This is post nr 800, and still going strong I see, wow

quote Originally posted by ray b: when talking about a groupes actions in history it matters not if most, all' or just some, of a group did it, "they" did it, is still true then same as now. most chruchs call them selfs christian so do I...

OK, then all my "Ray is" statements are true? I jsut don't see it man. If I wanna go on a killing spree and say "I heard voices in my head...it was Rayb, and HE told me to kill these people" that does NOT make you responsible.

You quoted yourself "You will knew them (Christians) by their actions" from the Bible. The actions you persecute us for (and make no mistake, you are persecuting Christians here Ray) are not in line with the actions of a Christian as outlined in the Bible. If an action is taken in hate, spite, fear or ignorance instead of being taken in love and authority, it is NOT the action of a Christian.

quote ...but I agree none is THE TRUE ONE as all are wrong and if there was ONE all would KNOW THE ONE TRUE and none do but all say MY CULT IS THE TRUE ONE. so of course all are wrong...

This is just laughable. Think about what you're saying. You're actually telling us that since there are several groups claiming to be "THE" followers of God that ALL are wrong?! Again, your logic baffles me. Haven't you ever gotten into an argument with someone about something?

Say Mach10 and I argue about who won the Indy 500 last year. Say you chime in with a third opinion, and post some obscure website for it, say about 20 other people chime in, all with varying opinions...according to you, NONE can be right, because if someone WAS right, we'd all "just KNOW it"?!

Makes no sense, man.

quote ...kinda like debate about how many anil's can debate how many angels dance on a pin answer is eazy no angels as there are none...

This is starting to look like a "anyone who disagrees with Ray is automatically wrong" thread...Kind of egotistic, isn't it? People who would argue how many angels would fit on the head of a pin have no more understanding of angels than those who claim they're born in the rising of the sun and die at sunset.

quote ...but if one god why three parts and sub-gods tooo...

Why the Trinity? Because God wanted it to be that way. And what in the world are you talking about with "sub-gods"?!

quote ...never mind saints how many classes of angels ARCH SERRIFIN CHERIBS ordinary?? trainee???? how many more and lets not count devils and sub-devils and you call it a one god deal????????

See, here you just need to understand the subject matter better. "Saints" are just people. They followed God when they were here, and that's it. Only the Catholics pray to/through them, so you can't say anyone else has any issues with Saints.
You have a problem with an angelic heirarchy? Why not? There are heirarchies in people, animals, why would angels be any different? Arch-angels were in charge of a third each (Lucifer, the worship director led his 1/3 that fell with him/ Michael the warrior leads his 1/3, Gabriel the messenger leads his 1/3). There are different types of angels for different purposes, just like the military...not everyone can be a foot soldier, or we'd get creamed by an air attack, etc.
Devils, demons, whatever you want to call them are quite simply angels. Fallen angels, but angels nonetheless. We have power and dominion over them just like we do all the angels. (We had dominion at Creation, gave it to Satan in the fall of man, and were re-established in Christ's birth. This is one reason He came "as a man", to restore the link between God and man.)
There are no "trainee" angels, because they were all created at once, before man, and each with a purpose. People don't become angels, we're seperate beings.

There are MANY people in the military, and in our society, and MANY different "positions", but only one President. This is not a hard concept. You're basically arguing nonesense.

Ummm? Triad? Not here to flame you man as I haven't read much lately, just skimming as of late...as it is too much for my non-biblical, ethical, moral...you get the picture...brain to handle and keep up with. Feels like Ed revisited all over again.

Anyways, just seems like you're the only one disagreeing lately and subsequently, RayB is as well, all in all, just because you guys don't see exactly eye-2-eye.

Just my dollars worth. Keep the change, if not the peace.

I'm sorry, I was trying to keep my posts simple. EdsB? Eww...thanks.

Anyway, yeah, it seems like just me and Ray right now, but we'll strike a nerve somewhere and there will be others again...

Harry Potter shouldnt drink so much pepsi

anyway, third door on the right, harry!

I don't know why I'm sticking my nose in this one, but I agree with triad on the description of "order" so to say. I didn't go back and read the leading up to for this post though. But coming from a family that was hard edge christain growing up, parents were youth pastors, I know enough about the subject. I try to avoid religous discussions now though just thought I'd agree with Triad though

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: I'm sorry, I was trying to keep my posts simple. EdsB? Eww...thanks.

No problem man!

quote Anyway, yeah, it seems like just me and Ray right now, but we'll strike a nerve somewhere and there will be others again...

