CJ,

"...but we do seem to be experiencing a re-definition of 'child abuse', don't we?"

We do? My only knowledge of the facts of the case are from the media so I can only go on that. They claim that the subject of the police investigation has been photographing naked children. In one case he apparently depicted a naked young girl being held back, exposed, by a naked boy and girl. If hypothetically what they seem to suggest the artist has been caught producing is correct then I would have thought it would fit squarely within standard definitions of child abuse. Some people seem to think it requires a lewd motive by the photographer but I have seen someone locked up for a long time with less indication of lewd motive. Whether you think the laws are too tough or not doesn't mean that there is somehow a redefinition. There was no issue of change of laws just police becoming aware of something and acting on current laws.

Obviously it isn't what you were referring to but there does however seem to be an elitist exemption being argued for whereby if a recognised artist takes photos of nude kids for an artistic purpose and the intended viewers aren't expected to derive sexual gratification then they should be exempt or perhaps if a famous person is involved an exemption should apply. There is nothing of the sort currently in place. However (in the hypothetical above) if the photographer on reasonable grounds thought the kids were adults or he was insane or he was sleepwalking or suffering an epileptic fit or otherwise acted involuntarily then he would be entitled to be acquitted if prosecution proceeds.

BOAZ_David wrote:

"CHRISTIANITY DOES teach a fallen human nature from Adam and hence from birth.

ISLAM does not. Islam teaches people are born sinless. This rather appeals to the shallow sentimental mind, but is theologically flawed."

BOAZ_David has the unfortunate habit of equating the superstitions of Christianity with truth. Original Sin is Christian nonsense.

Jews interpret the curse put on the earth by Adam's act lasting only as long as Adam was alive. Eden is Jewish Dreamtime, a tale of how things started. Patriarchy triumphs over matriarchy. The Hebrew word for earth has female gender, but man was created from earth and Adam is the masculine form of the Hebrew word for earth. Plato's Fall of Man grafted on to Genesis produced the concept of original sin.

Elaine Pagels in "Adam, Eve and the Serpent" tells how the doctrine of Original Sin was adopted. Augustine promoted the idea, and Pelagius, an English monk, argued against it. Saint Augustine was obsessed with original sin, punishment and the shamefulness of the body, an outlook Pelagius regarded as pessimistic and irrational. P became a focus of opposition to Augustine's views, emphasising free will, people born with a clean slate and sex and death as natural parts of life. Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire and the emperor had a voice in the final decision. The emperor was a great lover of horses, and a supporter of Augustine gave the emperor eighty Numidian horses. Emperor Honorius found in favor of Augustine. In 418 the pope excommunicated Pelagius, and the emperor ordered him fined, expelled from office and sent into exile.

Augustine was a neurotic individual. He had guilt over such trivia as stealing pears from an orchard when he was 15 and having a long-lasting loving sexual relationship which he gave up along with his son when he became a Christian and embraced celibacy which is a cold thing to embrace. By getting Original Sin adopted as a Christian doctrine he managed to put his neuroses on a lot of other people who he caused to suffer from irrational guilt.

Dear David F

please feel free to describe the notion of original sin as "Christian nonsense" :) as of course you did.

But your argument lacked a couple of important aspects.

SOURCES would be most welcome.

and then, you tried to argue against the doctrine/teaching (Please refer to Pauls letter to the Romans-it came from there, along with the whole of the Old Testament) not from Augustine.

Pelagius was just one of many heretics.. *BD looks around for some straw..and a stake.. aaah..now..where is David F...*...hmmmm :)

yes, Islam doesn't have those characteristics about sin, but I included it for the indoctrination and the kind of threats made against those who leave the faith etc... I think it's an automatic death warrant (in life as direct punishment, whereas christianity makes the threat in the afterlife)?

Now pelican mentioned the moderates and defended them. And this is intersting. Images of naked children in and of themselves are not sinful. Nudity of a child is innately 'innocent' and all Australians will see it that way. In a sense, nudity in art such as Henson's and the religious biblical commissioned paintings of many hundreds of years ago that show naked children are the 'moderate'. However there is a further technical distinction in that the artists and normal Australians don't belong in the same 'religion' or any 'religion' for that matter and hence do not even have any association.

I think CJ got part of this and in that sense it is very serious indeed. If you look at both videos i linked to, it shows the destruction of the individual and the replacement of their natural state of mind with an artificial punishment system. When you think about it, why aren't these extremists illegal RIGHT NOW, as they tangibly inflict incredible harm on the mind by filling them with these lies and punishments (let alone *approved* and *registered* by the Uk Tony Blair's government)?

Also, someone objected to circumcision and compared it with a needle for immunisation. I can't believe the person even believes that as the procedure by definition is mutilation and obviously different from injecting a needle, but I will see it as down to pure ignorance. Go take a look at some pictures and videos of the procedure and you will see that parental child abuse of an horrific and permanent kind is both MAINSTREAM and LEGAL. Here are some links anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwU-UsaYEGA
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
http://www.cirp.org/news/dagensnyheter03-16-01/

BOAZ_David wrote:

"SOURCES would be most welcome.

and then, you tried to argue against the doctrine/teaching (Please refer to Pauls letter to the Romans-it came from there, along with the whole of the Old Testament) not from Augustine.

Pelagius was just one of many heretics.. *BD looks around for some straw..and a stake.. aaah..now..where is David F...*...hmmmm :)"

I cited sources. Why should I cite a source you select for me? The New Testament is not a reliable document considering its construction and canonisation. The Christian heresy stemmed from Judaism. It adopted the pagan idea of a man-god in Jesus.

I cited the scholar, Elaine Pagels. Unlike Paul or Augustine her works were subjected to peer review before publication.

Rabbi Hertz in his commentary on the Soncino edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs commented that guilt for the sin of Adam died with Adam. A rabbi commenting on the Jewish Bible is the best source in that area. In his commentary Rabbi Hertz cites both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Have you consulted any but Christian sources for the non-Christian Jewish Bible?

You demeaned the Islamic view rejecting original sin as 'shallow sentimentality'. I referred to the superstitions of Christianity. We can make an effort to show respect for those views differing from ours.

Augustine got Original Sin accepted as doctrine. It was appropriate to discuss the politics that went into the decision. Before Augustine it was not accepted Christian doctrine. I cited the Platonic view of Genesis. Paul was another neurotic. Original Sin is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible influenced by Platonism.

Unfortunately the heretics like Pelagius often make much better sense than accepted Christian doctrines. Should one reject a sensible idea because neurotics like Paul and Augustine rejected it?

One problem with Christian Fundamentalism is that it regards the Bible as complete in itself and neglects the context in which it was written and other documentation of the time. Bishop Spong has written "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture”. I suggest the book to help put the Bible in context.

“Disagree all you want but you are wrong for multiple reasons and from multiple angles. “

How typical of this character Steel. No matter what anyone who disagrees with him thinks, they will be wrong. Nice of him to ‘allow’ others to disagree, though!

It could be years before any effects will appear in the children photographed.

However, in South Australia at least, if teachers, doctors, social workers and any public servant dealing with children got wind of the fact that a child was to be photographed,or had been photographed naked, they are legally obliged to report to police that the child is ‘at risk'.

I would hope that this is standard procedure in other states, too.