Does porn cause harm?

[juliod]

It's been a long time since I've debated pornography. But it used to be a staple during my early internet days.

Some posters here occasionally refer to porn as it it were understood to be a Bad Thing. So I think we should debate the point.

My claim is that porn has been studied extensively since the 70's, and the harm attributable to porn is still zero.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Lust for anyone other than your husband or wife is sin according to Jesus.

I don't think the son of god had such a close mind. We should put his teachings in context and use our reason. To the people of that age, that only used to stroll around the earth and had poor education you can't explain moral, ethics and reason in a couple of days. Most of them can be compared to kids. They couldn't catch the reasons, so you just tell'em not to do that.

Are you trying to argue that Jesus' teachings about morality were culturally relative and that the culture of his day was not sophisticated enough to be trusted with the truth?

I think we have enough resources today (statistics, psicology) to gain a true understanding of the situation instead of saying that a book of 2000 hundreds years age with no reasons have the last word.

Yes, it appears so.

[Confused]

Lust for anyone other than your husband or wife is sin according to Jesus.

I don't think the son of god had such a close mind. We should put his teachings in context and use our reason. To the people of that age, that only used to stroll around the earth and had poor education you can't explain moral, ethics and reason in a couple of days. Most of them can be compared to kids. They couldn't catch the reasons, so you just tell'em not to do that.
I think we have enough resources today (statistics, psicology) to gain a true understanding of the situation instead of saying that a book of 2000 hundreds years age with no reasons have the last word

I do believe that Christ said exactly that. Matthew 5:28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He even goes further to say to gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands. I think he was pretty clear about being close minded. So are you saying that because we have advanced in society with knowledge and technology, then the word of Christ doesn't need to be taken to the same extremes in which he preached it? Because we are somehow better than the population that existed back then?

[George00]

Are you guys sure that repressed is the right word for what you are referring to? While I have heard people repeat that phrase constantly, what you are really talking about seems to be sexual suppression. I believe most people are consciously aware of their sexual urges, even if devoutly religious.

Yes, it's the right word. In the US, sexual feelings and expression are taught, usually by the mainstream religions, as being bad and evil and something to be ashamed of. Anyone who openly displays sexual ideas is thought of as cheap and slutty and low class. I think most people recognize that they have sexual urges, they are just taught by the society that it's wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves for having them, except within very narrowly defined situations.

Um, did you read the definitions I provided? If they are consciously aware of these urges, or "recognize that they have sexual urges", that's suppression. It doesn't matter that they are taught to suppress or be ashamed of them, the urges aren't unknown to their conscious mind. A repressed individual would basically be unaware of these urges.

[Enrique]

I don't think the son of god had such a close mind. We should put his teachings in context and use our reason. To the people of that age, that only used to stroll around the earth and had poor education you can't explain moral, ethics and reason in a couple of days. Most of them can be compared to kids. They couldn't catch the reasons, so you just tell'em not to do that.

Are you trying to argue that Jesus' teachings about morality were culturally relative and that the culture of his day was not sophisticated enough to be trusted with the truth?

Yes. Not only culture or sophistication, but everything else. Anyone which knows something about philosophy, politics, science or life in general and have been struck by its complexity can at least know there's much relativy around there.
Of course, you should take some decisions about what you believe in, some constants references, but I think they should be fews and very important.
I don't try to say that everything wroten is obsolete either. Some teachings can really be universal but it's too much pretend that every letter is absolutely true and there's only a unique perspective.

I do believe that Christ said exactly that. Matthew 5:28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He even goes further to say to gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands. I think he was pretty clear about being close minded. So are you saying that because we have advanced in society with knowledge and technology, then the word of Christ doesn't need to be taken to the same extremes in which he preached it? Because we are somehow better than the population that existed back then?

Yes. Maybe you should keep taking the word to the extremes or not. Since the very moment God gives you brain, free willing and he comunicates with us through language it's a continue exercise of getting closer to him.
This, of course, means that maybe you have interpreted better than me what Jesus meant.
Otherwise, you'd be like Jehova witnesses who pretend to have access to absolute collective mind truth and end up believing some nonsenses.
There's a chapter in southpark that can illustrate my point more clearly. That one of a big spider.

[Confused]

Enrique:
Confused wrote:
I do believe that Christ said exactly that. Matthew 5:28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He even goes further to say to gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands. I think he was pretty clear about being close minded. So are you saying that because we have advanced in society with knowledge and technology, then the word of Christ doesn't need to be taken to the same extremes in which he preached it? Because we are somehow better than the population that existed back then?

