General Question

Your_Majesty's avatar

Government try to block all porno sites? What's your thought?

Asked by Your_Majesty (8212points) July 17th, 2010

I just watched the national news and it’s revealed that Indonesia is a country with the biggest porno accessors through internet. The Telecommunication ministry said that the government will block all access to porno in internet through all internet service provider in this country by using what they called as “Massive Trust” software next month since he thinks porno is unacceptable and unworthy for young generations in Indonesia. Why can’t people protest like what they did when rice prices rise 10%? Will all people who protest be branded as perverts? Or maybe they just want people to know their holiness? I myself,think our government is too involved in its citizen’s privacy,and this shouldn’t be allowed to happen.

so,what’s your thought about this situation? What if the same thing happens in your country?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

55 Answers

zenele's avatar

Big Brother.

Lightlyseared's avatar

The thing is you need rice to live where as you don’t need porno (well that’s open to discussion I suppose) so when the price of rice went up there was more of an incentive to protest.

UScitizen's avatar

Historically, central governments have found freedom of speech to be a thorn in their collective sides. Virtually all central governments conduct sustained campaigns to squelch the voices of their citizens. When citizens fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the citizens, there is liberty.

Bagardbilla's avatar

Damn politicians!
You know they all visit the sites!
In most Muslim countries there’s a religious stigma attached to things like Porn, Alcohol, etc. So it’s a lot easier to protest against high prices of rice then some of the lesser ‘necessities’ of life… :)
There’s also a lack of historical tradition to the idea of protest for certain freedoms… it’s hard to protest in favor of rights to be able to commit a sin…

reijinni's avatar

bunch of a__holes. It shall never fly.

ETpro's avatar

Makes me glad we have a First Amendment protection of free speech here. I’m not signed up for any porno sites, but I don’t feel; any need of Big Brother protecting me from myself.

NaturallyMe's avatar

I don’t care. Since when is internet porn such a necessity? They can go buy a magazine or make their own porn.

LuckyGuy's avatar

I looks like a “make work” project. Will they have entire offices responsible for seeking out and shutting down porn sites? Will the top guy His Royal Holiness Minister of Correct Thinking be paid a ton of money?
I’ll bet some minster has a relative who does IT work. He will get the contract and make millions.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@All,GA!

@Bagardbilla The problem is that they keep it secret even though they’re ones of many people who did that. The Islamic department is also the one who responsible for this,they keep attacking government with this issue,stating that ‘impure government’ will produce impure citizens and they will have no choice but to take action on their own.

@NaturallyMe Magazine and porno videos are also forbidden here. People who sell it will be caught instantly. 5 years,if I still remember,the punishment for video and porno magazine seller.

@worriedguy All still in progress,but he said that this is issue has gone too far,too shameful for our nation,and a real action should be taken,so I believe his words will come in to reality. Beside,there are many fraction in our political department that support his idea,especially religion fractions,and of course,the religion(in this case,the Islamic) department. Together,they will press government both for political and economic support.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

I don’t support a ban but I would support paid access instead of free if only to weed out young kids who haven’t even had sex from cruising the sites.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Neizvestnaya It’s not only about kids,they want to ban porno so all people from all ages in this country will have nothing to do with “porno”. Believe it or not,people here(especially politicians) really claim themselves as religionists and will try anything to keep their ‘pureness’. That means “no porno” for all people,period.

ipso's avatar

Every government censors their people. The US First Amendment has proven to have many exceptions. Even if you don’t violate anyone, you can’t say quite a few things in our society actually. You can’t even say X on this website – even if used in irony.

Governments (or self appointed groups) swell with self righteousness and form ugly, seething, raving, mobs. Many on the Left are so far left they are Right in their prescribed rightness – and hypocritical use of “tolerance”. They’re not so different than your government. Your government leaders feel equally justified to protect, by whatever means, what they feel is proper and correct for self serving purposes.

Censorship is a universal continuum that governments and groups arbitrarily agree to put various lines across. The only thing for sure in the future is that what we think “for sure” today will not be.

