what?! I totaly hate religion too, especially after seeing this. I can't believe religion is turning people into crazed fanatics.
she said something like "masturbating is a loss of * drip-drop*". How can it be a loss, keeping in mind that there are a lot of men around the world who aren't fertile. Women married to such a man (with respect) should be thankfull there are a few spanking men in their neighbourhoud who visit the sperm bank.
This thread seems really... modded? At this point why not just lock/delete it?
The only thing scripture says that could possibly be construed against masturbation is lusting "in your heart." Waht does that even mean? How do we know that you can't lust with your head but if it's not emotional it's okay? What if I imagine a fictitious person as my object of lust, is my heart lusting for someone who doesn't even exist? I can't believe I ever used to advocate this crap.
We're optimistic sorts; there's always the chance that someone like you will come in talking about the actual ideas, rather than just making masturbation jokes. Thanks!
You do understand what you think is common knowledge and just normal Christian thinking is neither. Different groups think differently. I'm not saying I think you are wrong, but in essence your argument is that it doesn't make any sense because this is how Christianity is/thinks. The problem is that we have a preponderance of evidence, like the video above, that others would disagree with your assessment.
Personly i would like to find the people in the video and laugh my arse off at em, cause really no matter how hard one group tries they wont eliminate masturbation, their efforts are futile.... also sadly one of the chicks in the video remind me of my ex girlfriend *shudders*
Hmm... between hot dogs in a jar and this, I will still stay in america. Irn Bru tastes weird and seriously, hot dogs in a jar. aybe it was just scotland, but *shudder* hot dogs should not be put in a jar.
It is comment like some of those expressed in the clip that almost require the asking for chapter and verse... I want to know exactly where, in whichever version of the bible they are using, it says what they claim.
Of course, I also do this with any other religion with a publically available text.
Its like explaining rules on this forum..... tell me where to find it, page number and paragraph, and let me read it for myself.
As a Christian I would like to shed a little light on this if i may.
In Genesis, there is this guy named Onan. His brother died and he inherited his brothers wife Tamar. Judah instructed Onan to impregnate Tamar for the good of the tribe. However Onan decided to instead pull out and finish. God was displeased and after repeated warnings killed Onan for his disobedience. So, Medieval scholars thought this meant "Masturbation=Evil" and we have kept the tradition ever since.
Latley, many christians have interpreted the story not as "Masturbation=Evil" but don't disobey God. All throughout the bible no one (including God) says you cant have alone time with yourself.
Monster Rain wrote:I thought that in this point in history the lady in question was practicing witchcraft.
This week Bill Maher played a montage of clips of her from back in the day. It was like a highlight reel of Urban Legends Passed Around By The Most Ignorant Christian You Know. Like someone who takes Chick Tracts seriously. She, I kid you not, said she was opposed to Halloween because it's Satanic and people are being killed in human sacrifices.
Indeed, I agree with Manchu, the woman is an absolute wingnut. Surely they must be doing this on purpose for some sort of.. tactical gain?! The powers that be cant be THAT stupid right?
I love this gak.. i find American politics far funnier than anything on Saturday Night Live. I wish ours was as interesting because i know far more about US politics than our own!
As i said, perhaps its all a satire, im still waiting for Ann Coulter to announce her devotion to the Democrats and come out as a brilliant satirist following this gem!
Seriously.. watch that. The opening minute is laugh out loud funny.
"When your ALLOWED to exist on the same continent as the US, they better hope the US doesnt roll over one night and CRUSH them! They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent!"
What Ann Coulter seems to have forgotten is that the last time the US made a serious attempt to invade Canada it resulted in the White House getting burnt down by Canadian forces.
Jus' sayin'.
This....is why religion makes me often sad. I don't hate religion, I feel it fills a basic need in mankind, the need to acknowledge that there may be something bigger than us, something we can't truly understand, something we can't truly explain...Why the frak can't people leave it at that, instead of going librarian poo and start spouting vehement insanity?
Also, I'd like to see these crazies deported. America isn't a bad place, but we've got a whole lot of loudmouthed idiots that make us look utterly slowed in the global eye.
I guess people will do/say anything to justify their sin. The bottom line is I agree with everything said in that video, and furthermore I applaud her. Some of the comments in this thread are full of much more ignorance than what Christine was saying.
Let me explain why most Christians believe masturbation is a sin.
Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mat 15:19 (KJV)For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Gal 5:19(KJV)Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
There are many more bible references I could give.
So the point is this... in order to masturbate you must allow yourself to fall into an imagination of fornication/adultery. Once you do that you have sinned. It's really that simple. After all I have never heard of someone masturbating to something as mundane as painting a fence.
Even beyond the sin, masturbation and pornography is destructive and unhealthy due the addictive nature of it.
generalgrog wrote:I guess people will do/say anything to justify their sin. The bottom line is I agree with everything said in that video, and furthermore I applaud her. Some of the comments in this thread are full of much more ignorance than what Christine was saying.
Let me explain why most Christians believe masturbation is a sin.
Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mat 15:19 (KJV)For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Gal 5:19(KJV)Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
There are many more bible references I could give.
So the point is this... in order to masturbate you must allow yourself to fall into an imagination of fornication/adultery. Once you do that you have sinned. It's really that simple. After all I have never heard of someone masturbating to something as mundane as painting a fence.
Even beyond the sin, masturbation and pornography is destructive and unhealthy due the addictive nature of it.
GG
...Or perhaps it's just a natural behavior that most species engage in.
generalgrog wrote: Even beyond the sin, masturbation and pornography is destructive and unhealthy due the addictive nature of it.
Well...scientists say otherwise.
NewScientist wrote:
A team in Australia led by Graham Giles of The Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne asked 1079 men with prostate cancer to fill in a questionnaire detailing their sexual habits, and compared their responses with those of 1259 healthy men of the same age. The team concludes that the more men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer.
The protective effect is greatest while men are in their twenties: those who had ejaculated more than five times per week in their twenties, for instance, were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer later in life (BJU International, vol 92, p 211).
Sooo yeah, I prefer a healthy prostate over the "good" feeling of not sinning according to an interpretation of the bible, thanks.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:What Ann Coulter seems to have forgotten is that the last time the US made a serious attempt to invade Canada it resulted in the White House getting burnt down by Canadian forces.
Jus' sayin'.
Hey now!
Wikipedia: "The King's Own was one of the units who marched into Washington. In retaliation for the torching of the Canadian capitol of York (now called Toronto), and to disgrace President Madison, they set fire to the president's residence on August 24, 1814, burning down the White House."
That seems fair, Americans burned down the entire city of York... the british burned down a house. That's about right... Seriously?
These same scientists said ketchup causes cancer in the 80's then later they say ketchup can prevent cancer. In 10 years they will change their mind again. Science doesn't have all the answers my friend.
Also you can ejaculate without masturbation you know...It's called marriage.
Now, that confuses me. Isn't that EXACTLY what Mr. Onan did? Sleeping with a woman, but not impregnating her? Isn't that EXACTLY what he was killed for?
Or are you saying I should marry and sleep with my wife but I better make damn sure I'll get a child out of it?
Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views onto everyone and bend us to your will, but it ain't gonna happen. Women still have the right to choose, gays can enjoy freedom and equality and teenagers are legally entitled to masturbate. You lot clearly happy about it, but tough luck.
And people are concerned about o donnell because she is bat gak crazy.
mattyrm wrote:Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views...
You should be careful about intolerance... because when you finally succeed in getting rid of that "thing" you won't tolerate... then your "thing" might be next.
Witzkatz wrote:Now, that confuses me. Isn't that EXACTLY what Mr. Onan did? Sleeping with a woman, but not impregnating her? Isn't that EXACTLY what he was killed for?
Or are you saying I should marry and sleep with my wife but I better make damn sure I'll get a child out of it?
People have been confused about the biblical story of Onan and his death. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Onan was not killed, because he failed to inseminate the woman. He was killed because he directly disobeyed Judah. It was the act of disobedience that displeased God.
mattyrm wrote:Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views...
Am I the only one that sees the irony here?
Yes you are.
Lack of belief doesn't demand religion be banned, it just demands that it doesn't get an unfair say when law making it deciding public policy. I rather like churches..
The religious however are desperate to enforce your will on people. You want abortion banned, you want to force people with cancer to stay alive even though you never met them and they might want something else. You hate gays for no sensible reason even though it can involve love, our most noble emotion.
If you didn't constantly try to force your will on strangers, then people like me wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Matty, you have so much pent up anger in you..I feel very sorry for you. And I'm not trying to be sarcastic. It may surprise you to know that I pray for you.
generalgrog wrote:Let me explain why most Christians believe masturbation is a sin.
I don't think I'd say that. Masturbation is not an issue that really gets addressed in the New Testament. Most verses concerning sexuality focus on other issues.
Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The verse is a reference to the deadly sin of lust, the point of it being that you don't necessarily need to engage in actual activity with someone to fall into it. The question is does the verse still apply when the woman doesn't actually exist and can you lust after an imaginary person, an issue the Bible never directly addresses. Furthermore, the deadly sins are sins of excess that can lead to pride, and it is possible to engage in "lustful" behavior without actually falling into the pit hole if behavior isn't excessive.
Gal 5:19(KJV)Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
A more proper translation of Galations 5:19 would be: "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery." (NIV) It doesn't really address this issue, as Paul was writing to the Galations to help them solve a very specific problem they were having. Masturbation isn't known to be one of them.
None of those things in their context as intended reference masturbation per se. Sexual immortality refers specifically to illicit relationships (adultery, fornication, incest etc). Impurity refers to sexual perversions (fetishes). Debauchery is a warning of excessiveness. What it really comes down to is does it count as a perversion? Adultery has a very specific biblical meaning. You can't commit adultery with a woman who doesn't really exist. Fornication is also specific to mean sex outside of marriage, which you again can't do with a woman who doesn't really exist. Point is the issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. I wouldn't say 'most' Christians are against it. Most don't seem to have a stance on the issue, though most denominations and groups have one accepted.
mattyrm wrote:Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views...
Am I the only one that sees the irony here?
Yes you are.
Lack of belief doesn't demand religion be banned, it just demands that it doesn't get an unfair say when law making it deciding public policy. I rather like churches..
The religious however are desperate to enforce your will on people. You want abortion banned, you want to force people with cancer to stay alive even though you never met them and they might want something else. You hate gays for no sensible reason even though it can involve love, our most noble emotion.
If you didn't constantly try to force your will on strangers, then people like me wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Wow, this is alot of generalization and stereotyping. Very bigotted for someone so "enlightened." Matty what happened to you that you hate 'religion' so much?
And abortion is the killing of a child... a human being, you can rationalize it anyway you want, but it is the truth. In some instances it is necessary, but as a "choice?" No. I just wish that all the mothers of pro-abrtion advocates had felt as strongly as they do about abortion.
And about complaining... I think that you would find something to complain about regardless... It's like you came onto a forum about a Wargame and began spewing hate about Christianity, what did you think would happen? This thread is 15 minutes from lockdown. Enjoy, ...Cheers mate.
mattyrm wrote:Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views...
Am I the only one that sees the irony here?
Yes you are.
Lack of belief doesn't demand religion be banned, it just demands that it doesn't get an unfair say when law making it deciding public policy. I rather like churches..
The religious however are desperate to enforce your will on people. You want abortion banned, you want to force people with cancer to stay alive even though you never met them and they might want something else. You hate gays for no sensible reason even though it can involve love, our most noble emotion.
If you didn't constantly try to force your will on strangers, then people like me wouldn't have anything to complain about.
It was a rhetorical question.
