Comments (79)

Craig, "So what about masturbation, then? Is that a sin, too? I mean, if sexual gratification is only "morally right" within the confines of marriage then it must also be sinful, no?

What about loveless marriages? There are plenty of those. Is sex only sanctioned by God if a married couple loves each other, or is just being married enough?"
````````````````````````````````````````````````
Who said, "sexual gratification is only "morally right?" As far as I know and understand it the bible is silent regarding the topic of masturbation. But I am sure that either some dogmatic Atheist or Christian could find an argument on the issue. But frankly I don't care to hear about it, nether party as far as I am concerned carry no merit of truth to their arguments and are a waste of my time.

But to answer your question "What about loveless marriages, what’s the point, no love in the marriage then the parties need to split and get a divorce. Most all of marriages have no love, only selfish desires that are never fulfilled, hence the status of the "unhappy, non-contented, once supposed soul mate."

My advice, never get married; it is over-rated by a long shot.

Personally, I think that all men are immature, selfish, and mean-spirited and are not deserving of my respect. I plan never to get married again and to just love the one I am with at the time. I have found that it works out best that way. Married men are the best to have those types of relationships with. That way you don't have to worry about being pressured into a commitment or worry about getting invovled.

Fredevil wrote, "Of course, if they take care of themselves, and practice safe sex, they may go forever without catching a disease, or 'wearing out.'"
``````````````````````````````````````

Negative, those who engage to the extent you describe will most likely catch the disease of being addicted to porn. They can enjoy being happy with there’re new found partner of addiction, that coincidently they get to carry with them day and night in addition to there’re obsessive compulsive need to “act out” on their desires. Sleazy barmaids anyone???

Well, it will be one less slime ball for the rest of us to have to worry about.
:~)

Freestinker wrote: Knowledge and truth both require facts, of which you have none to support your claim. Belief and faith are what you have and they are not very convincing without facts.

February 22, 2008 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take notice of verses in II Timothy (7) always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. (8) Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected." God foretold of people like you and HOW TRUE WAS GOD'S PREDICTION!

2 Timothy 3:1-8, (1) But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. (2) People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, (3) without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, (4) treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— (5) having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

(6) They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, (7) always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. (8) Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

jaded:
Has anyone realized the irony that it's the naughty factor that makes it so popular and addictive? If it was suddenly legal and accepted in regular society then the novelty wouldn't be there.

Why else do so many G-d fearing people end up in sex scandals?

February 22, 2008 4:23 PM
-----------------------------------

Its is only "naughty factor that makes it so popular and addictive?" to those who are sick-minded.

Freestinker:
Anonymous,

I always test a chair before sitting in it! Regardless, religious faith is a completely different concept than having faith that a chair will not collapse. Faith in the chair is based on facts that can be tested and observed. Religous faith is not. Confusing the two either illustrates your poor grasp of the English language or demonstrates your willingness to deceive others with your abiguity.

Someone who goes by Anonymous and ten takes things so personally ... Very funny indeed!

February 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments

!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My, my, I think "stupidity" would be in order here. The point was not the chair, it was the "practicing act of faith" to sit in the chair. You have a phobia if you test "every" chair before sitting in it, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

I am sure that your life is full of phobias and illusions of grander, including the misconception that I use the name "Anonymous and ten takes things so personally ... Very funny indeed!" How in the world do you have the "illusion" that a "certain" "Anonymous" took things personal, unless of course you are HACKING there’re computer??

One shed of undisputable evidence and you a*s is mine; I will show no mercy in the courtroom, trust me on this one. and know this you are a lost cause not worth the time to even give consideration of, no wonder you wife/girlfriend left you for someone else. I would have too, Jaded, Jaded, Jaded............tsk, tsk, shame on you addict, trapped in you own torment.

Call upon your God to deliver you and see if they can. When you can assert that the power of your of frees you from your addiction and torment that maybe you will have an argument. Now all you have is torment.

Oh, but I did mean to agree with the sentiment, here:

"A moral sexual ethic calls us to loving rather than using. It transforms sexuality into an experience that deepens our human dignity and engages our freedom. It humanizes..."

