-
Website
http://exchristian.net/ -
Original page
http://exchristian.net/2/2006/03/ron-jeremy-vs-craig-gross.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Mary did you know...- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- False Humility- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- Dear Christians: This is revolting -- utterly revolting- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- It Felt So Good To Be Right- Testimonies of Ex-Christians
- Mythology is Mythology. Pass the Eggnog.- ExChristian.Net - Articles
of what you should expect in sex.”
Well. let's use the same logic, here. "I do want to shut down the christian industry, because for all people it is all about creating fantasies, and fantasies are creating unrealistic expectations of what you should expect in life."
Doesn't it sound right?
Alvaro Gonzalez
Santiago, Chile
I killed a kitten last night!
What's wrong with fantasies anyway?
The Bible, and it's spin offs, including the well meant website of Mr (Rev.) Goss, spins lies and is created to keep us under control.
I won't really like a man to cum in my face, but what's that got to do with anything? It's all about personal choice. What personal choice is Mr Goss offering? Follow(my idea of)god and forget human nature or go to hell!
But, then anyone who follows a god who kills innocent animals when people act according to human nature is. . .well, a good follower of Biblegod!
All the best.
"A"
A recent survey reveals that 60% of
christian ministers frequently look at internet porn.
I agree with Alvaro and s.I.,the violent bible god is much more offensive!
Prostitution is not capitalism. It is pure laziness. There is no investment and it produces nothing of any value. People who prostitute themselves and produce pornography merely cheapen themselves and cop out on a productive life.
There are also "buyers" for bigotry, racism and religion. This doesn't prevent us from judging them as immoral.
I think you've been hanging out with the wrong hookers.
Seriously though, my problem with your post was that you were laying all the blame for prostitution and pornography onto women and making men out to be the victims. I think you've got it all backwards. If men have been cheapened or insulted by pornography or prostitution then they've brought it on themselves by objectifying women and turning sex into a commodity.
Furthermore, I don't think you can compare prostitution (which is a profession) with racism, bigotry or religion (which are ideologies). Could you say, for instance, that all lawyers are immoral?
Well, maybe that's not such a good example. How about saying that since educating children is morally right, then all teachers must be moral people? Stereotyping people by what they do can be just as prejudicial as judging them by their race, age, gender or ethnic background.
I have never been with a prostitute. There are lots of ranches in Nevada I drove by when I worked up there. Some of the guys I worked with thought they were great fun. I insisted that if any man driving by can go inside and have his way with those women, there's nothing in there I want.
You're right that men make a mistake creating a market for prostitution and pornography. They allow themselves to be humiliated as I indicated. I was just trying to counter the constant message that these things humiliate and subjugate women without mention of the harm to men.
There's a good book called "The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege." I read it when I was quite young, and one of Dr. Herb Goldberg's best arguments was that men sabotage their own sexuality going after prostitutes and pornstars.
The earlier comment about unrealistic expectations was probably correct also. Men are advised to consider what kind of sexual attention they are worthy of. Are you an average-looking, overweight, middle-aged couch potato? If so, do you think you deserve a young supermodel? You're probably faking reality.
Take another look at your wife, if you're married. Has she gone downhll any more than you? Why didn't she keep herself looking like that supermodel, just for you? Look at yourself in the mirror and think about the attention you've been giving her. Do you think you can really do better? If she's not giving you the kind of attention you see men getting in pornography, are you giving her the attention she sees in the soaps? Give her what she wants and maybe it will come back to you.
I was probably hasty saying that women invented the "oldest profession." They may have had priests pimping them and practiced out of temples. I haven't researched this subject thoroughly. I only repeated a legend.
I mentioned prostitution and pornography in the same sentence with racism, bigotry and religion because all of these practices involve a cop-out.
Jeremiah Johnson said something to the effect of, "Men will dream up a thousand ways to pass away their time on this earth." From an objective standpoint, prostitution is not productive work. It is among the least valuable ways human beings have ever dreamed up to pass away their time.
Yes, I am being judgmental, by the way. I am not afraid to weigh the value of any human behavior and say it's immoral, when it is objectively so.
Wow. You have issues I don't think any website can help.
"The insinuation that men should have to pay for a peek at women doing these things is insulting to men." So women should just give it up whenever a man wants???? Or maybe the men should just TAKE whatever they want whenever they want? Do I detect a bit of Napoleon Complex here?
Prostitution wouldn't exist without men. And it was probably "invented" from need by both sides.
Cave man has fresh mammoth meat. Cave woman is hungry. Cave woman asks for mammoth meat but has no berries to trade. Cave man says you can have some, but when you're done eating I get piece of ass. Cave woman has no choice as she is starving and freely giving that piece of ass is better than the alternative. UGH!
I'm not looking for help here, just a place to talk, listen, share and debate.
No, women should not have to give it up whenever a man wants, and men cannot just take what they want. We call those things coercion and rape. (the men who do it we often call clergy).
I cannot imagine rape or coercion being pleasurable or satisfying any need of mine. I also cannot imagine being satisfied after paying a prostitute. I can't even bring myself to pay for a lap dance on those rare occasions when I've ended up in a strip club (I'll tip the dancer's for their stage act).
I prefer the attention of a liberated woman who truly digs me and wants to show it -- my wife, when she's in the mood.
What do you mean, I have issues? Please tell me what do I need help with?
This isn't an issue of you going to heaven or hell. It's an issue of reality. You don't have to believe in God to know that porn can and will hurt your life and it DOES ruin lives. I've seen it happen over and over and over again to people. including people who think the bible is a load of crap... it's not just "guilty christians". I'm not condeming porn. i don't support it but i'm not out to shut it down... that's a little idealistic.
Sex was God's idea... he invented it. Despite what some religious people might have told you, God wants you to have an AMAZING and awesome, off the charts sexlife. You CAN have sex whenever and however you want...obviously... But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Sex will work a lot of different ways but it works BEST in a specific context. ~Fire in your fireplace is a good thing; but if fire gets outside your fireplace it'll burn ur house down.~
And a lot of people share that story. And if you can't control yourself now, what makes you think a wedding ring's gonna change it? in 5, 10, 20 years when the fire's kinda gone down, what makes you think he/she wont look somewhere else? I'm not trying to give you some religious bible-smacking. i'm just warning you, you need to be careful. Pornography is a dead end road. you dont have to believe in God...you know that's true.
Bill Hicks once said (to the effect of) "Everyone smokes, it may not be cigarettes, but everyone smokes" and I believe what he meant by that was everyone has an addiction. If porn is your addiction, then so be it. If working out makes you feel good and you're addicted to the endorphins, then so be it. If you drink 3, 20 oz. bottles of Mountain Dew everyday because the taste/the color/the caffeine is nice, then so be it. Far be it for another human being, no better and no worse than you, to tell you what you can and cannot do on this Earth, this beautiful gorgeous planet. Also, these pastors use deception to lure potential visitors to their website. Honestly when you saw the domain name “XXXChurch.com” you were not saying to yourself “Man, I’m ready for God”. I don’t know about anyone else, but when I think of “church” I think of a congregation of like minded individuals. Maybe not completely on the same position on every issue, but eye level nonetheless. So in effect “XXXChurch.com” in my opinion says to me “Here’s a website full of porn and porn related material”. You could say technically that it is about porn, but come on…. They didn’t put provocatively titled material up there to attract other Christians is what I’m trying to say I suppose. Not to mention the “Jesus Loves Porn Stars” bibles they’re selling are emblazoned with that title to attract the curious. (That’s straight from Craig Gross’s mouth, mayhap not exactly worded in that way.)
The point I’m trying to illustrate here: What causes more ruin in any relationship, porn or deception? I know of couples who watch porn together and enjoy it; I know of no couple that enjoy lying to one another. You could say “Well they’re not telling you to lie to your spouse or yourself or anything” but in effect, if they’re trying to reach out to you via deceptive methods, isn’t the good pastors at XXXChurch.com trying to tell you, it’s okay to deceive 60 Million people (give or take) as long as it’s in the name of their idea of God? They’re reaching out to teenagers (and believe me, someone needs to) but they’re capitalizing on them. If you go to www.xxxchurch.com they have a store geared toward the younger generation. They have hoodies, buttons, track jackets, CD’s and whatever will, but nowhere in the store or on the main site does it say “all proceeds go to (insert charitable organization here)”. And it would seem to me that two pastors out for the message of God would get non-profit funding from the government.
It’s like this, if they were concerned with the youth of today, and the addiction of today and what not, how about run a campaign on the usage of drugs in the younger crowd. What’s a more serious threat, a young high school student masturbating to the thought of the head cheerleader, or him taking speed and killing himself, for whatever crazy, drug induced hallucination he has. Not to mention, masturbation is good for your health, studies are saying that a regiment of masturbation helps to exercise the prostate and lessen the risk of the most common cancer.
It’s a common theme, the church deceives us with the prospects of benevolence and capitalizes on our ignorance. However, it would be unfair to think that every Christian is the same way, I know there are those out there that do follow the second hand word of God (I mean no offense) and are truly good people. Would probably jump in front of a bullet to save your life. These guys at xxxchurch.com however, are using glamour, pop music sound and trendy clothing styles to market, yes, market their product. And the irony of it all is that their product is sex as well. In a nutshell they are capitalizing on the same market.
The same God who created sex also created Matrimony. The two go together. Sex outside of Matrimony is always addictive, because it is always sin, and the only thing that can save you from addiction is love, and all sin is anti-love.
I don't care if you don't believe in God. That is your foolishness, if you don't. But at least believe in love, and at least recognize that pornography kills love. Never mind God killing kittens. Pornography kills love. That's all!
You said that "porn kills love," but earlier you said "I love it (porn)."
And you love Jesus, too?
Your obviously confused, and you may be addicted and need help, but just because some people get addicted to alcohol, it doesn't make having a glass of wine a sin. Just because some people are addicted to gambling, that doesn't make a friendly game of poker a blight on humanity.
Not everyone is so easily addicted to the same things as you. Let's not have another wave of prohibition, please.
Why? Are you afraid that a big scary sky-god is looking at you when you flog the bishop? If looking at nekked womens is such a "bad" thing to do, then why does your god do it so much?
"It's difficult."
Don't you mean it's HARD!
"I'm not saying you have to be a Christian. But know this. Every sin in the Bible causes destruction."
You're saying this on an ex-christian site. If we worried over what the big book of myths said we'd still be christians. Geeez!
" You don't have to be a Christian to know that lying, stealing, lusting, and adultery leads to a destructive lifestyle."
Any behaviour that becomes a compulsion has the potential to lead to a destructive lifestyle in THIS life. Even the compulsion to talk mentally with imaginary beings.
If you tend to have problems in this life because you look at porn and masterbate too much to have a healthy balanced life, then by all means, stop doing it so much. But don't try and tell others that they are ruining their lives too.
Not everyone's life is destroyed by a lie. Some lives are said to be saved by them.
"Does God really kill kittens?
You would have to talk to Bible scholars about that, but I don't think he does. It's just a great way to think about this issue in a non-threatening way."
I'm not sure if you guys missed their sarcasm, or just didn't see the statement underneath it, but either way, noboday at xxxchurch thinks masturbation kills kittens. and yes, Craig Gross goes to porn conventions to reach out, as seeen on his site. Its not like hes participating in it all. i know you'll say all christians do this and some probably do, but please don't take things out of context like that just to make it look bad.