And easy with the "you" bit, as you know nothing about me. It is just amusingly ironic to me that you make sweepingly intolerant statements about people because you perceive them to be intolerant, that's all. As to the red text, your own OP seems to indicate differently.
generalgrog wrote: Even beyond the sin, masturbation and pornography is destructive and unhealthy due the addictive nature of it.
Well...scientists say otherwise.
NewScientist wrote:
A team in Australia led by Graham Giles of The Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne asked 1079 men with prostate cancer to fill in a questionnaire detailing their sexual habits, and compared their responses with those of 1259 healthy men of the same age. The team concludes that the more men ejaculate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop prostate cancer.
The protective effect is greatest while men are in their twenties: those who had ejaculated more than five times per week in their twenties, for instance, were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer later in life (BJU International, vol 92, p 211).
Sooo yeah, I prefer a healthy prostate over the "good" feeling of not sinning according to an interpretation of the bible, thanks.
Five times a week is a bit of a tall order IMO
Ha Ha Ha "Tall order"
In all seriousness the best discription of her that has yet been given was from Karl Rove,
@ Lordofhats...when you masturbate are you thinking about painting a fence? going fishing? mowing the lawn? No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man). Fantasizing is the same thing as lusting. When you lust after a woman (or man) you are engaging in a "what if" sexual fantasy.
Once you have done that.. you have committed adultery in your heart..and therefore are a sinner, more specifically an adulterer. This is from Jesus' own mouth.
I think the real question is "Why does this matter?". To a Christian it matters because Christians want to get closer to God, or have a closer relationship with God. Sinning acts a barrier to a closer relationship. (Notice I didn't say total blocking, I said closer relationship) The video I saw was aimed more to younger Christians that have not yet married and are trying to keep their relationship with God close.
To an unbeliever it matters because, as shown in this very thread, they may not have ever heard that this kind of thing could be sinful, thus their immortal souls may be in jeapordy.
While mattyrm really comes across quite angry here, I can't help to notice that my own reaction to your stance includes a small amount of indignation. This is not against you personally, though, let me explain:
I'm more of a scientific person than a religious person. I know that science isn't perfect. Science tries to explain things, might find an explanation that gets revoked later. Science knows that it knows nothing, to speak with the words of a famous philosopher.
On the other side, for religious people, everything is clear. You yourself seem to have quite an unshakeable faith and your stance on this topic is clear, because the bible says so. You have the calmness of a person who knows that he's right.
Scientific persons don't have that calmness, because they know they can't be sure if they are right. The scientists in the article I mentioned above readily acknowledged that they don't know the biological reasoning behind the data they acquired, they can only speculate and assume.
And if you're used to the fact that, in the quest for knowledge, you can't be absolutely 100% right on something and can only try to find the most possible reasos for something...and THEN a religious person tells you "Well, of course this is so and so and you have sinned, thats a fact, it's in the bible."...it's easy for a scientific person to get annoyed. I guess religious people are more composed and even-tempered than scientists, which is probably a favorable thing! However, the religious belief in absolutely unshakeable truths found in old books comes also across as a bit ignorant to scientists.
Which is why they might get annoyed even without the religious person really trying to convert them or anything.
Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?
Those who profess tolerance are the first to be intolerant when disagreed with.
I don't want to pick on anyone, but it seems like so many people now-adays regurgitate that ole' party line, that belief in God or Allah or whoever, makes you ignorant and bassackwards.
Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?
And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?
Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.
Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?
And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?
Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.
I think that some people are able to both of those things. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Religious intolerance is exactly the same as intollerance against religion. If you argue that Religious types would be better off jumping off a bridge then you are EXACTLY the same as those you wont tolerate.
generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).
What if the woman is your wife?
Once you have done that.. you have committed adultery in your heart..and therefore are a sinner, more specifically an adulterer. This is from Jesus' own mouth
The context of this section of Matthew is about Jesus telling his disciplines about his relationship with the Law of God (the law of Moses) and how he intended them to act in respect to it. And his words specifically reference the concept of coveting women as it already exists in the old testament. Context matters in reading, and Matthew 5:28 is a reference to the 10th commandment. It does not refer to a fantasy of attraction or want but rather an excessive harboring of desire for that which isn't yours. Now we can agree that masturbation can actually do this, but it doesn't necessarily. The mere act isn't sinful. It's the intent of thought behind it that causes problems.
Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?
And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?
Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.
I think that some people are able to both of those things. They aren't mutually exclusive.
No...of course they aren't,however...the homeless,the abused...the needy,are very real.
The idea...or belief,that damnation awaits for he who wacketh is just that...an idea.
generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).
What if the woman is your wife?
Well then, why not put the moves on her?
FITZZ wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?
And that's where I wouldn't agree directly. To be scientific: Why exactly should that be better?
Perhaps focusing our beliefs on our own capabilities,rather on some invisible Father figure would be the for the best.
...Chanel some energy into trying to alive some true social problems...like abused children or housing the homeless,rather than cringing in fear of being eternally damned for tossing off to some skin mag.
I think that some people are able to both of those things. They aren't mutually exclusive.
No...of course they aren't,however...the homeless,the abused...the needy,are very real.
The idea...or belief,that damnation awaits for he who wacketh is just that...an idea.
There is more than one school of thought regarding Christians and masturbation, though I think GG has probably illustrated the one that is the most accurate according to scripture, and to be honest it's really not relevant to the main tenets of Christianity which are that that Jesus is the Savior and to follow the Golden Rule. I really think that if more Christians just stuck to that they wouldn't have such goofy footage of themselves to facepalm at.
Trying to change people's hearts through legislation just seems like a terrible way to spread the Gospel.
Trying to change people's hearts through legislation just seems like a terrible way to spread the Gospel.
QFT...100% agree.
While I am not a christian...I have no real problem with Christianity,and indeed find a lot of positive teachings in the Bible.
My chief complaint with organized Christianity is with the attempts to force their beliefs onto others.
Trying to change people's hearts through legislation just seems like a terrible way to spread the Gospel.
QFT...100% agree.
While I am not a christian...I have no real problem with Christianity,and indeed find a lot of positive teachings in the Bible.
My chief complaint with organized Christianity is with the attempts to force their beliefs onto others.
Yep, trying to cram your views down other people's throats is going to meet with resistance.
The way you're really supposed to go about it is just generally living a beatific life and loving your neighbor as you do yourself. Seems like a much better selling point than funding lobbyists and polarizing people. That's just me though.
Dear God: Thanks for all the shame, I can definitely say that my childhood wouldn't have been the same without it.
In all seriousness I always laugh at people who condemn masturbation, because I would bet my life that absolutely 100% of the time they will have done it, and continue to do it.
All one has to do is take a look at what has happened to the catholic church in the past 5 years to see where dogmatic sexual repression and shame does to people. While growing up I had a youth pastor who carried on an affair with a 14 year old girl for more than a year, it's that type of thing that makes you re-consider your devotion.
We could start a whole new thread about the differences between God, and fallible people's false representations of Him, but in the end it's His "people" on Earth who are the only tangible evidence of His intervention into this existence. I've never seen a miracle IRL, nor anything else supernatural that couldn't be explained logically and without any need for Divine or ineffable intervention.
Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind. Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving. By the same token, look at all of the misery and death that can be directly attributed to religioun, and arguments over "God."
Lint wrote: Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind.
That seems like a seriously disjointed non-sequitur to me. Maybe you could reword it so that I could respond?
Lint wrote: Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving.
What would the point be?
Lint wrote: By the same token, look at all of the misery and death that can be directly attributed to religioun, and arguments over "God."
I fail to see what that has to do with the philosophy of any given Religion... Bad people have done bad things, there's no argument there.
LordofHats wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).
What if the woman is your wife?
Well then, why not put the moves on her?
...She's away on business?
Download Skype and you can both party!
They're Amish
Then she couldn't be that far away. You can't cover much ground riding a horse and buggy. Also, you could use the same hand motion to churn some butter and be doing something more productive with your time.
generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).
What if the woman is your wife?
Well then, why not put the moves on her?
...She's away on business?
Download Skype and you can both party!
They're Amish
Then she couldn't be that far away. You can't cover much ground riding a horse and buggy. Also, you could use the same hand motion to churn some butter and be doing something more productive with your time.
generalgrog wrote:No you are fantasizing about having sex with a woman (or man).
What if the woman is your wife?
Well then, why not put the moves on her?
...She's away on business?
Download Skype and you can both party!
They're Amish
Then she couldn't be that far away. You can't cover much ground riding a horse and buggy. Also, you could use the same hand motion to churn some butter and be doing something more productive with your time.
Yes...but even the Amish have two hands.
I pictured that and literally loled.
My wife looked in here to see what I was up to. I told her, and she loled as well.
mattyrm wrote:Science explains things far better than an ancient book of desert fables, and I'm well aware that you and your ilk want to force your disgustingly intolerant views...
Am I the only one that sees the irony here?
Yes you are.
Lack of belief doesn't demand religion be banned, it just demands that it doesn't get an unfair say when law making it deciding public policy. I rather like churches..
The religious however are desperate to enforce your will on people. You want abortion banned, you want to force people with cancer to stay alive even though you never met them and they might want something else. You hate gays for no sensible reason even though it can involve love, our most noble emotion.
If you didn't constantly try to force your will on strangers, then people like me wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Actually Matty, Monster Rain has a strong point. You do tend to have a go at 'Christians' here in general for what some do or say in the press, and also assume agreement with their dogmas irrsspective of any comments to the contrary.
Its one thing to hate the guilty its another thing to hate those with semi-associated beleifs.
So for example it is ok to hate Islamic terror, but not ok to hate Moslems. You or I can call Islam wrong or disagree with it, but not call them all evil. It is interesting that the latter was what you assumed I was doing (in complete contradiction to all I have ever wrote on Islam) for no greater reason than because I am a Christian. However we need not go into that here.
The relevant comparative example is that it is ok to hate 'Christian terror', but not to hate Christians. I had to put Christian terror in comments because there is little to no direct allegory here. The people who appear on these threads such as Westboro, anti abortionists and the subject of this thread often do no more than speak an opinion. If this was all Islamic militants did it is likely we would be given no choice but to leave them alone, as part of a multi-culturalism drive. Any commentary might be taken as hatred on our own part.
what makes this doubly ironic is that while Islamic militancy is largely not contradicted there are Christians of many denominations who will be very quick to disown people like Westboro Baptists. If you read the New Testament example clearly (which Westboro Baptists obviously do not do) there is possible reason to suggest Jesus himself is amongst those who will stand up and say 'I never knew you'. I cant say further than that because there is an equal warning not to judge mens salvation, they might change individually if not collectively.
Now the Westboro baptists are genuinely offensive. What is Christine O'Donnell doing that is inherently evil? She doesnt approve of masturbation, fair enough. She says its wrong, a fair comment in any democratic country. I put this in the same light as a right winger would think of a hard socialist who says we should have a planned economy and a punitively high tax rate band. Its their opinion, the main differences here is that while people with opinions on the opposite side of the political spectrum are a genuine 'threat' whio here actually thinks O'Donnell can ban masturbation?
Here is where the thread breaks down. Masturbation cannot be banned, and the people who made the video know this. All O'Donnell is trying to do is discourage musturbation, and then amongst those who share her world view. What she said rang true with General Grog and also to myself with certain caveats.* Job done. Noone is going to force Americans into chastity belts. Outside of states like Iran it is impossible to enforce on unblievers the strictures of some believers and the video should be seen in this light. Taking another example of this, most religious laws are applied to the faithful. This is a standard in the Old and New Testaments. Ancient Jews did not try to tell their neighbours not to eat pork, etc, instead they lived seperately. The Epistles gave instruction on things that the Corinthian church should not do that were commonplace in the rest of the city. The emphasis was never on enforcing those changes on the city itself, unless the citizens itself converted, and even then encvouraged would be a more accurate word to use than enforced.