What I think is counterproductive is a moralistic, punitive, shame-and-control-based Puritanical view of things.

If you know sexuality *for* an experience that deepens our human dignity and engages our freedom, then, you're not going to see in tacky or exploitive porn anything that contradicts this.

The porn isn't the problem, ...in some ways, it's a symptom of a repressed view of our own sexuality.

People keep pounding Bibles about their notion 'Sex is dirty,' ..is it any wonder that people associate 'dirty' with their own sexuality?

My tradition has it right from the Lady: "All acts of love *and* pleasure are My rituals," ...you don't turn around and cheapen that by 'using' people, if you've experienced it.

Well, Jay, I think the 'pure moral argument' (which seems to call for censoring all media of sexual content) tends to treat the human body and sexuality itself as some devilish evil that removes control from helpless people. I think *that's* where the dehumanization starts... this isn't to say that there aren't clearly tons and tons of really tacky stuff that would and do teach a lot of people the wrong things about sex and sexuality *if one is taught to see things that way...*

Depictions of sexual activity are only *dehumanizing* if you're taught that *sex* is dehumanizing. Maybe if you don't *see the people* it's just cause you react to sexuality that way in the first place.

"Maybe the dark is from your eyes," as the song goes.

To teach that sex (without the context of certain religious permission and shame, of course) *inherently is* empty gratification, even 'using people,' ...tends to cause people to greet it (or depictions thereof) in just that manner.

In fact, it even causes a lot of 'moral purists' to *think of* and *accuse people of* engaging in all manner of sex acts that *you then treat* as inherently making someone less-than-human.

That's without seeing or knowing a thing about it.

Gods know how many times I've heard people claiming that my own rights as someone in a same-sex relationship can be overridden by graphic descriptions of their imagination of gay *men's* sex acts. Look at how someone above basically claimed "A Pagan couldn't possibly be monogamous, so my word about your life is better than my own."

*That's* a dehumanizing attitude toward sex without any sex or even depictions thereof getting *involved.* It's in fact using the very dehumanized depictions of sexuality that come from *religion* as a *weapon.*

That happens a lot, too.

Porn only has the power you give it: you *can't* make human sex drives go away, (or mens' apparent particular love of visual stimulation) ...what you can do is have a more enlightened and respectful view of sexuality *itself.* Conflicting people about it only causes them to end up furtively buying stuff that's clearly not *helping* on the humanization front.

I think the repression and the exploitation are two sides of the same coin: the net effect is to keep people ashamed, disempowered, alienated, and 'hungry.'

And, personally, I think that if we as a society are concerned about the degradation of sex-workers, then we should *treat them better,* instead of shoving them into the shadows and telling people how base and degraded they are.

That means respecting *ourselves and each other,* too. Sexuality is a gift of the Gods, not a 'guilty pleasure.'

Freestinker the *pure* moral argument is simple:

The starting point for wrestling with all ethics (including sexual) is that we should never use another person for our own purposes, whether those purposes are wealth, ego satisfaction, power, or pleasure. This is the basis of moral freedom.

Porn is an abuse of sexual expression that reduces other human beings to objects for the viewer's gratification. Ergo, porn is immoral.

A moral sexual ethic calls us to loving rather than using. It transforms sexuality into an experience that deepens our human dignity and engages our freedom. It humanizes...

-J

Craig,

In answer to your question--Even if participants were wed, porn would still be problematic because anyone watching it would again be using the gift of sexuality out of context (in this case: purely for titillation).

Even if you don't accept the moral argument, remember that on a practical level porn erodes one's ability to love. When we de-personalize bodies and turn them into nothing more than a means to personal sexual satisfaction, it gradually spills out of our fantasy world and into the real world. We begin to de-humanize wives, girlfriends, coworkers, etc.

Remember 'Friends'? Porn was all fun and games on that show... At one point Joey even tried to send a basket of porn to Chandler. But when they find a movie starring "Phoebe" (turns out to actually be her twin sister) they freak out. Joey won’t look at it. He sits facing away from the TV, saying “You guys can’t watch that! It’s Phoebe! This is sick!”

