Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The God of my understanding has no interest whatsoever in our use of the natural drives that are part of our being, as long as they do NOT harm ourselves or others. You decide what that means regarding pornography because I would not presume to speak for God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i am asking you to speak for yourself
you frequently use the term and concept "agape love"
and my understanding of your quote is that pornography is condoned by what you term "agape love"
and that pornography is not morally wrong using your moral compass of "agape love"
There are things that are morally wrong and those violate agape love There are things that are moral and they are compatible with agape love. There are things that are neither moral nor immoral (amoral) and they have nothing to do with agape love. Anything that does NOT violate agape love is either moral or amoral and of no concern to God.
There are things that are morally wrong and those violate agape love There are things that are moral and they are compatible with agape love. There are things that are neither moral nor immoral (amoral) and they have nothing to do with agape love. Anything that does NOT violate agape love is either moral or amoral and of no concern to God.
it seems then that your moral compass "agape love" approves of pornography and does not find it morally wrong
i would say then that such a moral compass is either broken, defective, or non-existent
i couldn't care less what you do in your personal life and it is none of my business. I am only mentioning this because you boast constantly of the superiority of "agape love" over any other moral or ethical guidelines and yet for a moral compass (what you call "agape love") to approve of pornography, and for you to state that pornography does not cause harm, shows me that it is not at all a standard that has much to recommend it.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-24-2016 at 10:23 PM..
Interesting of your perspective in the United States. It is frequently been documented in Canada that the girls who work in strip clubs, often from Eastern European countries, are little more than possessions and traded by organized crime including motorcycle gangs.
The issue of temporary foreign workers in the field has been addressed the number of years ago now.
However, the trafficking still exists. I would be amazed that the United States is largely immune from this.
The U.S. is largely free of this.
I remember a few years back some mob guy in New York City had brought in a bunch of Russian girls on work visas. They thought they would be waitresses and hostesses. They were stripping instead...and that was mainly to set up prostitution deals.
But this is very rare and seldom seen...let alone frequent.
In a city the size of New York you will find some of everything and anything happening...in any industry.
For those that see stripping itself as something wrong...anyone doing it is violating moral standards.
Then again...they would be even more shocked to witness girls on "Spring Break" and see what they pay to go do.
For a society to survive, they people must learn to work together.
Look at a troop of chimpanzees. They do not have a Bible, or a religion, yet the colony cares for the young and assists the elderly. They inherantly know that for the troop to survive, they must work together, They have Evolved into this
So is the case with humans Before the Bible was written, or before god was invented even, villages of cro-magnons 35000 years ago learned that by dividing work and working together, the village and the tribe would survive. They did not need a gawd or gods to say
"Worship me first and don;t kill each other"...they knew that murder affected the social output of the tribe and lead to strife and pain. They knew that stealing from each other led to violence. Any society will evolve these traits within itself to survive.
Such are what we call morals, which continue to evolve today.
No God needed, or wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
I agree with most of what you say. I am a bit puzzled, though, about where the moral compass comes from, if not religion? I guess it comes from one's upbringing?
The only atheist I know personally, is uneducated. I know he is not smarter than all the biblical Scholars in the world, so that just confirms my opinion of him.
I was raised in the church, although I am not a church goer. I draw on my belief for strength and comfort, in times of stress. I am at a loss why others would not find comfort in this.
Are you implying that the troop of chimpanzees got their morality from religion? Maybe it's just me, but I've never seen a chimpanzee in church.
There are things that are morally wrong and those violate agape love There are things that are moral and they are compatible with agape love. There are things that are neither moral nor immoral (amoral) and they have nothing to do with agape love. Anything that does NOT violate agape love is either moral or amoral and of no concern to God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
it seems then that your moral compass "agape love" approves of pornography and does not find it morally wrong
i would say then that such a moral compass is either broken, defective, or non-existent
i couldn't care less what you do in your personal life and it is none of my business. I am only mentioning this because you boast constantly of the superiority of "agape love" over any other moral or ethical guidelines and yet for a moral compass (what you call "agape love") to approve of pornography, and for you to state that pornography does not cause harm, shows me that it is not at all a standard that has much to recommend it.
"It seems" is not what it seems. There is nothing in Mystic's post that approves pornography....or disapproves. The point remains that no intrinsic harm to anyone has been demonstrated, and until some such can be demonsterated there is no indication that it is wrong.
There are some things that come under the idea that personal feelings determine whether something should be done or not and when people see something that they feel is wrong but show no demonstrable harm in they should not enforce their perceptions on other people.
The standard is demonstrable harm and you have not met it in the case of pornography as being intrinsically harmful. That there are related harms in the industry does not make pornography harmful in itself. Personally, I feel that it is harmful to the people who purvey it and to the people who participate in it, but it is nothing I can demonstrate.