Forced cultural change was a medieval concoction, and like most medieval church antics had very little to do with Christianity and a lot to do with power politics. Entry to the church at any level of authority was based on political connections and not any spiritual belief. By all evdence real Chrsitians did not advance for in the medieval church, Catherina of Sienna and Francis if Assissi had a bad time with the church authorities because they were holy. The dogmas were applied to control the masses, by politicans disguised as priests rather than priests themselves. Todays faithful can often look back at the excesses of the medieval church and say that was not us, that was the unblievers. I wonder if honest peaceful Allah fearing Moslems Iran can say the same of their own quasi-religious leadership in Iran, possibly so.
* Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
General Grog, the passage in Matthew regarding any lustful thought is essentially the same as an act of fornication in the mind is not intended to ban lustful thought. That is impossible due to the nature of man, Jesus was instead pointing out how attempts to adhere to the law by ojnes own strength is impossible. Improper thought can be lessened by the application of the Holy Spirit, but even then not eliminated.
St Paul regarded himself as the 'chief of sinners' late in his ministry. He likely wasnt this can only be taken to mean that he was no better than other sinners. This cross references with the ideal of Grace as explained in the book of Romans.
Christians are called to be 'living sacrifices' and to put the 'flesh to death' as an ongoing process. It is understood that the attempts will fail, that guilt is not the answer, but an acceptance that one is saved and continually being saved by Grace.
Biblical theology of sex is a difficult subject because Biblically it is not in itself considered evil, in fact it is openly encouraged, just within certain limitations. Most of those limitations are added by men in order to try and encalpulate the Biblical principles. So for example lustful thoughts are considered sin, masturbation is not listed as a sin, but its difficult to have the latter without the former, so the latter is considered sin by the priests, if not the Bible itself.
Furthermore while all sin is mortal some if worse than others. Jesus teaches us of two servants one who said 'I will not go, and eventually does, and one who says I will go and eventually does not'. The former is the obedient servant even though his initial thoughts were disobedient. Thought sin is nothing to worry about, even less so than other sin. So long as you are saved by the Blood of Christ all will be fine.
Were I to be judged for my thoughts I would be a murderer, a tyrant, a thief, a brute, an idolator and a lesbian. I very much doubt I am alone.
generalgrog wrote:Wait... did I miss something? I didn't see anything in that video promoting legislation to ban masturbation. That would be absurd.
GG
No, you didn't miss the point. Others did when they assumed the teaching was a call to restrict their lives.
If the Chief Rabbi adds a specific food product to the list of items not-Kosher it doesnt effect us, and is no call for a wider ban, even in Israel. This video should be seen in the same light. Its a message to the church not a call for any ban.
generalgrog wrote:Orlanth I don't think we are disagreeing. In fact, I think you are saying the same thing I did, just in your own words.
I never said that man is a perfect being. Even Christians sin.
Totally agreed except for the last sentence. The more you understand what sin is the more you know we are no better, which is why Paul denegrated his own holiness despite his faith and accomplishments.
Orlanth wrote:Short attention spans are not mandatory, this isnt Twitter or Facebook.
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that this is just another religion (well Christianity) vs atheism thread. We get them about once a week and at this point it is just wheels spinning in mud. Again, dull and insipid.
generalgrog wrote:Orlanth I don't think we are disagreeing. In fact, I think you are saying the same thing I did, just in your own words.
I never said that man is a perfect being. Even Christians sin.
Totally agreed except for the last sentence. The more you understand what sin is the more you know we are no better, which is why Paul denegrated his own holiness despite his faith and accomplishments.
generalgrog wrote:Christians sin.
Fixed.
Orlanth you are putting thoughts into my sentence. I get the feeling that you are thinking that I am some how implying that Christians are "better/ superior" to unbelievers.
In no way did I imply that. And in no way do I believe that.
GG
generalgrog wrote:
Orlanth you are putting thoughts into my sentence. I get the feeling that you are thinking that I am some how implying that Christians are "better/ superior" to unbelievers.
In no way did I imply that. And in no way do I believe that.
GG
I am concerned as how your comments will be seen. You dont beleive that, but someone can try and use the comment as a beatstick assuming you do.
generalgrog wrote:
Let me explain why most Christians believe masturbation is a sin.
Most?
No, you have no evidence for that.
generalgrog wrote:
Mat.5:28 (KJV) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Perfectly fine to look upon a man then.
Also, nothign about masturbation in there.
Who says you have to think about women when you masturbate? Perhaps you fancy Twinkies.
generalgrog wrote:
Mat 15:19 (KJV)For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
No mention of masturbation. The only way youm ight include masturbation is if you, yourself, placed it in one of those categories.
generalgrog wrote:
Gal 5:19(KJV)Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
No mention of masturbation.
generalgrog wrote:
So the point is this... in order to masturbate you must allow yourself to fall into an imagination of fornication/adultery.
Really? You can't masturbate to the idea of getting married and sleeping with your wife?
generalgrog wrote:
Once you do that you have sinned. It's really that simple.
Here are my thoughts after reading through this thread:
It's all fine and dandy to have your beliefs about how evil masturbation is, and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die, but don't force them on others. The reason I think Mattrym and others get quite. . argumentative about stuff like this, and about candidates like O'Donnell, is that if she and candidates like her are elected, they will try and force their morals and beliefs onto others through legislation, despite the fact that not everyone agrees with those morals and beliefs. Not everyone believes in fundamental Christianity, and those who do have absolutely no grounds upon which to assert that their beliefs are anymore right than anyone else's.
Summary:
Religion should keep its grubby paws out of government. (that almost sounds like it could be a tea party slogan. . . I scare myself sometimes)
rubiksnoob wrote:
It's all fine and dandy to have your beliefs about how evil masturbation is, and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die,
Clearly wrong and unbiblical, abstainance and salvation are not connected. It would help to understand what you are critiquing if you wish to do so with such gusto.
rubiksnoob wrote:
but don't force them on others.
No force was implied.
rubiksnoob wrote:
The reason I think Mattrym and others get quite. . argumentative about stuff like this, and about candidates like O'Donnell, is that if she and candidates like her are elected, they will try and force their morals and beliefs onto others through legislation,
Here we come to the crux of your arguement. Its a hysterical scare story. ZOMG these Christians are going to take away our liberties!!!!
There has been Christian principle at the heast of America since it was founded. It was still a secular state practicing freedom of religion and freedom from religion, nothing has changed. Your liberties are not under threat because the video makers wish to exercise their own.
rubiksnoob wrote: despite the fact that not everyone agrees with those morals and beliefs.
Hardly in spite of or the Founding Fathers might have enforced fundamentalism. Christian morals and beliefs are seminal to the core culture of the USA, combined with the principles of ancient Greek democracy.
rubiksnoob wrote:
Not everyone believes in fundamental Christianity, and those who do have absolutely no grounds upon which to assert that their beliefs are anymore right than anyone else's.
Again incorrect. One of the principle rights of America is self belief. Believing onself right is a principle right of free expression. One need not just say we all have opinions one may also assert them openly. This simple concept is at the core of more than just religion, the same priciple drives Civil Rights, Minority Rights, Gay Rights etc.
Gays can be loud and proud, so can Blacks, so why not religious people too?
rubiksnoob wrote:
Summary:
Religion should keep its grubby paws out of government. (that almost sounds like it could be a tea party slogan. . . I scare myself sometimes)
Why should that be? Even candidates who never really see inside a church do so in election time.
Also other 'paws' any less 'grubby'.
Your distain for religious people does not make them any less fit for public office. In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants. After all the honest representative would share their beleif system (which may not be religious) wont hide it, will acknowledge friendly disagreement and are generally honest about it. The politicians to really look out for are those who will not show who they are one way or another. If a candidate cannot demonstrate their life philosophy to their electorate what else are they hiding.
Orlanth wrote:
Clearly wrong and unbiblical. It would help to understand what you are critiquing if you wish to do so with such gusto.
He didn't say it was Biblical or Christian. Do not project your interpretation on to the words of others.
Orlanth wrote:
No force was implied.
It doesn't have to be. As you demonstrated above, people will hear, or read, what they wish to.
Orlanth wrote:
Hardly in spite of or the Founding Fathers might have enforced fundamentalism. America is far less Christian than it was in its past, if it didnt sink into fundamentalism then, why should it now.
You don't get to make arguments regarding relative terms (fundamentalism) without temporal determinism. The fundamentalism of today is the standard practice of yesteryear, and the reaction against is directly tied to the notion that the US is less rigidly Christian than it once was.
Now, that doesn't mean your fundamental point, that fundamentalism isn't likely to take over, is incorrect. But it does mean that your argument is poor.
Orlanth wrote:
Again incorrect. One of the principle rights of America is self belief. Believing onself right is a principle right of free expression. One need not just say we all have opinions one may also assert them openly. This simple concept is at the core of more than just religion, the same priciple drives Civil Rights, Minority Rights, Gay Rights etc.
Gays can be loud and proud, so can Blacks, so why not religious people too?
We can also mock them for their stupidity. Nominally this involves discussing the ridiculousness of assuming a privileged stance due to agreement with a book some dudes wrote a long time ago.
Freedom of expression and all that.
Orlanth wrote:
Why should that be? Even candidates who never really see inside a church do so in election time.
I believe that's what rubiksnoob is arguing against.
Orlanth wrote:
Your distain for religious people does not make them any less fit for public office.
According to your statement above, regarding the freedom to state one's beliefs, it most certainly does.
Relative judgment and all that.
Orlanth wrote:
In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants. After all the honest representative would share their beleif system (which may not be religious) wont hide it, will acknowledge friendly disagreement and are generally honest about it. The politicians to really look out for are those who will not show who they are one way or another. If a candidate cannot demonstrate their life philosophy to their electorate what else are they hiding.
If a candidate openly discusses his life philosophy, what is he trying to hide?
One of the best ways to hide the 'truth' is to be open about everything that you don't want to conceal.
What we really need to watch out for are the unimaginative people granted the franchise, they tend to assume that their first response is correct without ever considering the weaknesses of such a position.
Orlanth wrote: In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants.
Didn't George W. Bush state that he believed he was led by God? And then went on to use forged reports about WMDs to lie to the public to start the war in Iraq? Didn't he even admit later that he knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but continued to say so nevertheless?
That's just one example of a religious person who did not deliver the best quality of public service.
Orlanth wrote: In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants.
Didn't George W. Bush state that he believed he was led by God? And then went on to use forged reports about WMDs to lie to the public to start the war in Iraq?
Umm... well... they used the same evidence that a few other countries that I can think of thought was pretty good, IIRC.
Witzkatz wrote:Didn't he even admit later that he knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but continued to say so nevertheless?
A quick response since I'm late to the party again:
Monster Rain wrote:
Lint wrote: Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind.
That seems like a seriously disjointed non-sequitur to me. Maybe you could reword it so that I could respond?
Lint wrote: Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving.
What would the point be?
The bible points to evidence of god as being the works and deeds of his representatives in humanity. By using this evidence, I see no actuall reason to believe in an all-loving, omnipotent god. Also "disjointed non-sequitur" = you are a smart-ass.
Monster Rain wrote:
Lint wrote: By the same token, look at all of the misery and death that can be directly attributed to religioun, and arguments over "God."
I fail to see what that has to do with the philosophy of any given Religion... Bad people have done bad things, there's no argument there.