Well, since this thread hasn't died since the day of its conception , and since you're obvisouly well versed in the historical, logical if not moral standings of the bible, what's your take or standing on p0rn?

We've touched on pornography a few times. But, since you ask;

* I believe pornography is immoral.
* I do not believe it should be illegal or banned.
* I am supportive of it being NOT displayed where children can find it.
* I don't believe everyone featured in it, or who purchases it is automatically evil or has no chance of redemption.
* I do not partonize pronography myself, nor could I support anyone claiming to be a believer to.

Did you have any other specific questions?

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: * I believe pornography is immoral.

How, or better yet, why do you find it immoral? Just because somebody had decided at some point in time to put something we all naturally enjoy doing, is our basic instictual drive, on video tape whether we are married, single or just for the fun of it?

How come when we film animals having sex, even though the sole purpose is of course for some species is to mate and they have multiple partners, why haven't we deemed this as a form of animal p0rn0grahpy?

Dolphins, btw, are the only other species that have sex for recreational enjoyment. Should we deem dolphins, a highly intelligent species as immoral as well, but just lack the ability to film it?

quote * I do not believe it should be illegal or banned.

If you find it "immoral", then why wouldn't you be in arms along with other church goers trying to get it banned and/or made illegal? If its immoral by church standards...then by all rights it obviously should be made illegal, wouldn't you think? So why aren't you on that side of the fence, along with the others? Is there some inherent deep down feeling, or perhaps satisfaction knowing it is available to which holds you back?

quote * I am supportive of it being NOT displayed where children can find it.

Agreed...but at what age level should it be permitted? 16? 17? 18? 21?

quote * I don't believe everyone featured in it, or who purchases it is automatically evil or has no chance of redemption.

Whoa! What do you mean by "automatically evil" and "redemption"? Are you saying, somehow that this corrupts the human mind? That we're sinning? How? Who really set the standard for this? I don't believe it was the bible or anyone in there.

Lets define it:
P0rn0graphy:

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
   
2. The presentation or production of this material.
   
3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
   

<application> Still or moving images, usually of women, in varying states of nudity, posing or performing erotic acts with men, women, animals or other props. Some say it degrades women, some say it corrupts young boys (who down-load it from bulletin board systems or exchange it on floppy disks). Much of it is in the form of GIF images, or, increasingly JPEG images. There are even pornographic games, an early example being Mac Playmate.

Beware - many institutions, particularly universities, have strict rules against their computers and networks being used to transfer or store such things, and you might get corrupted.

(1998-07-19)

If it was defined by people within the bible, churches would be in arms about the paintings on some catherdral ceilings, which depict naked men.

quote * I do not partonize pronography myself, nor could I support anyone claiming to be a believer to.

Have you ever taken pictures and/or filmed you and your sexual partner enjoying your activities, only to replay it for your own personal enjoyment later on? Have you ever thought about it...even for a brief moment? Would that not constitute entertaining the thought of "partonize p0rn0graphy" in and of itself, even though it is private? How about some of the ways you enjoy sex?

I mean, there has been and still is a religious protocol being taught in churches to the methods to which one can have and/or enjoy sex that you should have been taught and should be following.

And please, do not entertain the motion of "free will".

We B-

[This message has been edited by JSocha (edited 12-18-2001).]

Wow...there's a LOT here...(let's see if I can correct the nested coding while I reply)

quote Originally posted by JSocha: [QUOTE]Originally posted by TRiAD: * I believe pornography is immoral. How, or better yet, why do you find it immoral? Just because somebody had decided at some point in time to put something we all naturally enjoy doing, is our basic instictual drive, on video tape whether we are married, single or just for the fun of it?

Well, yes. And no. This will answer a lot of your later quesitons as well;

In the laws given to Moses for the Israelites; Exodus 22:19 ~ "Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death." Now, this is NOT for judging "outsiders", ONLY the Israelites. Don't misread this.

More of the same laws; Leviticus 18 is all about "unlawful" or "forbidden" sexual relations. They include;

* close relatives, * mother, * father's wife (not always the person's mother), * sister of any kind (including in-law), * granddaughter, * aunt, * daughter in-law, * "do not have relations with both a woman and her daughter, or her granddaughter", * wife's sister while your wife is living, * during menstrual cycle, * neighbor's wife, * "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech" (not sure the meaning of this one), * same sex "for that is detestable", * animals...

Any form of adultery is mentioned elsewhere, and I believe "anal" is also prohibited.