NaturallyMe's avatar

@Doctor_D – ok…. Well, either way, i don’t think it’s a big deal and it’s definitely not a necessity in my opinion. People survived without porn before it was invented on the scale that it’s found in today. You all seem to be upset by it, but i honestly don’t care if it didn’t exist.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

@Doctor_D- That’s insane and I can’t imagine it really happening but if it does then it will be a dismal failure. Like others have mentioned, porn will just become a homegrown underground industry there because they probably won’t outlaw cell phones with cameras, internet access and video features or computers and photographic equipment. It’s doubtful they’ll hack off the hands of artists and graphics designers.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Neizvestnaya This is an extra; Government has tried many times to prevent porno usage before they decided to completely ban porno in this country,they have already checked cellphones from all students,school employees,public workers,etc and they also did it in public internet services where many people from different ages use computer(some school even fired their teacher for keeping porno picture and videos in their cellphone),and believe it or not,they have the ‘right’ to do it and they carry a number of police officers with them in case someone resist to cooperate.

Thank goodness I have my own laptop at home so I can use it on my own without any intervention from ‘other people’.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

@Doctor_D- In the case of public/government workers and students then I’m in favor of a ban while at work or during school if your citizens pay for those services or students attend publically funded schools. I attended a private school where even certain foods weren’t allowed to be brought in and they currently do bar electronic devices aside from calculators. What people do aside from work or school should be their own business but not at the public expense.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Neizvestnaya I believe that is a constructive idea(they did that after some well-known celebrities are known to have ‘forbidden sex’ or after another well-publicated tragedy,how ironic,they just do it for this reason and they won’t keep doing this thing periodically for any reason). Is that mean people have lost their privacy in public?(even for porno?) I really like my privacy(any kinds of privacy) and I don’t like when someone try to take it away from me.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

@Doctor_D- I believe there is privacy to do what is legal and then there is the feeling of entitlement in which some people want to do what is legal but at inappropriate times and at other people’s expense. Does your govt. believe time given to pornography is distracting public employees and students from their work and studies? Maybe the root of their ban is fiscal as well as religious?

Your_Majesty's avatar

@Neizvestnaya I believe they did that more for religious reasons. I don’t think there’s a boundary of privacy for people from all ages but if government really want this to happen then I have no choice but to agree with them. (sigh) after all,no one want to protest for this idea is about to happens.

jaytkay's avatar

@worriedguy I looks like a “make work” project. Will they have entire offices responsible for seeking out and shutting down porn sites?

Maybe, but they might hire a company which already filters sites.
You can, too. It’s free for home use.

I have used two services (DynDns and OpenDNS) and they allow me to block or allow any categories listed below.

If your employer blocks certain content, this is probably how they do it.

Adult Content
Advertisements and Pop-ups
Alcohol and Tobacco
Arts
Auctions
Business
Chat and Instant Messaging
Comics and Humor
Computers and Technology
Conficker Worm
Criminal Activity
Downloads
Education
Entertainment
Finance and Investment
Food and Dining
Forums and Newsgroups
Gambling
Game Information/Media
Game Playing
Government and Legal
Hacking
Health and Medicine
Hobbies and Recreation
Home and Garden
Hosting Sites
Illegal Drugs
Intimate Apparel and Swimsuits
Intolerance and Hate
Job Search and Career Development
Kids
Motor Vehicles
News
Peer-to-Peer
Personals and Dating
Phishing
Photo Searches
Political Issues and Activist Groups
Pornography
Proxies
Real Estate
Reference
Religion
Science
Search Engines and Portals
Sex Education
Shopping
Social Networking
Society and Culture
Spam
Sports
Spyware
Streaming Media
Tasteless and Offensive
Terrorism
Travel
Violence
Weapons
Web Based Email

Your_Majesty's avatar

@jaytkay Now,that is something interesting.
.
.
I guess many people will lost their opportunity to access porno next month. (sigh).

ragingloli's avatar

Technologically infeasible. How is their software going to recognise pornographic images?
Is it a black list? Then good luck spending an eternity on the web trying to find all sites that have porn. Chances are only the most well known sites will be blocked, the rest will remain perfectly accessible and your government will have wasted billions on some ridiculous moral crusade.
Is it an on-the-fly porn image and video recognition software? ISP’s would be forced to spend millions on dedicated servers just to process all the image data, not to mention that such a software would either be incapable of detecting most porn images or be so sensitive that a lot of non-porn files would be blocked as well. More money wasted.
Also proxy.

