[CoastalCoder]

The article doesn't strike me as super biased, but it may be a bit shallow regarding the issues.

If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus, then I'd be interested in:

- How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.)

- How could that guy's accountability partner have better recognized false positives?

- How could that guy's accountability partner been more of a friend and less of a (seeming?) jerk?

- Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?

[alkonaut]

> If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus

This isn't so much about religion (or even morality or ethics) "protection" but rather a discussion about privacy.

> How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths?

A simple content filter does a similar job, but without privacy invading surveillance. Even better if it has a way to circumvent it. E.g. the filter could just say "are you sure?" and then let me past. Many apps like that work well for self-accountabiluty. If that's not offering enough accountability then I'd argue the answer to the question is "you don't."

> Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?

While privacy is extremely important and app stores and device manufacturers are central to upholding it, I think a key here is that whoever willingly runs some kind of spyware app is willingly giving up their privacy. All the app store or device manufacturer should do is make sure that anyone who installs an app that spies on them, is aware that it's spying on them.

For example, an app can't use GPS or Microphone on iOS without the user knowing and that's the way it should be.

I cant't see where religion and inclusiveness comes into this eiher to be honest. I doubt there are religions appealed by privacy violations of the kind that would require (as in this example) always-on secret microphone recording in an app.

[jrs235]

To answer the questions about the guy's accountability partner: the guy didn't (truly and freely) choose his accountability partner, his "accountability partner", actually "monitor", chose him.

Add: And it seems the guy was rushed ("forced") into installing the app and agreeing to the "solution".

[hef19898]

I cannot imagine how hard it has to be for a religious memeber of the LGBTQ community. One part of you, the religious part, is abused by religious leaders people you have faith in and trust, to deny the other part.

But hey, the Catholic church has a tremendous history of accepting whatever abuse from priests while using some deeply rooted desires of their followers to accept that abuse.

That being said, the "priest" in the story is just a simple and abusive cult leader.

[listless]

That’s the way they wrote it. In reality, having an accountability partner is not new and it’s likely this guy signed on for it. Think of it like an AA sponsor - however poorly implemented here.

[m000]

If it was Jeff Bezos assigning an employee a "pee accountability partner", would you also say "this is what this guy signed on for" by working for him?

[suggestion]

Yes, no one is forced to work for Jeff Bezos

[dmurray]

Gracepoint is a church targeting college students. He almost certainly signed up to this institution voluntarily: it's not something he was born into or will be shunned by his family for rejecting.

So it's fair to say he chose this church, and the accountability partner is something that comes along with that. Of course, there are other instances of coercive behaviour by religious groups where this is not true.

[Barrin92]

I think if one takes Christianity seriously then they would recognize that sinning takes place in the mind, and that putting a chastity belt on your phone doesn't really change anything, not going down wrong paths is supposed to be a choice, not the product of community phone surveillance. God knows if you want to look at porn.

I don't think there is a non-bogus version of this especially if you are a Christian. An 'accountability partner' sounds like something Scientology or the CCP assigns to you but not a Christian

So if you're looking for the genuinely Christian solution: Have a relaxed attitude towards modern vices, you don't need to partake in them, just close the browser window. Little bit more faith in Christ, maybe switch the denomination, and less of whatever this is

"Brit says she was asked to install the app by her parents after she was caught looking at pornography and that her mother and her pastor were both her designated accountability partners. “I remember I had to sit down and have a conversation with him [her pastor] after I Wikipedia’d an article about atheism,” she says. “I was a kid, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some kind of right to read what I want to read.””

[imchillyb]

Sin is a heart issue.

There are only two choices on the shelf: Pleasing God, or pleasing self.

[Viliam1234]

Are you suggesting that God is completely opposed to everything we value?

[DHPersonal]

There are so many different versions of Christianity that it would be extremely likely to receive contradictory answers to your question.

[Viliam1234]

I am most curious about the ones who worship Evil God (the one who literally hates everything that humans consider good).

[spywaregorilla]

Sithrak, perhaps

[krapp]

Why do you think God refers to himself as a jealous God? What do you think God is jealous of? The only thing that can be denied or taken from him - love from beings with (ostensible) free will.

[PubliusMI]

In fact, I am certain every inclination of the human heart is evil from birth.

[Shared404]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:3&...

That doesn't appear to check out biblicaly, or from any logical perspective I can think of.

[krapp]

I mean...

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Genesis 6:5

The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:3

What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water! Job 15:14

[QuarterReptile]

>How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.)

The bottom line is that you have to create a strong break that prevents inattentive browsing or "doom scrolling." I think the lowest impact version of that would look like something where you write out exactly what you're opening your browser for (and then stick to that.) A more severe implementation would be getting rid of your smart phone and only having browsing on a PC in a common space.

Alternatively, you might get mileage out of a system that broke you out of bad patterns early rather than trying to keep you out initially. For example, an AHK script that throws a pop up every 10/20/30 minutes to ask what you're working on.

There's more complexity than just "unwelcome path", and you would have to choose your method to match your particular problem.