The man is a messiah, and very like jesus in so many ways. Look at the joy and love he spreads around so liberally. I personally think that every motel and hotel should replace their 'bedside table bibles' for one of Ron Jeremy's DVD's and the world would be a far more loving place to hangout in.
I also think life would also be much simpler for most of us if in times of need we reached for a porno as opposed to a bibble!
theses people are sick! ;;;; peter the porn puppet with Ron Jeremy telling children at a grocery porn is for adults is Sick..
I really think Ron Jeremy is behind XXX church it is a stunt by Him like the tobacco companies anti smoking campains...
I would not be surprised if Ron Jeremy started and Financed XXX Church.com..................
For those supporting porn consider the following. Discipline builds great nations, pornography destroys them. Look around at all the stuff that makes modern society flourish. These things aren't born out of lasciviousness.
Pornography is a TRAP that destroys both participant and viewer alike. It's false sanctuary lures the elite, naive and broken into immoral acts the conscience was not created to bear. From the first exposure, pornography warps our perceptions of reality, purity and self worth, always adding dysfunction upon dysfunction.
Second of all, how does it warp our perceptions of reality? I mean, it's actually happening, so how does it not jive with reality? Or do you mean it creates "unrealistic" expectations for men? In that case, why does that matter if men are disappointed that not all women want to have foursomes with Swedish cheerleaders? They'd be idiots to expect pornography is the standard way of how sex goes, at least the exotic forms.
Third, you say "Mr. Jeremy rationalizes his behavior by saying only consenting adults are watching porn, but I suspect the vast majority of viewers are underaged or immature and incapable of dealing with such imagery." Does this mean that Budweiser should close down, since underaged/immature people people manage to get their hands on alcohol despite the fact that it's only legally made for those over 21?
I won't address the rest of your Swiss Cheese rebuttle as it plays on semantics and ultimately misses the very cogent points of my arguement. Do yourself a favor and re-read what I said until you get it.
I will end with this, I have no problem with Budweiser closing down or redefing their product line.
Is that the fault of the producers, or the fault of these allegedly immature and delicate children's parents? Why should every member of society be responsible for the upbringing of everyone else's children? And secondly, porn is not marketed to children, is not really available to children (except through an adult like their absent parents) and is generally fairly expensive, which further restricts it from children.
If you don't like porn or don't approve of porn, good for you. I would suggest you avoid it. But don't tell the rest of the world what they should and should not do. I really doubt that everyone who ever bought a playboy has become an abusive, porn addict. And who are these adults who cannot "deal with this imagery?" Adults who were home schooled will probably have a problem since they were never even told sex exists, but I think few adults will be driven to insanity or alcoholism.
And furthermore...
"It's false sanctuary lures the elite, naive and broken into immoral acts the conscience was not created to bear..."
That is quite a diverse and unrelated (and remarkably vague) group of you've listed. And what does "the conscience was not created to bear" mean? That is gibberish; a completely vacuous statement. The inference being that once we see porn, we do porn and then go nuts.
Well baby, you beat us to it.
So which nations have been destroyed by porn? You stated quite categorically that this does indeed occur. So how about a list. And which great nations rose while prohibiting porn? Again, please list.
You say its merely semantics - but thats what your argument is - just rhetoric. I have to accept your baseless assertion that the opposite of pornography is discipline - I think the lack of discipline is the opposite of discipline and is caused from everything from a lack of leadership to the lack of victuals for the troops. And more importantly discipline also means obeying a certain authority or organizing principle - whats the point of discipline if one is disciplined to obey the Gestapo or Inquisition? This is not a rebuttal but illustrating the subjective terms you employed in your argument.
On that note - What country fell because of pornography?
If you argument is so cogent and specific to porn - why does it work if i just replace pornography with Xtianity?
Moreover, so-called adults can't even deal with this imagery. This is the reality of Xtianity, get em young and keep them coming. Why? Simply stated, Xtianity is addictive and addiction always means a net cash flow for somebody.
For those supporting Xtianity consider the following. Science and rationality builds great nations, Xtianity destroys them. (Hmm refer to gibbon's opinion about Rome) Look around at all the stuff that makes modern society flourish. These things aren't born out of lack of rationality.
Xtianity is a TRAP that destroys both participant and viewer alike. It's false sanctuary lures the elite, naive and broken into immoral acts the conscience was not created to bear. From the first exposure, Xtianity warps our perceptions of reality, purity and self worth, always adding dysfunction upon dysfunction.
You need greater clarification. Preaching from the moral higher ground when you have not proved it is not having a rational discussion. All you have done is say something destroys a persons ability to deal with reality - but that argument can be extended to any idea or behavior when you don't reference what reality is supposed to be. Its semantics and rhetoric until you clarify your position on what Phillip says are rather subjective statements.
Would you mind defining for all us, your definition of "PURITY".
Would it by chance have anything to do with how some god defines purity in the sexual regard?
ATF (Who thinks most xtians have too many hang-ups over sexual matters of others)
You all seem to agree with Philip that pornography portrays imagery contrary to reality (or what can be realistically expected), yet You who are rational watch and even defend it. Now Why do rational folks like yourselves participate in and defend such irrational activities? That seems like blind hypocrisy to me. Based on your visceral responses, I gather you support porn in all its debauchery (i.e. bestiality, child, homosexuality...)? If not, just where do so-called rationalists draw the line on this issue?
Also, willfull addiction contradicts any so-called rationalist position on pornography. Moreover, such a contradiction relegates your position to an exercise in sophism. You can see the fruits of this argument today in the spiritual moribund culture of Sweeden.
Okay, stay with me here. We are ultimately discussing sin and its blinding effects in our lives. If you don't know what sin is type in the following links:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom...
The first link is where you'll find the Living God's Ten Commandments for our lives (Deuteronomy 5:7-21).The second link is where you'll find the Apostle Pauls account of how he learned about sin and our daily struggle with it (Romans 7:7-21). Also very important, the third link is where you'll find several
descriptions of the state of a sinner(Romans 1:18-28). There's many other inspired references in the Bible on sin but I believe these links get to the core definitions of sin. I urge you to take the time to read the aforementioned links.
In conclusion, when I said you were brainwashed (okay, how about given over to a depraved mind, Romans 1:28), I was not deliberately invoking an ad hominem argument but simply stating what scripture has to say about your spiritual condition(s). Moreover, this unhealthy spiritual condition is evidenced by your
actions, namely your defense of pornography.
Verily I say unto thee: A woman wins when she feels that what each woman does with her own body--unforced, uncoerced--is her own business.
Questions:
1. How do you define "debauchery"?
2. What the heck is "purity"?
3. How do you know that the Apostle Paul even existed?
4. Who was the Apostle Paul?
5. Explain the connection between homosexuality and debauchery and porn and child pornography and giant homosexual squids and candy and Myspace and ponies and fuzzy pink sweaters.
You are so brainwashed that you have just inhaled the south end of a northbound skunk.
2) It's not irrational to enjoy fantasy
3) We don't acknowledge the authority if the Bible in moral matters, so quoting at us is pointless
4) "Sin" per se has been, thus far, unproven to exist
5) You are obviously just here to rile us up, for only a troll would accuse me of supporting child pornography; as such, you're making yourself appear even less educated, less rational, and like you have next to no good arguments to offer which is why you resort to insults.
Why should I even listen to what you have to say, after your embarrassing responses?
Sorry, wrapping yourself in spurious, scripture and using god's, supposed, voice -- as your own -- doesn't mask the fact, that you have zero authority, in the matter. What consenting adults, do with their bodies, to get themselves off, is entirely up to them.
Besides, methinks you doth protest too much.
--S.
That's rich, coming from someone who believes The Ultimate Truth comes from a book with a talking snake and a zombie god-kid.
Got any hard evidence regarding nations destroyed by pornography? Your claim... Defend it with actual data, or STFU.
Nope - I never agreed that pornography portrays imagery contrary to reality - I cannot answer that question because you have not clarified what you mean by the distortion of reality. Once again I ask for such clarification. Your agument above still depends on the definition of reality - "You all seem to agree with Philip that pornography portrays imagery contrary to reality (or what can be realistically expected)". You have yet to defend it - so the rest of your argument stands or falls on that definition.
please be reminded:
What is purity, reality, self-worth in your definition? (Is it as you say the Bible-based definitions? What then = are they?)
If so then please show proof that the Bible is the inspired word of God (or that it is not a distortion of reality itself)
Why is pornography the direct opposite of discipline? ( there are many factors that result in lack of discipline)
What country has fallen due to pornography? ( I doubt most people - except in your reality perhaps - consider Sweden to be a ruined country)
If we are ultimately discussing sin - then prove to me that God exists using incontrovertible proof
Once again please be reminded that the ad hominen and reduction ad absurdum attacks that you make are not cogent arguments. It only shows you cant do much beyond intellectual grandstanding and bully tactics.
If god were real, he/she/it would be so obvious to everyone, that no proof would be necessary to hunt down.
ATF
Most people here are just as familiar with all the apologetics as you are, and all of us once believed as you do. Some of us even went on websites and tried to win souls for Jesus, just as you are doing now.
The difference is, we grew tired of all the D'souzas and Strobels and the other propagandists whose lame apologetics (excuses) always fail to answer the questions we had. So, we read beyond them to get more than the christian side and the christian lies just fell apart when subjected to the light of research and rational thinking.
I suggest you take off the christian blinders and try it sometime. So how about we make a deal? I'll RE-read What's So Great about Christianity if you'll read for the first time — with an open mind — God Is Not Great or The God Delusion or anything that offers a wider perspective than the limited one that seems to restrict your thinking.
'Sorry, pal, but "literature" is not "evidence" for the fantastic claims of the supernatural----namely, claims that include walking on water, talking snakes, virgins births, zombies, and healing disease with bird's blood.
And let's remember, we can find all sorts of "literature" concerning such bizarre and nature-defying claims outside of "the Bible"....from the Book of Mormon, to Scientology, to the Qu'ran. If you're going propose that we should believe *some* "literature", but not other "literature", then you'll need some objective confirmation for the one you hold as "Truth". As it stands, the only "confirmation" you are offering up is confirmation bias. ' Same goes for your Eastern-Indian-boy-turned-Christian, "D'nesh". You, and he, can "intellectualize" all you please----talking snakes and walking cadavers are not believable until we can see, and test them, empirically. 'Follow? 'Thought this might be helpful.
a.) other smart people believe 9an argument from authority)
rather than
b.) there is verifiable proof that entity "God" complete with the attributes i described exists
Once again i think one has to draw your attention to the fallacy in you statement " disprove God" - you cannot disprove God because it is impossible to disprove something which has no evidence for it.
I am not trying to disprove God
Just like its impossible to disprove Allah, Shiva, Zeus or a Flying teacup circling around Mars.
I am just reiterating - there is no proof for any of these easily imagined entities.
Unlike most xtians I wont leave you with a laundry list of apologetics to read which ultimately are variations of arguments that have been made by pagan greek philosophers.
Instead i will ask one simple effective question
Where is your verifiable evidence that your interpretation of your denominations interpretation of Christianity's interpretation of God is correct?
One good book is called "What's so great about Christianity?" by D'nesh D'souza. A pretty intellectual dude. Anyway, thought that might be helpful.
D'nesh D'souza is a smarmy dick, with the intellectual capacity of a toad
-- plain and simple. Have you ever seen him debate? He is incompetent and his arguments are lame.
