Pornography

[underbear1]

The porn I occasionally watch/read doesn't exploit women, cuz there aren't any women in those films or magazines. My opinion about porn is whatever an adult chooses to view (with the exception of kiddie porn) is no one else's damn business. As for fetishes, you can name any item, and some group of people will want to have sex with it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Huzzah for being the Moral Minority.

Why do you see porn as morally wrong?

[Osborn F Enready]

Because anyone without "her" morals is morally wrong, come on!

LOL

[phoenix_fire]

Ok, Ozzy, let's totally misconstrue things. Honestly, I used that particular wording because I couldn't resist the joke. The so-called "Moral Majority" thing kinda annoys me honestly.

But at any rate, I do disagree with pornography on a moral basis. That is my right. The Christians in the first few centuries of the church would not take part in any of the traditional Roman entertainments because putting that garbage in one's mind taints it. Christians are called to closely police their thoughts. Jesus says "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," (Matthew 5:28). And, of course, adultery is morally wrong.

I think that indulging in such things compromises true relationships with real people. I believe that sex should be reserved for marriage. Your sexual experience should revolve around only one person. In the prophets, God equates idolatry with marital infidelity. Marriage is supposed to parallel one's relationship with God, and that connection is made many times. God is a jealous God and He takes this stuff personally.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, I don't believe in gods or devils, as many.

I just got offended because I consider myself MORAL but I enjoy porn.

I guess I was asking what makes your morals better than my morals.....neener neener neener.

[phoenix_fire]

I rather imagine that is a trick question.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yes, but never the less to illicit a response.

Which response?

That you would see morals extend as far as your nose.

[phoenix_fire]

Yet it is a Catch-22. You can't criticize me for having them. That would make you a hypocrite.

Hey, I was asked what I thought and I answered.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Ok, Ozzy, let's totally misconstrue things. Honestly, I used that particular wording because I couldn't resist the joke. The so-called "Moral Majority" thing kinda annoys me honestly. But at any rate, I do disagree with pornography on a moral basis. That is my right. The Christians in the first few centuries of the church would not take part in any of the traditional Roman entertainments because putting that garbage in one's mind taints it. Christians are called to closely police their thoughts. Jesus says "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," (Matthew 5:28). And, of course, adultery is morally wrong. I think that indulging in such things compromises true relationships with real people. I believe that sex should be reserved for marriage. Your sexual experience should revolve around only one person. In the prophets, God equates idolatry with marital infidelity. Marriage is supposed to parallel one's relationship with God, and that connection is made many times. God is a jealous God and He takes this stuff personally.

Ok. Your religion would tell you so..

but why is looking at a woman lustfully adultery with her? Why does Jesus say so? I know you can quote statements from the bible, but that's only as good as a second opinion. I want reasons.

Watching people have sex isn't the same as having sex so I'm a bit confused where you are getting your "save sex for marriage" argument with that logic.

[phoenix_fire]

Because if you're going to be totally fair about sin, you have to count intent along with action. Here's an example: two men want to kill a man. One has a knife and despite his best efforts, the man survives. The other has a gun and he blows the guy away. Does that make the first less guilty than the second? If the first had a gun too, do you not think he could have achieved the same result as the second? Or, if you wanted to debate action versus inaction, consider a paralytic. Should his wish to kill someone be considered less of a crime because he would not be able to carry it out? In the court of law, these things would probably be true, but this is because an imperfect system is incapable of really proving what someone is thinking. Therefore, it operates on evidence and absolutes. But if you're omniscient...

But I digress. My argument was that an individual's carnal knowledge should be limited to his/her mate. It may bother you that I take the Bible at its word, but nevertheless, that is what you deal with when you deal with me. I think that it is dishonest to a relationship to have sexual thoughts about other people. I hope one day to be married, and when/if that happens, I don't want my husband to be thinking about other women in a sexual way. I would feel cheated. Not only that, but what one thinks, one has a tendency to eventually do. If he's thinking about having sex with other women, one day there is a very good chance that he might actually put those thoughts into action.

[underbear1]

phoenix fire you might want to take a close look at the Sistine Chapel, and then tell us how Christians don't like their porn. The ideal male figures (ingundi) have no Biblical reason to be portrayed except Michealangelo enjoyed painting beautiful male nudes, and the decorative cupids are very raunchy poses of squeezing one another's nipples.