Your_Majesty's avatar

@ragingloli That is also so interesting! They want to use the “Massive Trust” software after they make sure all internet service provider agree with their idea. I can’t find about this software in Google(maybe a self-developed software) but they said this software is really that effective to block porno. Although this could be just a rumor.

jaytkay's avatar

@ragingloli

It’s already cost-effective for the typical business. Why not Indonesia? There are a shockingly small number of cables carrying the Internet into that huge country. I think it is fewer than ten.

See my earlier comment. It is surprising easily to block all those categories. And “Proxies” is a category. Obviously, it’s not 100% ironclad. But it’s pretty good.

I have no opinion on the desirability. But I think it is very feasible.

ragingloli's avatar

“they said this software is really that effective to block porno”
They say a lot of things.
I have yet to find a program that can reliably find duplicates of pictures, I doubt they have come up with a piece of software that is reliable enough to not block too much or too little.
@jaytkay
Our school also had a lot of sites blocked. The thing is the amount blocked was only a fraction of what was available on the net, the rest was still perfectly accessible. Finding a proxy site to access stuff that was blocked was not exactly difficult either.

jaytkay's avatar

@ragingloli Our school also had a lot of sites blocked. The thing is the amount blocked was only a fraction of what was available on the net, the rest was still perfectly accessible. Finding a proxy site to access stuff that was blocked was not exactly difficult either.

Maybe your school had a poor filter.

The services I describe serve clients like the US governement, IBM and Microsoft.

iloveacting's avatar

I am all for the government blocking porn sites. Our society (and others) have become soooooo desensitized to it. I feel the same about Victoria Secret and other companies that use women (and sometimes men) to promote their product by using their bodies. The other day I was walking in the mall and I passed Victoria Secret. Well There were 4 or 5 HUGE posters of women in underwear (and obviously airbrushed and photoshopped, because NO ONE looks like that) in seductive and suggestive poses. I’m 17 year old girl, however, if I was a mother, I would have a MAJOR problem knowing my children would be able to see that.

Our culture (and again also others) has come to believe that reducing women (I refer mostly to women, because this applies most commonly to them) is now okay. It, of course, is not right and the more people reduce them, the more people will think that is all they are good for (just for their bodies).

Now I know that obviously not everyone feels this way, but this is my own personal take on it. So, yes. The government, in my opinion, NEEDS to block ALL porn sites. Plus, what do you get out of them? Maybe like an hour of pleasure then you’re done? That’s just instant gratification, and you wil never be fully satisfied and you will just keep wanting more to the point of becoming addicted to it.

jerv's avatar

@iloveacting Kiss internet commerce and any innovation in video technology goodbye and cause a resurgence if other mediums then,

If you are worried about your kids looking at porn then that says less about the availability of porn and more about your inability to raise them properly.

That is just my take on it though.

iloveacting's avatar

@jerv Its not just my kids (which i dont have) it;s the growing generation.

ragingloli's avatar

because all porn has women in it…
And besides, if I had to choose between today and the good old biblical “women are men’s property” time, guess what I would choose. Like it or not, porn is an improvement over the abrahamic attitude towards women.

perspicacious's avatar

The constitution would prevent this in the USA. This is one thing a government is doing that, if I were in that country, I wouldn’t really care personally. Problem is to what other information are citizens’ access blocked?

iloveacting's avatar

@ragingloli I’m not going to say this for sure, but I believe you are looking at that biblical context wrong. Now, I“m not saying that you are wrong, and that I am right, because who can really decided what’s right and whats wrong. I’m just going by the information that I learned in my relationships class last year.