--S.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
Perhaps your fear of pornography is really a the discomfort you have over your own denied sexuality. In Xtianity, you have necessarily been brainwashed to fear and repress your own sexuality and it has generated a vicious bitterness when you respond to the subject. Despite this sacrifice - you feel uneasy and insecure with yourself when it comes to sex.
You can only live with such a sex-repressed version of yourself by considering that sex is depraved in almost all its forms and to justify that you are only having a sin-free sexual life which is ultimately one of constant sexual self-denial and frustration. The only thing that keeps you on the narrow path in the fear of sex is your greater fear of death - without which your own sexual frustrations would be unchecked.
You however are constantly reminded that there are many many others who live perfectly healthy sexual lives. It both terrifies and angers you to no end. Your only ability to deal with sexuality in others is seeing it as depraved and irrational- rather than the natural expression of love between two adults. Pride and arrogance can make up for the loss of something important in yourself. It requires you to deeply resent others (as your above post shows you are unable to allow so-called adults the ability to consent) and to see yourself as a morally superior.
Ultimately the arguments are really for your own benefit, as the argument provides certain key consolations in your life. You get to feel self-righteous and self-validated and to affirm to yourself that you are better than others and you are better than your own sexuality. This pleasure is the only balm for the part of you that you reject - without it as a consolation - you would have to honestly confrontr with your own naked withered sexuality. And that thought terrifies you.
The moral of the story? Speculative personal attacks are bad - stop using them.
McMillian,
While I agree that much of the porn we read or see, would not mirror reality, most of us learn quickly that it's not meant to do so.
Obviously I can't go into X rated examples here as to what I mean specifically, but I'm pretty sure most adults reading this know that an XXX fantasy story or movie doesn't look to portray what's possible, but rather what sexual people might fantasize about anyway.
I find it very ironic that someone who lives out a life worshipping a FANTASY bible god, would have a problem with other human fantasies.
Perhaps we should ban all kid's superman pajama's, as some kids might think such pajamas are used for more than FANTASY role playing and will actually let them fly off their roof tops?
Perhaps we should ban kiddie pedal vehicles, because some kids might fantasize they are a famous race car driver and jump into Mom's SUV and zoom down the road.
I believe that one of the ideas of maturing into an adult, is to learn the difference between fantasy and reality. Most of us learn Santa is a fantasy and not part of reality.
Does that mean non-believing Santa adults never dress up as Santa and play out that fantasy anyway?
Have you ever been to a costume Halloween party?
Does the man dressed up as Dracula, really think he's a un-dead Vampire?
If you dress up as Batman, would you think you were him?
So for a time we once thought Santa was of reality, but as we grew up we realized he wasn't.
For a time, a teenager will believe all sorts of false facts about what's possible to do in the sexual world. In time, hopefully, most of those false facts are replaced with reality as they gain experience and knowledge in their sexual maturity.
Yes, porn can become an addiction, just as gambling, drugs, alcohol, and many other things of human life, can also become addictive.
Should we ban everything and anything in this world that has a possibility of becoming an addiction or posses a risk if misused?
How far would this go then towards protecting the general public?
Should we require everyone to wear a raincoat when it rains, so they will have less risk of "catching a cold"; as some think this risk to be.
Should we ban sunbathing on all beaches, because someone might get skin cancer from overdoing it?
Perhaps we could get our government to outlaw lying and coveting?
Just how far would xtians take things, to remove our freedoms, that our ancestors fought to gain from their oppressors?
Now, I'm not saying the porn industry is a 'righteous' bunch, but then we have many segments of society that wouldn't be seen as 'righteous' and yet we don't try and outlaw them, do we?
That's not to say we don't put certain controls on such industries, because frankly ALL industry has controls placed on it in some manner or another.
It's a question of how much control do we place and on whom.
Adults are not children and as adults, we have the right to view such material, regardless of the few who have a problem differentiating fantasy from reality.
If your argument is that we should outlaw fantasy because it doesn't match reality, then we would have to outlaw the worship of your unprovable god being, generated right from the realm of human fantasy..... Wouldn't we sir?
Moreover, this unhealthy spiritual condition is evidenced by your actions, namely your defense of pornography
First off, I have no idea what "spiritual" means, as I personally don't believe there is a spirit inside me, let alone one that would worship some supernatural unseen force.
So I doubt anything I do or see on this earth, would affect my so called spirituality.
Therefore, your assertion that it makes my spiritual condition "unhealthy" is meaningless to me and probably to a majority of folks here as well.
The fact is, you mainly feel this way about porn and sex, because your bible book teaches you to do so. The balance of what you assert, is meant to bolster the case your bible beliefs make.
Please stop pushing your bible ethics on the rest of us....THANKS
ATF (Who believes everything in moderation, is the key to a healthy life)
The fact is, you mainly feel this way about porn and sex, because your bible book teaches you to do so. The balance of what you assert, is meant to bolster the case your bible beliefs make.
Ha, I forgot, the Eleventh Commandment -- thou shalt not watch adults copulate and experiment sexually, while stimulating the naughty bits -- for your eyes and ears will surely burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn!
--S.
Of course, sin is presupposition based... there is no standard for "what" a sin does or does not consist of, outside of the initial perception of the one defining the term "sin".
R McMillan, if you suggest that pornography is a "sin" because sex is perceived as something "more" enjoyable or desirable than mere "breeding"... then... I'd like to hear your point of view. Is it your position that "pleasure", while engaging in "sexual acts", is somehow "sinful", because The Christian Bible doesn't tell the Christian to take pleasure in sexual acts?
Most people realize that The Christian Bible... does not provide us mere mortals with the "right" manner of engaging in "sexual intercourse"... can you please provide the specific Bible verse, that tells me how to "feel", or in what physical manner, I should engage in all sexual intercourse? Thanks for any wisdom, you can provide me...
In the event you have "no" Biblical foundation, on "how" I should engage in my sexual encounters... then, I'll consider Christianity silent on the matter... and all forthcoming comments from you, to be purely imaginative ideals that you believe "ought" to be followed, because of some self-perceived importance you feel you have over the rest of humanity.
I don't recall... Thou shalt not enjoy sexual encounters... Thou shalt not have pre-marital sex... Thou shalt not watch "others" having sex... Perhaps, I missed these moral codes somewhere in the bible, literally spelled out. If you can't find a Thou Shalt Not somewhere, then... maybe you can find a “thou shalt”... like... Thou shalt only copulate in the traditional orthodox missionary position, etc... Thou shalt copulate in a sterile manner, with no emotion or outward expression of pleasure as sexual intercourse is only for breeding purposes, etc.
R McMillan, you interject pornography in terms of "your" perception... Personally, I really don't consider you God, and speaker for "all" of humanity on "any" matter... however, if you are "claiming" that Christendom has somehow formulated a moral code, per Divinity... that gives instructions on how each person should live their life, in the most granular detail - I'd like to see your "evidence", especially in the Christian Bible, where Christianity is "doctrinally" founded... and "not"... per secular writings (or secular comments, like yours) added to Christendom... "after”... The Christian Bible was initially canonized.
Note, the discussion of pornography and its social influence on society, either positive or negative... boils down to an "ought" discussion... where you believe what "ought" to be considered immoral (sin), and what another person may consider "immoral" based on some predominant moral "value(s)". Any conflicts between two individuals on what constitutes an "immoral" act, would be directly due to a conflict in personally held "value(s)" between the two.
Beyond, what "ought" to be... how does "Christianity" elevate itself as the "authority" on morality... when it's initial doctrine (The Holy Christian Bible, KJV?), lacks any moral principle by which to equip an intelligent person to live a moral life.
And, please don't suggest that "do unto others" is a moral principle, such that one could "ascertain" whether or not, an act is moral or not... the golden rule is logically fallacious, if we consider it Universally... I know for a fact, that I don't want a Christian who abuses their self, by mental isolation... to "treat" me like they "treat themselves"... Thanks, but not thanks.
While you are pondering; consider the incest of Lot and his daughters... the impregnation of an unwilling young lady (mythically) by a God, to have a Divine Son... the voyeurism of God in the Garden of Eden, and the notion that God almighty knows all, to include "all" aspects of human sexuality (Omni-Voyeurism)... the pornography that is laden throughout The Christian Bible; even if the argument is made that such pornography is "educational", because it teaches us what "not" to do... because with that notion, it appears we should "all" be watching pornography, as a tutorial in our lives, etc.
Ezekiel 23: 19-21: "Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."
R McMillan... the sister whores, Aholah and Aholibah provides a moral lesson against the sins of the flesh. However, the detailed description where the Biblical verse compares the size of men's penises to donkey genitals and the sperm flow to that of horse issues is pornographic, as it "brings to mind" the mental images of bestiality, large genitalia (hung like a horse, etc.), etc., etc. Is your God the "King of Porn"... considering, many "Fundamentalist" Christians, believe the bible to be no less than the "hand-written" thoughts of one Divine Yahweh.
I can't wait to see what RM has to say to all our replies, but I have a feeling he won't return.
So, to sum up your lesson here, let me see if I have this down pat now.
1. The bible doesn't explicitly forbid watching others have sex, yes?
In fact, god is the biggest voyeur of all time.
2. The bible contains some 'examples' of today's modern porn flicks, yes?
3. When reading or viewing pornography (be that inside or outside the bible pages), one should see it as a "tutorial", and thusly have their hand firmly gripping their trusty, ummm, BIBLE ?
ATF (Who wants to make sure I get an "A+" on Dave8's sex quiz)
Perhaps, RM will not respond... probably too caught up, reading Holy Porn ;-)
Here RM, some great moral examples of Godly sanctioned incest. If the Christian God's moral law is Perfect, then God's moral code per The Holy Bible will "Always" be True and Relevant for "All Time". A True Believer should therefore, abide by God's Perfect Morality - right?
--Genesis 2:23... Eve came from Adam... God ordered them to copulate/breed... thus... incest by Godly request.
--Genesis 4:17... Cain either has sex with mom (Eve), or The Holy Bible is incomplete by not describing some un-named "sister"... In either case, it appears it's "All in the family"... and not like the TV Sitcom Archie Bunker...
--Genesis 20:12... Abraham marries his half-sister Sarah ;-)
--Genesis 19:30-38... Good ol' Lot and his daughters, biblical pornographic material in detail... daughters rape dad, using alcohol... So, the pornographic moral lesson for Believers Today... is... if you are going to rape someone with "rohypnol" (date rape drug - roofies), then make sure it's someone in your family - there is Biblical precedent and Godly sanction. Why worry about "coveting" the neighbors' wife, when you covet your own parents, and rape them at will...
--Genesis 38:16: Tamar and her father-in-law (Judah) knock boots; perhaps not direct incest, but... a family-treat none-the-less.
--Let's take a moment to remember the Spiritual Rape of Mary... who was impregnated without "consent" by God; the lead Character of The Holy Pornographic Bible...
Rape: "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
Non-consensual sex = rape... Perhaps, RM... your God isn't "moral"... Do you actually believe Mary had "free-will" when being Raped by The Christian God?
You obviously do nor feel that it is irrational to enjoy fantasy, considering the source of the links you have provided.
90% of the world's literature is fiction (another word for fantasy) and should be banned? Of course it should - we only need the one collection of 66 books of fantasy, do we not?
I would like to start off by clarifying some of my previous verbiage and points. I'll address the bulk of your denial latter this week.