[phoenix_fire]

Yeah, and during this time period, they were also having the Inquisition. It was art at the time. They figured they were glorifying God by showing the natural beauty of the human form...or something like that. It wasn't supposed to be erotic. It wasn't supposed to make you think of having sex. I mean, at this point in time, women nursed uncovered in public.

[Osborn F Enready]

Phoenix Fire said: Yet it is a Catch-22. You can't criticize me for having them.

I say:
I have every right to criticize you for having them, and you have every right to ignore me.

Phoenix Fire said: That would make you a hypocrite.

I say:
It would only make me a hypocrite if my views, as yours, contained projection of my beliefs onto others.

That is why I said what I did, for the reason I did.

I answered that I thought porn was good.

You answered that porn was bad, and that "clarified" yourself as being above all others who disagreed by saying you were part of a "moral minority".

Seems like your entire facade of relgion, as all religions, is built on the premise that some people are inherantly BETTER than others, and your line of delineation is "those who believe" and "those who don't".

How on $&% green earth does that mean I am a hypocrite, because I criticize you for being a classist based on your inherant beliefs that you are superior to those not like you?

Touche'!

Phoenix Fire said: Hey, I was asked what I thought and I answered.

I say:
I had no problem with YOUR ANSWER, just your insults to those not like you.

[phoenix_fire]

Ozzy...you're so ready to beat me into the ground just because I'm a theist. I tend to get that a lot on this board. I can't open my mouth (metaphorically speaking) without someone wanting to shout me down about being an intolerant, self-righteous Nazi. How very intolerant and self-righteous of them. You are a hypocrite. You believe that pornography is ok. You believe, based on your particular canon of laws, that people should be relatively unhindered to do what they please. You believe that it is wrong to voice the opinion that people are wrong in doing something. And then you turn around and criticize me for believing what I believe. You believe that you are superior due to your "enlightened" stance. You are a hypocrite. If you truly believed what you claim, you wouldn't say a word to me. You would just dismiss it as my right.

(I did mention that the "Moral Minority" thing was a joke, right? Not my fault you don't pay attention.)

You know, I didn't even go into a discussion of what I believed until someone asked. I wasn't even going to say anything. And yet you say I'm trying to project my beliefs onto others. *shakes head*

Quote by: Ozzy Seems like your entire facade of relgion, as all religions, is built on the premise that some people are inherantly BETTER than others, and your line of delineation is "those who believe" and "those who don't".

Here, let me give you a quote:

Quote by: Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

These are words that I live by, even if you don't. As a matter of fact (and I'm checking right now), I don't think I insulted anyone. Nope. You just chose to get insulted. Maybe you should be a little more open-minded about people who believe differently from you. :)

[G. Adams]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Yeah, and during this time period, they were also having the Inquisition. It was art at the time. They figured they were glorifying God by showing the natural beauty of the human form...or something like that. It wasn't supposed to be erotic. It wasn't supposed to make you think of having sex. I mean, at this point in time, women nursed uncovered in public.

Just goes to show how much we've regressed over time.

[Allas]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Because if you're going to be totally fair about sin, you have to count intent along with action. Here's an example: two men want to kill a man. One has a knife and despite his best efforts, the man survives. The other has a gun and he blows the guy away. Does that make the first less guilty than the second? If the first had a gun too, do you not think he could have achieved the same result as the second? Or, if you wanted to debate action versus inaction, consider a paralytic. Should his wish to kill someone be considered less of a crime because he would not be able to carry it out? In the court of law, these things would probably be true, but this is because an imperfect system is incapable of really proving what someone is thinking. Therefore, it operates on evidence and absolutes. But if you're omniscient...

Wow... How you managed to reach those conclusion is well beyond me. Im going to assume there has been one hell of a bias and taint in your upbringing.

Let me try and throw, what must be a completely original concept to you, out there; its called impuls control. You see, i might want to indulge in sexual activity with some random woman i happen to pass on the street, but charging at her and raping her isnt exactly the same. We all (yes, even you) have spontanious desires and wants, being able to administer them and regulate them, deny them if need be, is called impuls control - all functioning adults have it.

In your simulation, you are forgetting the third man, the one who simply wants to kill but doesnt because he realizes its wrong. If we are to pass your example onto a "sexual desire" playing field, then we assume that men would rape women at will if they had better means to do so - that is hardly the case. Also, in your analogy, you are assuming that every gun carrying bastard on the planet, by default, does not think "i want to kill that son of a bitch", because doing so, coupled with the means to do so easily will automatically equate executing that impuls.