Also, a nice rule of thumb is the "daughter" rule; if you wouldn't want your daughter doing it, don't do it.

quote How come when we film animals having sex, even though the sole purpose is of course for some species is to mate and they have multiple partners, why haven't we deemed this as a form of animal p0rn0grahpy?

Well, many animals procreate in much the same way we do, with the exception that most only copulate for procreative purposes, and only in a season. Also, animals aren't "clothed", and it was never against God's law to see an animal nude. It was against His law to see another person (besides your spouse) nude.

quote Dolphins, btw, are the only other species that have sex for recreational enjoyment. Should we deem dolphins, a highly intelligent species as immoral as well, but just lack the ability to film it?

Right, they are the only other animal to do this. No, they are not "immoral", they have no soul. When man fell in Eden, we defiled the planet. This inclused animals. They can be influenced by our fallen nature, and even were occasionally "posessed" in the Bible. The Earth produced thistles and such only after the fall as well. Now, there's no Biblical evidence that any animal has a soul, so it's not a big issue, but "Dolphin orgies" were clearly not in God's plan for man.

quote * I do not believe it should be illegal or banned. If you find it "immoral", then why wouldn't you be in arms along with other church goers trying to get it banned and/or made illegal? If its immoral by church standards...then by all rights it obviously should be made illegal, wouldn't you think? So why aren't you on that side of the fence, along with the others? Is there some inherent deep down feeling, or perhaps satisfaction knowing it is available to which holds you back?

Interesting point. The answer is, because the few people you refer to are the exception, and not the rule of Christianity. All through the Bible, God gave His people laws for THEM to folow, and at the same time instructed His people to treat outsiders with nothing but grace. The vast majority of us recognize free will (sorry) and don't believe it's our calling in life to moderate the actions of the rest of the world.
But no, it has nothing to do with future "availability".

quote * I am supportive of it being NOT displayed where children can find it. Agreed...but at what age level should it be permitted? 16? 17? 18? 21?

Not for me to decide. I would vote for no les than 18 and preferably 21, but that's just my one vote.

quote * I don't believe everyone featured in it, or who purchases it is automatically evil or has no chance of redemption. Whoa! What do you mean by "automatically evil" and "redemption"? Are you saying, somehow that this corrupts the human mind? That we're sinning? How? Who really set the standard for this? I don't believe it was the bible or anyone in there.

See above. And more specifically, yes, seeing someone besides your spouse nude, for the purpose of arousal is a sin.

quote Lets define it: P0rn0graphy: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. The presentation or production of this material. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein). <application> Still or moving images, usually of women, in varying states of nudity, posing or performing erotic acts with men, women, animals or other props. Some say it degrades women, some say it corrupts young boys (who down-load it from bulletin board systems or exchange it on floppy disks). Much of it is in the form of GIF images, or, increasingly JPEG images. There are even pornographic games, an early example being Mac Playmate. Beware - many institutions, particularly universities, have strict rules against their computers and networks being used to transfer or store such things, and you might get corrupted. (1998-07-19) If it was defined by people within the bible, churches would be in arms about the paintings on some catherdral ceilings, which depict naked men.

There you're right and wrong. It is defined in the Bible, and people all have varying opinions about it. At one time, it was against God's law to see anyone but your spouse nude, for any reason. Most people now try to draw a distinction between "art" and "****". This can be a blurry line, but you hit the nail on the head; intent. If it's made to be a beautiful piece of art, to marvel at the beauty of the form itself, it's art, if it's there to make you want to go copulate, it's probably ****.

quote * I do not partonize pronography myself, nor could I support anyone claiming to be a believer to. Have you ever taken pictures and/or filmed you and your sexual partner enjoying your activities, only to replay it for your own personal enjoyment later on? Have you ever thought about it...even for a brief moment? Would that not constitute entertaining the thought of "partonize p0rn0graphy" in and of itself, even though it is private? How about some of the ways you enjoy sex? I mean, there has been and still is a religious protocol being taught in churches to the methods to which one can have and/or enjoy sex that you should have been taught and should be following. And please, do not entertain the motion of "free will". We B- [/B]

Well, here again, if it's your spouse, and you're not selling it or showing it to others, where's the problem? If it's just the two of you, and no animals or whatnot, there is no law. As far as "ways", I assume you mean "positions"? I still believe the anal orifice is prohibited, but other than that, what's the problem? I consider myself fairly creative in this regard.

