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.
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 ----------
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.
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.
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.