So.. you do something wrong, something that most people would agree is sin, either it's explicitly in the bible , or just held as the majority opinion despite it not being in scripture as wrong.
For example: If you tell a lie, and you know it's a lie, there's a feeling of guilt, shame, in other words conviction, you sinned.
But, you tell a joke, the joke contains non factual statements, it is therefore technically a lie, but there is no guilt, no shame, no conviction, just laughter over the joke from all parties.
Why is there conviction for one but not the other, despite both boiling down to the same thing, lying, just the intent is different and you know when you tell a joke that contains untruthful things, IE a scenario that never actually happened, that there's no real deception.
Another example: You stub your toe alone in the dark and utter profanity because it hurt, or something startling happens like you get rear ended at a stoplight while you were stopped. You let out some choice words because you're worried about damage done to your car and whether the other vehicle's occupants are okay, nobody's hurt, etc. No conviction, guilt, or shame.
Now you let out profanity in front of other people.... NOW there is conviction "you shouldn't have done that".
You did the same thing but the only difference is witnesses.
It's generally agreed on that using profanity at all is sin, so it should always convict, but why doesn't it always, but is context dependent?
Final example: You see real, sexual context nudity on say a TV show or Movie, or you stumble upon pornography, and you don't instantly turn away from it, but.. watch it.
Shame, guilt, conviction. Whether you're alone, or with other people, there's conviction to it..... when it's real human beings.
Now, one changed variable.... the pornography or nudity is not a real human, but drawn/painted/sculpted/rendered on a computer, a cartoon human for instance. Why's there no shame, guilt and conviction then? You might find it funny if the art style is funny, nudity in classic art that's a painting or a sculpture is not considered pornographic at all in fact. But even if it is considered pornography, like a CGI video, or drawings, or in a video game where it's rendered and not a real person, even if it's photorealistic in nature, no real person is shown. Why doesn't that have the same crushing guilt and shame as viewing live action pornography? Isn't it all porn and should have the same involuntary conviction on seeing it?