Bad things happen when we de-humanize people...

-J

Freestinker, also you conflate the need for scientific validation (or "facts") with legal-historical evidence. You can't scientifically prove that Augustus Caesar or Abraham Lincoln ever existed, because you can't recreate them (part of the scientific validation process). But you (presumably) believe in the existence of such people and what they're reported to have said/done, because of the overwhelming legal-historical evidence.

Without dismissing the faith element, with Christianity it's not a blind leap into such faith. Rather it's a bold leap based partly on a reasonable assessment of the overwhelming legal-historical evidence for the historicity of one named Jesus, and the veracity of the accounts written about what He said and did. Those include much about Heaven.

So while it can't be "proved" (scientifically), if it could then what need for faith? But faith in its existence is reasonable, because it was oft-spoken of by One who established Himself through His words and actions as the Paragon of integrity, honor, transcendent wisdom and unsurpassed power.

Freestinker - I understand your point and concede I don't have facts to prove heaven exists. It is of no concern to me because I have faith that it does exist. That's enough for me, but not for you - and that's OK, because our free will permits each of us to choose.

However, I'm not sure that factual proof would matter though, because there were plenty of disbelievers even when Moses, Elijah, the Apostles and Christ walked the earth and the tangible actions, miracles, and visions revealed to thousands still weren't enough. As Jesus said to Thomas, blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:29). If anyone thinks that makes me delusional, or silly, or misguided, I can take it. :)

Have a good weekend.

Brave Anonymous quoth:

"bwa-ha-ha, pagan claims monogamy."

Yep, going on five years, now, thanks very much. Believing your own propaganda, too much?

Point is, often, certain folks seem to need to believe that only religious belief and repression can prevent them from being promiscuous in lots of ways if they see a nude body. (Nudity itself is just not a BFN deal to us, actually... get away from Christian thinking a few years, and the way you guys look at nudity looks like some kind of bizarre fetish to us, particularly when people get worked up against it.)

Sex is holy and *good* in our religion, not sacrosanct and 'dirty,' ...Some of us like erotica, some of us don't, but the degrading stuff people furtively snap up is like someone put rotten food in front of you... it's not the idea of food that's the problem: it's that it's awful. )

I don't get all hot and bothered when something has sexual content, ...certainly it's nothing to get all obsessed about.

I know certain Christians love to imagine and claim that Pagans, not having your particular tabooes and fears, run around in a daze of hedonistic excess: Actually, nothing of the sort, ...sexuality doesn't boil over if you don't put it in a pressure-cooker. Sex doesn't 'sell' unless someone cultivates a pent-up "demand."

So, sure, I can be monogamous. It's not actually that hard, particularly when so many of the people around are just so *immature* about sex. It *is* a sacred communion to me, (not that it always has to be a Big Hairy Deal: it can be playful and affectionate, too,) and, frankly, I find how a lot of people around *treat* it to be off-putting, to say the least. That's not the experience I'd be looking for.

So don't look at me. Look at what you're *buying.* Personally, I think so much of the porn out there is *degrading* precisely *because* that's what certain folks *believe sex is.*

Kind of a tidy cycle, that way: sell the 'sin,' then sell the 'forgiveness' for the 'sin' to the same people you taught the unsatisfying and repressed-or-degrading view of it to in the first place. That pressure has a nasty way of coming out sideways, though.

To me, that's just... not what sex is, nor is it what my faith group participates in.

As a corrolary, I think sex-workers are so disrespected because ...well, that's how you treat the work they're doing, approve of it or not.

Too often the scorn falls on those who are most degraded by a view of sex itself as 'degrading,' rather than those who are doing the degrading.

Wrigleywrat,

I don't think you are trying to make others believe what you believe.

I do think you confuse faith with fact.

I claimed that you have no facts to prove heaven exists because you have no facts! You say that I must have facts to disprove your unsupported claim? That's just absurd. You don't have any facts, just admit it and we'll be even.

