sites carry this simple verification to protect themselves from charges of exposing minors to porn. Basically there is no real verification process.
That is where this idea comes in. It adds a level of enforceability to the laws. It provides an additional layer of moral accountability. It could be used to help monitor activities of sexual predators. But on the negative side it grants the government more power to intrude in the lives of ordinary citizens, and sites hosted outside of US jurisdiction would benefit by not complying with such legislation (unless that country also had similar restrictions).
The idea simply is this: Have a national database updated by the Department of Motor Vehicles of each state that links the driver’s license number to the age and a choice of whether the applicant wants to be allowed to view Internet pornography. In the case of those under legal age there is no option to allow access to porn sites. If a parent responsibly chooses ‘no’ then the minor child cannot be granted access even if he or she has access to the parent’s driver’s license. Since licenses generally are only renewed every 2 – 4 years, people would be given the opportunity to contact the DMV to set their status preference. Non-drivers would have this preference applied to another form of state identification. Both porn sites and search engines would be legally responsible for verifying the license number and restriction status with the national database before granting access to “adult” content. The database could have an auto-increment counter for access requests, and flags can be set to alert authorities to excessive activity by registered sex offenders.
I welcome comments on this idea, since it is in its infancy at least in my mind. It is possible and even probable that this concept has already been presented in some form, even possibly at a legislative level.
Tracy Henness