There are several references in the Bible regarding Purity and it is by these scriptures Purity is defined. I suggest the link below.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/PURITY.TXT
Looking at some of these scriptures you can see the following. Purity is a turning toward God (James 4:8) and a turning away from sin (1 Timothy 5:22) where sin is lawlessness (1John3:4) (i.e. disregard for God's laws). Moreover, Purity is a condition of the heart (Proverbs 15:26) imputed by God for mans acceptance of God and obedience to his Truth (1 Peter 1:22) (where Truth is the word of God (John 14:6 and John 1:1). Now, if you are supporting something God considers a sin you are considered impure (too what degree I'm not sure).
Pornography (What was my argument):
People are incapable of constructively integrating porn into their lives (i.e. "dealing with it"). Listen to ex-porn actors and recovering porn addicts who now preach against it (goto YouTube).These people are in a far better position to discuss the ill's of pornography than anyone. Like a rotten tomato which spoils the entire basket of fruit, pornography corrupts the entire mind (eventually). As I mentioned in my last message, for rationalist to support such a destructive activity really exposes how anti-rational they are, dare I say addicted. And if you haven't recognized the level of your own addiction yet are you really okay with exposing someone else (use your imagination) to this death-trap who may not be as immune as you? Do you want that on your conscience?
It destroys nations one person at a time (Marital Fidelity and Sexual Morality as defined by God are in decline in most Western Nations). Most of this behavior can be blamed on atheism (40% UK and 80% SWE), where pornography is the fuel feeding this trend. Again, Sweden seems to be leading the race to sexual dysfunction and moral bankruptcy. Moreover, we see a Europe today that is turning away from God to embrace their own lusts. They have kicked God out of their constitution becoming a quasi secular union until a couple generations down the road when they can shed the memory or God altogether. In the meantime you see declining birth rates (>2 children/mother), lower levels of happiness and ultimately the morphing of once soveriegn countries into an unrecognizable beast.
It does not build nations. Throughout the days of our countries existence (or any country for that matter), when brilliant minds were working out solutions to complex civil engineering problems or developing industrial or medical technologies, how many of these people first gained insight by pondering the
excesses of pornography? You see pornography does not inspire great things it just feeds man's lust and ambition. And just because you are benefiting from this technology explosion while embracing your own porn fix don't delude yourself in thinking you stand in the ranks of those who did push science and society
forward. I say none of these pioneers were inspired by porn (christian or atheist).
For all you want and hope pornography to be, it is most of all a TRAP. It is indescriminate and affects all participants, initially with varying degree's of affectation. However, The further you walk down this road the more dulled your senses become to its effect (i.e. warped). Eventual, you find comprimise in what was once unthinkable or shameful. Ask yourself the following question: Is pornography a substitute for something else lacking in my life? Because if there's something else you could be doing with your time, like facing some dysfunction or fear (i.e. intimacy), your time will be better spent tackling the problem than feeding your lust addiction.
Please don't be decieved, I am not trying to "rile" you up. I am simply trying to get you to face the reality that pornography is highly destructive even in small doses. Don't give yourself too much credit. You can't control any addiction, in the end it wins.
I see you cannot defend the point you made about ruining nations - instead you have had to compromise the argument as that it does not build nations. ruining nations is really different from not building them. A difference between an act and omission. Its good to see you concede this point that you have made a false statement.
Furthermore Sweden consistently scores a higher "happiness level" than the United States in different studies so your point of lower unhappiness is just a falsehood.
http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html
http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_St...
Your argument that we should outlaw pornography because it directly does not lead to the advancement of technology is like arguing we should ban tap-dancing because it does not directly lead to the increase in national patriotism. A non-sequitur argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Actually naughty images have probably inspired a fair share of good literature and great art - and perhaps even the Song of Solomon in the Bible.
Song of Solomon Ch1 12-13 for a small sample
While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
Once again you say we are supposed to face reality - but its really your Bible-controlled reality which you cannot prove to be real. Ultimately what is the Bible substituting in your life? If you were not afraid of the Bible-God - would you rather be doing something else with your time? How would you live your life? Why do you need to be addicted to a fantasy so much that you need to treat it as real in order to function in life?
Not trying to rile you up - just trying to get you to realize that you are addicted to a fantasy yourself
Scroll down...
;-)
In other words, your solution to all the addictions one could possibly get hooked on (porn included), is to allow a DICTATOR (aka god) to rule over us and forfeit our freedoms in the process, in the USA and other free world country's?
I can't think of a single member here that would ever sign-up to such a plan, even if your god were real; which he is not btw.
I can find former addicts to many different addictions, who would now preach against the object of their former addiction, so that holds no water with me when you cite former porn stars who now speak against porn.
The truth is that some folks lack the ability to limit addictive substances/activities in their lives.
We have plenty of former gamblers and alcoholics that surely knew the problem their addiction created for them. However, they are a minority, as the majority of society knows how to gamble without losing their homes in the process and knows how to drink alcohol without it taking over their lives.
Sex (and Porn) can also become addictive but the majority of the population aren't losing their homes or wrecking their lives from it.
While you may disagree with that statement, mainly because your bible "seems to be" so against sex without making babies in the process, you won't convince the majority that porn is causing the downfall of our society in the USA, or any other nation.
Most certainly, your argument will be seen as most unconvincing amongst those who subscribe to the idea that freedom is more important than kissing the feet of some god dictator, which I dare to say, would be the majority on this website.
Personally, I have a habit of believing in fighting for our personal freedoms, even if I might disagree with the choices some segments of the population, do with those freedoms.
Your god and his bible book of rules, are not seen as any authority here.
At best, the bible might have some 'good' suggestions here and there, but most of the rules/laws it tries to enforce are so laughable that anyone with a rational mind could never take them seriously.
Also, god does not belong in the constitution and no one here would sit back while you xtians try and make that happen.
BTW, addictions CAN be controlled or rejected, as I'm sure certain members here can testify to, and I will also tell you that those addictions did not go away for these members, until your bible god was totally removed from their brain and lives.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
ATF (Who won't be "deceived" by anyone who wants their god to rule over our nation)
It destroys nations one person at a time (Marital Fidelity and Sexual Morality as defined by God are in decline in most Western Nations). Most of this behavior can be blamed on atheism (40% UK and 80% SWE), where pornography is the fuel feeding this trend.
Unbelievable, your strained conclusions are borderline lunacy. You claim marital infidelity and sexual immorality is because of the predominately atheistic countries and yet in the united states, a new study, in 2008 , indicates Christian divorce rates are statistically the same as non-Christian divorce rates. So much for atheism being the root cause of the decline in god's supposed definition of marital morality.
Again, Sweden seems to be leading the race to sexual dysfunction and moral bankruptcy. Moreover, we see a Europe today that is turning away from God to embrace their own lusts. They have kicked God out of their constitution becoming a quasi secular union until a couple generations down the road when they can shed the memory or God altogether. In the meantime you see declining birth rates (>2 children/mother), lower levels of happiness and ultimately the morphing of once soveriegn countries into an unrecognizable beast.
Again, you said a whole lot of nothing. Putting your dubious statistics aside, ultimately, levels of happiness and declining birth rates are not indicators of Nations being destroyed. Now, if you can share with us, how, exactly, nations are being destroyed, by pornography and you can substantiate these claims with evidence, instead of the imaginings of your mind -- I'm all ears.
And evidently, you are too dense to understand, you have no authority in the matter and we only recognize your ranting of scripture as false pretenses. Again, wrapping yourself in spurious, scripture and using god's, supposed, voice -- as your own -- doesn't mask the fact, that you have zero authority, in the matter and zero proof it comes from god.
--S.
How can an unproven and undetectable entity 'define' anything?
"Again, Sweden seems to be leading the race to sexual dysfunction and moral bankruptcy."
You have *got* to be kidding.
Sweden is a country that leads the way in gender equality. Swedes are accepting of teenage sexuality but look askance at promiscuity and infidelity. Sex education is mandatory in schools. Accepting of masturbation. Not accepting of polygamy.
And there's much more information here.
The world needs more Swedens and less sexual shaming by religion-obsessed idiots.
--Major Presuppositional Claim: God's Truth is imputed (ascribed to humanity) via The "Inerrant" Holy Bible (Presuppositional Claim)
--Minor Presuppositional Claim: The "Word" of God is synonymous with Absolute Universal Truth (John 14:6 and John 1:1)
--Conclusion: Humans that obey The Christian Bible God's Truth/Word (1 Peter 1:22) , are "Pure" of Heart (Proverbs 15:26)
Presupposition: "the act of presupposing; a supposition made prior to having knowledge (as for the purpose of argument)"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presuppo...
R McMillan... "I" don't accept your presupposition, that "The Christian Bible" (pick one version of many), is the "Infallible" and "Inerrant" Word/Thoughts of some God. You have "zero" evidence for such a claim... Why does "your" presupposition hold more validity, than a "presupposition" like... "The Night Before Christmas" is the "Infallible" and "Inerrant" Word of Santa Clause... Here, see for your self, a pop-up book you can order... a work truly inspired by someone with Absolute Perfect Goodness....
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?produc...
In order for you to "move" your "presupposition" to the "factual" domain of thought, you will need "evidence" to support your presuppositional claim. If you can not find any of that, then... your claim is no more valid for advice, or ritualistic following than "any" other fictional book.
Now... obviously... the method of your argument, is to use "Pornography" as a stake of Truth, that you want to establish... and then, "tie" or "link" that nugget of "Truth" to The Christian Holy Bible, thus... indirectly "validating" the "relevance" and obvious "veracity" of the Biblical Author (One God - somewhere).
Well... let's see... your argument from the big "P"ornography, is that too much is bad, because it's addictive, and addictive behaviors are not healthy. Okay... and???
R McMillan, can you give me "one" single excessively held act/behavior that is "not" unhealthy? Consider healthy to mean in-tune with keeping the human body alive and functioning properly.
Drinking water excessively, is that "bad"? Why sure... it's called drowning, etc. How about breathing too much oxygen? Why sure... it's called hyperoxia... both excesses kill humans... go ahead, try... let's see if "anything" taken to an excess is "healthy" for the human body to live and function properly.
So... having too much interest in "sex", can cause someone to become dysfunctional... in short, someone who can not "control" their "predominant" instinct to have "sexual intercourse" (natural), may become dysfunctional, as they are not capable of abiding by the domesticated codes (working for money; an idealized value, etc...) provided to them by society/culture...
Do you see where I'm headed... a male lion gets their lioness pregnant... but... between pregnancy and the time she delivers a cub... the pair will mate on average... 200 more times before birth... now that's what I'd consider a little excessive, but... would we suggest that this "obvious" fascination with "sexual drive" is somehow "immoral"... why?
R McMillan, Your Bible doesn't "establish" what "too much" interest in "sex" is... you "assume" to know what "P"ornography is... well.. go ahead... "define" what "P"ornography is... using the "bible", and what is considered "too" much sexual interest...
You're going to fail, The Bible doesn't define in great detail what "P"ornography is, or isn't... it is "you" that will "assume" you are able to "interpret" or "infer" what is "good" sex, versus "bad" sexual experiences - just another presupposition... That is, the presupposition that "you" are qualified to actually interpret some "infinite" (Christian claim) God's writing (because The Bible lacks specific details), with your "finite" mind.
An "argument" from "excess", for "any" behavior... doesn't provide you with "any" supporting evidence for your "presuppositional" claim of an Inerrant and God authored Bible, or... that you are somehow "more" qualified than anyone else, to define and "infer" what pornography is, and what is the "determining factor" that allows humanity to distinguish between a natural sexual interest (predominant human instinct), and some "excessive" behavior as regards to sexuality.