[danjoredd]

The way I try to stick to Christian ideals while browsing the internet, is there are certain sites I just don't visit that contain those things. Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, some Discord servers, etc. If you want to take religion seriously, you have to know what triggers sinful behaviors for yourself, nobody else will know so you have to know yourself in that regard, and avoid those places.

These days outside of hackernews and Discord I don't use much social media any more. Social media leads to people being constantly angry and judgemental, as well as leading to other ungodly attitudes, and I find that I am a much worse person when I use those sites. There is no one path to keeping yourself from going down dark roads...it's as personal as the individual using the computer. As the Bible says in Philippians 2:12, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Find what works for you as a Christian, and use it.

[LatteLazy]

>If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus

I get where you're coming from, and as long as no one is compelling the "victim" I think they should be free to make their own mistakes.

That said, it's very well proven that you cannot change your sexual orientation and anyone claiming you can is a fraudster whether they dress as a priest or medical professional or an "accountability partner" or anything else. That very much is a bogus belief.

[powerslacker]

There are numerous cases of changes to "sexual orientation".

[LatteLazy]

We can argue the validity of people's claims to have changed their orientation back and forth, but the science is in:

>Some of the largest studies report little to no reported change in sexual orientation, and reports of success are unpersuasive due to serious methodological limitations and sometimes major flaws in study designs.

>Evidence of harm associated with conversion therapy outweighs reports of some benefits, such as social support and a sense of belonging. In addition, the reported benefits are common to most forms of talking therapy or support groups and could be provided by other, more affirmative, approaches that mitigate risks of harm.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conversion-therap...

Oct 2021.

[powerslacker]

Your bias and the bias of the study you cited are painfully obvious and assume a particular point of view as valid while rejecting others. The whole concept of the study is framed in a utilitarian value system. If you had a thousand similar studies you wouldn't proven anything to someone who does not hold to an empirical and utilitarian worldview because the questions that the study is asking are ultimately philosophical, epistemological, and moral. As such these questions transcend the usefulness of observational science. The study is worded in such a way as to sound very thorough but if you look at Appendix 2 you can see that even by empirical standards the evidence they have chosen to consider is slanted to a particular subset of the available data, let alone the anecdotal evidence which surrounds the researchers on all sides.

In other words all you've truly pointed out with this post is that the various members of the UK government have policy goals and that they are willing to use science as a cudgel to achieve their policy goals.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Would you mind providing citations of some of these cases?

[powerslacker]

I would mind. I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation".

It is trivial to search for examples. There have been entire organizations of individuals claiming successful change of their sexual lifestyle. The problem is that you have a whole host of individuals and organizations who are opposed to the very concept of being able to change due to their assumptions and presuppositions about God and sin. This leads them to attempt to smear or discredit any movement or attitude that opposes their own.

In my opinion, the onus of proof is on the communities, organizations, and individuals pushing the "born this way" rhetoric. In the 1990s and into the 2000s we were told there was a "gay gene" or that the right combination of hormones in utero was the culprit. It is now 2022 and no such 'smoking gun' has been found, yet there are still persons claiming they are no longer homosexual through the power of God.This is despite the media vitriol against such claims and the illegalization of even benign therapy. The naturalistic position claims the scientists just need more time and eventually they will find that people are born along some sexual spectrum instead of the traditional biblical position that sexuality and even attraction is behavioral.

Sorry to not give you what you are asking for directly, but I'm not interested in debating the validity of specific incidents over HN. You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.

[Shared404]

> and the illegalization of even benign therapy.

Conversion therapy is not benign. Your phrasing here leads me to suspect that the personal connections you refer to are people who learned that it is easier to lie to those they know, and sometimes even themselves, than to take other options.

I hope for their sake that I am wrong.

[powerslacker]

Not all conversion therapy is benign. If you are talking about using shock therapy then we are in agreement. That's not really what I'm talking about. Counseling could be an example of benign therapy - depending on the context.

And yes, you are wrong.

[wizofaus]

> I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation"

What are you trying to suggest by the use of "so-called" and scare quotes around "sexual orientation"? It's pretty well established that sexual orientation can be fluid in some individuals, and I don't doubt there are people who spend many years enjoying heterosexual relationships only to determine at a later point they prefer same sex relationships. The reverse may well also happen from time to time. Not really sure what point you're trying to make at all.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.

My experience with people of faith has always been to be told that I must have faith in order to understand it. Is there a path to understanding that doesn't involve circular logic?

[powerslacker]

All appeals to an ultimate authority are circular by nature. Its the philosophical equivalent of bedrock.

That being said, you can understand Christianity and the Christian philosophy/worldview perfectly well without faith. You need faith in the capacity and work of the true and living God, the Lord Jesus, the Messiah in order to be saved from sin.

Intellectual understanding of the claims of Christianity and belief in its claims are totally separate.

This is one of the reasons you should speak to those who are competent teachers. You might try and ask Dr. James White if you have specific questions. I'm happy to continue the conversation here but the format is 'limiting' to say the least.