Porn Pastor

[Rival]

She does moreso than you recognize.

Yup, but I've given up on this thread already lol.

 

[Rival]

reductio ad paedophiliam. There's a shock.

So another example for those who can't take it.

If another country says wife beating is alright, or infanticide, and if I see a man beating his wife, is anyone going to turn around and say,

But they allow it in X country! You're just seeing a wife beater!

It's a stupid argument.

 

[Clara Tea]

No, that’s not an oxymoron.

Check this out and let me know what you think:

In San Diego, Porn Star Preaches Message ‘For Sinners By Sinners’

I like it.

imo, it’s a positive. The old, antiquated christian religion is dying, as it should.
It was built upon false premises from very early on, imo.

Satan makes more converts (to God) than any other angel or God. Fear of burning in the fires of hell for all eternity is a very powerful motivation. Perhaps this is why God allows Satan and evil to exist?

The "porn preacher" makes news, and any news, even bad news, is publicity, and publicity makes converts (to God).

My neighbor traps helpless neighbors into long rants about religion--how he was a drug addict who saw God and was converted. I never knew that God was a pink elephant. He says that he is now a believer, but he still constantly sins because God made him that way (hmm...sin is his holy mission????). His preaching is about as welcome as amour from Pepe Le Pew (the cartoon French skunk who romances a poor unfortunate black cat who gets run over by a street striper and gets a white stripe down her back).

I suppose that my sinning neighbor, who now thinks of sinning as his holy mission, also converts many to God.

Jesus said that if you believe in Him (Jesus), you will have eternal life. The apostle, who heard this, thought that was a good thing. At the time, Jesus was attached (nailed or tied--opinions differ) to the cross. Could it be that Jesus was cursing his killers to eternal damnation, not giving them eternal life in heaven?

Belief, alone, is not a ticket to heaven. Obviously, one must atone for sins to get into heaven, or heaven would be filled with evil people and therefore it would be like hell (or it would be hell).

Let us bear in mind that Jesus forgave Mary Magdalene. Jesus accepted atoned sinners. There is nothing wrong with accepting an atoned porn preacher--but he must atone, regardless of the good that he does.

Should we be followers of the sinful? Well, no one is perfect...it is in the nature of mankind to be flawed. However, severe flaws can't be overlooked.

Sarah Palin's daughters are held up as examples of chastity, and each time they have babies out of wedlock, they are thought of as virgins again. I don't know how many times they became virgins, nor do I fully understand the process by which one becomes a born again virgin. Frankly, I don't think that it is possible.

With a trembling lip, Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, having been arrested in Lancaster, California, for paying a prostitute, said that he was sorry and that he had sinned. His followers accepted him as a preacher again (and he is still on TV getting converts to God). I suppose he is now sort of a patron saint of sinners, who now profess belief in God and now believe that they can continue to sin and still get into heaven (but they are wrong). No wonder Swaggart has so many followers.

The path away from sin is a tough one, and no one can disagree. Yet, some find great joy in the good life and moral life. One doesn't have to be stoned to have joy. One doesn't have to have sex with thousands of people (as Magic Johnson did when he contracted AIDS) to enjoy the simple joys of life. I think that there is something psychologically wrong with those who feel that they have to sin.

 

[Rival]

I guess I should have made more effort to convert to Judaism and gone to live in an Orthodox enclave after all.

Those folks understand.

 

[Clara Tea]

What does “bringing back sexual taboos” entail?

I'm back from my vacation in Las Vegas. I went to Wynn's casino. There, hundreds of bikini clad women were roaming the casino, making their way to the pool party. Their bikinis were not average, they were very very abbreviated. But why would hundreds of very beautiful women in bikinis want to pay money to attend a pool party, and why walk around the casino, and why would Wynn pay millions of dollars for the pool area? Why would Wynn approve of some "swimmers" and not approve of others? Why just beautiful women and why just rich men?

The taxi driver told me that all day long he drives the women to men's apartments. The young men are very rich, and said to be drug pushers and pimps. The women are largely from southern California, and newspaper articles about them say that they earn tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes) in Las Vegas by prostitution on one weekend, then go back to their regular jobs during the week. That's good pay for a weekend. But doesn't that make Wynn a mega-pimp? Is it any different than a bar where women prostitute themselves?

Perhaps the idea of bringing back sexual taboos is about making such mega-prostitution wrong in our society? We are in an age of STDs and AIDS, we are in a global COVID pandemic, and even disregarding diseases, prostitution somehow seems wrong. Certainly it is against the principles of most religions (though there are religions led by beautiful women preachers who have sex with their followers....needless to say, there are a lot of men in attendance, and they never miss a church meeting).

Morality is local. In Las Vegas, prostitution, smoking, drinking, drugging, and gambling are part of normal life. In an Amish community, those (prostitution, smoking, drinking, drugging, and gambling) are also part of normal life for teens, but eventually, they must atone and live pure lives if they hope to re-join the Amish community, and their process of atonement takes years to be accepted. It is called "rumspringa" when Amish teens go wild with sin and decide whether or not they wish to rejoin the Amish community....it is a normal thing for the Amish to do. (source: google rumspringa nude, and look at images).

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So another example for those who can't take it.

If another country says wife beating is alright, or infanticide, and if I see a man beating his wife, is anyone going to turn around and say,

But they allow it in X country! You're just seeing a wife beater!

It's a stupid argument.

All of this is irrelevant to the OP. If you can't make an argument on its merits against the thing you have decided you don't like, here's a tip, wildly unapt analogies to irrelevant things unrelated to the thing being discussed won't make your case for you.

So, care to try a third time? Or shall we just take "but it's new and strange to me so I don't like it" as read?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yup, but I've given up on this thread already lol.