But these bad people are, by their own declaration, god's chosen representatives. So either god does not exist, he has extremely poor taste, or he doesn't really care. I understand that's a tripe "non-sequitur" but if it's in any way accurate, then it follows that if god exists, he doesn't really deserve to be pissed on while on fire.
I wrote that as a question because I wasn't completely sure on that. I'll admit the possbility that the source I had it from months ago was biased and wasn't reporting objectively. I just searched the net a bit about the topic, but haven't found reliable sources for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vor allem der damalige Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, der Falke Paul Wolfowitz und Vizepräsident Dick Cheney hatten den Irak früh ins Visier genommen. Weil Cheney und Rumsfeld den meisten Geheimdiensten misstrauten, wurde Anfang 2002 im Pentagon eine Arbeitgruppe mit dem Titel "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) installiert, die sich selbst "the cabal" nannte. Das heißt "Intrige", und dieser Name war für die verschworene Truppe, die nur zwei Dutzend Mitarbeiter hatte, keine Übertreibung.
Aufgabe der Spezialabteilung war es, Beweise für eine Verbindung zwischen dem Diktator Saddam Hussein und Osama Bin Laden herbeizuschaffen und das Arsenal der angeblichen Massenvernichtungswaffen Saddams neu zu taxieren. Dabei hatten sie relativ freie Hand, denn seit dem Auszug der UN-Inspekteure verfügten die US-Dienste über keine eigenen Quellen mehr im Irak.
This is from a newspaper article in German, I'll try and translate as best as possible:
"Especially the defence minister at that time, Donald Rumsfeld, the falcon Paul Wolfowitz and vice president Dick Cheney had targeted Iraq early. Because Cheney and Rumsfeld mistrusted most secret services, a new task group with the title "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) was installed in early 2002, which called itself "the cabal", which translates to "intrigue". And this name was no exaggeration for the conspiring group that had only two dozen members.
It was the task of this special office to produce proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and to newly assess the arsenal of alleged WMDs of Saddam. They were allowed a lot of leeway with this, because since the retreat of the UN inspectors from Iraq, the US services had no sources of their own in Iraq anymore."
The phrasing "to produce proof" and what it was supposed to produce is interesting here. It sounds not like "Let's see who Osama's friends are", but more like "Let's see if we can find ANYTHING relating Osama to Saddam, so we have a reason to invade Iraq."
This has not that much to do with WMDs directly, but this implies that there was a plan to invade Iraq anyway and they were just searching for a nice reason to present the public with, however truthful that reason would be.
However, I'm not ignorant enough to assume that this article is infallible. There will be some articles that interpret the circumstances differently, while some will say everything was totally different. My opinion is that the whole reasoning for the Iraq War was shady at best.
Orlanth wrote: In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants.
Didn't George W. Bush state that he believed he was led by God? And then went on to use forged reports about WMDs to lie to the public to start the war in Iraq? Didn't he even admit later that he knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but continued to say so nevertheless?
That's just one example of a religious person who did not deliver the best quality of public service.
Aye, I see your point. What I was trying to say was, that it's awfully hard to tell the honest and dishonest people apart - and that honesty is probably a bigger and more important factor in becoming a good public servant than religion is.
Lint wrote:A quick response since I'm late to the party again:
Monster Rain wrote:
Lint wrote: Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind.
That seems like a seriously disjointed non-sequitur to me. Maybe you could reword it so that I could respond?
Lint wrote: Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving.
What would the point be?
The bible points to evidence of god as being the works and deeds of his representatives in humanity. By using this evidence, I see no actuall reason to believe in an all-loving, omnipotent god.
Only because you choose to focus on the negative events.
Lint wrote:Also "disjointed non-sequitur" = you are a smart-ass.
Meh. I'm sorry if my use of big words confuses you.
That was intended to be "good-natured ribbing" and nothing more, folks.
Orlanth wrote:
Clearly wrong and unbiblical. It would help to understand what you are critiquing if you wish to do so with such gusto.
He didn't say it was Biblical or Christian. Do not project your interpretation on to the words of others.
If you quote what I quoted you will read otherwise:
and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die,
The words are pretty plain.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
No force was implied.
It doesn't have to be. As you demonstrated above, people will hear, or read, what they wish to.
That does not excuse or condone hysteria.
There are worlds of difference between
- I have an opinion
- You have a different opinion
and
- I hate your opinion
- I beleive that people with a different opinion should be restricted from opportunity..
dogma wrote:
We can also mock them for their stupidity. Nominally this involves discussing the ridiculousness of assuming a privileged stance due to agreement with a book some dudes wrote a long time ago.
...and/or abused.
Lampooning a religion should be a right under freedom of expression. Harassing people for their relgion, which is what you are actually advocating here - is a hate crime. This applies to all religions not just my own.
This is doubly relevant as relgion in itself is not 'stupid' beyond the opinions of bigots because neither religion nor the ability for people to draw strength comfort or benefit from religion has been disproven.
As there is strong evidence to the contrary at least in terms of some people benefiting materially or psychologically from joining a religion, thus doing so is not inherently 'stupid'. So not only assuming such but also mocking people because of such choices is ignorant bigotry at its worst.
I dont think I need to discuss this further with you. Back to the topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Witzkatz wrote:
Key word highlighted.
Aye, I see your point. What I was trying to say was, that it's awfully hard to tell the honest and dishonest people apart - and that honesty is probably a bigger and more important factor in becoming a good public servant than religion is.
My point included all faith choices.
So a straight up artheist/Moslem/Jew/Christian/Buddhist etc is more reliable than someone who plays the crowd in terms of thier principle beleifs. This is not to say the open speaking person could not be a fanatic, but it will hopefully show through if they are and people can vote accordingly.
I would not mind if my local elected representative did not share my faith, the only point my faith becomes relevant is - as in the case of the New Labour cronies I had representing me - disliked faith on a point of dogma. Alastair Campbells 'we do not do God' indicated the doctrine of a government that did a lot of harm. Wheras New Labour did not espouse atheism, and many on the Labour heiracrchy were not atheistic but just espoused an uneven and controlling attitude towards differing faiths.
It is no suprise that Tony Blair became a confirmed Catholic after he left office. I do not know or care if he is a genuine Catholic, what matters is that he was not the sort of person to stand up and be counted earlier. This is in keeping with his entirtely dishonest character.
A persons faith choice, whatever it is, is central to their thinking. To conceal it as a private citizen is a persons private concern, to conceal it as a public servant is our concern beause ones core beliefs affect what you beleive in in other areas. Someone who is honest about their faith choices can be trusted to be impartial because their choices can be isolated from their professional life. An elected public servant is elected to serve all constituents, and while they may vote with their own consciences they should be expected to advocate on behalf of those who have differing as well as similar life views. Those who mask their faith choices for tactical benefit include them in their political life and are as a result less impartial. The focus becomes less 'this is what I believe', than 'this is what it is best for the electorate to think I believe'.
Orlanth wrote:
If you quote what I quoted you will read otherwise:
and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die,
The words are pretty plain.
Oh, sorry, I missed that part. Clearly he was referring to Islam, or perhaps Judaism, maybe Buddhism?
Very few things are plainly obvious. We only make them so by being blind to the alternatives.
Orlanth wrote:
That does not excuse or condone hysteria.
Did I say that it did?
Orlanth wrote:
There are worlds of difference between
- I have an opinion
- You have a different opinion
and
- I hate your opinion
- I beleive that people with a different opinion should be restricted from opportunity.
Where was the latter expressed? Rubiksnoob never stated that religious people should be barred from office.
Stop reading things that aren't there.
Orlanth wrote:
...and/or abused.
Lampooning a religion should be a right under freedom of expression. Harassing people for their relgion, which is what you are actually advocating here - is a hate crime.
First, I'm not advocating anything.
Second, were I advocating something, it would be mocking someone due to expressed stupidity. This is not harassment. Harassment would entail mocking someone continually, over time, for some stupidity they expressed in the past.
Stop reading things that aren't there. It reflects very poorly on you as a rational judge.
Orlanth wrote:
This is doubly relevant as relgion in itself is not 'stupid' beyond the opinions of bigots because neither religion nor the ability for people to draw strength comfort or benefit from religion has been disproven.
I didn't say that religion was stupid. I said that believing something because an old book is written about it is stupid. This does not preclude the notion that strength can be drawn from such a position. Stupidity is not tacit to weakness.
Orlanth wrote:
As there is strong evidence to the contrary at least in terms of some people benefiting materially or psychologically from joining a religion, thus doing so is not inherently 'stupid'. So not only assuming such but also mocking people because of such choices is ignorant bigotry at its worst.
Stop making inferences, you are very, very bad at it.
Connor McKane wrote:Religious intolerance Hating Nazis is exactly the same as intollerance against religion being a Nazi. If you argue that Religious types Nazis would be better off jumping off a bridge then you are EXACTLY the same as those you wont tolerate.
So really the argument is invalid.
Even with changes, this statement is equally valid.
But yes, to toss in my .02 cents, I just have to say that as someone who has gone through extreme Christian evangelism first hand, I have to say that the biggest fear I have with far right Christian's being elected into state offices is that they will begin to try and spread their belief system. We've seen this first hand with the rulings in Kansas that make the teaching of ID alongside evolution mandatory, or at least to teach that evolution is 'just a theory'. It also could easily mean the spread of abstinence only sex education.
However, this is not to say we should not vote for Christians. What I'm saying is that I would not personally vote for someone who has expressed overtly evangelical rules (especially one who fails to realize that separation of church and state is written into the Constitution).
There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.
There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.
It also consists of giving all your worldly goods away to the poor. There are very few good Christians, it seems.
There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.
It also consists of giving all your worldly goods away to the poor. There are very few good Christians, it seems.
There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.
Define 'honestly religious' in a way that all religious people will agree with the definition. It is an ethereal concept and is also changing the goal posts again. "Did I say religious politicians? I meant honest religious politicians" is of a great example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.
There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.
Define 'honestly religious' in a way that all religious people will agree with the definition. It is an ethereal concept and is also changing the goal posts again. "Did I say religious politicians? I meant honest religious politicians" is of a great example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Okay, well in that context I think you're right.
But I think that as far as how a Christian should behave, a good rubric would be The Ten Commandments + the Beatitudes + the Golden Rule. Do all of them live up to it? Actually none of them do. It's why they nailed the man to the tree in the first place, to pay the price for people that could never live up to the standard.
I'm not disagreeing that person can be religious and a good politician, but that Orlanth's argument there was neither convincing or very sound. I don't think the argument can be made though that only religious people can be good politicians.
generalgrog wrote:
I know you enjoy playing word games but unfortunately some people on here may think you are actually serious.
GG
Uh, I am serious.
What category does masturbation fit into, and what evidence do you have to support such a classification?
I think you're over thinking this one dogma. If you accept lust as a sin, then masturbation becomes a sin as an expression of lust. The quagmire comes when you try to define exactly how much lust and what you are lusting after becomes sinful.
dogma wrote:
Stop reading things that aren't there. It reflects very poorly on you as a rational judge.
Stop making inferences, you are very, very bad at it.
The only way I failed to infer correctly from your prior post is if you yourself didnt know what you were posting.
Come to think of it that may not too unlikely.
However I can only go by what was written, and when you write gak like 'We can also mock them for their stupidity', in the context you wrote it, then you can be expected to be called out over it.
Laughing Man wrote:What? The bible isn't a valid guide to what Christians are supposed to believe?
So what verse are you referring to?
Matthew 19:24, among others.
I think you have fundamentally missed the point of those passages, and I frankly don't have time to set you straight. Something tells me(your previous posts, mainly) that it would be futile anyway.