My claim was not that heaven does not exist. My only claim is that you have no facts to support your claim that heaven does exist.

Something cannot be confirmed to exist factually without evidence and you have none. Why should anyone assume something exists without evidence?

I have no evidence to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. So by your logic, he does exist, until someone proves he does not.

Can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? Of course not. See how silly that is?

But I guess if you're having trouble understanding the need for facts to prove a claim, we should just stop there.

I think what Fred does not understand that once you have accepted Christ into your life you have been accepted into his family. It's like this, if your son or daughter did something hainess would you still stop loving them? As many times I have seen people on death row I have also seen their mother and/or father by their side when they have their last meal praying for them and so on because regardless of what they have done they still love them. This is how God's love is for his Christian family once accpted no matter how many shortcommings you have the Lord still loves you and accepts you into his great kingdom. So, if Hitler, Stalin, or any evil Dictator ever repented, confessed, and accepted Christ then they too will have a place in the Kingdom of God.

Anonymous,

I always test a chair before sitting in it! Regardless, religious faith is a completely different concept than having faith that a chair will not collapse. Faith in the chair is based on facts that can be tested and observed. Religous faith is not. Confusing the two either illustrates your poor grasp of the English language or demonstrates your willingness to deceive others with your abiguity.

Someone who goes by Anonymous and ten takes things so personally ... Very funny indeed!

I am glad I am only eighteen. Soon, in my lifetime, we will have robot women. We will no longer need a human, and all the crazy head games they play. Robots! Would that be so bad?

Freestinker - Hmm. I guess suggesting he turn the other cheek would be lost on Fred. If he "tired quickly", I'm surprised he keeps debating.
Would be easier and less frustrating to just log off.

Quite convenient for non-believers though, isn't it. You say facts are needed for the claims believers make, then non-believers make claims without any such facts, then say the believers have to carry the burden of proof. And then act like some argument is won! Priceless.

I'm not trying to make you (or Fred) believe anything. I'm simply stating my opinions. Believe them or not. If you don't see the need to put up a defense, then move for summary judgment and let the chips fall where they may. I won't stand in your way.

Has anyone realized the irony that it's the naughty factor that makes it so popular and addictive? If it was suddenly legal and accepted in regular society then the novelty wouldn't be there.

Why else do so many G-d fearing people end up in sex scandals?

So what about masturbation, then? Is that a sin, too? I mean, if sexual gratification is only "morally right" within the confines of marriage then it must also be sinful, no?

What about loveless marriages? There are plenty of those. Is sex only sanctioned by God if a married couple loves each other, or is just being married enough?

Craig

Wrigleywrat,

Fred can speak for himself, but my guess is that he tires quickly of baseless claims that condemn him to eternal damnation.

Thank you but nothing about my statement is very bold at all. What I said about the existence of heaven is that there are no facts to support this claim, therefore it's existence is unlikely until proven otherwise. You are the one who claims without facts that heaven exists, not me. So the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

If I were to claim that Santa Clauses' toy shop exists, the burden of proof would then be on me. See how that works?

Some one told me once: If you want to know what the preacher was doing on Saturday night, listen to the sermon on Sunday morning.

Fred Evil, "the more unhinged I believe you are. You have drawn your own conclusions from fallacious origins. I wish you the best of luck, you REALLY need it."

****************************************************************************************************

I just realized the derogatory comment that you made to me. I consider this to be a direct personal attack against my character and to be despicable of you. I will not tolerate you speaking to me that way.

Do no address or speak to me again for any reason or in any comments. I will be reporting this comment to the moderator.

******************************************************************************************

Freestinker - You may be right about Fred, and if he doesn't care, that's fine, but then why does he feel the need to debate the matter? Perhaps his need to challenge these matters means he's truly not convinced, otherwise why waste time on us "unhinged" types?

"In all probability" heaven doesn't exist? Whoa, for someone who wants facts to support claims, that's a pretty bold statement. Where's the evidence it doesn't exist? Or maybe you have "faith" that it doesn't? :)

Freestinker, "DavidFC,

"Knowledge and truth both require facts, of which you have none to support your claim. Belief and faith are what you have and they are not very convincing without facts"

I beg to differ with you. True, faith is faith, but faith is a way of life that is not only based on Christianity.