Anonymoususer's avatar

I don’t watch them, but let those who want watch. I think it’s time for government and police to block pornography only if it involves children, or people who have been forced or fouled into sexual slavery by trafficking.

jerv's avatar

@iloveacting I am just going to pretend that you already know why that is silly and move on.

***

The way I see it, legislating morality is a slippery slope at best. Besides, who determines what is/isn’t porn? That goes to obscenity and if we want to block out obscenity then Glen Beck needs to be taken off the air permanently Sarah Palin is forbidden from public appearances, and I am pushing for a law against aggressive Christian proselytizing (not your polite knock on the door “Have you found Jesus?” types, but your hellfire and brimstone “YOU ARE GOING TO BURN!!!” crowd) as I find all of those extremely obscene.

Nullo's avatar

While I applaud the government’s recognition of pornography as a detrimental force in society, I am ever fond of the smaller government. My educational background would suggest that the solution is to market the people away from porn.
@ragingloli At no point that I’ve found does the Bible designate women as property.

jerv's avatar

@Nullo The Bible may or may not (I’m to otired to double-check) but many who believe in the Bible do. Whether that means that many Christians are disobeying The Word of God is another discussion entirely.

ragingloli's avatar

Rape an unmarried woman/girl: pay the father some money and marry her. classic case of “you broke it, you bought it”
Rape the wife of another man: get killed. not because you raped a woman, but because the woman you raped belonged to another man.
From that it is clear how little value the bible places on women. Not only do you not get any real punishment for raping a woman, you only get the harder punishment if by doing so you violate the property situation of another man.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Regardless of whether Indonesia succeeds in blocking porn or not, if they do, I hope someone will study the results of that decision, as to determine if it affected society in any way, like finding a greater or lesser amount of divorce, infidelity, rape, abortion, sexual crime, child abuse… and the like.

If nothing changes, then what could be the reason for removing it? If something does change, one way or another, then society has a responsibility to weigh the changes against the affects.

I’m also interested in knowing how they define pornography. What criteria is used to determine such a thing?

I’m also concerned that a compromise wasn’t considered. Such as allowing pornography, but requiring it to be published through its own special XXX servers rather than the standard WWW network. That would make it much easier to block and access. And the data produced from studying the change could lead to wiser decisions later.

Everything seems so all or nothing black and white in this world. It’s Us against Them over and over again. I hear the grass is greener in the Middle Ground.

Nullo's avatar

@ragingloli Deuteronomy 22:25 mandates that a man who rapes an engaged or married woman be executed. 22:28–29, working with the culture of the day, is requiring that offender marry the unbetrothed girl in question, since it was unlikely that anybody else would want to, and single women had a very difficult time of it.
The money is for the dowry, another cultural – but not Biblical – element.

RareDenver's avatar

@Nullo dowry is not the same as a bride price

A dowry is essentially a father paying someone to take on the responsibility of his daughter and a bride price is someone buying a man’s daughter from him. It all just reeks of an exchange of property for money or money’s worth, slavery anyone?

ragingloli's avatar

@Nullo
Both cases are rape cases, yet they are punished to widely differing extent. One is a monetary compensation of damages, the other is death.
To explain this crass discrepancy, you have to compare the two cases and find out, which circumstance in one case is the qualifier for the harsher punishment.
And it is clear as day that the only difference is the fact that in one case the woman is married.
What that invariably means is that it is this violation of property that is actually incurring the death penalty, not the actual act rape, because the other case punishes just that act of rape by a mere monetary compensation and forced marriage.
It also shows that of these two crimes, the bible considers rape to be the lesser crime, because of the fact that the punishment for it is lower.
And, as denver-kun said, giving money to the couple and giving money to the father as compensation are two entirely different things.

wundayatta's avatar

I need to get into the proxy server business!

