Some posts reponding to the OP are just generally nasty and propose nothing of value they are simply the derision of a belief system.

What I think pastor/ecclesiatical leader was getting at is that in Christ the porn addict can find the acceptance s/he is seeking, and that by giving the sin to Christ one can stop sinning. I seriously doubt that s/he meant, hey christ likes all the sick crap, only that s/he meant Christ has already atoned for the sick crap and can accept you for being the sinner you are.

The post OP was I feel less about demonizing nudity than it was about accepting the sinner within the purview of the beilef system in which it was presented.

Being that this is the Christianity subforum I would think that the readers would take it as axiomatic that most Christian doctrine condemns pornography. What is the point of long sarcastic vitriolic rants about it. I wonder if it would be at all possible considering all the high emotion revolving around religion and in the U.S. especially around Christianity to discuss a topic within the realm of a specific belief system instead of using every post as an oportunity to snipe said belief system? (<-Rhetorical question obviously, I already know the answer)

Yet, they would most likely be repulsed to see the average Joe rubbing one out on his computer monitor.

Could you spell out the syllogism for me? As they are necessarily true given the proposition is true. It is still general snarky derision if your proposition is simply snarky derision.

First I hope that "you" wasn't emphasized. I'm a good Christian!

It said, and I quote "The Love of Christ provides the porn addict to be completely rid of his filth by giving it over to the only one who really WANTS it." The premise for my contingent argument rested on the veracity of of the OP.

I questioned WHY does Christ WANT it? Haha

This is why I am never surprised when those who rail loudly about sin are exposed for some transgression their own.

I thought good Christians knew they were sinners.

Not upon the veracity, but upon the subjective interpretation of the reader. We cannot be so naive to suppose that our history's, knowledge, study, personal insights, spiritual awakenings... or even denominations are the same. I am not a Christian by any recognizable definition of the word. Yet I do know and understand the message extremely well. Well enough to realize that toppling your syllogism regarding Christ's supposed sadomasarcasm is easily enough accomplished by reminding you what every "good Christian" should already know.

Christ doesn't want the mans filth for the good of himself. Christ wants the mans filth for the good of the man. So much so that he would die for the man. So the man can live. A huge misconception about Christ is that he came to earth so bad people would somehow turn into good people. Christ came for one reason and one reason only. Christ came to earth so that dead people could find life and live... really live.

The spiritually dead find spiritual life.

I really don't by that particular piece of analysis. I think it is pretty bent, actually. It sounds like a rationalisation to me.

Quote:

I don't like your analysis, because it's not to my liking(as i wear a robe and puff a corn cob pipe.)

I mean come on can you be any more evasive? You have my unmitigated attention. Expose the holes in my logic, offer insight, give an analysis, find a contradiction, correct my grammar, haha do something. I'll take any commentary, but at least give me the option to agree with your statement. How about a little constructive criticism? Equivocations protect you from elaboration but on create more equivocation. It's bent????? what's bent? The whole analysis? What's a rationalisation? Your critique is baseless, make an effort. I promise I won't take it personally.

And I thought you could recognize sarcasm, I was mistaken

Um, no, it was based upon the veracity of the OP.

Upon the conformity of your translation to the original source.

My statements all rested on the Sermon that, with no reference, and after requests, I(perhaps foolishly) interpreted verbatim.

I presume you directly heard the sermon.

Unlike me, who heard the message after being filtered by a fallible memory, and diluted by your own subjectivity.

Now tell me, now that you are offering moral instruction, what should every good Christian know?

Hail Mary!

By the grace of god, Quinticnon offers insight into Christ's very desires.

A gift to die for.

Excuse my insolence...

...not all of us are blessed with psuedodivinity.

Thank you for addressing the misconception.

But seriously, who sanctions this conviction? I fear it is the Bible?

I thought we could not be so naive to validate history's scripture?

We must make allowances for subjectivity!

OR is that only for Original Posts?

The Bible is the product of man, and is subject to his own interpretation.

The truth was surely distorted by oral recitation, and more so by thousands of year of subjective interpretation.

Nahhhh but i'm sure you got it all squared.

Now please, topple my syllogism.

Except this time, try logic, not your dogmatic convictions.

Again, if you can or do I will happily revoke my assertions.

I simply offered an interpretation which is, as i'm sure you know, impossible without the recognition of the originator.

Think carefully before you accredit truth to claims that no one on earth is qualified to make.

Cam:
The "syllogisms" you present are based on the argument on which you said we might diverge. A point on which you and all of Christianity might diverge. The point being that Jesus is/was Mortal. Some sects thnk that he was never and will never be subject to real temptation and never had nor will have the same carnal instincts that we normal folk have. Others say that he may have had temptations and weaknesses as such before the crucifiction but never succumbed to them. However, I am not aware of a Christian sect that says Jesus in resurrected form has these foibles. To argue that Jesus wants the sins carnally would require the whole negation of the Godhood of Christ which is a blatant derision of the religion and a derailment of the OP topic.
If we are to retain the internal structure of the doctrine from whence the sermon likely came we must first and foremost assume the general Christian bedrock of Jesus being savior of mankind, A god able and willing to do it, Immortal because of the Resurrection, and Eternal because of the atonement. Within the internal structure of Christianity Jesus wanting a man's filth can only be for a positive and productive reason. As the atonement (paying for sins) or turning sins from the brightest scarlet to the whitest snow. Jesus having the unique power to do this can and should 'want" a person's filth because he has the unique ability to transform it to good within the filthy person. As I said in my last post a syllogism is only as good as the proposition it is built upon and it seems that the basis for yours is formed out of the context of the sermon and therefore only relevant in the attempt to malign the doctrine on which the sermon was based. And seems to be an attempt to use in ad hominem fashion the profaining of the main figure in Christianity by the blatant equation to sexual deviancy. Then attempting to cover it by claiming it is sarcasm. Which it isn't if it were anything it would be satire.

However I completely agree that the sermon as you put it, "Practically, to me, it seems an attempt to exploit a fetish that many practice, in order to raise church membership. But what do i know?" This is my problem with it and many sermons in many religions. I understand the need to capitolize on current cultural and popular phenomena and this seems to do that. Yet it also capitolizes on other themes deeply entrenched in Christianity, the power of God to tranform a person, to make the lame whole, to clean the sinners soul, to make the profane sacred. the sermon could have been better planned and used a less easily satirized analogy.

Hey apologies Camerama. I was referring to the OP, it wasn't directed at you. What I meant was, trying to rationalise a porn habit in the way that was suggested in the OP does not strike me as particularly authentic, or even insightful. I do realise that this is a problem for many and especially so for the spiritually inclined, no question, so I am sympathetic to the problem. But I am wary of over-diagnosing it or rationalising it.

Now please, topple my syllogism.
Again, if you can or do I will happily revoke my assertions.