Maybe Orlanth or GG will have the patience to spell it out... /crosses fingers
Laughing Man wrote:Yeah, yeah, I've heard the ole "But it's a translation error! It really means camel, and it's talking about a gate!" I don't really buy it, tbh.
According to the Bible wealth is not evil, however greed is.
'The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil', note how a true translation differs a lot from the common mistransaltion: 'money is the root of all evil'.
For further evidence you need look no further than the blessing of Solomon. Solomon was offered a blessing by God, and he chose wisdom. God commended Solomon for not choosing wealth or health instead and promised that as a result he would also receive those blessings too.
As for the camel and eye of the needle, it may well mean the narrowest gate of Jerusalem which was known colloquially by that name. We should also look at the definition 'rich man', a better translation may well be tycoon. remember that at those times of brigandy, uneven taxation and extortion uncorrupted accumulation of extreme wealth was unlikely unless one was born with it.
Orlanth wrote:
The only way I failed to infer correctly from your prior post is if you yourself didnt know what you were posting.
No one can infer 'correctly', that is the nature of inference.
Orlanth wrote:
Come to think of it that may not too unlikely.
Inference is not implication. Try again.
Orlanth wrote:
However I can only go by what was written, and when you write gak like 'We can also mock them for their stupidity', in the context you wrote it, then you can be expected to be called out over it.
Called out for what? A statement regarding the fact that a person can be mocked for perceived stupidity?
I never stated that religious people are stupid, nor did I state that a judgment regarding stupidity is objective.
Again, stop drawing inferences, you are very, very bad at it.
I think what he meant to say was a more "accurate" translation. Even though I love the King James Version, it does have a few issues when compared to modern translations such as NIV or NASB, which were based on older manuscript traditions.
And root of "all kinds of evil"(NIV) is a more accurate translation than "all evil"(KJV). Same type of thing as "Thou shalt not murder"(NIV) vs "Thou shalt not kill"(KJV).
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote:Well, obviously that's an incorrect interpretation. Those hobos in the gutter are true christians, not you.
And I think I'll leave it at that.
Actually if you look at the first Church described in Acts chapter 2, they pooled all of their possessions and gave them to each other to use as needed. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that to be a"true Christian" you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.
You may be thinking of the example of the rich young ruler as recalled in Luke 18:18-23 where The ruler asked Jesus what must he do to be saved. Jesus told him he lacked one thing, and that was to sell everything he has and give it to the poor. That was a specific instruction that Jesus gave to that one man because he knew that the rich young ruler loved his money above all else, but it is also a warning to anyone that loves their money more than God. It doesn't mean that everyone should sell all of their possessions and give to the poor. That could result in a form of asceticism such as what monks do.
Now having said all that, if a Christian felt led by the Holy Spirit to do such a thing than maybe they should.
generalgrog wrote:I think what he meant to say was a more "accurate" translation. Even though I love the King James Version, it does have a few issues when compared to modern translations such as NIV or NASB, which were based on older manuscript traditions.
And root of "all kinds of evil"(NIV) is a more accurate translation than "all evil"(KJV). Same type of thing as "Thou shalt not murder"(NIV) vs "Thou shalt not kill"(KJV).
GG
If I gave a crap about christianity anymore, ESV all the way. NIV is a piece of trash and is less accurate than the KJV. I'm still Zondervan certified for whatever that's worth Regardless, any reading of scripture will always be RaI.
generalgrog wrote:
Actually if you look at the first Church described in Acts chapter 2, they pooled all of their possessions and gave them to each other to use as needed. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that to be a"true Christian" you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.
Righto. Obviously all good Christians are communists. You heard it here first, folks! Stop doing it wrong!
generalgrog wrote:
Actually if you look at the first Church described in Acts chapter 2, they pooled all of their possessions and gave them to each other to use as needed. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that to be a"true Christian" you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.
Righto. Obviously all good Christians are communists. You heard it here first, folks! Stop doing it wrong!
This is why I didn't bother. GG gives a reasoned answer, you make a one-liner strawman out of it.
I admire the patience of some posters.
I'd like to say that I don't know what difference it makes labeling the first church communist. If a group of people decides to live that way, and doesn't force others to do so, I don't see a problem with it.
Also, and this is a much larger point, that everyone does it wrong. That's why such an emphasis is placed on the fact that we are saved by Grace and not by our own works, otherwise everyone would be boned.
And I see the overwhelming sarcasm has failed to penetrate your defenses. Thus, I suppose I'll just have to bludgeon you over the head with it: I'm making a point. No True Scotsman fallacy, leaking from every pore.
And really, your last sentence there just kinda proves the point. :/
Laughing Man wrote:And I see the overwhelming sarcasm has failed to penetrate your defenses. Thus, I suppose I'll just have to bludgeon you over the head with it: I'm making a point. No True Scotsman fallacy, leaking from every pore.
Either you don't know what a No True Scotsman fallacy is, or your thought process is fundamentally flawed. It is also clear to me that generally, when someone has nothing of substance to say, they start bringing up fallacies and arguing about how we are arguing about what we are arguing about. Unless it's Ahtman, in which case it's done in a brilliantly amusing manner.
It's only out of sheer morbid curiosity that I ask:
Laughing Man wrote:And really, your last sentence there just kinda proves the point. :/
Let me rephrase: I was intentionally trying to provoke No True Scotsman fallacies (albeit in reverse) myself, as a rhetorical device. It's late and I've been banging my head against bosses all evening, so it may have come out somewhat... garbled. >.<
As for the latter, only a fraction of Christians believe in the "God's grace alone" idea. Catholics, for instance, would likely disagree with you. But of course, they're not doing it properly.
Now, can we get back to discussing why everyone who hates Nazis is morally equivalent to Nazis themselves? That was much more interesting.
I'd like to know what I said that no Christians do, that you provided an example of Christians doing that very thing, to which I implied that no real Christian would do such a thing. I would seriously love to hear it. See, I explained what a "No true Scotsman" fallacy actually is, to help you out a bit.
dogma wrote:
Called out for what? A statement regarding the fact that a person can be mocked for perceived stupidity?
I never stated that religious people are stupid, nor did I state that a judgment regarding stupidity is objective.
What is the point in discussing something when the person you are arguing with denies what they wrote in plain text.
I will not bother quoting your commentary in context as it would involve more than a few lines of text and you would just deny it anyway, then try to get picky.
No point talking to you, but for the record:
Some who know me face to face put great store in my analytical talents, so I must be far better at inferences than you think. The how, who, why and where of this is my concern, feel free not to believe me, it wont matter, their opinions weigh more than yours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote:Well, obviously that's an incorrect interpretation. Those hobos in the gutter are true christians, not you.
And I think I'll leave it at that.
Christianity is defined by salvation not by charity or assets.
Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, it cannot be attained by any other means.
Man... my head hurts too much to get involved in a rational thought provoking debate so i shall take a pass on whatever i was supposed to be talking about when i was half cut last night...
Seriously though, can we just get back to talking about the topic?
I want to know if a sensible Christian actually belives that flogging the log actually counts as a terrible sin?
Isnt that just... needlessly harsh?
And if we all sin anyway, what does it matter if you bash your bishop? I thought the whole point was that no human can be without sin, so we need to "wash it away" with belief in Jesus?
Is choking your chicken really that big a deal to people all things considered?
And can anyone else fit more metaphors for spanking the monkey into one post?
Connor McKane wrote:Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?
Those who profess tolerance are the first to be intolerant when disagreed with.
I don't want to pick on anyone, but it seems like so many people now-adays regurgitate that ole' party line, that belief in God or Allah or whoever, makes you ignorant and bassackwards.
Its just sad.
I believe in people. I think that despite our bad points as a species, and boy are there a lot of them, humans are overall a good race. I believe in that.
Belief does not necessarily equate to religion, though I have no problems with people who do believe. After all, who am I to tell them they're wrong?
Orlanth wrote:
What is the point in discussing something when the person you are arguing with denies what they wrote in plain text.
Where did I make reference to sexual behavior via plain text?
Orlanth wrote:
I will not bother quoting your commentary in context as it would involve more than a few lines of text and you would just deny it anyway, then try to get picky.
No, I would note what the words I used meant, and the manner in which your approximation was wrong.
That is usually tough for fools.
Orlanth wrote:
Some who know me face to face put great store in my analytical talents
Islands are fun, no?
Orlanth wrote:
, so I must be far better at inferences than you think.
No, that only means that some people in England disagree with me.
Orlanth wrote:
their opinions weigh more than yours.
mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though, can we just get back to talking about the topic?
I want to know if a sensible Christian actually belives that flogging the log actually counts as a terrible sin?
Isnt that just... needlessly harsh?
And if we all sin anyway, what does it matter if you bash your bishop? I thought the whole point was that no human can be without sin, so we need to "wash it away" with belief in Jesus?
Read up Matty. Between the trolling there was a lot of on topic content from a number of people, answers to your questions were included.
mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though, can we just get back to talking about the topic?
I want to know if a sensible Christian actually belives that flogging the log actually counts as a terrible sin?
Isnt that just... needlessly harsh?
And if we all sin anyway, what does it matter if you bash your bishop? I thought the whole point was that no human can be without sin, so we need to "wash it away" with belief in Jesus?
Read up Matty. Between the trolling there was a lot of on topic content from a number of people, answers to your questions were included.
Now just because you have been myopic and insular doesn't mean you should think of yourself as a troll. Have a little more self confidence.
After all this time you would think you would have gotten past the whole 'someone disagrees = troll' thing but I see that is not so.
Bonkers video. If someone is so hung up on the need for sexual activity to only be within marriage as god intended I suppose they give pretty short shrift to gay people and that means I have very little interest in hearing their 'moral' arguments.
Anyway, masturbation is good for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm It prevents cancer, you hear that? Cancer, and unlike most 'healthy' activities, it's free and fun!
generalgrog wrote:It's real healthy when you become a sex or porn addict from it. Sex and porn addiction are real good for healthy marriages .
GG
No they don't. But please provide the source for the claim that masturbation = sex and porn addict? Treesong sourced himself. You aren't free from that. I personally think you're completely wrong, on this count, and I fail to see what's immoral about masturbation OR porn watching. Am I forcing anyone to do anything against their will? No. Am I hurting anyone by doing so? No.
In all honesty, in the Bible God did some things that we would label genocide and ethnic cleansing today. I'm going to turn this around and say even IF the Bible says masturbation is immoral, it also seems to advocate genocide and mass slaughter. Should we really follow the Bible's moral code on everything?
generalgrog wrote:It's real healthy when you become a sex or porn addict from it. Sex and porn addiction are real good for healthy marriages
Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? Everyone masturbates and most do not become addicted to sex and porn, that's more likely a sign of other issues than a causal effect of masturbation. Few things are good for you in excess, that doesn't mean it's healthy to not do them at all. If you're masturbating constantly and watching porn all the time to the neglect of relationships then it's a problem with the person, not the idea of masturbation.
In the section covering health benefits of masturbation on wikipedia it says...
There is no scientific evidence of a causative relationship between masturbation and any form of mental disorder. Excessive or compulsive sexual behavior is generally understood to be a symptom rather than a cause.
Backed with the following citations...
Levine, M. P., & Troiden, R. R. (1988). The myth of sexual compulsivity. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 347–363
Giles, J. (2006). No such thing as excessive levels of sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 641–642.
Furthermore, with more appropriate citations, it goes on to say...
Compulsive masturbation and other compulsive behaviors can be signs of an emotional problem. As such, that may need to be addressed by a mental health specialist. As with any "nervous habit", it is more helpful to consider the causes of compulsive behavior, rather than try to repress masturbation.
