2
2towers
Guest
I was just responding to what you said about the only nudity was some breasts. Calm down, I am not attacking you. We are just having a discussion, arent we?
Not as a kid, it might not. But a parent isn’t supposed to just think of that year. The greater lesson is that some things are right, and some are wrong.As I stated, she should tell her son why she objects to the program.
However, being puritanical never changes the mind of a 16 year old male.
Yes it will. If one does not think there is such a thing as sin, one does not need a savior from sin. Your use of the phrase “puritanical attitude” is spiritually immature, loaded rhetoric. God calls it holiness, and call us all to it. The only thing I agree with you on, is that rules just for the sake of rules, without proper instruction, is worthless.It won’t help him to even consider being Catholic if a puritanical attitude is used toward him.
That’s why I expose my kids to a healthy dose of drugs and internet porn every morning.But hiding the reality of the world from people, even children
So Caligula could be a good family film? Or how about Henry: portrait of a serial killer?I see nothing to be gained from censoring anything from anyone.
If we take this sentiment to the extreme, it would mean there would be nothing wrong with showing hardcore pornography to five year olds. I hope most people can recognize that such a thing would definitely not be okay. And if we can all agree on that, then that means we agree that some boundaries are necessary. We may just disagree about where the boundaries should be established.I see nothing to be gained from censoring anything from anyone.