Porn Pastor

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, ...you do speak a peculiar language, you know?
Listen SW, I'm going to get in trouble with the mods again, but must you delve into what is commonly understood a such a sinister realm, in order to achieve what you're trying to achieve?
I'm not trying to convert you but appeal to reason, you know very well that Christ did not endorse whatever you former Church claims that he did, at least not to the same intensity or over-arching manner.

Forgiveness is the grace of God, a free gift - how in the world can this exclusively be construed as a threat of hell-fire? The warnings are only for those who act with defiance and contempt towards the mercy of salvation, not for those who fall short from perfection, otherwise it's not grace or mercy.
Don't let a bunch of overly austere and incompetent exegetes, put a bad taste in your mouth or chains onto you of something that is entirely emancipating, and that is meant to evoke relief and gratitude, not trepidation or resentment.

Common thought isn't always right. People think it's sinister, but it's not. What about it is supposed to be sinister? Respecting all life with empathy? Respecting the rights of others? Viewing the body belongs to the person living it in and is inviolable? That beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding and we should avoid distorting science to conform to our beliefs?
And now I have no interest or desire for this "salvation." I believe Jehovah, if he's real, is a tyrant. A dictator to oppose. For it is better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
And the damage has been done. When I finally got around to checking out a UU church a few years ago I was uncomfortable amd wanted nothing more to do with it because it was too much like the Church.

 

[DNB]

Common thought isn't always right. People think it's sinister, but it's not. What about it is supposed to be sinister? Respecting all life with empathy? Respecting the rights of others? Viewing the body belongs to the person living it in and is inviolable? That beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding and we should avoid distorting science to conform to our beliefs?
And now I have no interest or desire for this "salvation." I believe Jehovah, if he's real, is a tyrant. A dictator to oppose. For it is better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
And the damage has been done. When I finally got around to checking out a UU church a few years ago I was uncomfortable amd wanted nothing more to do with it because it was too much like the Church.

What's UU church, Unitarian Universalist? ...probably, because you're looking for a hell-free environment. ...too bad, I love the Unitarian aspect (i despise the trinity or modalism).


What's sinister about it? Allow me to tell you, satan means adversary, antagonist or devils advocate. He's a trouble maker, just for starters. All the evil that you see in this world, and there is not a sane person who doesn't think that the world is a cesspool, is due to man's wickedness, That is, the inspiration comes from the father of deception and murder, hate, torture and disillusionment. Why are people racist, sadistic, lascivious, avaricious, abusive and corrupt? Because, they are enticed and allured by the spirit of the devil i.e. satan.

There is incontrovertibly evil in this world SW, as there is love and goodness, and both has a source. If love truly exists, it can only be derived from the creator, and not the destroyer. Therefore, accept the creator as the father of all good things, and satan, the devil, as the greatest deceiver and illusionist of all time. You were vulnerable, and he seduced you disguising himself as an angel of light.

 

[Meow Mix]

What's UU church, Unitarian Universalist? ...probably, because you're looking for a hell-free environment. ...too bad, I love the Unitarian aspect (i despise the trinity or modalism).


What's sinister about it? Allow me to tell you, satan means adversary, antagonist or devils advocate. He's a trouble maker, just for starters. All the evil that you see in this world, and there is not a sane person who doesn't think that the world is a cesspool, is due to man's wickedness, That is, the inspiration comes from the father of deception and murder, hate, torture and disillusionment. Why are people racist, sadistic, lascivious, avaricious, abusive and corrupt? Because, they are enticed and allured by the spirit of the devil i.e. satan.

There is incontrovertibly evil in this world SW, as there is love and goodness, and both has a source. If love truly exists, it can only be derived from the creator, and not the destroyer. Therefore, accept the creator as the father of all good things, and satan, the devil, as the greatest deceiver and illusionist of all time. You were vulnerable, and he seduced you disguising himself as an angel of light.