There is discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to the existence of, and validity of the concept of, sexual addiction. Compulsive masturbation is regarded as one of the symptoms of sexual addiction by proponents of that concept.
I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
Many health activities are dangerous when taken to excess especially when they are done to the neglect of other parts of your life, dieting too much is bad for you, too much exercise is bad for you.
...people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation.
You're going to have to back that up because common sense and research would indicate otherwise.
They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
The porn industry isn't a nice one but you undermine your position by conflating prostitution with the pornographic film industry as though they are one and the same.
generalgrog wrote:
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Porn is destructive.
GG
Quotes please! Cite your sources when you say that many men are sex addicts.....if it's true there should be some widely published study about how men who watch porn are x% more likely to be addicted to sex. Where are the studies that show women who do porn are doing drugs out of porportion to their socio-economic class? You're making alot of claims here, and are giving us nothing to back up your claims.
I'm still Zondervan certified for whatever that's worth
Would this be the same Zondervan that developed and publishes the NIV o.O
Yup In their training classes they tell you why the NIV is better than everything else, but the reasons are so horrible you can see right through their salesmanship. It's just not an accurate translation.
generalgrog wrote:It's real healthy when you become a sex or porn addict from it. Sex and porn addiction are real good for healthy marriages .
GG
Eh, enough has been commented on this, but don't believe all the rhetoric dude. I've been in your shoes. I see people with much happier open relationships than many christian marriages, and there may just be a reason for that.
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Porn is destructive.
GG
Again, things are different than they used to be. Some women want to do porn/strip/whatever now because it gives them a sense of empowermet. As a rule, stating stuff you've heard from other christians as arguments will probably just lead to fail.
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation.
I see where you're coming from, but it's worthwhile remembering that just because something is the starting-point of something worse, does not necessarily imply causality. After all, though people who have committed murder may have played violent video games in their youth, that does not then mean that violent video games increase the chance that people who play them will commit murder.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Yup In their training classes they tell you why the NIV is better than everything else, but the reasons are so horrible you can see right through their salesmanship. It's just not an accurate translation.
Doesn't it depend on which text-type you're using? (Excluding of course that NIV is dynamic while KJV is literal, unless that's what you mean XD)
Personally I wouldn't call it accurate. I'd say more accurate, but only based on flaws with the textus receptus and that the Alexandria type is older than the Byzantine type. Only speaking of NT of course. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that there's a good translation of the OT except for the NWT the Witnesses put out, and I've heard other things about that one.
The porn industry isn't a nice one but you undermine your position by conflating prostitution with the pornographic film industry as though they are one and the same.
They're not one and the same, but I have always found it ironic (and again I love irony) that it's legally okay for a woman to sell her body so long as a camera is present to record it
The porn industry isn't a nice one but you undermine your position by conflating prostitution with the pornographic film industry as though they are one and the same.
They're not one and the same, but I have always found it ironic (and again I love irony) that it's legally okay for a woman to sell her body so long as a camera is present to record it
That line is so fine it is almost invisible to the naked eye.
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Porn is destructive.
GG
I dunno about that... I watch porn, my friends watch porn, my buddies watch porn, everybody I know watches it. And...they are normal, functional members of society. Are they sex addicts? by your defintiion, every human who has had sex is.
though true that some women are drug addicted in the porn industry, so are some women in accounting, day care, etc. Does that mean those businesses are bad too? most women in porn are there due to choice.
You forget that humanity in general is extremely horny. Why fight what is one of our basest and natural drives?
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Porn is destructive.
GG
I dunno about that... I watch porn, my friends watch porn, my buddies watch porn, everybody I know watches it. And...they are normal, functional members of society. Are they sex addicts? by your defintiion, every human who has had sex is.
though true that some women are drug addicted in the porn industry, so are some women in accounting, day care, etc. Does that mean those businesses are bad too? most women in porn are there due to choice.
You forget that humanity in general is extremely horny. Why fight what is one of our basest and natural drives?
Hmm nice try..I never said watching porn or masterbating automatically = sex addiction. I did imply that it can most certaintly lead to it.
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
No, sorry. If sex and alcoholism are unhealthy due to the danger of addiction (which is not itself intrinsically unhealthy), then the danger begins at the desire to drink and have sex. Seeing as one of these is unarguably natural, procreation being necessary for the propagation of the species, it is is impossible to argue as though the presence of danger means that a thing should be avoided.
generalgrog wrote:
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Porn is destructive.
GG
Really? No woman, or man (there are male porn stars you know), grows up wanting to be a porn star? No one? Not a single person?
You have no evidence for that. Stop presuming that you're emotional response to a thing is indicative of all emotional responses to the same thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
What is the point in discussing something when the person you are arguing with denies what they wrote in plain text.
I will not bother quoting your commentary in context as it would involve more than a few lines of text and you would just deny it anyway, then try to get picky.
If you need context then it wasn't written in 'plain text'. Try again.
I never said that religious people are stupid. I said that was stupid to act only because a very old book (any very old book, I was not specific) says something. If you are going to base your argumenative position on your imagination, then I can see how it would be frustrating to be confronted with reality.
Stop drawing inferences, you are very, very bad at it.
Orlanth wrote:
No point talking to you, but for the record:
Some who know me face to face put great store in my analytical talents, so I must be far better at inferences than you think. The how, who, why and where of this is my concern, feel free not to believe me, it wont matter, their opinions weigh more than yours.
I feel very sorry for them, because you are not very good at analysis. Analytical talent requires that one be able to separate himself from the information he is reviewing, and you are apparently incapable of such a thing.
Maybe its simply the way you engage with religion that prevents you from objectively considering anything of even oblique association, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that your 'style' as regards religious information shouldn't be generalized to all information.
generalgrog wrote: No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Sasha had a interview once where she talked about how much she wanted to be in porn starting when she was 16... growing up in a very healthy middleclass home...
Sasha is definitely an interesting example. The artist Zak Smith wrote an excellent piece in his book We Did Porn reacting to her appearance on Tyra Banks' television show, and the myriad hypocrisies and dishonesties of the arguments made by Tyra, her other "porn star" guest, and her guest doctor.
Let me see if I can find the chapter excerpt....
Aha! Found it. The Rumpus.net presented this excerpt from his book as an article. Warning! NSFW!
That being said, there is still a lot wrong with the porn industry, and there are a lot of unhealthy and damaged people in it. Whether they are unhappy, unhealthy, and damaged before they ever get involved and are drawn toit in part because of their difficulties functioning in other jobs is another question.
The existence of seemingly well-adjusted people like Sasha Grey, Zak Smith, Kimberly Kane, etc. Makes it a bit of a trickier question.
generalgrog wrote:I think you are right.. it was bit of a stretch statement. What I Intended to say was that it's NOT necessarily healthy because people do become sex and porn addicts, and that starts from masturbation. They say drinking a little wine everyday is a good antioxidant, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily healthy due the danger of alcoholism.
Also the porn industry isn't a victimless industry. Many men are sex addicts due to porn, and many women that do porn are drug addicts themselves. No women grows up wanting to be a porn star or a prostitute. They only do it out of greed or necessity. Necessity being poor, drug addiction, or possibly even slavery(a.k.a. pimped)
Porn is destructive.
GG
I dunno about that... I watch porn, my friends watch porn, my buddies watch porn, everybody I know watches it. And...they are normal, functional members of society. Are they sex addicts? by your defintiion, every human who has had sex is.
though true that some women are drug addicted in the porn industry, so are some women in accounting, day care, etc. Does that mean those businesses are bad too? most women in porn are there due to choice.
You forget that humanity in general is extremely horny. Why fight what is one of our basest and natural drives?
Hmm nice try..I never said watching porn or masterbating automatically = sex addiction. I did imply that it can most certaintly lead to it.
Next time you masturbate to porn just remember that these women are exploited. Porn is evil.
GG
nononono...
Watch ANY amatuer video, they did that stuff willingly. Also, without scientific study to confirm statistics, we have no idea what the numbers of abuse are.
also,They are walking into that studio, taking their clothes off, and doing dirty things of their own volition. There is very little exploitation there.
I'm pushing my way through, and it is rather interesting. I have to back up dogma here.....porn, like any other issue, is complex, and deserves more than a bumper sticker answer.
However, as a liberatarian, my answer is 'are the two adults willing? yes? ok, not the governments problem'. It doesn't matter what kind of weird kink it is, as long as the x number of people involved are perfectly alright with it. If you have a moral problem with it, then don't watch it, and don't support the industry with your time or money! It's an easy temporary solution, and you can talk to people all you want to convince that porn is evil.
But if any number of consenual adults wish to do any activity in the bedroom, and then choose to record themselves doing that activity and selling it? Why shouldn't they have the right to do that? How is their right to make money from that any different from my right to do commission paint work if I so choose? (Note: I suck at painting and would never do that) The only difference to my eye is that some people view the act of selling sex for money as evil and immoral, and wish to impose that view point on others.
ChrisWWII wrote:I'm pushing my way through, and it is rather interesting. I have to back up dogma here.....porn, like any other issue, is complex, and deserves more than a bumper sticker answer.
I don't think anyone has been really throwing around "bumper stickers" though, have they?
ChrisWWII wrote:However, as a liberatarian, my answer is 'are the two adults willing? yes? ok, not the governments problem'.
I don't think anyone has advocated that it be outlawed, either. I could be wrong. It's been said that it has a negative impact on society, but that's not quite the same thing.
Monster Rain wrote:
Pointing out bad behavior by others doesn't absolve your own.
Of course not, but the point was that we all regularly engage in acts that a morally dubious. Why are we therefore critical of morally dubious acts?
For example, the Cachaça I'm drinking right now was made by people in Brazil who are essentially slaves. In purchasing the delicious product of their labor, I am undoubtedly supporting the business model that ensures their position as quasi slaves. Perhaps a large enough number of purchases will extricate them from their position via economic growth, but that's really a matter left up to the children of the present producers.
I myself am not suppressing the Cachaça producers, but I am supporting those that do. Most people would probably not consider my choices to be morally bankrupt, but many would consider the use of porn to be so; despite an entirely equivalent relationship.
Why? Because porn corrupts All-American girls and Cachaça subjugates brown folk? Because sex is taboo and drinking isn't?
Monster Rain wrote:
Who's idea of morality should I be using, anyway, if not mine?
Well, everyone's. At least if you're going to make a pronouncement of evil, which is distinct from "something I don't like".
So then I could say that the company that makes your Beverage of Death() and the Porn Industry exploit people and generally make the world a less pleasant place.
From where I'm looking at this, it's not even about sexual taboos. It's about shady business practices.
Sure, but it isn't just my Beverage of Death or the porn industry. Its also the good folks over at Coca-Cola, Monsanto, and just about every other producer of consumer goods.
To put it another way, if you really feel that relationships of the relevant sort are destructive, then you don't have much of an excuse for being supportive of capitalism (insofar as evil is bad).
Be gone G-baby sock-puppet!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
From where I'm looking at this, it's not even about sexual taboos. It's about shady business practices.
Define shady. Everyone knows that the porn industry is less than savory, though far more savory than it was in the past (Linda Lovelace had a hell of a life).
Similarly, we all know that Coca-Cola exploits their sugar producers, or we all should know, but we accept that as a natural feature of the system in which we live.
Hell, I imagine we're all guilty of exploiting weakness in the course of business; whether it be negotiating for a raise, or hiring beautiful stripper-secretaries.
I don't think anyone has been really throwing around "bumper stickers" though, have they?
I don't think anyone has advocated that it be outlawed, either. I could be wrong. It's been said that it has a negative impact on society, but that's not quite the same thing.