Now, we can discuss Biblical laws all day long, but that's really not the heart of the matter. There are principles involved, and once you understand those, you can get beyond the law, and "think" for yourself.
God's laws were put in place because the Israelites were obviously incapable of following the 10 commandments in intent or principle, s all these other laws were put in place to 'think" for them.

That's what the Holy Spirit is all about; He will guide us into all Truth. He places God's intent in our heart, so we know whether something is right or wrong. Now, He will never guide us into anything against the Law, so that's a good rule of thumb when discerning that direction. This is where people go wrong, they think they know a "new" word of God, but it contradicts the Bible. God does not contradict Himself.

I hope this clears a lot up...

Well said Triad.

There's even more to it than that. For example, pornography has been linked in several studies to sex-related crimes. Crimes are wrong, therefore any pornography that results in sex crimes is wrong.

Another example: why would you want to see other women naked? Do you not have a wife? Ok, let's not use you as an example. How about any other man (or woman) who's married? Why would THEY want to see others in compromizing positions? Do you (or others) not find their spouses attractive? And what if the images really DO contribute to a divorce because someone decides 'Look what I'm missing, I can do better than that'. Divorce is wrong (breaking the vows, whether Christian or not), therefore any pornography that contributes to it is wrong.

There are even more reasons of why it is wrong.

Myself? I'd have to be gay to say that I find nudity completely offensive and unattractive (even though lots of it is not attractive). It doesn't change the fact that I think it's wrong. It contributes to society's decay.

Why?why?why? can't this post die?.

Well Votek, its also been said p0rn contributes to "rape" and women being frequent victims of rape due to its continued use.

Yet later and many studies have shown that there is no correlation between p0rn and rape, as rape is a physical act of "aggression" and a "control issue", to which p0rn was unable to contribute to during the studies.

We live today in a "Blame" society, where instead of pointing the fingers inward towards ourselves on many, many issues, its much easier to use such things, such as the current topic, as a scape goat to our behavior and to rationalize any wrong behavior.

For instance, their have been many cases of pedophiles who were attracted to children, as well as many serial rapists, but who never viewed p0rn. The feeling was already there.

and what about people who aren't married? would I be immoral if I wanted to click on some of the p0rn links that I get in my email?

if I had a GF at the moment, it wouldn't be an issue. heh..

------------------
steve@fieroproject.com
http://www.fieroproject.com

Uuhhmmmm.....

I came in late to this thread, but did Harry Potter use his magic to Pornagraphic ends...??

You know... turn invisible and go into the wiches lockeroom things like that.

The ultimate 13yr old fantasy

Just trying to catch up.

------------------
Little Duce Coupe
"You Don't Know What She Costs"

quote Originally posted by DaRkLoRD: and what about people who aren't married? would I be immoral if I wanted to click on some of the p0rn links that I get in my email? if I had a GF at the moment, it wouldn't be an issue. heh..

Anything outside of marriage.

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: Anything outside of marriage.

Based on who's standards?

woohoo.. I'm immoral..

------------------
steve@fieroproject.com
http://www.fieroproject.com

quote "Based on who's standards"

Based on Biblical standards.

quote "hoowoo! I'm immoral"

I take it your are saying this in regards to the "extramarital relations" subject. I must admit, I wasn't perfect in this regard, either.
Now, I've always benn faithful, monagomous (sp?) etc, but my wife wasn't my first.
This is a tough standard, to be sure.

quote Originally posted by DaRkLoRD: and what about people who aren't married? would I be immoral if I wanted to click on some of the p0rn links that I get in my email? if I had a GF at the moment, it wouldn't be an issue. heh..

And what if the one you're looking at is married? Then SHE is sinning. If she is sinning, then YOU are sinning by contributing to HER sin. So it's wrong either way.

Hiding behind the bible again.

Given free will, but not given free mind. Hmmmmm?

DISCLAIMER:
j/k! and razzing you man! Don't take it personal as it wasn't meant that way, tay?

Just adding to the mindless trashing here in the HP thread...my mindless trashing herewith included.

On another note: Anybody watch the HISTORY Channel lastnight about the "Lost Years of Jesus"?

Interesting to say the least.

[This message has been edited by JSocha (edited 12-19-2001).]

LOL!

Yeah, free will, and rules. Free will is the ability to "not" follow those rules.

Anyway, no, I missed that show, looked kinda flimsy, though!

wow, I'm a bit dyslexic.. but I know I've never said "hoowoo" before.. lol..

must be one of those translation errors I've been hearing about.. j/k.. hehe..