You live by faith everyday, we all do. For instance, you are in a lecture and so you walk across the room looking for a seat. Deciding on what seat to take, by faith you sit in the chair fully believing, without any facts, that the chair will hold you and keep you from falling on the floor.

You “suppose” by the structure of the chair and from past experiences that the chair will safely accommodate your seating needs. In fact, you know whether or not that chair you are about to sit in hollow and will drop you’re as* on the floor. But prior to sitting in the chair you have no facts to prove that the chair will hold your weight.

I’d love to continue this discussion but I need to leave and get something to eat, chow. xoxo

Wrigleywrat,

What makes you think Fred even believes in heaven, much less cares about getting in?

Why would someone care about getting into a place that in all probability does not even exist?

As a woman I have to say, just feeling the touch of the man I love, smelling his skin close to mine, and feeling him inside me is the epitome of feeling like I am one with him.

And all the man that I am in love with has to do is take off his clothes and he has my undivided attention. Now maybe I have been blessed with more testosterone then some women but to me that is the very nature of being matrimonial in the bedroom.

The more of him I get the less the world around me is evident, regarding desiring sex with someone else.

So why would I need porn? Maybe it is the way people are dissatisfied with what they have, just a thought.

I agree with Brown Bear!

We all need to stop trying to find loopholes with
God and His word!

DavidFC,

Knowledge and truth both require facts, of which you have none to support your claim. Belief and faith are what you have and they are not very convincing without facts.

Jay said: "Sex IS holy. It's an extraordinary gift from God."

Jay,

As soon as you bring gods into the equation, you are making a "religious" argument against porn, not a "moral" argument.

Care to try again with a strictly moral argument against porn?

--------------------------------------------------

Craig said: "So is the real issue here that porn graphically illustrates sex between unwed participants? That is to say, that "God-sactioned" love is lacking from the proceedings?"

Craig,

Yes, that is the real issue. Porn upsets religionists because it reminds them in a dramatic way that others are free to completely disregard their puritanical religious insecurity with sex and individual religious liberty.

fredevil, "What about the stillborn? What about babies who die within dyas? No, you are wrong, not everyone can even get the message. Actually, the more I re-read your statement, the more unhinged I believe you are. You have drawn your own conclusions from fallacious origins. I wish you the best of luck, you REALLY need it."

No you are wrong. Most people know this but I should not have assumed, all people that have reached the age of accountbilty. Babies and children are not in that catergory, they are innocent. That is common sense.

Fred Evil - Religious belief is predicated on faith. Faith is belief without having all the evidence. If you're looking for empirical, scientific, uncontrovertible "proof" before you decide to believe, your threshold is too high, and that is your own doing, even if you choose to rationalize otherwise.

Stillborn and infant children who die and don't "get the message" automatically receive salvation because they have no ability to commit sin. You, however, actively have chosen not to heed the message, so your path will be much more difficult. Spewing insults and sarcasm at believers surely isn't the way to get there, but it's your right to do so, and it makes for some entertaining reading.

Man, do I love this country!

So tell me again why a healthy sexual relationship needs porn to get stimulated. A creative mind and openness can produce enough excitement to last a lifetime.

It is the disrespect from men that cannot be satisfied with only one woman, no matter how explicitly she is in the bedroom, or anywhere else.

Men thrive on validating their manhood by conquering women by having sex with them. I mean men do not care if the women are nasty looking, filthy, women who have had multiple sex partners. They will have sex with them without using a condom and then go home to there're faithful wives, lie to her face, and then have sex with her,, sickening, yuk, yuk, and yuk!

These type of men are nothing but pure, 100% trash that deserve nothing better then the trash of porn, period.

Thank you, Jay, for saying what billions of people the world over know: that sexuality IS a gift from God, not to be used or exploited. God bless you for your comments. The few who disagree with you are not the majority, they are simply seeking to have their own desires validated by attacking people like you who know the Truth. I will pray for them, as always.