Yes. Maybe you should keep taking the word to the extremes or not. Since the very moment God gives you brain, free willing and he comunicates with us through language it's a continue exercise of getting closer to him.
This, of course, means that maybe you have interpreted better than me what Jesus meant.
Otherwise, you'd be like Jehova witnesses who pretend to have access to absolute collective mind truth and end up believing some nonsenses.
There's a chapter in southpark that can illustrate my point more clearly. That one of a big spider.

I am afraid I haven't reached that communication stage with God. I think maybe we are speaking different languages right now and I am attempting to learn His, but failing miserably thus far. As far as interpreting anything by Christ, you are better off with Southpark than with me. I seem to get myself more and more confused the more I read and hear.

[Enrique]

Matthew 5:28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He even goes further to say to gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands.

My interpretation is that people in that date didn't know how an obsesive thought can influence in your behaivour and can induce you to do things you don't want, harming you or others. Jesus couldn't bring up a book of Freud to explain this, neither a book of Darwin to explain that the reason we automatically feel lust when we see an atractive woman is a natural mechanism, not an evil spirit and that if we know what is the difference between fantasy and reality (and any other issue psychology could consider) there's no problem in lust.
About gouging out your eyes and cutting off your hands, I think he meant there are things you should sacrifice in present, in spite of how difficult it could be, because the consequences are far worse.

But if you take it literally, when we become teenagers we should get isolated because I don't see anyway you can avoid to feel lust for the oppositte sex, as your body and mind were designed over millions of years of evolution to feel so.

[McCulloch]

Matthew 5:28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He even goes further to say to gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands.

My interpretation is that people in that date didn't know how an obsessive thought can influence in your behaviour and can induce you to do things you don't want, harming you or others. Jesus couldn't bring up a book of Freud to explain this, neither a book of Darwin to explain that the reason we automatically feel lust when we see an attractive woman is a natural mechanism, not an evil spirit and that if we know what is the difference between fantasy and reality (and any other issue psychology could consider) there's no problem in lust.
About gouging out your eyes and cutting off your hands, I think he meant there are things you should sacrifice in present, in spite of how difficult it could be, because the consequences are far worse.

Want to play a little Pascal's wager on this one?
If the literalists are right and you are wrong, but people follow your interpretation, then would be committing sin and not taking it as seriously as Jesus demands.
If you are right and the literalists are wrong, but people follow the literalist viewpoint, then they still will not have sinned.
Therefore, by an form of argument often used by Christian apologists, you should err on the side of literalism on this issue.
That aside, what assurance do we have that your particular interpretation is correct.

But if you take it literally, when we become teenagers we should get isolated because I don't see anyway you can avoid to feel lust for the opposite sex, as your body and mind were designed over millions of years of evolution to feel so.

Here are a few suggestions:

But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
...
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
...
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.
And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

"In that day you will not question Me about anything Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you."

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

[Confused]

Matthew 5:28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. He even goes further to say to gouge out your eyes and cut off your hands.

My interpretation is that people in that date didn't know how an obsesive thought can influence in your behaivour and can induce you to do things you don't want, harming you or others. Jesus couldn't bring up a book of Freud to explain this, neither a book of Darwin to explain that the reason we automatically feel lust when we see an atractive woman is a natural mechanism, not an evil spirit and that if we know what is the difference between fantasy and reality (and any other issue psychology could consider) there's no problem in lust.
About gouging out your eyes and cutting off your hands, I think he meant there are things you should sacrifice in present, in spite of how difficult it could be, because the consequences are far worse.

But if you take it literally, when we become teenagers we should get isolated because I don't see anyway you can avoid to feel lust for the oppositte sex, as your body and mind were designed over millions of years of evolution to feel so.

Ok, God created the human body right, all the chemical processes involved right. So he already knew the concept behind love and lust:

The Chemistry of love site:

Did you know that raw lust is characterized by high levels of testosterone? The sweaty palms and pounding heart of infatuation are caused by higher than normal levels of norepinepherine. Meanwhile, the 'high' of being in love is due to a rush of phenylethylamine and dopamine. All is not lost once the honeymoon is over. Lasting love confers chemical benefits in the form of stabilized production of serotonin and oxytocin. Can infidelity be blamed on chemistry? Perhaps in part. Researchers have found that suppression of vasopressin can cause males (voles, anyway) to abandon their love nest and seek new mates. Hey, you gotta have chemistry!

Lust is a biochemical reaction involved with the endocrine system and homones and neurochemicals in the brain. You have no more control over the level of testosterone, norepi, vasopressin, dopamine, etc.... in your body than you do over being born male or female. So God should have known this when he created man right? So how can he consider lust a sin when it is nothing more that a cascading effect of chemical reactions?