------------------
steve@fieroproject.com
http://www.fieroproject.com

Oh man... sorry.

I AM dyslexic (Les, Les Dyxic...glad to meet you), so that will happen occasionally.

WHEN DO WE START IN ON LORD OF THE RINGS???
NO GOD IN THAT STORY BUT DOES HAVE EVIL ONE!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd

Aw geez...don't remind me.

Should post a new thread for that one...the idea has been covered, though...no different than HP.

Agreed!

BLAH BLAH BLAH

quote Originally posted by JSocha: Well Votek, its also been said p0rn contributes to "rape" and women being frequent victims of rape due to its continued use. Yet later and many studies have shown that there is no correlation between p0rn and rape, as rape is a physical act of "aggression" and a "control issue", to which p0rn was unable to contribute to during the studies. We live today in a "Blame" society, where instead of pointing the fingers inward towards ourselves on many, many issues, its much easier to use such things, such as the current topic, as a scape goat to our behavior and to rationalize any wrong behavior. For instance, their have been many cases of pedophiles who were attracted to children, as well as many serial rapists, but who never viewed p0rn. The feeling was already there.

Damn... Can't find that "cheer.wav"

GIVE THE MAN A CIGAR!!!!

That is EXACTLY what is wrong with society. Child brings gun to school? Blame the parents for not locking it up? No, blame bullies, TV, the media, drugs, alcohol... ANYTHING to absolve oneself of any form of guilt. The problem is that NOBODY will take responsibility for their own actions, and the subsequent REACTIONS.

It's not a case of morality. That is a big heaping, steaming, malodourous pile of

E.G: Take TRIAD for example. There is PLENTY of ****, and indecency for him to look at... Yet, contrary to your argument, he is neither a rapist, nor a "John." Now how can THAT be?

Morality is something you decide from yourself, with very little input from the environment.

quote Originally posted by Mach10: Morality is something you decide from yourself, with very little input from the environment.

That is an argueable point. While it IS true that each individual has the ultimate ability to choose, social or even peer influences are often overpowering. If you find yourself in an inviroment where something is deemed acceptable, or even the norm, it is probably just a matter of time before you give in. How many young people with strong morals have suddenly found themselves in a college or military setting where drinking is both acceptable and considered normal. Before long, they too would be imbibing with the best of them. The same can be said of drugs or sexual activity. Look what happened to the ruling classes (Senators) of ancient Rome when some of the rulers began staging their famous orgies. "When in Rome, do as the Romans..."
Put a normally civil tongued person in a crowd of people that curse with every breath, it isn't long before they can make a sailor blush. While in the military I saw many instances of personality changes. Ranging from nice young kids turning into whore-mongering drunks, to mild-mannered guys eventually changing into bloodthirsty killers-just because of the social atmosphere had changed, and thereby changed them. Look at the people that end up in cults:
Any of us would think,"Why in the world would anyone line up to drink poison kool aid ?", but it is easy, if you have ever been in an isolated inviroment. Think it can't happen to you? Think again.

2 exceptional points.

Fact is, you're BOTH right.

Environments can GREATLY affect the outcome of a person surrounded by it, especially born into it.

BUT, environment canNOT remove responsibility for actions.

Read that again.

Still with me? Try this.

Your environment can determine who you are today, but it cannot determine who you will be tomorrow. Only you can do that.

Very good post, maryjane.

The only choice to be made is when the environment is giving conflicting input on what is right.

There is (or at least recently were) a primitive group of people in South America that the rite of passage of a boy to manhood was when he killed someone from outside the tribe. Without input from the outside world, how many boys do you think would make the decision that it was morally wrong to do this?

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: Your environment can determine who you are today, but it cannot determine who you will be tomorrow. Only you can do that.

Only true if you live in an environment that provides you a choice. How can someone ever decide that something is wrong if they are never even exposed to the idea that it might be wrong?

This brings up a good theology question. Will a Christian God hold people accountable if they have never been given the opportunity to believe in him?

quote Originally posted by DRH: Only true if you live in an environment that provides you a choice. How can someone ever decide that something is wrong if they are [b]never even exposed to the idea that it might be wrong?[/b]

Everyone is born with a conscience. This form of morality is autonomous and automatic. Some people choose to ignore or disobey it at a VERY early age. It does eventually fade with inattention.

quote This brings up a good theology question. Will a Christian God hold people accountable if they have [b]never been given the opportunity to believe in him?[/B]

Joseph Smith wrestled with this question. He decided it would make more sense if Christ came to the Americas and preached to the Indians.
Earlier than that, someone decided that "hell" was temporary, and that a loving God could only restore EVERYONE eventually, even Satan, and that He just didn't want to tell us about it in the Bible.