Anonymous wrote - "If rejection occurs you have determined your fate at the end."

If rejection occurs, God hasn't made a sufficiently compelling argument to me. It's not my fault his evidence is insifficient to convince me. My having a higher threshold for 'belief' shouldn't punish me. If your vision of 'god' is truly just.

"God will send the message of salvation to everyone at some point in there're life"

What about the stillborn? What about babies who die within dyas? No, you are wrong, not everyone can even get the message. Actually, the more I re-read your statement, the more unhinged I believe you are. You have drawn your own conclusions from fallacious origins. I wish you the best of luck, you REALLY need it.

Porn and the gains it ill-gets may be deemed obscene by many. But what is also truly obscene is the huge amount of money reaped by religious scam artists throughout recorded time. Particularly obscene are the homophobia and anti-sex bigotry propagated by many mainstream religious leaders. It is XXX obscene how that all extrapolates into hatred, ultraconservative, repressive social views, legislation and government.

Hatred begets hatred, misery begets misery, and jealousy begets jealousy and so forth and so on, however one cannot deceive God.

Do evil all your life without regard of God and the need to change and no one will get out of jail card free at the end as supposed by many.

God will send the message of salvation to everyone at some point in there're life, that is the time for your redemption, so to speak.

God is patient but there is an end to his patience and there will come a time that God will require a decision from a person to accept him and change. If rejection occurs you have determined your fate at the end.

There is a season and time for everything on Earth and acceptance of God is no difference, time waits for no one. So if you think that you will run rampant with evil all your life and then at the end call upon God for forgiveness you are sadly mistaken my friend and you need to wake up.

Every heart knows when God is drawing them to him, it would behoove a person to beckon to that urging in your spirit; better sooner then the latter because tomorrow is not promised to anyone. That is an unfailing law.

As Paul said I wish to God that all would come to the knowledge of Christ and be saved, I second that motion.

What I find amusing is the reification of the word "pornography." It's not just you--everyone from right wing christians to feminist jurisprudence scholars do it.

By not differentiating "pornography," you are saying there is essential similarity between hardcore porn, softcore porn, fem-domination porn, rape porn, gay porn, and bestiality porn. Not to mention homemade porn. There are, in fact, some women--and some Chrsitians--who enjoy porn with entirely clean consciouses.

Maybe the "I know it when I see it" doctrine actually illuminates the whole debate--the fact is, we DON'T know pornography when we see it, nor do we know what to do with it, how to feel about it, or what moral standard to apply and why.

It's patently obvious that many commenters here don't have a clue what grace, mercy, and forgiveness are in the context of Christianity - and that would explain why the anti-religiousness in their smarmy comments is palpable. You can't "game" the dynamic of repentance and divine forgiveness.

Christ mingled with the tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sinners precisely because they were the ones most in need of his healing. Could Hitler have repented? Of course he could have. Did he? Unlikely. But, consider that if he did so sincerely and honestly, I have no doubt the Almighty showed mercy and forgave even him. How wonderful that is for most of the rest of us, whose sins comparatively are not as horrible.

A true believer knows that repentance must be truthful, sincere, and without reservation. There's no "nudge nudge, wink wink" going on. Anyone who thinks there is just doesn't get it, but they have a right to believe (or not believe) what they want.

So, no porn, huh? Does that mean God gets to watch but we can't? And here I always thought that we were created in his image. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention that day in Sunday School. (I imagine God just chuckled as I typed that!)

It all seems redundant, as religion IS pornography, with everyone waiting for that final, climax shot.

Claire asked: "I don't get why Gross doesn't leave the porn stars alone and instead look to the much larger group of American consumers (and churchgoers)... Aren't they the ones in need of his guidance?"

Yes, and if you (a journalist, no?) spent even a brief moment researching this ministry (and many others in the same vein), you'd know that's exactly what they do.
Ministry to the porn stars is what gets the media attention, rightly or wrongly. The real trench work is dealing with the millions of addicts who voluntarily seek such help and guidance. They're not told they're not responsible for whatever predicament they're in from the inevitable consequences of their own actions, but they are given resources and contacts for support, and compassionately offered both counseling and practical/spiritual encouragement in dealing with and overcoming their tendencies.

