is porn against God?

[lovejoy]

I am more concerned about other issues.

1. Is watching porn in your own home (not using company's time) against the law ?

2. Is watching porn at your private home being monitored by the State, Crown, your company, police, etc.

3. I live in N.America and I happened to work for the government owned crown corporation. Just say "Post office" U.S. Postal Service. Nothing major.
but why they want to know employees private bsuiness.

4. I don't do anything against the law and why companies keep a close eye on on their employees. I just don't understand.

5. I don't know if Jesus's girlfriend was called Meladeline, who someone said was a "bad" girl. I don't know that.

6. The issue is no company has the right to prey on employee's private home

P.S. By the way, I bought a new computer and had parental control and all kind of security and contents which "kept me" from watching porn at Freeones !!

 

[Imagine]

How are so many people in here so good at misunderstanding what I write? The issue is over the founders of the religion, not future adherents. The original missionaries. The people around Jesus himself. Those are the ones that matter whether or not they followed their beliefs unto death. That is what makes their decision relevant. If they made it up, they wouldn't die for it. That's the point, not that some time later someone believed what they were told and died for it. The ones in direct contact/relation to Jesus were the ones who knew the truth about him.

There was a Jewish rebellion right around that time, was there not? People die for non-religious reasons all the time as well, but generally, saying you have God behind you makes for a better story.

Response to your first paragraph...

Pencils have erasers. The church had plenty of those, I'm sure (metaphorically speaking, obviously). The church has shown they've been more than willing to... edit, shall we say, documents that they didn't like. A document that said Jesus didn't exist or wasn't anything special more than a leader of a rebellion would probably be one of those. They've certainly had the opportunity. Tell me, what do these other sources have to say about Jesus, short of him existing or recounting what his followers has said?

Why would a person like Pilate be unquestionably real yet a person like Jesus likely never existed. Again, it's not that because he existed he was God. He existed, and then one can decide if he was more. It's historical malpractice to claim he never lived.

Fair enough, but it's historical malpractice to claim he did anything but exist as well. When I speak of Jesus, I speak of the biblical version. I don't really care whether he existed or not if he was anything but. If he's not what the bible says, then he is completely irrelevant in a discussion about God.

 

[VidKing]

There was a Jewish rebellion right around that time, was there not? People die for non-religious reasons all the time as well, but generally, saying you have God behind you makes for a better story.



Pencils have erasers. The church had plenty of those, I'm sure (metaphorically speaking, obviously). The church has shown they've been more than willing to... edit, shall we say, documents that they didn't like. A document that said Jesus didn't exist or wasn't anything special more than a leader of a rebellion would probably be one of those. They've certainly had the opportunity. Tell me, what do these other sources have to say about Jesus, short of him existing or recounting what his followers has said?



Fair enough, but it's historical malpractice to claim he did anything but exist as well. When I speak of Jesus, I speak of the biblical version. I don't really care whether he existed or not if he was anything but. If he's not what the bible says, then he is completely irrelevant in a discussion about God.

1st paragraph response: There were many Jewish rebellions throughout their oppression (e.g. Macabean). However, there was something different about the Christian rebellion against Rome. The early followers were pacifists. So how does creating a false religion based on the principles of pacifism seem like a logical way to overthrow the power of Rome? Rome was the most powerful and largest empire in human history. It's completely illogical, however, it actually worked nearly 300 years later under the emperor Constantine when he made Christianity the official religion of the empire.

2nd paragraph response: Regarding the "other" sources, why are they any more reliable than the ones grouped together to comprise the New Testament? Also, I already showed you what Josephus wrote. I would like you to provide some examples of the "church's editing." You've got to understand that if there is a document that says "Jesus was just a regular dude" that doesn't make all the other ones false. The historical question of who was Jesus really is unanswerable. It is only answerable if it is asked as a religious (not historical) question. You can't prove Godhood through historical study. This is part of why so many atheists deny "God." God doesn't fit in our scientific, empirical way of proving things. So it only makes sense to come to the conclusion that there is no god if that is your method of determing if there is a god. It's the method. Religion doesn't opporate in the realm of empirical evidence. It's evidence is in the transformation of lives. Jesus said, "Whatever you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me." An interpretation of this is, to serve God, you must serve others. It's a transformation of thought and actions that shows its validity. And it's not delivered in a purely philosophical sense but a religious one.