It's rough when people ask for a meaningful fact based discussion rather than just accepting puritanical pearl clutching as everyone's accepted default, huh?

 

[Rival]

All of this is irrelevant to the OP. If you can't make an argument on its merits against the thing you have decided you don't like, here's a tip, wildly unapt analogies to irrelevant things unrelated to the thing being discussed won't make your case for you.

So, care to try a third time? Or shall we just take "but it's new and strange to me so I don't like it" as read?

I gave an explanation in several posts.

I'm a religious person who holds traditional religious views. I think such sexual freedoms lead to chaos, misery, division and brokenness.

I'm sorry you don't like that or agree with it. It's fine, I don't expect you to.

I also don't care if you don't think my reasoning holds up; it's not for you to decide.

 

[Rival]

It's rough when people ask for a meaningful fact based discussion rather than just accepting puritanical pearl clutching as everyone's accepted default, huh?

It's not my default. It's not the default of anyone I know in the UK.

I wasn't raised with these views, nor were they part of any religious practice I previously attended.

I came to these conclusions on my own.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I gave an explanation in several posts.

I'm a religious person who holds traditional religious views. I think such sexual freedoms lead to chaos, misery, division and brokenness.

I'm sorry you don't like that or agree with it. It's fine, I don't expect you to.

I also don't care if you don't think my reasoning holds up; it's not for you to decide.

No one criticised your personal beliefs, the question was about enforcing them on others. YOU said "we" need a return to strong sexual tabboos so I'm waiting for an explanation of why your personal beliefs should affect anyone else. If you believe these things so strongly, it really shouldn't be such a burden to coherently explain them.

So again, how does anyone else's life get better if we do the thing you want everyone else to do? Specifically?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's not my default. It's not the default of anyone I know in the UK.

I wasn't raised with these views, nor were they part of any religious practice I previously attended.

I came to these conclusions on my own.

Yet you seem offended that people disagree with them.

 

[Rival]

No one criticised your personal beliefs, the question was about enforcing them on others. YOU said "we" need a return to strong sexual tabboos so I'm waiting for an explanation of why your personal beliefs should affect anyone else. If you believe these things so strongly, it really shouldn't be such a burden to coherently explain them.

So again, how does anyone else's life get better if we do the thing you want everyone else to do? Specifically?

This is a stupid question though.

Why would anyone hold a worldview whilst at the same time thinking it won't work for others or not wanting to live under it and believe it's the best view?

 

[Rival]

Yet you seem offended that people disagree with them.

I'm not. I'm bothered by being piled on by RFians who can't seem to have good faith conversations about this. @lewisnotmiller and I disagree but he's always been courteous to me in these debates. I don't think that's happened here with other posters. Instead of actually seeking to understand all they seek to do is belittle and try to make you feel as though you're stupid, uninformed, backwards, anti-science or whatever. So I become frustrated with the lack of actual meaningful dialogue because no-one really wants that. I can tell that many folks aren't looking for answers I'll give to which they'll then go 'Oh, alright. I disagree, but thanks for explaining that, now I understand.'

That almost never happens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The services at that church look rather boring. And they have a very small congregation, maybe twenty people at the most. No sign of being in the porn industry:

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a stupid question though.

Why would anyone hold a worldview whilst at the same time thinking it won't work for others or not wanting to live under it and believe it's the best view?

He seems to think that you want to do more than encouraging others to agree with you. Please note he used the word "enforcing". Trying to change what someone said and then calling the question stupid makes it look as if you are the one that cannot have a good faith conversation. A bit of an apology may be in order for the wording that you used.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So another example for those who can't take it.

If another country says wife beating is alright, or infanticide, and if I see a man beating his wife, is anyone going to turn around and say,

But they allow it in X country! You're just seeing a wife beater!

It's a stupid argument.

That's moral relativism for you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He seems to think that you want to do more than encouraging others to agree with you. Please note he used the word "enforcing". Trying to change what someone said and then calling the question stupid makes it look as if you are the one that cannot have a good faith conversation. A bit of an apology may be in order for the wording that you used.

She's not the one who made outlandish allegations against another member. Like that claim she's not willing to let others do their own thing. How in the hell could we get a long well enough for me to say I'm her wife in my title if she was actually how Kangaroo is portraying her?

 

[Rival]

She's not the one who made outlandish allegations against another member. Like that claim she's not willing to let others do their own thing. How in the hell could we get a long well enough for me to say I'm her wife in my title if she was actually how Kangaroo is portraying her?

Essentially all I said was 'Keep your sexuality to yourself and your own bedrooms, there's no need for all this public nonsense. Sure, I like BDSM - I don't like it on my local high street.'

And everyone just kind of lost their minds, I guess.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The problem, seems to be that you want to impose your world view onto other people. You are more than welcome to your world view. The problem is that you don't appear willing to grant that same courtesy to other people.

Rival and I have been fairly close friends for a few years, and you can see multiple examples in this thread alone of how much we disagree.

It's more productive to focus on the issues instead of jumping to conclusions about people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Would you quite digressing or creating a straw-man argument? These two fools somehow believe, after sleeping around with every callous and depraved pervert in town, who they don't even know their names, that God approves and endorses such behaviour. This is the offense. It is one thing to forgive, which I strongly encourage, but only when repentance and contrition are present. These people are not even attempting to change their ways, it's a ploy admitting that you're a sinner but still indulging in the sin.

They clearly called themselves "sinners," so it seems to me that they don't believe God approves of what they're doing.

I also don't think anything I've said is a digression or a straw man. What I'm getting at is that religious interpretations widely vary, so trying to make all believers in a given religion fit into a specific box and labeling them "hypocrites," "deceitful," etc., if they don't fit into it is unrealistic and overly exclusionary.