While their work hasn't helped everyone, it has helped many back on the road to emotional, sexual, relational, and spiritual healing - among both the "molehill" of pornstars and the "mountain" of consumers.

But passing judgment and harboring "suspicion" is much easier than keeping an open mind and giving someone the benefit of the doubt, no?

God loves boobies and other body parts. Lo and behold the image of God!

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things." (ISAIAH 45:7)

Yeah, and I create porn too. And I create the urge to abolish porn, to watch porn and condemn porn, to lie about not watching porn, to feel ashamed about watching porn; I do all these things.

But most of all, I create MORALITY. That's my main occupation; to instruct humans on how they're altogether different from animals, and made in my non-animal, supernatural, anti-natural image, so humans can feel ashamed and conflicted, set against themselves and their bodies, ashamed of their sex and condemning of their brethern, to make them feel superior to animals and those more animal-like in their midst; I do all these things.

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the response! I'm an atheist and so I don't really think of the world in the same way you do, but I really appreciate your thoughtful reasoning.

I think, though, that I would disagree with you. I think that some porn, just like anything else, can be damaging to participants and viewers alike. However, the vase majority or porn is a visual celebration of sexuality. It can be educational, fun, and...well, sexy.

I can completely understand that some people find it distasteful (to the point of being offensive, even)...but I just don't see this "immorality" that seems to have everyone up in arms.

So is the real issue here that porn graphically illustrates sex between unwed participants? That is to say, that "God-sactioned" love is lacking from the proceedings?

Thanks,
Craig

Claire, What a repulsive article. You're kidding....Pornography not only degrades women and men but it breaks up the family as men and women are addictive to porn. Also, any addiction is destructive for all parties involved with the
one who is the abuser. Also, let me ask you a question, when is it porn. When your 16, 18, 20 or 13, 14 or 15. Get your head out of the sand...You are a left wing unbeliever who wants to point your finger at those who attend church. How dare you; You are by no means a christian. You are by no means a follower of Jesus Christ...You are a hypocrite or what Jesus calls a "false convert".

To Anon 11:17

Our senses are all we have to experience God in the first place. If porn is all about sensing, seems like it's a window into the existence of God in the same way as, say, looking at a sunset or watching a child at play. Without using the information provided by your senses, you're not communing with God, you're just indulging in self-delusion.

Porn has as much place in religion as say, nose picking.
Religion is about your relationship with God, your faith in him(or her?) and, as a result, your personal guide to what you should and should not do.

Porn is none of that. It relates to your body and the pleasures one derives from it, like other senses. There are other pleasures, such as clothes, food, music, etc. which also feed the senses, and it only a cultural thing as to what is ok and what is not. The standards for these vary over different societies and also over time. In ancient Athens it was perfectly normal for leading citizens to have young male lovers, in addition to wives and children. See how broadly Victorians defined sinful behavior, including things that we see as perfectly normal today.

People in religion and porn have a lot in common: Exhibitionism, the need to control people thru sexuality, love of money while not producing anything of real merit. Oh, and living in a fantasy world of their own creation.

It's little wonder a church teamed up with porn folks.

I am a male feminist and I don't find porn offensive at all.

Interesting, huh?

Jamie wrote - "Men and women in the porn industry are like any other sex worker- only a valuable moneymaker for as long as their bodies hold up"

Valid point. Also valid for those in the military, sports, firefighting, and professional wrestling. Oh, and cowboys, crab fishermen....

Of course, if they take care of themselves, and practice safe sex, they may go forever without catching a disease, or 'wearing out.'

"They know that time, disease, and the drugs they take to keep working will win"

They ALL need to take drugs to keep working? You truly have a low opinion of people you've never met. I'm sure there's a certain percentage that imbibe, as in any profession. Imagine that, people in the entertainment industry taking drugs, who'da thunk it! And many stars have gone whole careers without catching diseases, again it's about taking precautions. Although not every garbageman can make that claim, or nurse...