Personally, I worship and follow a just and fair God. A righteous God. Only He knows those people's hearts. Now, I bear the blame if I don't do my part to at least let them know it's an option, but it's His verdict as to whether they followed Him or not.
Looking at the law, you would think they were doomed.
Looking at God's grace, it's possible He has other plans.
That doesn't mean I can tarry and bank on His redemption in spite of me.

Hope this makes some sense...

Some will differ with my opinion on this subject of never having been offered the religious teachings. We (all mankind) are God's children. The bible teaches that Jesus suffers the little children, that is, the innocents of the world. If a person has never had the opportunity, he has not had the choice to make, thus has not rejected the teachings or beliefs. I believe then, that these untaught or unreached are suffered, just as the little children are, as they are like little children in God's eyes. In New Guinea and South America, there are undoubtedly peoples who, to this day have never been approached by missionaries or any other Christian teachers. Tho 'heathen', I believe they would fall in this catagory, just as a one yr old child would. Triad, I don't think anyone is born with an innate sense of right and wrong- it is an acquired or taught attribute. Ever been around a two yr old? Fun ain't it?

quote Originally posted by DRH: This brings up a good theology question. Will a Christian God hold people accountable if they have [b]never been given the opportunity to believe in him?[/B]

no. but there are not many in people the world who by now haven't heard about christianity. there are clergypeople who travel to the remotest parts of the world to witness to tribes. but if someone doesn't know about it, then they aren't held responsible. same goes for someone who doesn't have the ability to make the decision for themself (such as a child)

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 12-21-2001).]

Treating those that had never been educated as children would be consistent with other teachings... Makes sense.

I think a sense of what's right and wrong is very dependent on the environment. The instinct to classify things as one or the other is innate, which is which is very much learned. Something as drastic as murder might carry some built in warning bell but humans seem pretty good at teaching the rationalization of even that.

It gets even shakier when the damage to others is less obvious. I hope anyone here would consider selling your 12 year old daughter to be married to a 40 year old man morally wrong for both men. But that sort of thing has been considered right and normal by a LOT of cultures throughout history.

I once worked with a guy from India whose wife was agreed on by their parents when he was a toddler. They were only allowed a few "dates", closely watched by a chaparone, before they were married. He accepted this as the way things were, said it actually took the pressure off of finding the right woman. Would you consider it "right" to have your parents tell you who you were spending the rest of your life with?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: ...Triad, I don't think anyone is born with an innate sense of right and wrong- it is an acquired or taught attribute. Ever been around a two yr old? Fun ain't it?

Uh, I have 2 kids and one on the way, we work with kids, and my wife has been in daycare for 5+ years.

Yes, everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong. It needs to be reaffirmed and molded, and will be to an extent by environment, but it's there.

If you tell a 14 month old sternly NOT to touch something (TV, PC, garbage can...), he WILL look at you for reassurance while testing that boundary. If you reassure the rule while he's thinking about it, before he gets to it, you will invariably see him get close and stop himself before he gets there later.

We're going through this now with our son. He's amazing. He know many of his boundaries already, and even in our small place, he does really well. When we visit my parents, who have more "open space", he gets into almost nothing. People have mentioned how good he (and our daughter) is/are when we're out.

I can't take all the credit, there has been a lot of prayer put into their upbringing.

The kids you mentioned clearly simply haven't been shown their boundaries properly.

quote Originally posted by TRiAD: I can't take all the credit, there has been a lot of prayer put into their upbringing. The kids you mentioned clearly simply haven't been shown their boundaries properly.

I know many "good" parents/families that "HAVE" shown their kids and have worked on setting the boundaries, reinforced them to no end, if not prayed for them and they still became little deviants.

On the other hand, I also do know many "bad" parents/families (you know the druggies/drunks/partiers... 50/50 ratio here ) where some have not done the above and if I had my choice of babysitting their kids, I would be more then willing to babysit them or adopt them as my kids, because they have more manners, common sense then alot of kids supposedly in a good upbringing.

Yes, enviromental influences and other things can and may shape and/or mold our personalities. However, we are who we are and believe we are born with what our personality disposition will eventually be. Much like any other mammel/animal. I believe strongly we are born with our predisposition already molded into our fabric.

NEXT!