[Enrique]

Want to play a little Pascal's wager on this one?
If the literalists are right and you are wrong, but people follow your interpretation, then would be committing sin and not taking it as seriously as Jesus demands.
If you are right and the literalists are wrong, but people follow the literalist viewpoint, then they still will not have sinned.
Therefore, by an form of argument often used by Christian apologists, you should err on the side of literalism on this issue.

Take a teaching literally or metaphoriacally is part of the interpretation. Keep in mind too that literal is not plain opposite to metaphore, it's a scale.
Your criteria is very good. But be careful, If you take every decision in a defensive way, based on fear rather than love you could make your life very painful. There always will be uncertainities, and for sure you will make mistakes and sin, but what it's really important is having a good willing heart. If i or you misundeerstood the teaching and commit sin, time will show you in what, and there won't be a Jesus judging you to hell, (always 'I think')he'll just tell 'you have learned the lesson, go and do not sin more' like to Maria Magdalena.

That aside, what assurance do we have that your particular interpretation is correct.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't claim to have the truth. I don't give any assurance at all. I just want to post my opinion, read others and try to get a better knowledge of what Jesus mean by debating. The decision of what you choose after debating is completely yours.

About all the suggestions, everyone has to be analized particularly. If you want repost the best one.
One main idea is that whatever you ask God with faith, He will give it you. I think take the lust out of you is as difficult as move a mountain. I don't think you can take this teaching strictily literal.

Lust is a biochemical reaction involved with the endocrine system and homones and neurochemicals in the brain. You have no more control over the level of testosterone, norepi, vasopressin, dopamine, etc.... in your body than you do over being born male or female. So God should have known this when he created man right? So how can he consider lust a sin when it is nothing more that a cascading effect of chemical reactions?

That's what I'd ask those believers that choose ignore science. And you touch precisely my point. Jesus couldn't give that definition of lust because of the cultural-time frame, so he said it's a sin. When you educate a young child you can't explain hm electromagnetism theory, you just tell him 'don't touch the plug'. When he grows up and have the capacity to comprehend you give then the reasons. Everything has its time under the sun.

[Confused]

Want to play a little Pascal's wager on this one?
If the literalists are right and you are wrong, but people follow your interpretation, then would be committing sin and not taking it as seriously as Jesus demands.
If you are right and the literalists are wrong, but people follow the literalist viewpoint, then they still will not have sinned.
Therefore, by an form of argument often used by Christian apologists, you should err on the side of literalism on this issue.

Take a teaching literally or metaphoriacally is part of the interpretation. Keep in mind too that literal is not plain opposite to metaphore, it's a scale.
Your criteria is very good. But be careful, If you take every decision in a defensive way, based on fear rather than love you could make your life very painful. There always will be uncertainities, and for sure you will make mistakes and sin, but what it's really important is having a good willing heart. If i or you misundeerstood the teaching and commit sin, time will show you in what, and there won't be a Jesus judging you to hell, (always 'I think')he'll just tell 'you have learned the lesson, go and do not sin more' like to Maria Magdalena.

That aside, what assurance do we have that your particular interpretation is correct.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't claim to have the truth. I don't give any assurance at all. I just want to post my opinion, read others and try to get a better knowledge of what Jesus mean by debating. The decision of what you choose after debating is completely yours.

About all the suggestions, everyone has to be analized particularly. If you want repost the best one.
One main idea is that whatever you ask God with faith, He will give it you. I think take the lust out of you is as difficult as move a mountain. I don't think you can take this teaching strictily literal.

Lust is a biochemical reaction involved with the endocrine system and homones and neurochemicals in the brain. You have no more control over the level of testosterone, norepi, vasopressin, dopamine, etc.... in your body than you do over being born male or female. So God should have known this when he created man right? So how can he consider lust a sin when it is nothing more that a cascading effect of chemical reactions?

That's what I'd ask those believers that choose ignore science. And you touch precisely my point. Jesus couldn't give that definition of lust because of the cultural-time frame, so he said it's a sin. When you educate a young child you can't explain hm electromagnetism theory, you just tell him 'don't touch the plug'. When he grows up and have the capacity to comprehend you give then the reasons. Everything has its time under the sun.

Ok, this is your interpretation right. I mean, there is nothing in scripture that indicates that future generations will understand the meaning of Christs words better so for now just consider it a sin.

How can you ignore science? Tell me, if you are coughing up blood, do you pray for a cure or go see a doctor. You are essentially saying, use science and technology when it works for me, but ignore it when it conflicts with scripture.