GeneralGrog for one has been ending half his posts with 'Porn is evil' or some derivative thereof. I for one view that as a bumper sticker answer. And I wasn't alleging that anyone said it should be banned, I was just talking about my own personal views on the topic.
However, as far as 'negative impact' on society, I do have to say that I see no problem, and in fact it's a celebration of free speech, as far as I'm concerned. As long as there's no problem with the two people agreeing to do so, why is it a negative impact? There's no reason why a porn star, or porn producer can not be a contributing member of society. They pay their taxes, they provide a good in demand, and they contribute to the economy. I don't see a negative impact there.
Did any of you "Moral" folks even take a glimpse at that exporn stars website I pasted? If you aren't morally appalled at the porn industry after reading through some of those testimonies than something is wrong with you. At the very least you are in denial of the problem.
You can compare my calling porn evil to the Church Lady all you want, but the fact remains women are abused in porn and people that fund that industry so they can get off, are morally bankrupt.
Also dogma is famous for his non sequitors that's why he inserted the sugar issues to get you derailed.
I did look through them, and my thought were, 'every business has bad people in it, and people suffer in every business'. It may be slightly more pronounced in porn for other reasons like socio-economic class and other things, but I can't be sure. That was just my gut reaction.
Not all women involved in porn are abused, and I'd imagine abusing the producers of the product you're trying to sell is a bad idea. If I was a porn producer, I would want all the actors working for me to be happy so that they would enjoy their job, and thus make the videos they produce more enjoyable for the customer, thus earning me more money. That's just good business. Abusing them so they hate their job, and thus preform poorly AND have the added ability to sell their story of their horrible treatment at my hands to some talk show, thus ruining me? Not so good business. It's like the capitalist argument xkcd posted a few days back.
Either:
a) The porn producers AREN'T money grubbing sons of female canines, because they don't care about mistreating their income stream.
b) They just don't mistreat their income stream, so their income stream STAYS their income stream.
Not at all, companies like Coca-Cola oppress their workers (or buy from suppliers that oppress their workers). The porn industry also oppresses its workers.
Are they both equally bad? If not, why?
If you won't answer that question, then there really isn't a point in having this discussion. I'm sorry if you lack the intellectual agility to consider similar relationships that exist in different cases, I suspect that you are like Orlanth in your myopic dedication to your own moral judgments. But do not pretend as though I'm attempting to derail a thread because you can't keep up.
generalgrog wrote:Did any of you "Moral" folks even take a glimpse at that exporn stars website I pasted? If you aren't morally appalled at the porn industry after reading through some of those testimonies than something is wrong with you. At the very least you are in denial of the problem.
You can compare my calling porn evil to the Church Lady all you want, but the fact remains women are abused in porn and people that fund that industry so they can get off, are morally bankrupt.
Also dogma is famous for his non sequitors that's why he inserted the sugar issues to get you derailed.
GG
I saw an awful lot of unsubstantiated opinion on that link, and I would suspect, quite a lot of quotes taken out of context. Simple truth is, any industry that the workers get highly paid leads to a decadent lifestyle. Look at Premier League Footballers and their ilk. All young, all with more money than sense, all of them morally dubious. To single out the Porn industry alone is disingenuous to say the least. Truth is, people make some bad decisions in life. Many people try something once, then swear off it for the rest of their lives, and I do mean experiences as well as substances. But to take literally a handful of supposed 'testimonies' and say this is standard, well, come on now. I do have a mind you know.
Oh, and seriously hands up who genuinely enjoy their job, and who don't feel even the slightest bit exploited? I've worked several minimum wage jobs, knowing full well that the bigwigs could quite easily afford to up staff pay, if they were prepared to curtail their own earnings. Which they aren't. Life on the minimum wage, when you can just about afford to house, clothe and feed oneself is pretty frigging close to indentured worker in my opinion.
generalgrog wrote:Did any of you "Moral" folks even take a glimpse at that exporn stars website I pasted? If you aren't morally appalled at the porn industry after reading through some of those testimonies than something is wrong with you. At the very least you are in denial of the problem.
You can compare my calling porn evil to the Church Lady all you want, but the fact remains women are abused in porn and people that fund that industry so they can get off, are morally bankrupt.
Also dogma is famous for his non sequitors that's why he inserted the sugar issues to get you derailed.
GG
It really isn't as simple as that though. The major companies that produce porn are heavily self-regulating, so as not to get shut down, and so the issue of exploitation and that sort of thing isn't a problem with them. The real problem lies with the less open, more shady minor companies that produce some of the worst (in terms of exploitative) pornography in order to make a profit. I agree, there is a great deal wrong with the industry, not least that it's not representative of what sex is actually like, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the whole thing is black and white evil. It's just too complex for that, and we don't live in a world where we can make that kind of judgement in an instant.
Not to mention the link that was posted later to the clip on the Tyra Banks Show, with attached critique. It clearly showed a well adjusted young woman who did porn because she enjoyed it. She did not suffer from any problems, and was perfectly settled with her job. However, the skew in the interview is quite obvious, as the attached critique and revelations from the young woman in question point out.
I'm not going to say that's typical either, since it is only one case, and until we get some kind of official medical study about the numbers of porn actors who have drug/abuse problems as compared to a control group, we can't say one way or another. I for one sincerely doubt the 90% figure GeneralGrog has been throwing around.
Your attempt at a nonsequitor...and now adhominem?....way to go you are a master"de"bater(pun intended)
Ad hominem only exists when a given point about a person s made in lieu of a point about their argument. I made my point about your argument, and attached a personal jab. You could remove my personal jab and my argument would remain ergo, no ad hominem.
generalgrog wrote:
The bottom line i,s you can't defend your claim that the porn industry is just fine.....so you throw in sugar to change the subject.
GG
I already indicated that I wasn't changing the subject, and showed why that is the case. In fact, I'm attempting to get at the heart of why we judge the porn industry in the fashion that we do; generalized principles and all that.
You can talk about bottom lines all you want, its really a very effective way of maintaining an intellectual bubble. I mean, if you simply attribute dissent to broad, categorical matters of intent it become quite easy to suppose that your opinion has never been punctured.
Also, I never said that the porn industry was fine.
Don't draw inferences, you are worse at it than Orlanth, and he is absolutely awful at it.
I'm not saying that the porn business is great. It has significant problems, attracts a lot of damaged people, and gives them multiple opportunities to damage themselves further or be damaged further.
That being said, as Dogma pointed out, a LOT of industries we enjoy the products of involve exploiting people.
Porn is sexier than sweatshops, though, and it happens here and involves (at least some) attractive women, so that skews how we perceive it relative to them.
Not at all, companies like Coca-Cola oppress their workers (or buy from suppliers that oppress their workers). The porn industry also oppresses its workers.
So what?
Outside of rhetorical gamesmanship, what do they have to do with each other? Why do you persist in blaming the victim?
He's not. He's arguing that the people pointing fingers at the porn industry in all likelihood overlook similar problems with products they consume (whether it be Coke, sneakers, or coffee). If your dollars also go to industries which exploit people, you're claiming a false moral superiority.
I know. I'm hearkening back to his lol-worthy sock puppet quip.
Mannahnin wrote:He's arguing that the people pointing fingers at the porn industry in all likelihood overlook similar problems with products they consume (whether it be Coke, sneakers, or coffee). If your dollars also go to industries which exploit people, you're claiming a false moral superiority.
I think you're inferring a lot of things. I'm not saying other companies don't have issues. I'm saying that an objective person could look at the porn industry, particularly as relates to the global sex trade, and say that it is a predominantly negative force in the world.
Outside of rhetorical gamesmanship, what do they have to do with each other? Why do you persist in blaming the victim?
They both exploit their workers and generally have a negative impact on the places in which they do business; according to some, anyway. I'm not really trying to argue that porn, or Coke, is a terrible force in the world. I'm only using the two as a means of getting at the root of our reprehension.
Hell, I could argue that sugar laden soft drinks, or really any consumer good, has effectively destroyed modern society. I wouldn't even be unique in arguing that, I would merely be unique in arguing that in the context of a defense of the porn industry.
Really, what I'm trying to get at is the fact that porn is criticized not because its exploitative, but because it deals with sex.
We're American, we exploit people all the time, but God have mercy if a boob bounces free of a bra.
All that being said, porn was a very, very ugly business not very long ago. It has cleaned up its act, in much the same way that Vegas has, because it has realized that there is more money in legitimate business than illegitimate business.
All that being said, porn was a very, very ugly business not very long ago. It has cleaned up its act, in much the same way that Vegas has, because it has realized that there is more money in legitimate business than illegitimate business.
I will argue that if sex was made illegal, it would actually encourage the American spirit.
Some of our most innovative ideas is when the creative circumvent the law and the obstacles set before them. Think of all the interesting and imaginative ways sex is going to get dispensed via illegal methods.
It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.
Yes. Sugary soft drinks are bad for you, and Coke does some bad things. How does that have any bearing on criticizing another company or industry, regardless of its business model?
WarOne wrote:
I will argue that if sex was made illegal, it would actually encourage the American spirit.
Some of our most innovative ideas is when the creative circumvent the law and the obstacles set before them. Think of all the interesting and imaginative ways sex is going to get dispensed via illegal methods.
Aren't most of the weird Japanese fetishes the result of laws regarding what can, and cannot be displayed in porn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.
I'm not absolving anyone of anything, and I think that's where you're getting hung up. The porn industry is bad, but so are most other industries. My point is that the porn industry receives more criticism than it deserves because there are other, worse examples of exploitation in the course of business. This doesn't mean the porn industry doesn't exploit people, or that it isn't to be criticized, it means only that evil-monkey-pointing at it isn't constructive outside context; especially when the absence of context is used to finger (harhar) porn as uniquely bad.
Monster Rain wrote:
Yes. Sugary soft drinks are bad for you, and Coke does some bad things. How does that have any bearing on criticizing another company or industry, regardless of its business model?
It gets at why we're criticizing something. I know everyone says that they don't like porn because its exploitative, but most of those people support companies that exploit others, if not directly engage in exploitative behavior themselves. As such, it seems disingenuous to claim that porn is bad because its exploitative, when what really appears to be significant is American prudishness. I mean, let's be honest, capitalism is based on exploitation, for better or worse.
As little respect as I have for Grog's position, he has at least been forthright in describing his opposition to the industry; for the most part anyway.
Monster Rain wrote:It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.
That's exactly what he's doing, because he doesn't want anyone to focus on the idea that
A: Porn is bad
and
B: Jacking off to it is bad.
He want's us all to feel good inside about this facet of immorality in our culture. He's a classic enabler.
By the way I don't drink Coke, or sugary drinks, or knowingly buy goods made in sweat shops. What does that make me? Maybe there is some other product I buy that dogma can use to compare with porn? Shrugs
Dogma, the conversation wasn't about criticizing Coca-Cola. If you started a thread to do so, I'd join you.
We were talking about a specific industry and people were citing their issues with/support for said industry. You bringing up Brazilian Sugary Death Tonic was totally beside the point.
1. I don't believe you, because its impossible to live in American and not buy goods produced via exploitative practice; especially if you eat any sort of relatively exotic vegetables.
2. If you do so unknowingly it is merely due to a lack of curiosity regarding the source of your consumables.
dogma wrote:1. I don't believe you, because its impossible to live in American and not buy goods produced via exploitative practice; especially if you eat any sort of relatively exotic vegetables.
2. If you do so unknowingly it is merely due to a lack of curiosity regarding the source of your consumables.
I would say it's partly #2 and also the lack of time to find out.