Now, if you want to refer to The American Psychological Association's standards/definitions, and listen to what professionals in the field say about sexual dysfunction, then... take "their" word for it... but they are not going to cite a God as their source for "information".
R McMillan... I can agree that excess of "anything" is not healthy for any organic life... what I fail to see... is how that means squat in regards to "religion" (ritualistic behavior, which of course could be taken to an extreme and be "unhealthy"), or The Bible... which lacks enlightenment on "many" topics - including "slavery", which is "not" conducive to "happiness" for the slave.
Beyond fallacious presuppositions without evidence, and using your presumptive logic...
If Pure of Heart means following the presuppositional Bible's laws... then, Jesus did not "honor thy father and mother" - instead of bestowing honor and thanks to his "all knowing" father, he slaps God in the face with - "why hath thou forsaken me..."
"Thou shalt not kill" - Jesus knowingly ushered in Judas' suicide, by not taking action to prevent it from happening.
"Thou shalt not kill" - Jesus take his "own" life, by deliberately and knowingly engaging in behavior that he knew would cost him his life.
"Keep the Sabbath Day Holy" - Jesus works on The Sabbath, and defies this law... when asked why he defies the law, he suggests he has more important business than to keep up with this Holy Day Commandment.
Between God and Jesus in The Bible - neither could be considered "Pure" by "Their Own Standards" - what gives "you" the right R McMillan, to deny your own God and Jesus' behaviors per The Holy Christian Bible?
These presuppositional "laws" in this ancient book, aren't even followed by the characters of The Bible itself... R McMillan, are you willing to accept that Jesus/God isn't Pure of Heart by "your" own declared "authoritative" position? Now, please don't insult us by saying that God/Jesus don't count, because we just need to do what they say, and not behave as they do... is it your position, that you don't want to be more "like" the God of The Christian Bible? If you do, then, you will never be "Pure of Heart", and... telling others to do something you don't agree with or something you aren't willing to do your self - is called "manipulation"; manipulation for some perceived benefit for your self... I find that behavior to be “immoral” in my book.
It is written, “He who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matt 12:30). Whether you call yourself an atheist, theist, agnostic, evolutionist, satanist or other you stand in defiance against the Living God. Whether I use the terms evolutionist, atheist or theist, it is irrelevant.
Regarding my former comments, it is written, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). If I have darkened God’s counsel with words without knowledge (Job 38:2), then I ask the Lord for his forgiveness and thank the collective for their admonishments.
Nonetheless, your many recriminations avail little, for it is written “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Also, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first the Jew then the Gentile" (Romans 1:16).
You have defiantly rejected the word of God (and the interpretation) I provided you. As I am new in Christ my interpretation may be open to a certain amount of skepticism but the word of God is infallible. Here’s what he Lord’s teaching has to say about your defiance: “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1 Timothy 6:3). This sounds a lot like you guys, doesn’t it?
Your minds are so corrupted (bound to lust and polemics) that you cannot even admit what our own scientist have to say about pornography (i.e. addictive, deadly and promotes abnormal behavior). On the authority of the Holy Scripture, I called it a sin (Romans 1 : 18-32) and exposed the inexorable condition it brings (i.e. death) (Romans 6:23). Whereas all you can do is quibble about semantics and the degree of destruction that has been manifested. You embrace contrived doctrines that in reality require a great deal of faith and overlook the deleterious effects of a real problem like pornography.
No, my friends, you are wrong. Pornography is a sin, nothing good comes out of it (save this admonishment), it systematically destroys Nations one person at a time and warps our perceptions of reality (Why else would you feel shame afterwards?).
Based on your comments, it is clear that you’re not interested in the word of God and what he has to say regarding sin. Therefore, (instead of a line-by-line reply) I will give a general response to the many stumper-questions (as I understand the truth).
The Old Testament is a historical account of the creation, fall and redemption of man (starting in Genesis). Notice that the fall of man was a result of the first sin (i.e. disobedience to God).The subsequent chapters look at the condition of man after the fall. It portrays mans feeble attempt to cope with an austere natural world divided from God. However, God did give man some guidance in the form of the Ten Commandments. I’m not sure but I believe the other laws (i.e. sanitary…) were also given by God to Moses (More on the sanity of these laws in a moment). Now these laws were considered good by God but made imperfect by man. They were made imperfect because of mans inclination to do the opposite of what he’s told to do. For example, The Apostle Paul says regarding coveting, “But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire” (Romans 7:8). This is the Law (one of them) that Jesus come to fulfill along with the prophecies from the Psalms and Prophets (Luke 24:44).
For those of you who find some of the Old Testament laws lacking any rational semblance of sanity consider the following. Job was questioned by God regarding his understanding of the natural world (see Job 38-41). When he was unable to answer the least of God’s questions he realized he was in no position to question Gods wisdom on any matter (much less his own calamity). Therefore in like manner while we don’t understand certain aspects of the Law of Moses we can know that they came from a wise and good God who knows better than we. When you are able to answer the same questions put toward Job then maybe you’ll get a visit from God at which time you can express a better way to govern the Universe. The good news is we are not subject to the penalty of breaking those laws anymore through Jesus Christ (Romans 8: 1-4).
Now regarding the Bible in general, some things are reported, while others are prophesized. The things that are reported sometimes serve as an example of man leaning on his own wisdom and the consequences thereof. The mere fact that you want to quibble about something that is reported doesn’t mean God condoned it. If God did condone something perplexing then you need to ask why. Presently, I’m not sure whether he condoned the things you have mentioned (i.e. The Sandwich, Lots Rape……). You could solicit the answer from an uncompromised Church. Bye the way Mary was not raped by God, she offered no protest and considered herself favored by God. Read Mary’s Song, “…my spirit rejoices…” (Luke 1: 46-55).
I’ll leave you guys with a couple thoughts. If you’re interested in putting away your rebellion against God consider the following:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:16-21).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joh...
Striving for equanimity is not an addictive or unhealthy endeavor and the way to get there is to serve Christ and pray every day.
Regarding the Sabbath Laws and Jesus, A lot can be said here but Christ makes it abundantly clear that “The son of man is the Sabbath” (Luke 6:5). You are using the same argument that the Pharisees used against him. Just like them you don’t accept Christ either. Think about this, you have made a connection with a group just like you that lived 2000 years ago. Anyway Christ defends himself quite well in regard to his actions of healing and eating on the Sabbath. You can read them all in the Gospel of Luke.
I believe much hypocrisy hides behind the statistics that try to damn Christianity. Everybody likes to say their religious on surveys but many are simply quasi-moralist who never made a commitment to Christ. So it would seem that all those damning statistics really don’t mean anything. Bye the way, I started getting reader fatigue after your second insult. Nonetheless thanks, I guess.
If you have any outstanding questions that didn’t seem to get addressed or answered to your satisfaction have one of the collective minions put a short list together as your empty rhetoric is beginning to obfuscate this entire dialog.
Christ be with You all,
Amen
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. When all else fails and a christian can't argue, to the specifics, of our arguments, anymore, they have to resort to vomiting up massive, loads of scriptural bullshit, never, quite, understanding it has zero authority, and is completely nonsensical, just like scripture from the qur'an is to their ears.
Face it McChristian, you got nothing, except the delusional imaginings of a religious zealot. Somewhere very near to you a cuckoo bird cuckoos incessantly.
--S.
I'll tell you what McChristian, if you truly felt you had a case, why don't you take all your evidences and your scripture and take it to court -- they would laugh you right out of there, just like we did.
This will provide written evidence that RM is desperately trying to obfuscate the dialogue with his scriptural rhetoric. Just read the previous arguments and focus on the issue on hand rather than RMs constant personal attacks and baseless assertions. Even a Xtian reader can find that it is fair to say that RM is unwilling or unable to repond to the cogent counter arguments made.
As for you RM, nice to see you are back.
Maybe it will be better if you just answered the questions brought up? (you brought it up first - not us) rather than engaging in stroking your spirituality in public. Its slightly inappropriate on such a forum.
I remind you what has yet to be done:
Monkeys: Arguments 1 - 13 (scientific data, historical evidence showing that your assertions are false)
Sconnor: showing your data on Sweden is completely false
Dave8: Showing the construction of your argument is based on baseless presupposition
Or is lying and being a hypocrite part of being a Christian too?
We will be waiting.....
2. You are delusional. Stop bothering us here.
3. To quote many fine military and law enforcement folks:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Goodbye and good riddance.
What was to stop cavewoman going out and killing her own mammoth?
R. McMillan,
May I recommend the book When God Becomes A Drug by Leo Booth. (BTW, the author is NOT an atheist. He is a member of the clergy, so hopefully you won't be too afraid to check it out.)
Here is an editorial review from Library Journal -
"The author...defines religious addiction as "using God, a church or belief system as an escape from reality, in an attempt to find or elevate a sense of self-worth or well-being." Symptoms include refusal to doubt or question authority, judgmental attitudes, eating disorders, using fear, shame, or guilt to control others, and eventual emotional isolation. Booth explores the background of religious addiction, comparing the addict's progress with the stages of alcoholism and citing case histories that demonstrate the consequences of religious addiction on family members, especially children, victims of the addict's religious abuse...."
http://www.amazon.com/When-Becomes-Drug-Father-...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Edited 9/2/08 at 7:30pm to add this:
If you don't want to check out the book, perhaps this website would be of more interest to you.
http://www.libchrist.com/swing/happysafestudies...
It's okay to check out the website, your bible tells you so....here are the verses giving you permission. Afterall, the first documented three-some is found in the bible.
...And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister. And she said to Jacob, Give me sons, or else I will die. And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel. And he said, Am I in God's stead, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb? And she said, Behold my slave woman Bilhah; go in to her, and she shall bear upon my knees, and yea, let me be built up from her, me also. And she gave him her slave woman Bilhah to wife. And Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived, and bore Jacob a son. (Gen 30:1-5)
"Rachel was barren but had her husband Jacob have sexual intercourse with her servant while she bore the servant upon her knees--it was a 'sandwich'.....God did not condemn anyone for having sex with servants or three-somes, so it must be ok for christians too!"
Thank you, SouthDakota2005, HereticZero, and all. I've been ROTFLMAO ever since I read your posts!
http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic...
Have a nice life!
First, you don't have to approve of my approach to argumentation, quite honestly, it may need a little work, but as bad as you think it is your still supporting an anti-rational, addictive and pernicious activity. Moreover, you've offered no support for your position only conjecture. The willful suppression of facts negating your position suggests a pathological denial of reality or possibly you've been given over to a depraved mind and you just
cannot see it. Nonetheless, I will say a prayer for you.
Also, I'm not going to cite the links for my sources due to the fact the argument of Pornography being destructive and a sin is axiomatic. You are smart folks, go to any online psychological journal and search for the effects of pornography. You will find the following:
It is well documented that pornography does not promote intimacy but relegates sex to a purely mechanical act void of intimacy; where more often than not the object of affection is not the person you are with but a sexual archetype. Moreover, in relationships of this nature, the likelihood of either party willing to form a nurturing and mutually satisfying relationship is unlikely. Also, data suggest that pornography desensitizes our response to certain sex crimes (i.e. rape). I'll go so far as to say that this is a perfect example of a warped perception. If rape infuriates you, make a mental note of how much so when you really get desensitized by porn you have a baseline emotion to compare it, or you can just accept what some scientific journals are saying about it.