3rd paragraph response: That is fine if you only want to think of him as God, but that isn't what you argued before. You argued that he was like King Arthur, just a fairy tale. By the way, the Gospels are unique in that they aren't simply history and they aren't simply theology. They hold a special ground in between the two because the historical events they talk about are meant to convince the reader of a truth (John's Gospel specifically claims this). It would be like me telling you a "literally happened" story and then saying "this is the deeper meaning." Think about it, a historical event isn't salvific (death on a cross), it's the "application" of what that means that is salvific. At least, that is how one of my professors described the Gospels to us.

 

[Imagine]

Regarding the "other" sources, why are they any more reliable than the ones grouped together to comprise the New Testament?

Not necessarily more reliable, but any Christian source would certainly have a fair amount of interest in maintaining the belief. Now, if you could find a verified source that didn't believe in Jesus that said that he rose from the grave and all that, it'd be far more convincing than a source that could have had all sorts of reasons for why it'd want the lie to be maintained.

Also, I already showed you what Josephus wrote.

Yes indeed you did. He said that a Christian source claimed something, not that it was true. As it seems he was not contemporary to Jesus, I'd be interested in his sources as well. A source that relies on flawed sources is flawed as well.

I would like you to provide some examples of the "church's editing."

I gave you one before: King Arthur (Celtic). If you want another, Christmas (Pagan). I know some saints were also of Celtic origin, though I don't remember their names at the moment.

You've got to understand that if there is a document that says "Jesus was just a regular dude" that doesn't make all the other ones false.

Nor does it make them true. Do you always operate under the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle?

That is fine if you only want to think of him as God, but that isn't what you argued before. You argued that he was like King Arthur, just a fairy tale.

What I said was that there is no more reason to believe that Jesus was what the bible claims than to believe that King Arthur was what the stories claim. Yet more people seem to believe in Jesus than in King Arthur. Again, this means nothing, except possibly that Jesus was a more convincing lie. I don't know if Jesus was everything the bible says or not. No one does, except those delusional enough.
To get back to what my original point was, this makes belief in Christian values no less arbitrary than belief in any other religious values. Everyone create their own God, some merely have more people agree with their interpretation. I admit, it's possible that one religion actually got it right, but you have zero evidence for which religion that is. Anything you have to say about making up God and moral values could just as well apply to you, unless of course you have some evidence for why your particular interpretation of whatever religion you follow is the one and only correct interpretation.

 

[VidKing]

You're asking for a source that believed he rose from the dead after three days, yet wasn't a Christian? Do you see the problem with that? It would be quite difficult to believe that happened but then think, "man what a cool regular dude who is totally not god."

Regarding Josephus, he was a historian. All he has to go on is what he saw and heard. I believe he lived in Rome (or at least not in Palestine), so if he wrote anything about Jesus, it wouldn't be something he saw with his own eyes. Historians aren't limited to what they witnessed. They can write about what others tell them about an event/person. We take serious what veterans of WW2 say when they speak about what happened to them, right? We would consider what a lot of them say (if the stories are similar) to be credible and historically accurate even though we didn't witness it. Josephus tells us what people in the area were saying about him (and the synoptic Gospels are an example of agreement in testimony).

I guess we'll just have to see it differently because I don't see how Christianity "created God." Jesus was a "revelation" or a revealing of who God was, not a creation.