Nullo's avatar

@ragingloli The difference lies in the responsibility for the woman’s well-being.
Up until very recently historically speaking, a woman living on her own would have a difficult time of things. In ancient Israel, it was the father’s responsibility to provide the necessities for and look after the welfare of his daughter until she was married, at which point that responsibility would be passed to her husband.
In the first case, the woman’s future well-being is – barring the unforeseen – already secure: she is engaged. In the second case, it is not, and it is unlikely, in that culture, at that time, that she would be deemed marriageable.
The guy in Scenario 2 goes unkilled because the alternative would risk eventually leaving the woman unsupported—fathers don’t live forever, after all.
Of course, you’ve already decided that you want to assume the worst, so there’s not much that I can do to sway you.

@RareDenver You’re right, it is a bride price, and not a dowry.

From the link: Bride-price is not a payment for women, but rather is seen as a way of valuing the labor of women, the effort involved by the bride’s family in raising the female, and the labor value of a woman’s offspring. The payment is a way of securing the rights of the husband’s group over the woman’s children.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And let’s be sure to note that was a cultural ideology, not a biblical mandate.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Deuteronomy 22:28–29 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

Deuteronomy 22:25 “But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.”

It was potentially a capital crime in Old Testament law, and it was clearly a property crime. The victim’s interests were irrelevant because she was “nothing” but a female. The property rights of the father or the betrothed are all that were of concern.

You could even get yourself stoned to death for eating shellfish under the Old Testament law. And a while host of other things. It always amuses me when Bible thumpers claim to believe literally in the book yet break any number of laws that are capital offenses in it. I think a lot of them haven’t even read it.

jerv's avatar

@ETpro I am pretty sure that they either haven’t read it or read an “updated” version that they claim is identical to the original texts but really isn’t.

Then again, there are at least 19 different interpretations of Exodus 22:18 and we all know how many people were put to death as a result. Well, except for delusional apologists who understate it by at least an order of magnitude if they admit it ever happened at all… Note that most of them allow men to perform evil magic.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

ju guys are talking about the law of Moses… not the law of God.

The law of God was for governance of the heart. The law of Moses was for governance of a nation. And although the OT was for the Jewish nation in particular, certainly you don’t believe that other nations of that region treated women and children any differently… do you? Oh well you might, seeing as how other nations also sacrificed their children to their gods.

Yes I’ve read it all, and studied it intensely about a dozen times with half a dozen versions. Please don’t confuse the historical references as biblical mandates from God. Truth is an onion. You gotta peel the layers away one at a time. And the deeper you go, the more it makes you want to cry.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies No, Check the original answer where this came up. The statement was what the Bible says. But those who believe every word of the Bible is the inerrant Word of God wouldn’t recognize your attempt at hair splitting anyway. And if you did the crime back in those days, you did the time. So who cares whose word it really was?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I see. I cannot deny that the rights of women were practically reduced to that of cattle in the historical references in the Bible. But it certainly does make a difference whether or not it is perceived to be the will of God, or the law of a nation.

Please don’t reduce my comments as an attempt at hairsplitting. I’m acknowledging the clear differences. Compare the Law of Moses to the 10 commandments if you don’t believe me. I’m jus’ sayin’.

There are many laws of that time and era that make no sense to us at all today. And we would do well not to limit our judgments upon that which is written in the Bible. We don’t even agree with many of the foreign laws of today. How far removed is our ability to understand their reasoning four thousand years ago?

Don’t for an instance think that I agree with those laws… pah-leeze. But I won’t be so foolish to judge those laws by modern standards either.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The belief among many Christians is that the entire Bible is the inerrant word of God. The laws of Moses are seen as inspired by God every bit as much as the 10 commandments. Certainly there are churches that reject that, but both the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations believe in Biblical Inerrancy. Some do view parts of it, such as the creation myth in Genesis as allegorical and not literal. But they do insist that the Laws of Moses are God’s Laws.