Your comment that porn is not marketed to underage people is patently false. Look no further than the "Barely Legal" marketing trend. Moreover in a recent Congressional Committee on Govt Reform the Children's Digital Media Center and Department of Psychology, University of California testified that "Inadvertent and unintentional exposure" to pornography through "peer-to-peer file-sharing networks" promotes abnormal sexual behavior. This problem goes beyond your simplified "just avoid it" solution. Moreover, his "unavoidable exposure" has been documented to cause "anti-social" behavior, "sexual violence and other abnormal conditions in this so-called non-marketed groups. You seem to be very naive to how marketing works. Have you ever heard of Joe Camel?
When I referred to porn as a false sanctuary, I am saying that like anything addictive, it offers one thing but delivers another. In simpler terms it offers an innocuous distraction from life but delivers all the trappings one finds in porn addiction. Jesus warned us to stay away from such things likening them to a thief whose prime motive is to steal, kill and destroy (John 10:10). This sounds to me like a good description of what happens to those caught up in any addiction. For those of you who don't watch porn you’re probably not addicted (yet) but you’re surely enabling others to fall into its grip. Know does that sound like something a so-called rationalist should be doing. I think even the Epicureans would call you on that one.
Regarding my comment of the elite, naive and broken, I think this adequately describes the typical mind/mindsets of those who for one reason or another initially dabble in pornography. You could also describe them as follows, those that know better, those that don't know better and those looking for a
substitute for real affection. As you can see everyone these people have a false perception regarding their ability to process this imagery. If I had said that the neuro-chemical fabric of the human brain governing "conscience" has not evolved to the point that it can effectively reconcile the disparate and
incongruous chemical response generated by viewing certain non-normal life experiences (i.e.pornography) and so-called normal life experiences you may not have been so inflamed. As a matter of fact I have read at least one abstract in evolutionary psychology that suggest this. However, since evolution is a patently false doctrine we are again left with a biblical explanation.
Regarding the nitpicking of semantics. If I want to discuss quantum mechanics I will use the verbiage of quantum mechanics, it would be foolish to invoke my own definitions. Likewise when talking about spiritual things it is only appropriate to go to a source of such definitions (i.e. the Bible). Spare me the remedial psycho-babble on the state of cognitive psychology or the evolution of language. That being said, as ex-Christians you should know that virtually all these words I'm using, that you find nebulous, directly relate to a biblical interpretation. For millennia scholars have pondered the meanings of these non-subjective words and most have come to a biblical understanding of them without the aid of modern technology. That is to say these words do do not require a translation into modern technological terms, a biblical concordance or possibly an unabridged dictionary will suffice.
When you simply reverse my argument by substituting Christianity you have not demonstrated a contradiction or even a fallacy for that matter, you have simply resorted to redefine the question, to fit your own bias. The reality is there's ample secular data to support the destructive effects of pornography on all types of people (even warping perceptions). The fact that you don't agree with the scientific data that supports this is your own quandary. But all of this is moot in that the Bible already said that those who will not turn from their sin will be given over to a depraved mind and all the troubles that go with it. It's really common sense. Aren't rationalist above all supposed to have common sense? I tell you what I'll give you a syllogism (probably a couple are
required):
All people who consistently view porn are addicted to it.....(If this is false why view it more than once)
You Ex-Christians are viewing porn........................................(Albeit an assumption)
Therefore you Ex-Christians will become addicted.............(And God will give you over to your lusts and a depraved mind...and boo hoo)
Again, this type of argument is unnecessary in that common sense and science provide more compelling proof of the addictive and subsequently destructive nature of pornography. Also, premises can always be questioned to the void, especially with you guys where your only rebuttals seem to be in the form of
disputing definitions and "NU-UHH".
Okay, regarding Sweden if you think that a nation that has rejected God (80% Atheist), is Anti-Christic to the point of jailing a minister(s) for speaking against homosexuality, is rampant with bestiality brothels, facing an increasing trend in alcoholism, looking at a burgeoning Islamic population, facing a declining birth rate among white Swede's (B<2 children /mother), is not in decline then I don't know what I can tell you. Oh yeah it’s also a place where you can be euthanized when you’re of no more value to society (a service paid for by an exorbitant tax system). I've seen some statistics regarding modest economic growth and 90% happiness levels (highly questionable) but I suppose that's the kind of stuff you got to cling to once you lost your soul. Make no mistake a few kroner’s at the cost of spiritually bankrupting your country does not promote happiness or guarantee a progeny. Just think how great Sweden could be if they come back to the Lord. They do have some wisdom left regarding energy conservation but it's embodied in a double minded populace.
Regarding the Moliere argument of me being sexually repressed and morally superior, that's just not true. I have to admit that's one scary individual your describing. The good thing about becoming a Christian is that you grow in spiritual wisdom. For example, (1 Cor 13:11) says, When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. It's verses like these that are shaping me. God is calling out to all of us. He desires that we all be free from our sins at the cost of becoming slaves to him. I know how that sounds but Christ assures us that his yoke is easy and his burden is light (Matt 11:29-30). Also, nowhere that I know does God say service to him precludes scientific investigations. He just doesn't want science to be our God. One final word, I am new to Christianity but have learned some hard hard lessons in life. I choose to put the folly of my youth behind me as it has profited me nothing. With that said, Christ tells us in (Matt 7:3-5) that we are hypocrites if we presume to criticize others without examining
ourselves first (i.e. the speck in your brothers eye vs. the plank in your own). Above all, I am a work in progress.
Without getting into the long list of irrelevancies Monkey puts forth, I will address the following. Another good thing about serving God is that he doesn't infringe on our free will. He simply shines a codex of spiritual light (i.e. Bible) which helps us grow spiritually and cope with life. Moreover, his instruction helps us to put the issues of life into perspective. So I don't believe in legislating that which God makes optional. This is the trap I think most religious zealot's and hypocrites fall into. The meaning of Spirit and its derivatives are defined by the scriptures. You can think of Spirit as an actual entity (i.e. God is a Spirit John 4:24). The bible describes the word spiritual as a decorum by which we worship God (John 4:24); also a gift (Romans 1:1) and an ability to discern (1 Cor 2:15).If you want more definitions of spirit and spirituality use the links below.
http://www.biblegateway.com
http://bibletab.com/s/spiritual.htm
Without getting into either of the following subjects, I think fantasy is a waste of time that most people have convinced themselves is therapeutic. I believe it ultimately serves to enslave people not free them. There's a difference between modeling and conjecture which leads to a hypothesis and the silver screen with all its obligatory marketing garbage. Regarding sex in marriage, that is mostly left to the discretion of the heterosexual married couple (Don't look for loopholes, use common sense on what goes where).
Regarding sconner, I believe the Sweden typos have been corrected above. One thing I have noticed about atheists is that they excoriate minor details not to mention go into a full-on vituperative rampage when they think they smell a fallacy or paradox. Hopefully, you will learn someday that might doesn't make right and questioning someone’s competence really speaks more about you than the argument at hand. The real problem you have is not with what I said about Sweden, its spiritually dead society or the evidence for its decline, but that I am invoking sin into the matter. I will admit that I don't know the initial sin that started Sweden down the destructive path they're on but according to my contact there, pornography and sexual debauchery have warped their notions of what sin is as defined by the Bible. They are like most Europeans disillusioned about the meaning of life. Ultimately, it is a question of sin and believing Gods pronouncements on such sins. According to (Romans 1:18-32) God will give the non-repentant over to a depraved mind and has decreed that the same deserve death. Finally, it is written, Blessed are the Nations whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12). Conversely, God has let nations fall into decline who have turned away from him. You can see this in the history of Israel after certain libidinous phases of their history. It could be argued that while they
didn't vanish altogether the rise and fall of once Christian superpowers can be attributed to the decline in their piety.
Also, regarding Christian statistics, don't confuse people who call themselves Christians (moralist who never made a real commitment to God) with Bible believing Christians. The difference is tantamount to a manakin and a living person.
I will get back with the Old Testament Gotcha argument and the Dave8 mosh of irrelevancies latter this week. Seriously, Dave8 your questions are challenging and I will address them the best I can line by line. In the meantime, what do you guys really hope to gain by turning the world into atheists? How do you know that the utopian society you envision won't be hi-jacked by someone less rational or someone who embraces ideas over a single human life. You don't have to look to far to see the fruits of atheism, just consider some of the worst dictators in history, (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gengis Kahn). All of these leaders were God haters with the blood of MILLIONS sacrificed at their idiological alters.
And if watching porn more than once means its an addiction... why pray or give thanks? I mean if you pray more than once, you're obviously addicted to it, and since according to you all addictions are bad, you would be a hypocrite not to cease ever praying again immediately.
Why don't you include in your prayers that pornography just goes away? Why not pray that all those involved, either directly or as consumers, get struck-down by god? Do prayers not work? Is god not listening?
And save your energy with the Old Testament Gotcha bullshit. The bible will never convince us of anything. Since your prayers do not seem to hold any power, why should your recitations do any more?
I would suggest that you evaluate every sentence individually. Removed all the shiny, erudite modifiers (adverbs and adjectives) and see what remains. Unless you just want to write poetry, in which case, have at it. But do not expect to be taken too seriously.
--you were all thinking it.
I think RMM adheres to this the old saying --
IF YOU CAN'T DAZZLE THEM WITH BRILLIANCE,
THEN BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLSHIT.
We can't be baffled and we don't put up with bullshit......
;-)
Regarding sconner, I believe the Sweden typos have been corrected above.
What the hell are you talking about? Evidently, that abyss of a mind -- of yours -- confuses, easily.
One thing I have noticed about atheists is that they excoriate minor details not to mention go into a full-on vituperative rampage when they think they smell a fallacy or paradox. Hopefully, you will learn someday that might doesn't make right and questioning someone’s competence really speaks more about you than the argument at hand.
Leaping to conclusions again? It sure is easy for you to leap to conclusions, isn't McChristian? How is it, you came to the conclusion, I was an atheist?
Additionally, I don't question your competence; I question your authority into this matter. Using the supposed voice of god as your own, has zero authority in this regard. Furthermore, you have not been able to substantiate your claims that pornography destroys nations.
The real problem you have is not with what I said about Sweden, its spiritually dead society or the evidence for its decline, but that I am invoking sin into the matter.
You have no evidence that Sweden is in decline or that pornography is the culprit. All you have are asinine, claims you can not substantiate. Now you have to resort to the all-encompassing sin argument, foregoing your original argument, that pornography destroys nations. Using the "sin card" is just as obtuse as using the bible to back up your arguments. The doctrine of sin carries no weight here. Now if you care to share studies and research that completely substantiates your claim, that pornography destroys nations, we will be more than happy to hear them, until then your claims are not even worth the hot air used to expell them.
I will admit that I don't know the initial sin that started Sweden down the destructive path they're on but according to my contact there, pornography and...
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! According to your contact there? I'm sure your contact has spent his entire life studying the effects of pornography on nations and has doctorates in psychology and sociology dealing with sexual behavior. And I'm sure he has amassed vast amount of evidences and has written many peered reviewed, published papers on the effects of pornography on how it destroys nations. I'm sure he is not a delusional religious zealot like yourself that just pulls unsubstantiated claims out his butt.
They are like most Europeans disillusioned about the meaning of life.