If you're looking for empirical evidence, you're not going to find much. We're 2000 years removed from the life of Jesus. There were no video cameras, no surviving original manuscripts, etc. All we're left with is the possibility. We're left with a group of completely changed people who gave up their whole life's work (e.g. Peter and Paul) to follow a traveling preacher/teacher. I think that is a bit stronger evidence than the Easter Bunny. However, it's not a historical question and that is why it's not a nice, neat answer. It's interesting how one writer in the New Testament talks about how Christianity is foolishness to the wise (I Corinthians 2). It doesn't make sense to the unbeliever because it's not of this physical world. This same writer claimed that "faith" is a gift. It doesn't come by pure reason or intellect. It comes as a revelation unforced. I, personally, still have reason and still understand your arguments, yet I can't say you're right. I believe despite my knowledge of evolution, geology, astronomy, etc. It's not a choice.

There is a book called "Flatland" which tells the story of people trapped in a 2 dimensional world. They can go up/down and left/right but not forward backward. Their entire world has always been this way so they have no concept of "forward/backward." They understand their world in these terms. If a ring were to invade their world, they would interpret what they saw as a 2D image despite what it really was. It would be this point that divided into two points and then two longer points and then back to two normal points, then a small point, and then it would be gone. Well, the religious point of this, is to say, some have seen more to this world than the rhetorical "2 dimensions." If you take a whiteboard pen and look at it solely broadly (as in a "straight on angle"), it looks to be a rectangle. If you look at it solely narrowly, it looks to be a circle. Which is it? It can't be both can it? Not in flatland. Not in its understanding of how the world works. It can once we understand the world to be bigger. Once we get that there is more going on than we realize. What if our world has more going on than we realize? Did you know that most scientists now think we have more than 11 dimensions? We have so much that we still don't know about our world (e.g. dark matter/energy). I don't think we should be so certain there isn't a god.

But I think we should just agree to disagree because I understand your issues with the historicity of Jesus. The problem of multiple religions. The problem of church additions. I get all these problems, yet I still believe. It's not a choice for me. It isn't a struggle. So, I can respect what you think, and I hope you respect my view.

 

[Jagger69]

I have not read all the responses to this so sorry if this is redundant but, if you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God....then that God made porn so....how can porn be against God if He made it to begin with?

 

[Imagine]

You're asking for a source that believed he rose from the dead after three days, yet wasn't a Christian? Do you see the problem with that? It would be quite difficult to believe that happened but then think, "man what a cool regular dude who is totally not god."

Roman mythology includes a lot of "miracles", including people rising from the dead. It is possible to accept that it happens, without accepting the reason for why. Such was the case when incorporating conquered cultures into the Roman. I can accept that people are sometimes cured of cancer for no obvious reason, but it doesn't mean I'm going to jump to the conclusion that God did it.


As for the rest, I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. I see little difference between atheism and religion, they both make an assumption with no evidence supporting it. They merely happen to come to the opposite conclusion. I prefer atheism, for the simple reason that it tends to lean more towards the leave-me-alone stance, while various religions tends to be more about do-as-I-say. Religious groups wanting to ban various things, like abortion and certain gay rights is a good example. If they don't like those things, they are free not to have abortions or being gay. Don't stop me from doing those things because your God doesn't like it. Besides, the Invisible Pink Unicorn told me it was okay, so there.

I can't respect your view if that view includes that it's okay to force your values upon others for whatever reason, or thinking that your values are better than others merely because they come out of different book. As far as I'm concerned, there is no distinction between love and hate or whatever other reason you can think of, they are all yours, and they are all subjective (or if it's someone else's reason, you know nothing of it). There is no distinction between being part of one religion or the other, because they have just as much proof that they are true. There is, as long as no such proof exist, no distinction between making up a god complete with stories and values, and accepting one that was made up thousands of years ago. You claim to have a problem with people who believe in a god and interpret the values of this god their own way; well, that's my problem with you.

