March 15, 2021
Children of the Porn
Timothy Birdnow
Jim Church posted a meme on his Facebook page against pornography and he apparently upset a number of our mutual Facebook friends who happen to be atheists. A big argument erupted with me left holding the bag (as usual). Apparently it is uncool to think porn is bad.
Jim basically said pornography is wrong from a moral perspective. This led to an argument on the validity of the Bible and on the existence of God.
Below is a reproduction of the thread:
Willis Eschenbach says:
Jim, with the greatest respect, God doesn't like porn? Funny, I never saw that in the Bible.
Can I tell you how offensive people are who want to tell me what God likes and doesn't like? YOU DON'T KNOW GOD'S MIND, STOP PRETENDING YOU DO! You can be against porn without claiming that God tells you what he's thinking.
Gotta say ... you guys are obsessed with porn. Hundreds of real problems out there, and with you it's porn, porn, porn ... no surprise, really. Your kind of "We know God's will" Christians tend to be terribly sexually repressed and frustrated, so your obsession with porn is totally understandable.
How about getting mad about domestic violence, or child abuse, or some issue that's actually important?
I add:
The thing is Willis Eschenbach child abuse and domestic violence have a root. That's why there are people here "obsessed with porn". I agree; child sex trafficking is one such issue that is of terrible concern. But one wonders if combating porn isn't a tool in combating sex trafficking?
BTW I think very little about porn; I just got into this because I saw a thought-provoki
Willis adds:
Thanks, Timothy. You say "child abuse and domestic violence have a root". And by some mysterious kind of causation, that unknown and undefined "root" makes people be "obsessed with porn".
I have no clue what this means. Absolutely none.
David Redfern throws in:
Timothy BirdnowSadly, child abuse and domestic violence were around a long time before contemporary pornography. So too, child sex trafficking which, I believe, is far more visible now because of the internet.
Having said that, in all my time as a Cop in the 70's and 80's, working in and around Glasgow, I can't think of a case of paedophilia or child trafficking. But there was plenty of pornography around.
I think the concept and collective awareness has been raised thanks to the internet, but I also think there is an awful lot of exaggeration about the subjects.
It also remains a fact that victims of paedophilia invariably know their abuser well, often a family member.
And we are frequently confronted with lurid numbers of how many thousand of children go missing every year in the US. What we don't hear is how many of those children wander home after 24 hours, the usual deadline before a missing persons report is officially raised by the police.
From first hand experience in the UK, 99% of them.
Tim replies:
Willis Eschenbach if we haven't heard a word you have said then perhaps you are not being clear? I would add that letting a guy walk off a cliff or drink cyanide is not an act of love - which is why there is preaching in Christianity. It's an attempt to save souls, not be killjoys. I would add that the part about love in Christianity is only a part of it and inevitably ends in the discarding of the rest of the Faith. In fact, the rise of modern Progressivism is precisely that; Christianity without Christ, the acceptance of "care for fellow man" without a spiritual core which leads to what C.S. Lewis observed "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies". Indeed he is right. But who is the moral busibody? Yes, sometimes it has been misguided Christians, but more often it has been secularists. The reality is Christianity teaches self control so govenment does not have to force people in line. Therein is the big difference between us and them (and that us includes you Willis); they want no limits on behavior but laws to act as guardrails, while we believe in self-restraint with few laws. Which is more loving? I would argue our way. But it presupposes certain moral standards, be they from the Bible or from observations of Natural Law. To be a Christian under the strictures of Biblical morality is much freer and more loving than to be a slave to one's animal instincts and the power structure of the self-appointed moral busibodies of the secularist Left. At any rate, I too remain your friend Willis! Have a great Sunday!
David Redfern demands:
Timothy Birdnow As I've asked elsewhere, and only had the word of a court in response, what is the definition of Pornography?
Does the Bible give one or is it down to mankind's interpretation.
Tim replies:
No David Redfern, the Bible doesn't give a definition to pornography. It doesn't use the word, but does use the word porneia which is usually defined as "fornication" or "prostitution" https://
David Redfern tosses in his 2 cents:
So we can glorify war, which we do; allow our children to play shoot em up video games, and promote pugilism etc. but someone having a wank over two people shagging is wrong? And that might not be just a man, does the Bible mention anything about coveting another woman's husband?
Even when the Bible was written there were prostitutes. Isn't it a woman's right to do with her body what she chooses without a bunch of blokes writing a book condemning her?
The Bible is, if nothing else, misogynistic. And much of it is down to one's personal interpretation.
And I'm not anti Bible or anti religion or anything else, I respect people who have faith, I just don't need it.
But I think the Bible needs to be interpreted through the prism of an age it couldn't even conceive of. Try to write a Bible today and one would face an impossible task.
Willis Eschenbach states:
Timothy Birdnow said:
===
"Willis Eschenbach the Bible is written by God THROUGH men, not directly by God."