Oh goodie, McChristian knows what the meaning of life is -- Ohhhhhhhh, dooooooo Sharrrrrre!
Also, regarding Christian statistics, don't confuse people who call themselves Christians (moralist who never made a real commitment to God) with Bible believing Christians. The difference is tantamount to a manakin and a living person.
True christian alert! McChristian knows his definition of christian is the one and only correct definition. All christians use the bible to support their vast and varying beliefs, but McChristian knows they've got it all wrong, while his interpretation of scripture is the one and only true interpretation. Tell you what McChristian, when christianity coalesces into one unified christian church, with one true, EXTREMELY clear, unequivocal message -- you come on back and let us know. I'll expect you in around -- NEVER.
Okay, regarding Sweden if you think that a nation that has rejected God (80% Atheist...
You're an idiot. Here are the real statistics:
The country has an area of 173,732 square miles and a population of 9.1 million. Approximately 77 percent of the population belongs to the Church of Sweden. More of people have left the Church of Sweden each year since it separated from the state in 2000. During 2006, 59,302 persons left the church, 0.9 percent of the members. Church of Sweden studies found that individuals left primarily for economic reasons; membership carries a tax of 1.19 percent of members' incomes. In 2005 the Church of Sweden baptized 67.7 percent of all children, a figure that has steadily declined over the past two decades. Confirmations declined more sharply; according to the latest available figures, less than 36.5 percent of 15-year-olds were confirmed in 2005, as opposed to 80 percent in 1970.
There are an estimated 140,000 Roman Catholics, of whom 83,528 are registered with the Roman Catholic Church. Approximately 85 percent of Catholics are first- or second-generation immigrants, with the largest groups coming from southern Europe, Latin America, and Poland. Within the Stockholm Catholic Diocese, the Armenian, Chaldean, Maronite, Melchite, and Syrian churches celebrate Mass in their respective languages, as do the Polish, Croatian, Spanish, Italian, Eritrean, Vietnamese, Korean, and Ukrainian communities.
The Orthodox Christian Church has approximately 107,000 practicing members. The main national Orthodox churches are Syrian, Serbian, Greek, Romanian, and Macedonian.
There is a large Finnish-speaking Lutheran denomination.
More than 400,000 persons attend Protestant churches other than the Church of Sweden. The Pentecostal movement and the Missionary (or Missions) Church are the largest Protestant groups outside of the Church of Sweden. In 2005, according to the latest available figures, the Pentecostal movement had 86,669 registered members, down from a peak of more than 100,000 in 1985. The Missionary Church had 62,565 registered members in 2004, the latest year for which statistics were available. Evangelical churches have an estimated membership of 31,000, a figure that reportedly is slowly increasing in number.
Jehovah's Witnesses count approximately 22,500 members. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) has an estimated 9,000 members.
The number of Jews is estimated to be 18,500 to 20,000. The Jewish community estimates 9,500 are practicing members. There are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jewish synagogues, found mostly in the cities. Large numbers of Jews attend High Holy Day services, but attendance at weekly services is low.
The major religious communities and the Church of Sweden are spread across the country. Large numbers of immigrants in recent decades have introduced various religious faiths, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a number of Christian denominations. These communities are concentrated in the larger cities.
Buddhists number approximately 15,000, Hindus 7,000 to 10,000, Sikhs slightly more than 1,000, and Zoroastrians 500.
And as for your 80% atheist statistic:
Reliable statistics on the number of atheists are not available; however, estimates placed the figure at 10 to 20 percent of the adult population. Other estimates range upwards from 46 percent.
REFERENCE
Now, I am questioning your competence.You have nothing to offer but bullshit, that you pull out of your ass -- go away and take your unsubstantiated, asinine, deluded claims with you.
--S.
You first claim that pornography ruins countries.
We ask which countries has it ruined?
You then claim that it ruins countries because it does not build them up (haha - like tap dancing should be banned because it does improve national productivity numbers or housing starts - completely irrelevant.)
Then you say Sweden is an example of a ruined country because it is atheist and hence watches more porn. ( A completely unsubstantiated claim.) That is what makes it unhappy.
To rebut your specious claim I show several studies that show that Sweden consistently scores higher than The US in terms of happiness.
And your answer....
Essentially Sweden cannot be happy because it is atheist and secular. Yup - assertion without substantiation.
Your arguments slips and slide constantly. Your only backup to your first assertion that Porn ruins nations is that because a nation is secular it is ruined. A circular definition. You know you are losing ground and you constantly have to redefine your position in order to "fix" your earlier bold and untenable claims.
To continue to hammer away at your baseless assertions -
89% of porn pages are from the US at 244 million it outstrips the next country Germany which only has 10 million porn sites. Sweden is not on the top 10 list.
You ask what has porn inspired and I show that the Song of Solomon is definitely inspired by an appreciation of the human body even if it is but a metaphor. let me repost the quote here.
Song of Solomon Ch1 12-13
While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.
A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
Obviously you feel squeamish about commenting about that quote - given that it contradicts your "special" feelings about the Bible-God. hence you need to consider it an irrelevancy - because it scares you that the Bible may be even more sexually liberated than yourself. The sweet irony.
List of arguments.
Argument 1: It is an axiom that porn is destructive and a sin
Axiom is defined as a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision.
Counter argument: It is not self-evident - isn't that the whole point of your need to constantly point to scientific studies that you do not actually list?
Argument 2: There are innumerable medical studies that porn is bad and addictive
Proof of medical studies.........none
And please don't quote Dr victor Cline or the scientific journal Mind, Medicine and Adolescence - they are financially backed by advocacy groups that have an ideological interest and more damning still are not peer reviewed.
Here is how proof may look like -
Some real scientific statistics. According to the Uniform Crime Statistics kept by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the rate of forcible rape declined from 38.1/100,000 in 1986 to 31.7/100,000 in 2005 despite the almost exponential increase in internet pornography.
In 1968 President Lyndon Johnson forms 4 subcommittees, one of them deals with the effects of pornography - it was called the Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography
It costs 2 million US$, 80 independent porn-studies, also from researchers in different countries
It found no causal relationship between exposure to pornography and any kind of socio-sexual deviance, including criminality & delinquency. Of course it was criticized by conservatives for not getting the "expected" results. Recent scientific reports have backed up the initial finding in 1968.
here are a few you may care to peruse
Allen, M., D’Alessio, D., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (1999). Reactions of criminal sexual offenders to pornography: A meta-analytic summary. Communication Yearbook, 22, 139-169.
Shows that although sexual criminals may have higher arousal to pornography that show no more frequency or exposure at an earlier age than law-abiding participants of the study,
Kutchinsky, B. (1991). Pornography and rape: Theory and practice?International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, 47-64.
No discernible increase in sex crime after legalization of pornography
Whitty, M., & Fisher, W. A. In A. Barak (Ed.), Internet sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shows actually decrease in sex crime for the US despite huge increase in internet pornography (2005)
McKee, A. (2007). The relationship between attitudes towards women, consumption of pornography, and other demographic variables in a survey of 1,023 consumers of pornography. International Journal of Sexual Health, 19, 31-45.
Finds that there are no link between consumption of pornography and negative attitudes to women in society.
Some sexual scientists claim there is a “confluence model,” asserting that men with misogynistic
and antisocial predispositions will be likely to engage in aggression as a result of exposure to
sexually violent pornography. The evidence however is shown to be not consistent (Malamuth, Addison, & Koss, 2001).
Research shows that sex offenders can grow up in either sexually repressive environments or in sexually abusive environments. Familial context is seen as the primary contributing factor.
Gagnon, J. H. und Simon, W. (1967): Sexual deviance. New York.
Gebhard, P. H. et al. (1965): Sex offenders. An analysis of types. New York.
Argument 3: pornography should be banned because it is marketed to children.
Counter argument: marketing of pornography to children is a separate issue from pornography for consensual adults. Your need to conflate both issues shows that the problem is the marketing to minors and not pornography inherently as a subject matter for adults.
Argument 4: Pornography is a false sanctuary
Poof is essentially Bible-based
Counter argument is for you to show that your Bible is the incontrovertible word of God (henceforth known as the Buy-Bull rebuttal)
Argument 5: Claim that the words "elite, naive and broken" describes those that initally dabble in pornography
Proof is essentially the Bible (since evolution is false - which is in itself another unsubstantiated claim)
Counter argument: The Buy-Bull rebuttal.
Argument 6: says substituting Christianity in place of porn is a baseless syllogism
Counter argument: Example of Syllogism itself is badly constructed. major premise is in itself false. Addiction does not mean viewing it more than once. if you pray more than once then it also has to be an addiction.
How about brushing your teeth or tying your shoelaces - addiction by R MacMillian definition. Obviously R Macmillian is a trained philosopher.
Counter argument: Argument is in itself self-refuting in the absurdity of its claims. Nuff said.
Argument 7: Sweden is ruined country (initial point of argument)
Proof: because it is essentially atheist and secular.
Counter argument: non-sequitor argument.
Argument 8: Claims that he is spiritually wise and God is calling out to him. bible verses are actively shaping him. will be free by becoming slaves to god. God does not want science to be God. Author has learned alot and has examined himself so much that he has removed essentially the plank of his own eye.
Proof that he is spiritually wise and that has removed the plank in his eye......none.
Counter argument: irrelevant spiritual masturbatory passage - plus Buy-Bull rebuttal
Argument 9: God does not interfere with free will, shines a codex of spiritual light that allows one to grow spiritually and puts life in perspective, Author claims he knows what God is legislating and he thinks that he is not a zealot or hypocrite. Spirit is an actual entity - also a decorum which we worshipa s god,a lso a gift, also an ability to discern.
Proof of the Spirit: essentially the Bible.
Counter argument: milder but still irrelevant spiritual masturbatory passage - plus Buy-Bull rebuttal.
Argument 10: fantasy in not therapeutic and enslaves
Counter argument: Complete agreement! - The Bible God fantasy is essentially non-therapeutic and enslaves.
Argument 11: Sin is root of decline the of nations - uses Sweden again
Proof is that Sweden is an atheist country
Counter argument One: This argument is circular.
Sin ruins nations. The definition of being ruined is being sinful. Secularism destroyed Sweden - and its destruction can only be seen in the fact that it is secular.
Counter argument Two: Definition of Sin - BuyBull rebuttal.
Argument 12: I am a true Christian and not a "mannikin". (known to non-true Christians as mannequin)
Proof .... none
Counter argument One: claim of special position not substantiated
Counter argument Two: Buy-Bull rebuttal
Argument 13: All Dictators in history are atheist
Counter argument: Hitler supported the Catholic Church once in power - in Mein kampf he said he was proud of being a Christian and that Christ was like him - a fighter of Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Religious_b...
Stalin - made a pact with the Russian orthodox church when he ran into trouble and needed popular support during the war - recently opened archives show that when he was losing the war Ilya, Metropolitan of the Lebanon Mountains, claimed to receive a sign from heaven that convinced Stalin to release the priests and open the churches. His own personal letters show that he maintained a complex but present belief in God, akin to a form of non-interventionist deism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Reli...
Genghis Kahn was religious and supported a form of Shamanism called Tengriism. However he also spoke to Christians, Jews and Muslims to understand their beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_kahn#Religion
Idi Amin was always a Muslim.
And of course all Christians never engaged in anything as cruel as genocide.