I do appreciate that you take the other horn of Euthyphro from DCT. One of these days I'll rope you into a morality debate vs. my noncognitivism. I would have to determine whether you're a realist or an objectivist of some kind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What's UU church, Unitarian Universalist? ...probably, because you're looking for a hell-free environment. ...too bad, I love the Unitarian aspect (i despise the trinity or modalism).

They didn't mention anything of Hell.

Why are people racist, sadistic, lascivious, avaricious, abusive and corrupt?

We are human. We are animals. No need to add extras to it.

What's sinister about it? Allow me to tell you, satan means adversary, antagonist or devils advocate. He's a trouble maker, just for starters.

He's only a trouble maker for the oppressive.

and there is not a sane person who doesn't think that the world is a cesspool,

I'm apparently not sane then. I see the world as beautiful and full of wonder.

Therefore, accept the creator as the father of all good things, and satan, the devil, as the greatest deceiver and illusionist of all time. You were vulnerable, and he seduced you disguising himself as an angel of light.

As far as I'm concerned it is Jehovah who is evil, who is a great destroyer, and violent dictator, and genocidal maniac. He deceives many with promises of freedom but he delivers shackles and chains as his followers offer the submissive hands of slaves to him.

 

[DNB]

I do appreciate that you take the other horn of Euthyphro from DCT. One of these days I'll rope you into a morality debate vs. my noncognitivism. I would have to determine whether you're a realist or an objectivist of some kind.

Well, you'll have to excuse me of my ignorance right now, for i had to look-up everything that you just stated. But, I may have got it somewhat now?
I hold to the 2nd Horn, God prohibits and mandates actions that are inherently good or bad, respectively. For, I can never imagine a realm where a women will enjoy being raped or murdered, or that someone will enjoy having their belongings stolen, or their children kidnapped, or their body parts severed from gratuitous torture. Love and compassion rules, and produces life in any dimension. Plus, God is immutable - if he claims something to be good, it must align with His character, and if His character never changes, then what was once good, must always be good.

Therefore, I think that that makes me an objectivist?
Sorry, after looking it up more than once, I'm still unsure of the definition of non-cognitivism - but, I believe that I am not one?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, you'll have to excuse me of my ignorance right now, for i had to look-up everything that you just stated. But, I may have got it somewhat now?
I hold to the 2nd Horn, God prohibits and mandates actions that are inherently good or bad, respectively. For, I can never imagine a realm where a women will enjoy being raped or murdered, or that someone will enjoy having their belongings stolen, or their children kidnapped, or their body parts severed from gratuitous torture. Love and compassion rules, and produces life in any dimension. Plus, God is immutable - if he claims something to be good, it must align with His character, and if His character never changes, then what was once good, must always be good.

Therefore, I think that that makes me an objectivist?
Sorry, after looking it up more than once, I'm still unsure of the definition of non-cognitivism - but, I believe that I am not one?

The difficulties arise, though, where people tell you God prohibits something, but the associated harm is considerably less clear. The harm in rape, theft and dismemberment is pretty obvious, and so are argument that engaging these activities is against God's will. Where's the harm in what the people in the OP are doing? Can you demonstrate actual harm? Or are people just saying it's harmful, when actually they're just confronted by something outside their experience?

 

[DNB]

They didn't mention anything of Hell.

We are human. We are animals. No need to add extras to it.

He's only a trouble maker for the oppressive.

I'm apparently not sane then. I see the world as beautiful and full of wonder.

As far as I'm concerned it is Jehovah who is evil, who is a great destroyer, and violent dictator, and genocidal maniac. He deceives many with promises of freedom but he delivers shackles and chains as his followers offer the submissive hands of slaves to him.

ok, SW, again, thank you for your time and openness, but, you're freaking me out now.
Listen, I broached the subject and you just complied, so i don't accuse you of being inappropriate or antagonistic at all, of course. But, you're sounding a little hard-core right now, so I see my efforts as being futile, ....which is just a chance that I took, you never asked for my opinion.

Thank you again SW, ...also for not taking offense to my imposition.