 

[woy]

Porn and sex are good.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Roman mythology includes a lot of "miracles", including people rising from the dead. It is possible to accept that it happens, without accepting the reason for why. Such was the case when incorporating conquered cultures into the Roman. I can accept that people are sometimes cured of cancer for no obvious reason, but it doesn't mean I'm going to jump to the conclusion that God did it.


As for the rest, I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. I see little difference between atheism and religion, they both make an assumption with no evidence supporting it. They merely happen to come to the opposite conclusion. I prefer atheism, for the simple reason that it tends to lean more towards the leave-me-alone stance, while various religions tends to be more about do-as-I-say. Religious groups wanting to ban various things, like abortion and certain gay rights is a good example. If they don't like those things, they are free not to have abortions or being gay. Don't stop me from doing those things because your God doesn't like it. Besides, the Invisible Pink Unicorn told me it was okay, so there.

I can't respect your view if that view includes that it's okay to force your values upon others for whatever reason, or thinking that your values are better than others merely because they come out of different book. As far as I'm concerned, there is no distinction between love and hate or whatever other reason you can think of, they are all yours, and they are all subjective (or if it's someone else's reason, you know nothing of it). There is no distinction between being part of one religion or the other, because they have just as much proof that they are true. There is, as long as no such proof exist, no distinction between making up a god complete with stories and values, and accepting one that was made up thousands of years ago. You claim to have a problem with people who believe in a god and interpret the values of this god their own way; well, that's my problem with you.

Well I guess we are going to have to disagree here Imagine on this one thing.When you say:
"I see little difference between atheism and religion, they both make an assumption with no evidence supporting it."
Thats like saying that a belief in Unicorns is equal to a lack of belief in them.Would you consider yourself an agnostic(meaning you don't know) about the existence of unicorns?Do you need evidence proving they don't exist?Its going to be difficult to prove they don't but dosen't lack of proof they do suffice?

 

[Imagine]

Thats like saying that a belief in Unicorns is equal to a lack of belief in them.Would you consider yourself an agnostic(meaning you don't know) about the existence of unicorns?Do you need evidence proving they don't exist?Its going to be difficult to prove they don't but dosen't lack of proof they do suffice?

It depends on how broadly you define atheism, I suppose. Strong, explicit atheism is the belief that god does not exist. This is not a lack of belief (common misconception), this is the exact opposite belief of theism, that god does exist, and it has the same flaw. A conclusion based on lacking evidence is the flaw for theism, whereas the conclusion drawn from the lack of evidence is the flaw in atheism. Lack of evidence is in itself not enough to draw this conclusion. The correct conclusion is not "god does not exist", but rather "we have insufficient information to conclude whether god exists or not".

That we cannot draw a conclusion is the basis for agnosticism. Most seem to be a weak form of atheism and some theists doesn't even acknowledge the difference, but there are actually theistic agnostics as well, broadly speaking. As long as you acknowledge that either we don't have sufficient information to draw a conclusion, or possibly that the conclusion is irrelevant in either case, depending on which particular branch you belong to, you can claim to be an agnostic. I suppose the difference between the three can be summed up as: yes (theism), no (atheism) and maybe (agnosticism).

I'm an agnostic because I am not convinced god exist, and if so, which god. I base my morals on secular humanism for this reason as well, simply because unless I know which god is the real one, I'm more likely to end up with a flawed system of morals without a basis than the correct one. If it's going to be the wrong morals, it could at least be morals that work.

 

[xxaru]

Apparently it's only against god if interracial themes are involved

 

[Nester6]

It depends

I believe it was Pope LeoX that stated, not an exact quote, "What profit we have seen with the myth of christ!" So much for fuckin religion!

 

[MRPIMPN4EVA]

Its a sin, so yea....

 

[mrpimp]

what can be better than porn

 

[dick van cock]

Mr. FreeOnes: "We're more popular now than Jesus."

 

[VidKing]

It depends

I believe it was Pope LeoX that stated, not an exact quote, "What profit we have seen with the myth of christ!" So much for fuckin religion!