I find it rather ironic that you, being a christian, seem to be misunderstood the free will concept. Let me enlighten you here, every straight man on the planet is guilty of the biblical definition of adultery - no exception.

[whoracle]

Allas, regarding your last sentence...I'd add to that - every straight, gay, or otherwise sexually oriented individual, both male and female....whether you admit it or not is another story.

[Osborn F Enready]

Phoenix said: Ozzy...you're so ready to beat me into the ground just because I'm a theist.

I say:
Only due to the "jabs" you litter around, and I have every right to "contend" those jabs.

How did you arrive at a "moral minority" in this thread? Did you not use the numbers in the poll to determine that all those that voted other than you "were in the immoral majoirty", since you classified yourself, as the "moral minority"?

LOL, whatever.....

Phoenix said: I can't open my mouth (metaphorically speaking) without someone wanting to shout me down about being an intolerant, self-righteous Nazi.

I say:
It isn't because you are a theist. It is because you are a theist who drops jabs, as the one I CLARIFIED above, and then gets offended when they return against you, as you SHOULD have expected.

Phoenix said: How very intolerant and self-righteous of them. You are a hypocrite.

I say:
I am a hypocrite(?) because I faulted you for what you said, which was clearly a jab against the "non-theists" on here? You weren't making that wording as it was, to show your "perceived" superiority in the "moral minority"?

LOL, ok, sure.

Phoenix said: You believe that pornography is ok.

I say:
Thats what I said.

Phoenix said: You believe, based on your particular canon of laws, that people should be relatively unhindered to do what they please.

I say:
With respect to the equal rights of others, sure. I see all people as equals.

Phoenix said: You believe that it is wrong to voice the opinion that people are wrong in doing something.

I say:
No, actually I exercised that right when I asked you why you assume I must be immoral due to my vote. YOU faulted ME for being intolerant, because I called you on your words and asked what you meant.

What a bully I am, how do people take me......

Phoenix said: And then you turn around and criticize me for believing what I believe

.

I say:
Where did I say that? Can you quote me?

I faulted you for ASSUMING I was immoral, because "my" morals don't fit into your idea of morals, and you labeled me and all others who voted in any measure FOR pornography, as being in the IMMORAL majority, since that is the OPPOSITE of what YOU CLAIMED, which is that YOU were in the MORAL MINORITY.

Does that clarify things?

Phoenix said: You believe that you are superior due to your "enlightened" stance.

I say:
I am not, nor have I EVER said I was superior to anyone. I may have claimed to "know a little more" or "grasp a little more" than others, and crafted insults around the concept, but I have NEVER said I was superior to ANYONE, well except in the line of work, where MY boss told me I was the ACTING SUPERIOR on the shift.

I asked you to explain how I WAS IMMORAL, since YOU labeled me in the IMMORAL MAJORITY.

That must be how superiors show their superiority, eh? Asking honest questions.....

Phoenix said: You are a hypocrite. If you truly believed what you claim, you wouldn't say a word to me. You would just dismiss it as my right.

I say:

LOL, yea, sure, prove that using my words hon. You know I do it to you, when you put your own foot in your mouth, so please have the same courtesy.

I wouldn't have said a word, until you DUG INTO ME ON PURPOSE, by alluding to the IDEA that YOU were the MORAL MINORITY, and all others made up the IMMORAL MAJORITY.

But, in a sense you are right about one thing (from my perspective, don't want to seem to "intolerant or HOLIER THAN THOU") and that is that I AM extremely sensitive to ALL theists right now, because I see everyday how THEISTS are attempting to subvert my laws and government.

So yea, I do sharpen the claws when I see a theist, especially when they like putting their OWN foot in their OWN mouth. They make my work easy.....

[phoenix_fire]

I am not, nor have I EVER said I was superior to anyone.

Neither did I. You are the one who is flying off the handle here. I'm just watching you twist in the wind. You're such a mass of contradictions.

[Osborn F Enready]

LOL, thanks for printing out my contradictions, that are so aplenty they litter every thread.....

Yea....ummmm. sure.


Lets drop the whole thing, and I will just ask you the original question.

If you are the "moral" minority, what does that make the majority?