 

[DNB]

The difficulties arise, though, where people tell you God prohibits something, but the associated harm is considerably less clear. The harm in rape, theft and dismemberment is pretty obvious, and so are argument that engaging these activities is against God's will. Where's the harm in what the people in the OP are doing? Can you demonstrate actual harm? Or are people just saying it's harmful, when actually they're just confronted by something outside their experience?

For starters, objectifying people is harmful, non quantifiable as you seem to imply, but perception and insight recognizes the damage in character. I've never met a promiscuous person that I could define as either a lady or a gentlemen, it doesn't exist. Yes, you are correct, it seems to be a real challenge in certain circles in getting this part across - the insidious nature of certain acts. In other words, show me the sexual practice, and I'll show you the character of each participant. Even a thief is recognized by his character alone. For, even when he's not in the act of theft, he still cannot look people in the eye, for he knows that he's not trustworthy because he doesn't even trust himself.

Is there a single women that would trust their husband alone in the same room as a porn star? And, I'm not talking about suspicion of the husband.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

For starters, objectifying people is harmful, non quantifiable as you seem to imply, but perception and insight recognizes the damage in character. I've never met a promiscuous person that I could define as either a lady or a gentlemen, it doesn't exist. Yes, you are correct, it seems to be a real challenge in certain circles in getting this part across - the insidious nature of certain acts. In other words, show me the sexual practice, and I'll show you the character of each participant. Even a thief is recognized by his character alone. For, even when he's not in the act of theft, he still cannot look people in the eye, for he knows that he's not trustworthy because he doesn't even trust himself.

Is there a single women that would trust their husband alone in the same room as a porn star? And, I'm not talking about suspicion of the husband.

So your argument is "I can't quantify the harm, but I know it when I see it?

That's fine for YOU, what about the many, many people who disagree, though? For example, the many women who do, in fact, trust their husbands alone with a porn star?

My point is that if there is not explicit, definable harm, you can have whatever personal opinions about a thing you like, but where I get concerned is when you (or anyone generally) seek to apply those opinions to people more generally, especially when you seek to impose some sort of moral imperative on people. YOU value what you class as being "a lady or a gentlemen", but many people simply have different values, and, here's the crux, are perfectly happy having different values.

For, even when he's not in the act of theft, he still cannot look people in the eye, for he knows that he's not trustworthy because he doesn't even trust himself. I've never met a promiscuous person that I could define as either a lady or a gentlemen, it doesn't exist

you need to meet more people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ok, SW, again, thank you for your time and openness, but, you're freaking me out now.
Listen, I broached the subject and you just complied, so i don't accuse you of being inappropriate or antagonistic at all, of course. But, you're sounding a little hard-core right now, so I see my efforts as being futile, ....which is just a chance that I took, you never asked for my opinion.

Thank you again SW, ...also for not taking offense to my imposition.

Your efforts were futile from the start. I don't mind sharing, but I am very serious that I have no desire to go back to Jehovah.
I also have to admit I enjoy having went from being brought up for the clergy, being considered an ideal teenaged Christian to where I am now.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, you'll have to excuse me of my ignorance right now, for i had to look-up everything that you just stated. But, I may have got it somewhat now?
I hold to the 2nd Horn, God prohibits and mandates actions that are inherently good or bad, respectively. For, I can never imagine a realm where a women will enjoy being raped or murdered, or that someone will enjoy having their belongings stolen, or their children kidnapped, or their body parts severed from gratuitous torture. Love and compassion rules, and produces life in any dimension. Plus, God is immutable - if he claims something to be good, it must align with His character, and if His character never changes, then what was once good, must always be good.

Therefore, I think that that makes me an objectivist?
Sorry, after looking it up more than once, I'm still unsure of the definition of non-cognitivism - but, I believe that I am not one?

A realist believes that there are moral truths that are independent of minds: that whether or not any minds existed (including God's), it would be true that one ought not to do X, and one ought to do Y.

An objectivist believes that even if morality is not a realism, it could still be objectively defined or determined somehow. One example is Divine Command Theory, where moral right and wrong is determined by God's intentions.