Rwanda was regarded as one of the most "Christian" countries in Africa and the world after successful historical Christian missions in Africa since the early 20th century. Statistically speaking some 80% to 90% of the population regard themselves as Christians, many of a strong evangelical persuasion (Daniels 1992; Johnstone 1993:472). Yet the massacres were spontaneous in their intensity and unmatched in their ferocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Waiting for more of your arguments....
WOW, am I ever glad that we are both on the same (ex-xtian) side of this debate with R McMillan !!
That was some argument and piece of research you did there...."Simply-Amazing" !
I think a certain new xtian here, 'doth protest a little too much' -- wouldn't you agree?
ATF (Who admits that he's addicted to tying his shoes once per day; maybe more)
Oh, and thinking!
BOOYAH!
--S.
Ad hominem, but... expected.
R McMillan: "Seriously, Dave8 your questions are challenging and I will address them the best I can line by line."
...
R McMillan: "In the meantime, what do you guys really hope to gain by turning the world into atheists?"
Presupposition: Each and every individual on this web-site, is an atheist with an agenda that requires total adherence to atheism.
Your presupposition is "irrational" and "fallacious, because...
1-Not all people on this web-site are atheist... but, perhaps your phobia of atheism is so overwhelming, that you can't mentally control your fear, as it pours out in words on this article's thread.
2-Atheism... in its "broadest" sense... because "context" is important... describes the collective of individuals who lack an affirmative belief in a god/s... that's it...
Do you understand this extremely simple statement?
Since your "context" of speech, refers to "Atheism" in its broadest, most general sense... it becomes important to make responses in that same "context"...
Atheism, in its broadest sense... does not... prescribe a doctrinal theology (religion)... does not... prescribe a value system... does not... prescribe a moral system... does not... prescribe... a "political" alignment... does not... prescribe "anything" to "any individual"...not to "you" R McMillan... and not to anyone you "know"... or will "ever" know...
The term is "descriptive", a term used by intellectual/educated individual's to "describe" a "cognitive" element... common to a collective of individuals. Note; since there is "no single" tenet of belief that captures the "entirety" of the atheist collective... you have no logical alternative, but to either... restrict your implicit assumptions per the entirely of your post... to the "context" to a particular sub-category of atheism, where such a sub-group promotes specific tenets of belief... or... remain silent on a topic that you appear to have little education on.
As well... you should understand, that "I" don't accept nonsensical/irrational positions when engaging in an intellectual conversation... because the conversation becomes arbitrary and meaningless without proper "context"... see your biased generalization of "all" atheists (collective) in your posts for a strong example of such.
Along that train of thought... I understand the possibility of irrational sub-categories of atheism... but, you have yet to restrict your "presuppositions" about "pornography" (or Utopia for that matter) to any "specific" sub-category of atheism - illuminating your ignorance. And... I'd be truly interested if you were able to identify "one" particular sub-category of "atheism” that has a tenet of "belief", totally centered on the pornographic Utopia that you seem so fearful of...
Per, "my" position... I am foremost a naturalist... I have "tenets of belief" that lead me to a cognitive position, whereby one may logically "describe" me as an "atheist". Want a few of my beliefs, to ponder upon... perhaps, you can build an argument against them, and somehow show my position to be "irrational", I'd be thankful if you could, as that would mean "I learned something".
Here are a few...
--I believe (because I have no reason not to believe per all experiential evidence) in a single-integrated (non-interposable) Reality...
--I accept the notion of attributive monism (don't confuse my position with a monist polytheist)...
Now... I lack an affirmative belief tenet in a god/s... but... as a "result" of my "lack" of belief tenet(s) in a god/s... I fall under the "general" context of atheism. Notice, I have not "formed" a belief, using the subject noun "god", nor "pornography", nor Utopia for that matter.
R McMillan: "How do you know that the utopian society you envision won't be hi-jacked by someone less rational or someone who embraces ideas over a single human life."
Presuppositional... you not only lack a proper definition for pornography, you have now entered Utopia into the conversation... care to "define" the "specifics" of a Utopia? I'd wager you have no manner in which you can accomplish this, without resorting to some "idealized" imaginative concept, built by mentally removing everything about your reality that you don't like/desire; of course, what you don't "like" or "desire" becomes "your" utopia, and not necessarily anyone else's.
R McMillan: "You don't have to look to far to see the fruits of atheism..."
Maximal ignorance... again, atheism as a "general" term, describes the "lack" of a particular belief tenet... it does "not" describe an "affirmative" belief tenet common to "all atheists"... thus, you have no logical means to suggest that some commonly held "belief" by "all atheists", leads to "ill-behavior(s)"... your stereotyping and prejudice seem to be a common theme thus far...
R McMillan: "...just consider some of the worst dictators in history, (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gengis Kahn)."
Well, first of all... Hitler was a Christian per his statements in Mein Komph... and followed Martin Luther's theology to its conclusion; murder of 11 million innocent people... if you would like some information on the topic... I can provide, or... anyone who cares to know more can just Google.
Stalin... at the age of 16, was enrolled at the Georgian Orthodox Seminary of Tiflis... obviously, seminary had a great impact on his life.
It is ridiculous to declare that "atheism", which does not promote a "single" tenet of belief in the most general context... is "responsible" for directly influencing the people you describe.
Now... let's close the loop... Perhaps, you would argue that because "atheism" lacks a single tenet of belief in the most general context (which is reflective of the broad diversity on this web-site), that such individuals would exhibit "moral" inadequacy or perversion (or support such), because "atheism" does not provide them with a morality.
Let's put this in logical perspective... because I lack an affirmative belief in a god/s (general atheist), you conclude that I must therefore support or engage in immoral acts? Bzzzzzzz, wrong.
While atheism does not provide me with a morality... I do. The morality I hold is based on a value system (that is logically superior to a morality based on the Christian Bible). Because I fall into the general category of "atheism", does not mean "I checked my life in at the door"... I do live a healthy lifestyle; I am a productive citizen towards my nation, my state, my community, my family, etc.
Yes, as an atheist/naturalist... I do have the ability to have an autonomous identity... entirely separate from the notion I am part of a "collective" belief system...
I have intellectual freedom and autonomy, and yes, it’s possible for a mature person to actually live a “healthy” lifestyle without affirming a belief in a god/s.
If you can not understand the difference between being categorized by what you aren't, and being categorized by what you are... then, let me provide an example... if I am part of a collective that "lacks" an affirmative belief in a god/s... then... one could surmise you are part of the ilk collective that "lacks" an affirmative belief in Santa Clause, etc. Should we go further, and suggest that because you are part of the "collective" that "lacks" an affirmative belief in "Santa Clause", that you inherently lack the ability to be "nice", because it takes presents and material bribes to incentivize "nicety" for you - right.
Is it so hard for you R McMillan, to accept that mature adults can in fact, learn from their individual life experience and individually develop a morality that is productive for themselves and society - without a "religious crutch"?
R McMillan: "All of these leaders were God haters with the blood of MILLIONS sacrificed at their idiological alters."
R McMillan, hopefully, you now understand that promoting general "atheism" as an "ideology", is totally fallacious. If you already knew this, then you are deceptive and a liar, if you were ignorant, then... well, your ignorance seems to have preceded you.
Now... if you want to exit the fallacious associations you continue to make between general atheism and... bats, birds, snails, trees, pornography, utopia, etc., then... by all means, develop a well formed argument.
If you have a "worry" or "concern" for a society/nation... then research for "root" causes... and refrain from making uneducated, un-researched, broad-stroke correlative assumption(s).
Let's see if I can be as uneducated as you... I 'believe' Swedes are in moral decline, because they lack the belief in "woolly, woolly, woolly", and without a belief in "woolly, woolly, woolly", Swedes "must" by Absolute rule, be... pernicious, pugnacious, and pedantic.
Let's see, another great uneducated example... R McMillan lacks an affirmative belief in "atheism", obviously... that means R McMillan must have a theistic belief... and since there is only one God, R McMillan must worship him, that is... Satan, the one True God.
R McMillan, there are fallacious beliefs all over the place, and people use titles to describe themselves all along the spectrum of belief/non-belief... when an individual's particular cognitive position conflicts with the words they use to describe their self; there exists an irrational/illogical individual. Further, if a person uses illogical/irrational statements to support their position, they are irrational/illogical.
So, the silent individual, and the individual who successfully understands the underpinning principles of their cognitive position, are likely "sound" in their state of mind and belief. To offer the single phrases of "because" (argument from ignorance, ignorance, etc.), or "why not?" (switching burden of proof, etc), "reasons" to believe "x", just doesn't make such a case for me.
Beyond your myopic view of reality... perhaps, you should revisit how you came to accept your current beliefs, and why. I mean, I do have a degree in social science, and I am pretty good at analysis. Do you believe humans are domesticated? By that, I mean... do you believe humans in general are programmed according to the beliefs of parents/care-giver/society, etc...
If so, then do you believe at some point in our lives we should reach an autonomy where we validate the domestication process and the beliefs we absorb as children without restriction?
I dare say, this is where we differ... you would likely conclude, that a child who is domesticated with "religious" over-tones, should continue to live according to that "collective" belief, as a fully "assimilated" human being. Of course, this totally removes individuality, intellectual freedom, independence and the "capability" to become more than their programmers. In short, a person in this position can never become "more" than what their programmer provided them... a child, can not... what's the proper term... oh, yeah... "Adapt", to a changing planet/Nature. The logical conclusion is the non-progression of humanity... and the inevitable conclusion - extinction.
Perhaps, the issue with your Swedes has more to do with social science than theology... maybe... I know, this is totally radical here, but... maybe... just maybe... they have escaped their domestication from religious authority, and in all likelihood are openly rebelling against what they perceive as... "malware/destructive programming".
If you would like to ask someone what is the "right" way to program a child, because they need guidance... perhaps, it comes down to teaching them to wield the cognitive tools that allow them to make "good decisions" in their life, so that they can thrive in a changing environment. Now... do you actually believe that "lack" of a belief in a god/s stunts intellectual autonomy, or the... authoritative acceptance of a Holy Book, that conveys "absolute" rules to be followed without exception?
Why should they have any effect on the behaviour of the individual? Given the subject matter of the popular song genre since the availability of mass distribution media at the beginning of the last century, why is it that we do not, as yet, all love one another?
Almost every popular song, until more recent times, has been about love, either of a man for a woman (or vice versa) or of a more general love for one's fellows. You only have to undertake a cursory review of the titles of the Beatles output to be made aware of this.
We all listen to our favourite music many more times than once.
We are all addicted to our favourite popular music.
Why then, I repeat, do we not all love one another to distraction, already?
And please, no god or bible references in your response, as that is cheating and unworthy of you. I expect you to respond using your copious knowledge of psychology and psychological research results to defend your position as you have attempted to do to demolish ours.
That is whole new problem with religion; it diminishes humans into such a small, empty shell. Just like those people who think the Pyramids must have been built by aliens because human could not do such a thing. Well, humans can do great things, as well as terrible things. But all are done by humans. Why do christians have to give all credit to god or satan? Why do so many people want to be small?
I wonder whether it is because small people don't need to achieve anything?
When you can give credit to god or satan for everything, you do not need to take responsibility either for yourself or the effect on others of your life and actions.
Neat.
Ron Jeremy is someone who in reality i idolize, but i had no idea he was so clever.
seems like he actually had some good points.
"...I am new to Christianity..."
That explains a lot..................
Then may I suggest that, before you go any further, you remove that large beam of historical fiction known as the Bible from your own eye.