Monster Rain wrote:Dogma, the conversation wasn't about criticizing Coca-Cola. If you started a thread to do so, I'd join you.
We were talking about a specific industry and people were citing their issues with/support for said industry. You bringing up Brazilian Sugary Death Tonic was totally beside the point.
I don't think so. If we are to move beyond "I don't like this because I don't like this", then we need to start discussing generalized ideas of morality, which means getting at the root of what makes porn so reprehensible.
Someone posited that it was exploitation that made it bad, and I indicated that other things are exploitative, and that we don't see a so much rancor regarding them. As such, it seems that what we really dislike about porn is not the exploitation, but something else. My hypothesis is that prudishness is at the root of the matter, but I might be wrong.
Regardless, the point of bringing sugar producers into the conversation was to get beyond the trappings of porn itself, and into the general principle that causes people to regard it as bad.
Along the way I addressed Grog's position on addiction and lust, but those parallel conversations didn't really take off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
I would say it's partly #2 and also the lack of time to find out.
GG
And that's fine.
After all, without bad, there is no good.
Also, without bad, the world is far less interesting.
Monster Rain wrote:The other thing is, if you must buy things that are the direct result of human suffering, why not minimize the amount?
We have to eat and wear clothes, but jacking to Sasha Grey's on-screen antics is optional.
That is a really good point. It takes a lot more effort to go out slay a beast. Skin it, tan it, and make your own clothes, thus ensuring that you haven't purchased from possible sweat shop vs just not spending a few bucks on porn.
dogma wrote:Well, yeah, but my question was meant to be taken generally.
What does porn destroy?
If one subscribes to the idea of sex addiction porn could destroy anything that Gambling or Alcohol problems might destroy let alone illicit drug addiction.
And yes, Dogma, I have problems with how those industries do business as well.
Well, that will be meat of our disagreement then. I believe that people should be allowed to destroy their own lives, and that people should be permitted to profit from that desire.
I am the only one that thinks Sasha Grey is extremely unappealing? I've never seen her porn but I have seen pictures and she seems so 'meh'. Her claim to fame seems to be doing a gang bang while being peed on and trying to come across as an intellectual at the same time.
I think those of Sasha Grey's ilk just seem to get pushed to the forefront due to their willingness to do more extreme things than some girls who might be more attractive but have a bit more consideration for the state of their nether regions.
Monster Rain wrote:It still just seems like you're justifying the negative actions of one industry by pointing out that other industries are bad, with a little "hurrr Americans are sexually repressed" sprinkled in for flavor.
That's exactly what he's doing, because he doesn't want anyone to focus on the idea that
A: Porn is bad
and
B: Jacking off to it is bad.
He want's us all to feel good inside about this facet of immorality in our culture. He's a classic enabler.
GG
You're gradually moving the goalposts. You repeatedly claimed that masturbating leads to sex and porn addiction. They simply don't, yet you won't engage with the facts. The idea that masturbation causes some addiction it just flat out wrong. There are a lot of problems with the porn industry that are extensive enough for another debate entirely, but you don't need to pile up made-up accusations on porn to make a case against it. So moving from saying "masturbation is bad" to "masturbating to porn is bad" isn't the same thing at all.
Brother-Thunder wrote:They are walking into that studio, taking their clothes off, and doing dirty things of their own volition. There is very little exploitation there.
This is certainly naive. That is the nature of exploitation, people consenting to something they wouldn't normally do because of desperate circumstances or a mental state incompatible with making well judged decisions *is* exploitation. If people were *forcing* women to have sex, well there are laws against that.
When you find the poorest of most desperate people and pay them a pittance to do long days of manual labour knowing the alternative for them is starvation, that is exploitation. You don't say "Well those little kiddies went to the shoe factory to work 12 hours a day to earn half a cup of rice of their own volition, so it can't be exploitation".
Mannahnin wrote:The existence of seemingly well-adjusted people like Sasha Grey, Zak Smith, Kimberly Kane, etc. Makes it a bit of a trickier question.
I wouldn't focus on a minority of cases to hand wave issues with the wider industry though. There seems to be a bit of that on this thread too. Because of books like "diary of a call girl" some people think prostitution has a degree of glamour and is good money. But again, the high class escorts are in the minority however well publicised, the bulk of prostitutes are in appalling circumstances. So focusing on a handful, or hypothetical cases where people could aspire to be in porn doesn't really change the argument that a lot of people in porn are there for other reasons. And I say 'people', because it's not just women, but men too who find themselves having to perform in ways they would not choose to. A lot of gay porn uses straight actors because they are paid to do the work not because they actually want sex with a man, and that is probably true of all professionally produced porn. A person's natural attraction and even sexual orientation is second to being paid.
There are a few unrealistic attitudes towards the nature of pornography being stated around here, there's a lot of unpleasantness in the industry and a few examples that contradict this should not allow people to convince themselves the industry is actually pretty ok. The reason this thread diverted into this debate was because generalgrog repeatedly claimed a link between masturbation and sex/porn addiction which is just nonsense. He doesn't like pornography, and there are valid reasons for that, but he seems to think that masturbation is bad because it causes addiction to it.
LOL. That dude near the end never gets laid, in mmore ways than one!
But whatever. Theres these guys who stand outside a MacD's in my town with posters saying the end is near and kak. When this stuff happens just laugh and be glad by doing what they do in regard to sex there will be less of them as evolution goes.
That's exactly what he's doing, because he doesn't want anyone to focus on the idea that
A: Porn is bad
and
B: Jacking off to it is bad.
He want's us all to feel good inside about this facet of immorality in our culture. He's a classic enabler.
GG
While I agree with dogma in that claiming porn is bad because it's exploitative is a fallacy simply due to the fact that many other industries that are also exploitative. Porn just gets singled out because it's an industry that offends Christian sensibilities and prudishness.
But let's do what you want, and focus on your claims that a) Porn is bad and b) Jacking off is bad, as that's really the direction you were coming from, yes? This thread started as a discussion about masturbation, so hopefully you're still claiming that masturbation in general is bad as opposed to only masturbating to porn.
But on the first stance, yes porn has a negative side, and there will be some bad people who exploit their workers. But if you scroll back a page or two, I gave you a nice reply that showed how it really does not make sense for any intelligent porn producer to exploit his income stream. It's simply much better business sense to make them happy, and keep them that way. However, statistically in an industry as large as porn there will be cases where actors are abused. But people are abused in the office too, it's a fact of life, and you're singling out porn because it's an easy target. The evidence you've provided so far as far as 'porn is bad' is a series of individual testimonies gathered by an anti-pornography group. Ignoring the fact that this group has an obvious skew, the point has to be made that these are individual cases. There are lots of questions we need to ask about that before we can accept it, namely: "What actual percentage of people begin doing drugs BECAUSE of being in porn, as opposed to doing drugs for different reasons while just happening to be in porn at the time?" Correlation is not causation, and showing people in porn do drug/smoke/drink isn't enough. You need to show that porn CAUSES people to do drugs, otherwise I can easily show you that people in the music industry do drugs, drink too much, and smoke. Does that mean music is bad, and as you called it 'a facet of immorality'?
Now onto your second point. That masturbation is bad. You have no evidence for this, and we've provided you evidence that masturbation for males is in fact healthy, and (as the article said) men should be encouraged to masturbate as masturbating multiple times a week can lead to a significant drop in the rate of prostate cancer later in life. You claimed that masturbation leads to sexual addiction, but we've shown that excessive masturbation is more often than not a SYMPTOM of sexual addiction instead of being a cause of it. What other evidence do you have that masturbation is bad for you either health wise of mentally, and more importantly...I'm allowed to give myself cancer through smoking, and I can destroy my liver with alcohol....why can't I destroy my with masturbation too (if that's even the case, which I highly doubt)?
Finally, you claim that these are both 'facets of immorality'....sure, they're immoral from your point of view, which is not the point of view of everyone. But why should your point of view be the one everyone has to live by? Yes, I know you have not called for banning porn and masturbation, but your rhetoric so far seems to say that you would be alright with such a ban coming into existence, as it would remove these facets of immorality from our culture. However, I can't argue against that without being guilty of tossing up a strawman, so I simply have to say that morality is in the eye of beholder, and I for one believe that it is perfectly moral to film two consenting adults having sex, then selling that tape for money. Why is that wrong? I fail to see why it is so ridiculouslly evil. Dogma has already showed why the exploitative argument makes no sense, and I above have shown why the drugs and alcohol argument is also invalid. So why is porn evil, GeneralGrog?
ChrisWWII wrote:But if you scroll back a page or two, I gave you a nice reply that showed how it really does not make sense for any intelligent porn producer to exploit his income stream. It's simply much better business sense to make them happy, and keep them that way.
I don't know how many places you have worked, but there are quite a few businesses where they treat you like gak because of how easily you can be replaced. The USPS comes immediately to mind.
Your argument is predicated on the idea that it would be difficult for the porn industry to find other damaged humans to exploit after the current crop either gets too old or decides they've had enough. I would submit that it's not.
Ahtman wrote: Her claim to fame seems to be doing a gang bang while being peed on and trying to come across as an intellectual at the same time.
We'll make her a MOD ASAP.
She's smarter than your average bear. For a kid as young as she is, she seems to have her head on pretty straight. Whether she's attractive is a matter of taste. I thought she was pretty good both in Entourage and in that Soderbergh movie she did. A little flat, but not bad.
This thread has been reported for flaming/trolling and private warnings given. Lets steer close of those shall we.
I can't see the reason for this thread but Mannahim has recently posted so I guess we'll keep open.
dogma wrote:
Stop drawing inferences, you are very, very bad at it.
Stop with the parrot ok. You think I am bad at drawing inferences, fair enough, point noted, lets move on.
If there was any truth to what you wrote I might be concerned.
dogma wrote:
Analytical talent requires that one be able to separate himself from the information he is reviewing, and you are apparently incapable of such a thing.
Actually I can and do do this, you just seem unable to detect it. Others can and comment as such, even those who disagee with my world view. There is no oblication for anyone here to regard this topic, or most others, dispassionately. There is no reason to demand me to be any different.
dogma wrote:
Maybe its simply the way you engage with religion that prevents you from objectively considering anything of even oblique association, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that your 'style' as regards religious information shouldn't be generalized to all information.
The evidence is there, you just dont want to see it, its easier for you to just troll me instead. I have come to accept that as a course hazard. The way I 'engage with relgion' is simply from a different paradigm to yours, feel free to disagree, but lack of agreement does not mean a lack of objectivity. If you cannot handle a difference in opinion thats your problem.
I think we have had this through dogma.
You dont like what I am saying, fair enough, you are entitled to your take on the subject. In that case get on the topic or get over it.
Please dont come back with another ad hominem, its getting stale.
Hmm, reading this I keep reading women exploitation but what about men? Yes women can and do and will get it worse but think about it. Seriously, anyone with some amateur film experience can attest to how long it takes to set up shots, get things goings and the delays caused by Murphy's Law. Then consider the guy has to stay aroused without coitus because, well, it would ruin the schedule and cost more money while everyone has to wait for the 'Minute Man' to get back to attention. And it's not like he'd be by himself either. There would be easily 6+ people in the room waiting and I can't imagine the stress that would cause.
I think that's a really good explanation as to why web cam girls/sites are so prevalent now as all a girl needs is web access, lotion and a smile. If even that much, it's can be more like a private dance: no touching and money up front.
Isn't that EXACTLY what Mr. Onan did? Sleeping with a woman, but not impregnating her? Isn't that EXACTLY what he was killed for?
buddies watch porn, everybody I know watches it. And...they are normal, functional members of society. Are they sex addicts? by your defintiion, every human who has had sex is.