Non-cognitivism in the moral sense is opposed to moral realism. My non-cognitivism is based in correspondence theory of truth, which defines truth as something which corresponds with reality. I don't think there are moral truths in the realist sense because it's exactly the same thing as saying there are "oughts" which are truths; but I don't know what it would mean for an "ought" to be mind-independently true.

That is, I think we can form hypothetical imperatives that involve oughts: if I value X, then I ought to do Y. These are propositional (have a truth value). But I don't think it makes sense that there are naked oughts without the hypothetical (without the if-then).

 

[DNB]

So your argument is "I can't quantify the harm, but I know it when I see it?

That's fine for YOU, what about the many, many people who disagree, though? For example, the many women who do, in fact, trust their husbands alone with a porn star?

My point is that if there is not explicit, definable harm, you can have whatever personal opinions about a thing you like, but where I get concerned is when you (or anyone generally) seek to apply those opinions to people more generally, especially when you seek to impose some sort of moral imperative on people. YOU value what you class as being "a lady or a gentlemen", but many people simply have different values, and, here's the crux, are perfectly happy having different values.

you need to meet more people.

No, my point was clearly that I can quantify the harm, but not with a measuring instrument but with words like depraved, lascivious, shallow, selfish, hedonistic, ...
Again, I'm talking about the porn star being under suspicion, that she will selfishly and disrespectfully try and seduce a married man due to her insatiable and indiscriminate lust. This is the damage, her desires are not appreciated by most people, nor what she stands for. The sentiment is, hide your daughters and your sons when a porn star walks into the room, due to either influence or engagement.

You need to show more perception, if you can't tell the difference between the behaviour of a women of ill-repute, and a decent, self-respecting and conservative one.
Plus, lay-off the imposition charges, ...you need to start discerning right from wrong, and if you're able to get that far, start correcting people when their getting in harm's way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, my point was clearly that I can quantify the harm, but not with a measuring instrument but with words like depraved, lascivious, shallow, selfish, hedonistic, ...
Again, I'm talking about the porn star being under suspicion, that she will selfishly and disrespectfully try and seduce a married man due to her insatiable and indiscriminate lust. This is the damage, her desires are not appreciated by most people, nor what she stands for. The sentiment is, hide your daughters and your sons when a porn star walks into the room, due to either influence or engagement.

You need to show more perception, if you can't tell the difference between the behaviour of a women of ill-repute, and a decent, self-respecting and conservative one.
Plus, lay-off the imposition charges, ...you need to start discerning right from wrong, and if you're able to get that far, start correcting people when their getting in harm's way.

Wow! Quite the fantasies that you have. I wonder if you have the same sort of fantasies about plumbers wantonly repiping their houses on their days off.

 

[DNB]

A realist believes that there are moral truths that are independent of minds: that whether or not any minds existed (including God's), it would be true that one ought not to do X, and one ought to do Y.

An objectivist believes that even if morality is not a realism, it could still be objectively defined or determined somehow. One example is Divine Command Theory, where moral right and wrong is determined by God's intentions.

Non-cognitivism in the moral sense is opposed to moral realism. My non-cognitivism is based in correspondence theory of truth, which defines truth as something which corresponds with reality. I don't think there are moral truths in the realist sense because it's exactly the same thing as saying there are "oughts" which are truths; but I don't know what it would mean for an "ought" to be mind-independently true.

That is, I think we can form hypothetical imperatives that involve oughts: if I value X, then I ought to do Y. These are propositional (have a truth value). But I don't think it makes sense that there are naked oughts without the hypothetical (without the if-then).

Sorry MM, call me slow, but that's still quite a bit over my head as far as me making a conclusion on any of the positions.
But, out of curiosity, did I describe enough of my view in order for you to tell me whether i'm a realist or objectivist, or any other category that you mentioned?
...maybe it's a bit too hypothetical, because I feel that even the conception of right and wrong would never exist if there were not a moral agent already in the universe, in order to instill that cognizance within us. God is the author of morality, and such an awareness was only bestowed upon humans, this is clearly evident. So, to ask the question which came first, or what is derived from what, none of this would even be comprehensible without such an endowment in the first place - rocks, fish or mosquitos don't contemplate justice or equity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You need to show more perception, if you can't tell the difference between the behaviour of a women of ill-repute, and a decent, self-respecting and conservative one.