There is no solid evidence that he actually said this. See this article.

However, he might have considering what a lousy pope he was. He was a Florentine D' Medici, which if you recognize that name, you'll know he came to power because his family had power. They were the most powerful family in "Italy" during the Renaissance age. So he wasn't elected as a true believer. And after he got elected, it wasn't like a few cardinals set him down to "let him in on the secret." Here is a final reason to consider that quote worthless, he was the pope from 1513–1521. Anyone know what happened during those years? Well, Martin Luther (the first major Protestant Reformer) tacked his 95 thesis on the wall of the Wartburg Catholic church in 1517. This is held as the start of the Protestant Reformation because of how corrupt the Roman Catholic Church had become. Luther called the pope "the antichrist." He criticized the power structure that Catholic Church had been corrupted by. The Roman Catholic Church literally sold the ability to shorten one's own or a loved one's time in Purgatory. (This is not a shot at the current Catholic Church. They have since reformed).

So basically, even if that quote is accurate, it reflects one of the worst popes in history. He was so bad that it was "on his watch" that the unified, universal Church split after being united for 1,500 years!

 

[Licker696969]

lol i believe in god but i dont think it is against god at all.

Yes, the demons believe in him as well and they shudder with fear!

 

[Jason z]

Porn might be against God but God forgives us from our sins. Porn is a great thing to me and is to alot of people on this site but alot of people lately have been making fun of me bc i look at porn. what do u think i should do?

 

[Member2019]

The circular reference: Continually sin but continually forgive?

Porn might be against God but God forgives us from our sins.

I really hate the circular reference, no offense. I got it from a Catholic in high school who kept bitching about me being frigid at the same time (I wouldn't have intercourse). I tried to get her to understand that it was a sin for her because of her irresponsibility, and I wasn't about to join her to the level she wanted me to.

In all honesty, if you read deeper, God actually doesn't forgive if you never repent. Although it is also said that God loves you so much, if you repent to only do something over and over, God would rather you sin and not be in repenting to the point of making yourself miserable.

In the end, this all goes to the point of asking yourself, "what is a sin?" It's what hurts others as well as yourself. If you're finding porn keeps you from your responsibilities, or causes you to treat people differently, then that's a sin. If it causes you to have fulfillment for a period of your day and not treat anyone else different, then it's not.

If you like porn where people are exploited, and you prefer people were demeaned against their will, then that is a sin. If you only enjoy porn where people are mutually consenting, and its understood the lovers want the acts they are doing, that is not.

Sins are rather obvious and simple, and the context is not complex. People often make them complex typically in a pattern of excuse of out dishonesty (especially to oneself), envy (a huge one that is way too much), greed (including the envy for the wealth of others), inconsideration (especially when you have accepted the values of another as your own in a relationship), lust (without consent, lust can be very healthy with consent), selfishness (always a deep, self-searching, spiritual question), etc...

Irresponsibility is probably the greatest sin against oneself, which often the world as a whole in concert.

Porn is a great thing to me and is to alot of people on this site but alot of people lately have been making fun of me bc i look at porn. what do u think i should do?

Why do they "make fun of" you? Seriously? Furthermore, why do you let it bother you?

I have constantly "preached" that the problem is that people lump anyone who does porn in the same pit as "outcasts," those people who love porn where people are violated or otherwise causing harm to others. If we made erotica more acceptable in general, then maybe it wouldn't be so much about the outcasts who will pay anything to get it, but the majority of less judgmental people who enjoy sex.

To me, it's very spiritual.

I'm one of the few guys I know that can make erotic statements very innocently. When someone, often giggling, starts, by the time I'm done, only half of them are still giggling. Sure, I'm the butt of jokes in the end. But half of the men and, more importantly, women in the room know they can trust me not to be immature when anything like that comes up. It paid real dividends when I was single.

 

[fiend138]

I think god is the one who made sex..so i think porn was created by god