And I have no problem with folks speaking with their pastors, when did I say they couldn't do that? Talk away, that's about all the church is good for. However, from the story, this particular 'porn pastor' is using his platform to gain noteriety and fame. Free marketing, and you Thumpers are blithely giving it to him.

Brown Bear wrote - "The beauty of Christianity is that people can be redeemed no matter what bad things they may have done"

As I said, how can you know you won't end up in Heaven sitting next to Hitler? By your rules it's possible. How can that be a good thing? That's not beauty, that's an easily gamed system.

And Jay, that is the biggest load of poppycock I have ever heard. All or nothing? Loving or using? I think you're using alright.

As a former porn star, I wonder where people get the idea that porn is inherently damaging. In my case, it paid for a college education, let me travel the world, and introduced me to fascinating people across the country (you'd be surprised at the general composition of one's fan base). Neither I nor my friends in the industry have developed any chemical dependencies, and none of has experienced anything close to "exploitation." The problem is, most people assume the adult industry still operates today the same way it did in the 70s: as an underground, mob-influenced, exploitative series of scams. The truth is, nowadays every major adult studio is run and managed like any other business. Claims by recent performers that they have been "exploited" are pure self-indulgence, designed to exorcize the feelings of guilt some have after engaging in a taboo activity.

They had the same "debate" at my school (JMU). It was obviously stagged and rehearsed...I think they have some tour or something.

They posed some interesting questions and raised some issues, but this whole thing seemed to be a big publicity stunt. Most of the people who came just wanted to see Ron Jeremy.

"Jay", as a gay, athiest woman I completely disagree with your entire worldview, but I have to give you some props: That actually makes some sense. That was coherent. I've def seen some peeps get deeper into porn, and then have trouble in their relationships. Not looking at their partner the same way, and on. It's sad. Interesting stuff. Is this the 'jewish' perspective on sex?

Craig, the moral argument against porn:

In Jewish culture, when someone touches the Torah, they—not the scriptures—become defiled. Afterwards they have to undergo ritual cleansing. Why? Why would touching the holy defile someone? Because we are defiled before we even begin to approach the holy, but as we approach the holy, we become aware of our own impurity, and need to be washed clean.

Know any prudes? Of course you do... everyone does. My mom was a prude. People who mistakenly think sex is nasty and shameful. Where does that feeling come from? Well holiness defiles us in the sense that it makes us aware of our own preexising defilement. If sex is holy then prudeness—a sense of shame around sex—is a mistaken but understandable reaction.

Sex IS holy. It's an extraordinary gift from God. Consider that God didn’t have to make humans male and female… He Could have made them asexual… So that they replicate themselves or he could have directly created each body himself as he did Adam & Eve. But instead He choose to share his creative power with us.

So God made mankind male & female. And he established a little trinity through marriage—husband, wife, and himself. And he called husband and wife to act as his instruments in forming new human bodies. And he stands near, ready to create an immortal soul for that tiny body that, under God, their love has fashioned.

That is sex & marriage—in its simplest, purest form. And because it is instituted by God it is good, sacred, and holy. Because this procreative power is the most sacred of all our physical gifts (it involves God directly), any abuse of it, any use of it out of context is immoral.

Sexual images are very strong. They burn into the mind. The intensity of sexual images is supposed to be one more thread binding a husband and wife together. When their sexual images are limited to each other, then the strength of those images actually contributes to the strength of their marriage.

But when those images come into the brain via porn, watch out. When we de-humanize people sexually in our minds, we de-humanize sexuality, period. Our brains can’t cordon sex off into two different realms, “loving” and “using.” It’s all or nothing. So avid consumers of pornography, over time, lose their ability to give themselves in love within marriage.

Pornography is not “harmless.” Every woman depicted in those images is somebody’s sister, somebody’s daughter, somebody’s friend. An image and likeness of God. Treating her as less than that degrades her and the men who view her that way. It degrades the gift of sexuality.

-J