They just conveniently sidestep the New Testament where Mathew tells us the Master said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

That doesn’t sound to me as if he’s talking about the 10 Commandments. The Law, to those of his day, would have meant everything the scribes and the Pharisees were teaching. He quite specifically included ”...the Prophets” in that pronouncement.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Well, if you really want to know, just continue your quoted verse one more sentence, you’ll clearly see that Jesus was speaking of the Ten Commandments. You quoted Mathew 5:17–18. He then goes on to describe the unrighteousness of the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

19–20:
“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus was specifically separating the Ten Commandments from The Law of Moses. ”these commandments” and ”the law” are clearly distinguished apart from one another. The Pharisees and teachers of the law were corrupt, and pointing out their corruption was the real reason Jesus was killed. He threatened their power hold.

Read further and he specifically goes into detail about both the Ten Commandments (expanding upon them), and the Law of Moses (rejecting them as sufficient for salvation, in that they were legal documents rather than spiritually beneficial). It is up to the reader to determine which is which. Such is the nature of Jesus’ teachings. They were not meant to be taken out of context and used to hurl scriptures at one another. He mixed them up so that only the those who actually read and study the entire scriptures in context could make any real sense out of them. All others toss them about foolishly to support a particular agenda.

He begins with two of the Ten Commandments, in support.

Murder
21–26:
21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

23“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

the Pharisees would have settled for the gift, and not concerned themselves with the forgiveness

25“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery
27–30:
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
_____________

See the pattern? Jesus is concerned with sins of the heart. For that alone is what kills the spirit.
_____________

The next verse, still on adultery, he addresses the Law of Moses as a physical document concerned with legality, but expands the notion to indicate what that means to the spirit.

31–32:
31“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Taking the Lord’s name in vain (Most people consider this as simple swearing. But it’s actually much deeper than that. It includes keeping your word and honoring your oaths, which is different from lying or bearing false witness. Saying “God is my witness” is just as erroneous as saying “God Damn It”. This is played out in modern courtrooms to this day. The foundational principle of lying under an oath made to God.)
33–37:
33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Then Jesus specifically rejects a Law of Moses
.
38–42:
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

And Continues to reject…
43–48:
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
______________

It goes on and on comparing the Ten Commandments to the Law of Moses, ending with Mathew 7:28–29:
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

_________________

There are other scriptures where Jesus separates himself and his teachings from the Law of Moses. For instance, when Jesus was to be stoned by the Pharisees, he asked them why. They said it was for blasphemy (against the Law), in which Jesus answered them in John 10:34:
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’[e]?

“Your Law”… not God’s Law, not Our Law, not The Law.

In Mark 1:1–12 Jesus was asked specifically about the Law. And he contrasted the Law of Moses against the Law of God, relating it to his commandment on adultery.

“And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” —Mark 1:1–12

___________________

There are too many misunderstandings about Christianity. They come from both Christians and Atheists alike. Not only did Jesus reject the Law of Moses as necessary for spiritual enlightenment and salvation, but Jesus never wanted to start Christianity in the first place. He didn’t. He only wanted to teach The Way. That became a religion upon the invention of Christianity. It all went downhill from there.

Jesus’ fulfillment of The Law is based upon his ability to put it into context, which threatened the Jewish leaders hold on religious authority. But by explaining The Law in its relationship to the Ten Commandments, and noting the isolated principles of their purposes, and how they related to governance of a nation vs spiritual salvation, he did in fact fulfill The Law through careful examination and specific teachings about it.

This gave him the authority to write a new commandment which encompassed the true essence of all of Gods Commandments and Jewish Law fulfilled. That being, to love one another.

ETpro's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I take your point. Thanks for taking the time to expound on it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Thanks for taking the time to consider it. Ugghhffk I hate doing that. Especially to you. It makes me feel like such a fanatical extremist lunatic. Especially when it’s so off topic to the OP. But your consideration is highly appreciated nonetheless.

deadhead's avatar

Personally I don’t think,“The Government” has any right be“Big Brother” to adults in the privacy of their own home.Although,I am totally appalled by “kiddie porn” being scene,distibuted and sold to other pedephiles for their sick perversions.On the other hand it’s the parents duty to watch over their minor childrens actions accordingly by installing monitor programs which limit where and what they can see on the web.Or pay the ultimate price when their child does not come home one day from school or the mall etc…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther