Pornography and Grace

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Pornography and Grace

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 17 Jan, 2010 01:44 am
Pornography and Grace

I recently heard a sermon about Grace. Towards the end, an interesting concept was present that I had not considered before. I study all religions that I know of. This sermon is from the Christian perspective.

The concept was this... Those who are addicted to pornography are subconsciously searching for the grace of Jesus Christ, in that, what the porn addict is searching for is acceptance for his most vulgar desires. The porn addict receives acceptance from highly paid airbrushed models smiling and hungry for his filth. The very same filth that he would otherwise hide in shame from Lord Jesus Christ.

What the porn addict should realize is that Jesus Christ wants the mans filth more than the porn stars do. 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.

Just wanted your opinions on this.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:06 pm
@QuinticNon,
I still dont understand WHY Jesus Christ would WANT my filth. I mean it's foolish, and dirty.

Maybe hes some masochist. Jesus suffers for our sins, and if he's a sadist he must want those dirty sins. If he WANTS them he can't be suffering. Which means, he wasn't even suffering on the cross, and all our dirty sins make him happy. A clever ruse!

How did this perversion come to be? Jesus must've had a rocky childhood, and the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree right? I don't know where god went wrong, he's so strict on fornication. So, I feel either Jesus likes pain or Christianity is fantasy. A fantasy built to preserve the little power that remains from Christianity's apex. To control the only concept they can anymorel; Human morality. Therein lies the problem with Christendom: Too much sacrifice, Too little production. But I guess those pedophile priest's were just doing their "savior a favor?"(Nice ryhme too) Thanks for my ticket to heaven, here's some innocence. The ultimate sacrifice. They were just trying to please Jesus, and what power does a court of law have over the son of man. Uhhh, ZERO. Brave martyrs they are! Abandoned by a justice system to nearsighted to see the integrity of their actions! Why doesn't god just save us some time and make vulgar mean beautiful and romance mean rape? Kill two birds with one stone, make us feel immaculate, and give Jesus his sick kicks. Unless! Perhaps god, omnipotent as he is refuses his son pleasure, and impedes his priest's ability to quench Christ's near insatiable lust. Benevolent indeed! Man is then given two options: Follow the good of god, or the sadomasochism of Jesus. Catch-22. On one hand, you feed jesus your sins, and are saved. Or you practice virtue, and are punished anyways, for the Original Sin. I do not pretend to be a theologian, but are not all humans codemned for the ancestral sin of eating the apple? It seems Christianity has humanity in a vice grip. Submit to sin, admit depravity, then grovel for forgiveness. In the end you will be saved! Luckily for the church, they hold a monopoly on divine connection. That's just good fortune!

Excusing all sarcasm, where did you find this? I'm appalled and pretty curious. This seems incredibly nonsensical to me. Not because im depraved and faithless, but because I respect religion.

However, on to the real dilemma, who do I want to give my filth to? The answer, porn stars of course! At least they dont hide behind some pretense of divinity, or make allowances for man's sins. They just get paid money for them. And look trashy doing it.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:26 pm
@QuinticNon,
Good post there Camerama.

I can't help but notice that Christians actually fuel porn appeal in a way. They demonize being nude so much and lash out at sexuality it actually causes a stigma to arise that doesn't under any other condition. By demonizing it, they actually make it a cool thing for those who want to rebel. On the other hand those who have even a minor appeal for porn will feel so incredibly shameful that their sexuality might cause further psychological issues for themselves. These issues probably would never have come about but only from this harsh criticism of sexuality.

If you really don't like porn, and you want porn to go away. All you have to do is convince everyone that being nude is no big deal. What will happen is it will lose some of it's stigma. Oh, we can't have that though, it will promote the filth and encourage sex.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 04:32 pm
@QuinticNon,
There's so much wrong with this initial post - in terms of what I consider wrongness - I wouldn't know where to start.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 04:57 pm
@Khethil,
Khetil:
I agree there is some seriously twisted "doctrine" if you can call it that, although I assume the plea was a little less twisted than it came out. I rarely wish that we had the no thanks button back but 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)
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:14 pm
@QuinticNon,
Yes GoshisDead, you have definitely hit the mark of the sermon message. It's not so much that Christ actually "wants" the mans filth, as much as Christ accepts the man regardless of the filth in his life. Through that ultimate acceptance, the man gets what he really desires, and may not feel the need to sin in order to get it.

The porn star acceptance is the clever ruse. They are paid actors with the sole purpose of tricking the man into believing they accept him. Yet, they would most likely be repulsed to see the average Joe rubbing one out on his computer monitor.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:22 pm
@GoshisDead,
:whoa-dude:This guy is saying "Whoa Dude!"(or sweetheart, if you're a female I suppose)

GoshisDead;120887 wrote:

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


Haha assuming(correctly) this was directed towards my post I offer a rationalization: I was speaking syllogistically(unless i created this word) following from the OP, and within the frame of the OP.
GoshisDead;120887 wrote:

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.


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

Well yes, what you THINK, very well may be right, but what WAS POSTED is unconditional. I was interpreting WHAT WAS POSTED, while you were interpreting my interpretation. 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 perhaps my syllogism was incorrect, and excessively satirical, but(unless it can be refuted) follows logically from my inference. THIS is why I requested a confirmation of the OP because i was appalled by the framework of the sermon. IF you are right, that the sermon was......
GoshisDead;120887 wrote:

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.


THEN, you were right, but(barring sound refutation) it does not make my interpretation of the OP illogical.

GoshisDead;120887 wrote:

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)


Since my syllogism has yet to be debunked, it does hold value(at least to me:whistling:). I posted MY opinion, for ME, to reinforce, and promote MY opinion(redundance? idk) If you absolutely believe my post has no point, then what POINT could a reaction to a worthless post be. Here's another example of my shady green logical syllogisms:shifty:, My post holds zero value according to you so any acknowledgement is surely baseless as well.(Again I am trying to better my logic, so correct me if I'm wrong) I am flattered however, that you consider it vitriolic, I never considered myself very commanding with language. And lastly, excuse an faux pau(sp?), or political incorrectness, I wouldn't wanna insult anybody with any radical ideas!!!(This is a philosophy forum, for the exchange of ideas, why acquiese(sp?) to anybody but yourself.) After all, we're all rational here, the better argument will 9 times out of 10 win. I suppose the 10% deals with religious arguments where people feelings are at stake! Though you are right, I centered a "tad"(or lot) too heavily on the sermon rather than the realm of the Christian doctrine. Forgive me. Haha and yes you do know the answer if been accused of being inconsiderate, but let that take nothing away from my assertions please

Im still waiting on confirmation of the Sermon, anyone......?

P.S: I just figured out the smilies, so yeah, I'm gonna be laying them on heavily cause they're awesome.

P.P.S Although this stupid things limiting my freedom of expression...3 Smilies!? This is an outrage.

P.P.P.S- I will settle for keyboard smilies!:0
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:24 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;120904 wrote:
Yet, they would most likely be repulsed to see the average Joe rubbing one out on his computer monitor.


Hahahah good humor hahh i appreciate the mental image, thank you hahaha:lol:
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 06:39 pm
@Camerama,
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.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 07:35 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;120913 wrote:
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.


But no less valid, correct? And I hope that wasn't a stab at my more than questionable spelling, but if so, touche.

The OP asserted that "What the porn addict should realize is that Jesus Christ wants the mans filth more than the porn stars do. 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(assuming it was an official of Chrisitianity) Pastor, by assuring man reprieve from sin by giving his filth(in this case, but not exclusively, pornography) to the ONLY ONE WHO REALLY WANTS IT, suggests Jesus' sadomasochism.(Proposition i think?) Jesus of Nazereth is a mortal, I do not believe(and i'm sure we'll diverge at this point!) in the duality of Christ. "A is A," Jesus is mortal. A cannot be A and B at the same time more so than Christ can be a full fledged deity and a human coincidentally. Jesus assumes and maintains a single identity.(Law of Identity) The Sermon was quite emphatic about Jesus "Wanting" filth or sin, i suppose. As a mortal, he is subject to tantamount desires as other mortals.(Though not identical) When a man WANTS something, it is for a reason, because he believes it to be good.(right??) That's what all religion seems to deal with, forcing good on it's adherents.

The sermon ostensibly asserts Jesus WANTS man's filth, not that his love for mankind conquers his aversion for sin, but that he wants it. He "TRULY" wants it.(Even more than the most virtuous pornstar) In fact, he is "the only one that truly wants it." Therefore, under the assertion that he WANTS it, he cannot be suffering for them. It is a contradiction to claim you want something that cause you pain(morally). So, Either, this sermon(I shouldn't have said Christianity:whistling: since the sermon is an alleged,though I'm guessing authorized testament to Christianity and not the inversion) is crap, or Jesus likes pain and filth. (I'm guessing for the former). I suppose you "could" refute this by saying Jesus is not subject to morality.

The rest, though arguably derisive and inconsequential, follows from that proposition(Some are "snipes" at the Church). When speaking of the Catch-22 I'm applying the proposition to a general understanding of Christian doctrine(tell me if i'm wrong). According to(my understanding of) Christianity, you either accept your imperfection, and submit to the church, follow the commandments blindly and perfectly, or you burn in hell. From this doctrine, man "chooses" between subservience, subservience, and flames. Which would you choose? Believing the world to be flat, and the universe to be geocentric, I'm sure someone at the height of Christendom would have to be pretty audacious to refute it. But now, science has started(and i'm sure will continue) on the imperfection of the Christian Religion.

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?

I will say, that the piece about the cross was unwarrented and derisive. It wasn't meant to antagonize, just a universal analogy.

Please confront any bad logic, I'm aiming to improve.

And I'm guessing Quinticnon doesn't remember the sermon name?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 09:02 pm
@QuinticNon,
There's an old popular song called 'looking for love in all the wrong places....'

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

As for the issue itself - I think the key insight into addictions of any kind is not that you'll be punished for it, or God hates it, but simply that it is never satisfied. Like any addiction, you think you are consuming it, but actually it is consuming you. That is how the devil gets his kicks. But he is never happy - always wants more and seems to promise a lot in order to get it.

Another thing: guilt is a trap - I know this from experience - because part of the dynamic is 'the thrill of transgression'. So those who tell themselves how wicked it is are likely to fall harder. This is why I am never surprised when those who rail loudly about sin are exposed for some transgression their own.

From a Christian perspective, I would say, pray only to understand the Divine Will. If you reach that understanding then the needs and urges of the body/mind won't have the same hold. It is simple but not easy. I don't think there is a magic bullet for anything like this apart from total honesty and ruthless awareness.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 09:06 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;120905 wrote:
First I hope that "you" wasn't emphasized. I'm a good Christian!


I thought good Christians knew they were sinners.

Camerama;120905 wrote:
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.


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.

Camerama;120905 wrote:
I questioned WHY does Christ WANT it? Haha


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.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 09:11 PM ----------

Side note on Christianity and Pornography...

I live downtown across the street from the hotels and conventions centers. I do work for the hotels and more than one manager has told me that pornography video rentals quadruple when the Southern Baptists are in town for a convention.

I have no way to verify if this is true or not.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 09:17 PM ----------

jeeprs;120929 wrote:
This is why I am never surprised when those who rail loudly about sin are exposed for some transgression their own.


That doesn't surprise me any more either. I must confess to enjoying the exposed squirm and wriggle... especially the child molesters. But what does surprise me to no end is the shocking rates at which these fallen spiritual leaders are accepted back into the fold as spiritual leaders. All men are fallen, so certainly accept them back... but please, not as leaders.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 10:32 pm
@QuinticNon,
QuinticNon;120931 wrote:
I thought good Christians knew they were sinners.


And I thought you could recognize sarcasm, I was mistaken


QuinticNon;120931 wrote:
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.


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. Luckily for you, 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?

QuinticNon;120931 wrote:
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.


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.


Side note on Christianity and Pornography...

Did I once ascribe truth to my statements? Uhhh no....I simply offered an interpretation which is, as i'm sure you know, impossible without the recognition of the originator. Who is, I am guessing, beyond the grave. Whose interpretation is based on a divine order that is not subject to sensory perception. Think carefully before you accredit truth to claims that no one on earth is qualified to make.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 12:01 AM ----------

jeeprs;120929 wrote:
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.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:30 pm
@Camerama,
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.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:30 pm
@QuinticNon,
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.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:11 am
@Camerama,
Camerama;120946 wrote:
And I thought you could recognize sarcasm, I was mistaken


I do the best I can... that's why I referred to your syllogism as "sadosarcasm".

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Um, no, it was based upon the veracity of the OP.


Which veracity of the OP are you speaking of? Was it, as you say, "the message after being filtered by a fallible memory, and diluted by (my) own subjectivity."

What veracity will you trust from a fallible memory diluted by subjectivity?

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Upon the conformity of your translation to the original source.


Is my "conformity" a reliable source of veracity?

Camerama;120946 wrote:
My statements all rested on the Sermon that, with no reference, and after requests, I(perhaps foolishly) interpreted verbatim.


Perhaps.

And pardon my tardy, I must have missed your "requests" for "reference". How many requests did you make? And references on what exactly? I was in a church and heard a sermon. They promote the NIV Bible translation but accept the essence from many others including the KJV. I'll provide all the references that I can. Do you want the Pastors name? It'll take me a minute because I don't attend that church and I'd have to sort through their web site. Are you really gonna make me do that?:listening:

Camerama;120946 wrote:
I presume you directly heard the sermon.


Yes I was there in person.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Unlike me, who heard the message after being filtered by a fallible memory, and diluted by your own subjectivity.


Yes, I filtered it with your pillar of veracity. Your pillar of veracity built upon a foundation of "fallible memory" and "diluted subjectivity".

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Now tell me, now that you are offering moral instruction, what should every good Christian know?


What moral instruction have I offered? The Christian Bible is certainly not my moral instruction. This is the message of Christ, not the message of QuinticNon.

And what "every good Christian" should know, is the teachings of their own religion. One of those teachings is that Christ loves you enough to sacrifice his own physical welfare for the benefit of another.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Hail Mary!


Holy Moses!

Camerama;120946 wrote:
By the grace of god, Quinticnon offers insight into Christ's very desires.


You make this claim by offering your own "insight" into the "grace of god". How could you know that my insight is "by the grace of god" unless you yourself have insight on exactly what "the grace of god" is?

My insight is provided by studying the Christian religion. My insight is earned by the truth of my actions. My insight comes from the diligent examination of the Holy Bible and comparing my perspective with theologians, pastors, preachers, deacons and priests. I also compare my insights of Christianity to my insights of Buddhism and Hinduism. I contrast all of my insights against the sciences I have studied.

Perhaps my insights are "by the grace of god". Perhaps they are by my own hand, and propelled by a love for knowledge.

Where do you get your "insights" on "the grace of god"?

Camerama;120946 wrote:
A gift to die for.


Well see! You do get it!

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Excuse my insolence...


Yes, that's also part of the message... not mine, but the Christian Bible's.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
...not all of us are blessed with psuedodivinity.


No truer words were spoken.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Thank you for addressing the misconception.


You are very welcome. We cannot expect to know a thing unless we desire and study that thing. Although I did say this was from the Christian perspective, and we are after all in the Christianity section of the Philosophy forum, perhaps I should have reviewed the "message of Christ" for those not so well versed (a refresher course), as not to tempt them to speak upon that which they obviously know very little of.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
But seriously, who sanctions this conviction? I fear it is the Bible?


Lay your fears at ease. The Bible cannot "sanction"... It is not a "who".

Camerama;120946 wrote:
I thought we could not be so naive to validate history's scripture?


Oh I wouldn't dare try. But how is relating a philosophical query about Jesus Christ and porn addicts equal to "validating history's scripture"?

What exactly are the charges you trump up against me?

If I told a story about Zeus, would that suppose that I "validate" ancient folklore? That was a cheap shot Camerama.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
We must make allowances for subjectivity!


Lest we ignorantly claim it as veracity to build a shaky syllogism upon.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
OR is that only for Original Posts?


No no... I think it's quite fair for all comments and OP's alike.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
The Bible is the product of man, and is subject to his own interpretation.


Now is this a "veracity" or a "subjectivity"? Just want to be clear...

Camerama;120946 wrote:
The truth was surely distorted by oral recitation, and more so by thousands of year of subjective interpretation.


Shall we allow "thousands of year of subjective interpretation" to impede our pursuit of truth? Correct or not, is your statement enough to stop our search altogether?

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Nahhhh but i'm sure you got it all squared.


Of course you are sure. You have special insight into "the grace of god". You used it to claim knowledge on where my insight comes from. We just disagree where my insight comes from. I'm eagerly waiting to hear where yours comes from.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Now please, topple my syllogism.


That was handily accomplished two posts ago. And now your syllogism is chasing its tail trying to eat itself to save itself, spinning accusations of godly grace in place of scholarly study.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Except this time, try logic, not your dogmatic convictions.


What pray tell, have you gleaned about my dogmatic convictions? If you relate a story you heard, shall I accuse you of casting your dogmatic convictions upon it? The Accuser is raising his ugly head, spewing lies to be digested as truth.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Again, if you can or do I will happily revoke my assertions.


We should all get a chance to be happy in this life. Don't pass up the chance when one is handed to you in your lap.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
I simply offered an interpretation which is, as i'm sure you know, impossible without the recognition of the originator.


As I said, "Not upon the veracity, but upon the subjective interpretation of the reader".

You've come full circle to admitting what you previously denied. You said:
"I simply offered an interpretation".

You become the very thing you fear, and by your own tongue.

Camerama;120946 wrote:
Think carefully before you accredit truth to claims that no one on earth is qualified to make.


That is great advice. Have I made any claims that I wasn't qualified to make? Have you?
 
Camerama
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 12:49 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;120962 wrote:
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.


Gosh, gosh it isn't that i'm disagreeing with you on this, but it was satire(incidentally i thought it was synonomous with sarcasm:o) Hahah yes, my little discourse was derisive, but do not mistake the (acquired)target of my derision. I consider that sermon garbage and believe it, in itself an unjustified rationalization. I do rescind my vilification of Christianity, though it was not baseless. Simply put, my aspersion clouded my argument and I attacked the religion, identifying it with the sermon, but neglecting to acknowledge the cause. My emotional response to the sermon eclipsed my ability to articulate my argument sufficiently. Instead, I focus my contempt on the source of the nonsense,what i believe to be the hallmark of weakness, sacrifice. I thank you, because I impulsively berated Christianity instead of questioning the source of the anger. It is to that shapeless body that I direct my disgust, and for a singular reason, their worship of sacrifice. I realize the faith bears no accountability for the backwards attempt at preservation by it's custodians. My discord however, is not due to the sermon, but the glorification of what i believe to be it's fundamental principle. However, I implore you do not confuse the interpretation as personal beliefs. The relation to Christ as a sadist was purely satirical, moderately effective, but nontheless fallacious. I was hoping to shed light(perhaps unfairly) on the absurdity of the sermon and the idea it purports. My main objective was not, as you guessed, the ad hominem fallacy.(I still contend my logic was sound!:a-ok:) I'd say it most aptly represents the analogical fallacy. If you read carefully, the syllogism I present is simply an extrapolation of the idea i was attacking. You may think it baseless, but I will never accept a virtue with no reason behind it. Therefore I cannot accept a morality grounded in sacrifce. Explain WHY Jesus would wanted the filth of humans? I do not see the vested interest Jesus has. Why he would eternally suffer for the sins of another man. It is nonsensical. I would not hang by the noose, in the place of a convicted murderer. What is it that compels Jesus to? Love? I think that's crap as well. Love is a recognition of the VALUE in another. What value does a rapist have to me or to Jesus for that matter? It is the inanity of sacrifice I was attacking, under the pretense of faith. Any attack on Christianity is purely consequential of their practice of sacrifice as virtue.

jeeprs;120963 wrote:
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.


Haha no apologies required, betrayed again by pretension!





P.S However, you "are" mistaken if you believe I ascribed truth to my analogy. I still maintain the analogy is logically valid, but as you so aptly put, pointless. Another instance where emotion creates confusion. Emotion is a suberb driving force, but nontheless worthless in an argument

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 03:40 AM ----------

Eeeeyyyo...

Excluding any errors on my part, I've compiled a list of the only assertions i've made today that embody my beliefs, and express my worldview. Gosh and Quintec, have at em'. A way of clearing the waters before continuing. Rereading my posts, I realize they are decieving, further aggravated by a poor word choice. Speculation! Thats the word I couldn't grasp.

1.)Therein lies the problem with Christendom: Too much sacrifice, Too little production.

An assertation expressive of my actual strife with Christianity.

2.) Assuming(correctly) this was directed towards my post I offer a rationalization: I was speaking syllogistically(unless i created this word) following from the OP, and within the frame of the OP.

Self- Explanatory
3.)Hahahah good humor hahh i appreciate the mental image, thank you hahaha
An expression of my immaturity

4.) I do not believe(and i'm sure we'll diverge at this point!) in the duality of Christ. "A is A," Jesus is mortal. A cannot be A and B at the same time more so than Christ can be a full fledged deity and a human coincidentally. Jesus assumes and maintains a single identity.(Law of Identity)
An axiomatic law, i'd be impressed to see refuted.

5.)When a man WANTS something, it is for a reason, because he believes it to be good.(right??) That's what all religion seems to deal with, forcing good on it's adherents.
A cynical view of religion and a concept of human nature.


6.)It is a contradiction to claim you want something that causes you pain(morally).
I hope we're all in agreement

7.)According to(my understanding of) Christianity, you either accept your imperfection, and submit to the church, follow the commandments blindly and perfectly, or you burn in hell. From this doctrine, man "chooses" between subservience, subservience, and flames.
Another opinion of Christianity


8.)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?
An opinion of the sermon.


9.)And I thought you could recognize sarcasm, I was mistaken
A mistaken assumption


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


11.)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
A theory on the veracity of Biblical history

I may have missed some but i think this is it. These are the only ideas that prospective dispute would hold any referentail value for me. Also, that would warrant merit supposing any refuted.
 
QuinticNon
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 10:06 am
@Camerama,
Camerama;120979 wrote:
Now please, topple my syllogism.
Again, if you can or do I will happily revoke my assertions.


Sir, please make good on your word. Your syllogism has been toppled.

I cannot take another honest step with anyone who is not good to their own word.

You claimed that your syllogism was based upon the "veracity" of OP. You also claimed the OP is ""the message after being filtered by a fallible memory, and diluted by... subjectivity."

Thus your "veracity" is "fallable" and "subjective".

Toppled - Please now, do as you say: "
I will happily revoke my assertions".


I said,
"Not upon the veracity, but upon the subjective interpretation of the reader"."

You said, "I simply offered an interpretation".

You are the reader... right?

Please retract your assertion so we can kindly move along. Your latest post only demonstrates your lacking knowledge of the Christian faith and obvious desire to promote your own private agenda against it.


 
Camerama
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 11:42 am
@QuinticNon,
Perhaps my ignorance prevents a revelation, but here goes. Please, have patience. I'll try to prevent any ambiguity.

1.)Veracity means conformity to fact. Do you comply?

2.) MY initial post was, as I said, rather foolishly based on the assumption(I know) that your translation was verbatim.

3.) My original post carried almost no weight, simply because it was based on an infallible translation. I acknowledge this.

4.) Did you assume that its length and derision qualified it's truth? Because I ascribed no truth to it.

5.) It was simply and entirely, a satirical response to the only source to which I could respond(grammar i know)

6.) In that context, I asserted yes, a nearly worthless post. However any post on an unconfirmed translation(that I asked to be confirmed several times) is virtually worthless.

7.) I again maintain, that my original post was an extrapolation of an interpretation that was grounded in the contingent truth of YOUR OP. Your statement, with no reference, followed from itself hanging independent in the realm of ideas. It was to THAT, I offered satire.

8.) Until you are able to confirm your source, you force any forum goers to either bypass the question on a philosophical(but not a practical) level.

9.) It was the intrinsic value of the sermon i was primarily concerned with, not with it's external effects.

10.) Does this help? It might be shaky but I gotta go, but would like a response when I return.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 11:55 am
@Camerama,
Cam:
When speaking about religion in an empirical sense, there is normally no good reason to disagree with anything simply because there was no good reason to believe it it the first place. Thus when speaking of religion there must be a suspension of empiricism and a retention of mysticism. Mysticism allowing an entirely different base from which to argue a point. The two bases mysticism and empiricism are often mutually exclusive. However I am much more impressed with the post of yours that I thanked because it actually lays out a series of issues you have with Christianity and religion in general. The list you laid out has been hashed out on this forum ad nauseum so I will not be addressing any of them that are not directly related to the OP. However, I was interested in the point you did make concerning the OP, that of sacrifice. Since you presented an opinion I cannot say that you are wrong, nor do I want to. I will simply present my reflections on several reasons sacrifice is such a major lynchpin of most religions.

Sacrifice is at the same time both the most natural and most unatural of human behaviors. Most religions have sacrifice of something as a central theme, whether it be sacrifice of desire, or animal/crop sacrifice. Sacrifice is intended to show fealty to an ideal in the mystical sense and submission to an earthly manifestation of that ideal. This phenomenon is not restricted to religion. It is manifest in political structure, social structure, cultural structure, even manifest in non-human animals' social structures. In fact it may be hard wired into us. Animals may not have an abstract 'ideal' but they have social structures that in many cases have undecipherable aesthetic preferences that to us seem arbitrary. The way sacrifice has permeated into every facet of our social structure cross culturally is likely a reflection of the same traits we see in social animals. Whatever the reasons; we sacrifice to those powers that be in almost all facets of our social lives.

Even though our whole lives consist of us sacrificing our desires for those of a 'greater cause/good' when we reflect we feel the sense of individuality and egoism that shows that we are not getting our way by acting in such a manner. The self in its self awareness realizes that it wants what it wants. This prompts rationalizations for self indulgent/promoting behaviors. The self being the aware self also comprises the animal self, the self which notices that it has the ability in many cases to get what it wants by acting contrary to the status quo. So it feels completely natural to not-sacrifice. Thus sacrifice comes naturally and not-sacrifice comes naturally.

Sacrifice is often not understood in the context of actually making a sacrifice. A sacrifice is a transaction not theft. Sacrifice is the voluntary relinquishment of something important in exchange for something more important. Most often it is the voluntary relinquishment of a material thing for an immaterial thing, hence the feeling of sacrifice as theft, and thus the reason sacrifice cannot rightly be discussed on a purely empirical level. However, it is highly unlikey that someone would consciously sacrifice a material thing for an immaterial thing that they deemed had less value.

Speaking specifically of religion, sacrifice becomes more specifically needed as a type of the inherent role is has in all life. Religion codifies the abstract ideal, often by the hyperbole of the function of our social structure as does most ritual. Thus it addresses the codification of sacrifice. In the case of Christianity it codifies it not only in the sacrifice of the members of said religion, it codifies it in the sacrifice a god made for its members to become godly. The very fact that sacrifice in its many avatars is so permiated in everything we do to maintain social order as social animals is a prime reason it is a central theme of religion. Assuming that God is the creator of all things, it stands to reason that one of the central tenets of man's natural behavior would be a central tenet to religion. Also assuming the veracity of Christianity, why would God himself not sacrifice his son, and why would his son also being a God not sacrifice for his brethren? If we as humans maintain order through sacrifice why not God?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Pornography and Grace
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 08:00:49