I used to do that myself and it is fine if it works for you, but it doesn't work for a lot of people for a variety of reasons. In my case, I simply rethought the claims of my religious beliefs and found them logically inconsistent, and non-predictive and non-explanatory of reality as I experienced it. Once that happens you can no longer believe, much less draw comfort from your belief. If you find your current beliefs comforting and your life rationalizable, then don't take chances or think too much and you will be fine ;-)
I wonder what you replaced it with then? There have been times in my life that I have "let go and let God" and it really helped me get through it. I can, of course, rationalize that there is no God, but why would I want to? My world view, in these times when there is so much danger that I cannot control, is to just decide to let God take care of things. I cannot imagine how anyone makes it through life without this "crutch". I think it is significant that all humans throughout history have devised a form of religion that works for them. It seems innate.
What I am trying to say is that it does not really matter if there is a God or not, but only if a person decides to believe in one or not.
I wonder what you replaced it with then? There have been times in my life that I have "let go and let God" and it really helped me get through it.
That is answerable on many different levels. For example, here's a rhetocial question: when you "let go" is the "and let God" part of it really necessary to gain the benefits of letting go? "And let God" is simply your explanation for why "let go" works. I would submit that god is not a necessary entity to explain why letting go of attachments to particular outcomes (a central tenet of Buddhism, by the way, which promotes the notion without any deity at all) produces peace of mind and higher levels of contentment.
On another level you might say that I didn't feel the need to replace it. Trusting in some ultimate closure or justice beyond the grave, when you think about it, is pretty cold comfort in the life we find ourselves in and are obliged to cope with. I have come to believe, upon studying philosophy, anthropology, psychology and sociology without a bunch of god assumptions mixed in, that the way forward for humanity in the long run is to constantly challenge its assumptions and illusions, and to have a better understanding of the sources of our angst. Much of humanity has been and still is engaged in immortality projects to manage human's unique awareness and dread of his own mortality. I have found learning to accept and engage with bare-metal reality to be a better path overall. But it's not an easy one for a deconvert to embark upon unless you have nothing to lose anymore. Such was the situation I found myself in in my late 40s. All the things I considered unthinkable had already happened, so there was only upside potential in shedding my illusions and delusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
I can, of course, rationalize that there is no God, but why would I want to? My world view, in these times when there is so much danger that I cannot control, is to just decide to let God take care of things. I cannot imagine how anyone makes it through life without this "crutch". I think it is significant that all humans throughout history have devised a form of religion that works for them. It seems innate.
Religion is just one way to express what is innate. Historically it was ... shall we say, "imprudent" not to at least affect some form of religion, but strictly speaking, political, financial or social power and influence, warfare and other heroic exploits and conquests, accumulation of wealth, etc., can all be engaged in without religion -- and increasingly, often are. They are all part and parcel of the same thing, the desire to symbolically and psychologically transcend mortality and suffering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
What I am trying to say is that it does not really matter if there is a God or not, but only if a person decides to believe in one or not.
This is true, but I would add that what is even more consequential is how aware one is of their own angst and its sources and the best way to cope with it, as well as the most effective ways to make and find meaning and purpose.
Personally, I feel that it is harmful to the people who purvey it and to the people who participate in it, but it is nothing I can demonstrate.
that is correct, pornography is harmful
those who justify and rationalize otherwise lack a moral compass
i have no interest in proving or arguing why it is harmful, any more than i would explain to someone that crack cocaine and smoking cigarettes are harmful. what is of note is that he takes the lofty stance of being guided by "agape love" or the "Holy Spirit" as a reliable source of impeccable direction in daily life, and at the same time approves of pornography. huge disconnect there.
that is correct, pornography is harmful
those who justify and rationalize otherwise lack a moral compass
i have no interest in proving or arguing why it is harmful, any more than i would explain to someone that crack cocaine and smoking cigarettes are harmful. what is of note is that he takes the lofty stance of being guided by "agape love" or the "Holy Spirit" as a reliable source of impeccable direction in daily life, and at the same time approves of pornography. huge disconnect there.
Why would you consider pornography harmful? Maybe the better analysis is that what one does in response to watching pornography could sometimes be considered harmful. Certainly you wouldn't consider simply masturbation while watching pornography or pornography as foreplay between consenting adults harmful. Or would you?
Mordant, I am well aware of the horrors and greed perpetrated in the name of organized religion and you will get no argument from me about that. I think that is why I never make the effort to find a church. It seems like a waste to support a building, when the money could be used to actually feed or house people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never seen a chimpanzee in church. 