Insane and indecent.
I am on a roll!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A realist believes that there are moral truths that are independent of minds: that whether or not any minds existed (including God's), it would be true that one ought not to do X, and one ought to do Y.

An objectivist believes that even if morality is not a realism, it could still be objectively defined or determined somehow. One example is Divine Command Theory, where moral right and wrong is determined by God's intentions.

Non-cognitivism in the moral sense is opposed to moral realism. My non-cognitivism is based in correspondence theory of truth, which defines truth as something which corresponds with reality. I don't think there are moral truths in the realist sense because it's exactly the same thing as saying there are "oughts" which are truths; but I don't know what it would mean for an "ought" to be mind-independently true.

That is, I think we can form hypothetical imperatives that involve oughts: if I value X, then I ought to do Y. These are propositional (have a truth value). But I don't think it makes sense that there are naked oughts without the hypothetical (without the if-then).

There's also moral relativism, where it's believed there is no objective morality and all morality is valid based on an individual culture (basically whatever a culture practices is moral).
And moral nihilism, which is the position we are making it up as we go along. Which is my "base position," because that is basically what we're doing, but I believe that from there we can use science and the fact we are social animals to guide us to a "pseudo cognitive" morality where can state what is probably best for morality but you have to be ready to argue and defend it because ultimately we live in a non-cognitive world. Such as, it can be argued morality that favors the few is better, and indeed many do. There are no laws of nature to determine who is right. Which puts us back at moral nihilism.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, my point was clearly that I can quantify the harm, but not with a measuring instrument but with words like depraved, lascivious, shallow, selfish, hedonistic, ...
Again, I'm talking about the porn star being under suspicion, that she will selfishly and disrespectfully try and seduce a married man due to her insatiable and indiscriminate lust. This is the damage, her desires are not appreciated by most people, nor what she stands for. The sentiment is, hide your daughters and your sons when a porn star walks into the room, due to either influence or engagement.

You need to show more perception, if you can't tell the difference between the behaviour of a women of ill-repute, and a decent, self-respecting and conservative one.
Plus, lay-off the imposition charges, ...you need to start discerning right from wrong, and if you're able to get that far, start correcting people when their getting in harm's way.

Being a porn star doesn't mean someone would wantonly disrespect someone's existing relationship though. A lot of people in the sex work industry are just sex positive, not jerks.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sorry MM, call me slow, but that's still quite a bit over my head as far as me making a conclusion on any of the positions.
But, out of curiosity, did I describe enough of my view in order for you to tell me whether i'm a realist or objectivist, or any other category that you mentioned?
...maybe it's a bit too hypothetical, because I feel that even the conception of right and wrong would never exist if there were not a moral agent already in the universe, in order to instill that cognizance within us. God is the author of morality, and such an awareness was only bestowed upon humans, this is clearly evident. So, to ask the question which came first, or what is derived from what, none of this would even be comprehensible without such an endowment in the first place - rocks, fish or mosquitos don't contemplate justice or equity.

Do you think morality would exist if God or any other mind didn't? If no minds existed, would there be something about the universe that means it would be wrong to steal, even if nobody is there to steal? Such that the wrongness comes from something outside of minds?

That would be realism.

If you think minds have to exist for morality to exist, that's probably objective morality.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business.

Is this what is happening? Actions within the privacy of their homes?

Seems to me like privacy is not on the agenda here.

Promiscuity is detrimental mentally, emotionally, and health-wise…. and there are just too many objective, scientific articles that back it up.

 

[Meow Mix]

Is this what is happening? Actions within the privacy of their homes?

Seems to me like privacy is not on the agenda here.

Promiscuity is detrimental mentally, emotionally, and health-wise…. and there are just too many objective, scientific articles that back it up.

Post some please