===
And I suppose you know this because you were there and witnessed it?
What? NO?
I do love your absolute certainty about things that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be certain about. I get that you THINK that's true ... so freakin' what?
The only thing we can be certain of is that the Bible was written by men. Not dogs. Not aliens. Not women.
Men. Fallible men. Angry men. Excitable men. Loving men. Bitter men. Sad men. All kinds of men.
Now, you can claim that God somehow mysteriously took them over and forced them to write just what he wanted them to write ... and then gave up doing that a couple thousand years ago.
Why give it up? Maybe he didn't. There have been lots of folks since then that have made the claim you're making, that THEY were directly inspired by God to write what they wrote. Take Joe Smith, for example. He said that the Book of Mormon was written by God ...
David Koresh made the same claim, for that matter, that God was speaking directly through him ...
We have a word for those kind of beliefs these days. Insanity. For example, you don't believe God was working through David Koresh, or Joe Smith. But somehow, when it happened 2,000 years ago, you claim to know that God was working through those folks?
Fine. Believe it. But please, stop with the claim that your belief makes it true.
Tim replies:
Willis Eschenbach I am explaining to you Christian teaching - not stating I personally saw it happen. This is not an honest argument; you accept all manner of teachings you personally did not experience. Or were you present at the Big Bang? At the condensation of the solar system from a cloud of dust and gas? Have you personally seen a quark? A Gluon? A Boson? You accept these things on faith in the end. That doesn't mean you cannot apply reason, and test it for logic. But that doesn't mean you reject science out of hand because you personally haven't experienced it.
You say:
"I do love your absolute certainty about things that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be certain about."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing here? You are making absolute statements that I cannot know something unless I personally experienced it. But how do you know?
"The only thing we can be certain of is that the Bible was written by men. Not dogs. Not aliens. Not women. "
You miss the point on this. I said quite clearly the Bible was writtten by men - but was Divinely inspired. THAT is basic Christian belief. There are reasons to think the Bible is Divinely inspired. The relative unity of the multiple books of the Bible, for example, suggests an organization that is counter-intuitive in such a hodge-podge. Now, I understand the counter-argument; the Church left things out (like the Gospel of Jude) but still, passages are often echoed in other books in a way that suggests a kind of unity. There are historical examples in the Bible that scholars dismissed but later found to be accurate. One example the existence and location of Nineveh. William Paley wrote about that. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009QB2JV2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B009QB2JV2&linkCode=as2&tag=chriscouri-20&linkId=LM27F2PXW Sir William RamseyOURLXTX There was Sir William Ramsey who verified the accuracy of the Book of Acts in Asia minor as another example.
Then there's this. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1402192770/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1402192770&linkCode=as2&tag=chriscouri-20&linkId=RWXUO3JCD5YHV3SW
McGurvey points out that the "fiction" in the Bible is actually quite accurate in many details of foreign lands and events.
And then there are the prophecies in the Bible. I know what happens; critics try to claim a later date for many of them to explain their accuracy. But who is right and who is wrong?
Another point; the Bible has survived where all other such books have disappeared or been forgotten. Who reads the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for instance? What is it that has made the Bible stand the test of time?
The Dead Sea Scrolls too show the Bible has largely remained in tact, despite centuries. It's amazing, really.
And what of the science in the Bible that was unknown at that time? The Book of Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a sphere, for example. The Book of Job said the Earth floats free in space. There is mention of undersea volcanic vents in the Bible. These are just three examples. I am not saying the Bible is a book of science, but that there are things in it that should not have been known at that time by a bunch of goat herders.And the Book of Genesis gives the description of something strikingly similar to the Big Bang, and the progression of life from plants to animals to people is amazingly modern.
The Bible is also unique insofar as the message is quite different from that of other religions. It shows it's heroes warts and all - unlike other such books which make their heroes bigger than life. It also offers an unique path to salvation. In most other religions Man is seen as perfectible by his own efforts (sacrifices and the like) or has no hope at all (like the Egyptians since only Pharoah and his cronies had eternal life) or the Greeks (who became shadow-like entities in a gloomy underworld.) The Bible is quite unique in that way.
I could go on, but I really don't have time to delve really deeply into apologetics. Does it prove anything beyond a doubt? No. As you say, you can't be certain. But that is an act of faith, your doubt, as surely as my faith is a leap. In both instances a choice in what one believes has to be made. You choose simply to doubt. I would quote Henri Poincare who stated "To doubt everything, or, to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection".
BTW, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Francis Bacon, and a host of other great minds were ardent believers.
Also, how did concepts like a triune God come about? It's objectionable to many. Why? Because it's outside of human reason. It's exactly what one would expect from a deity that transcends the corporeal world. We talk with wonder about quantum spookiness, about things like the Many Worlds Interpretation and yet we balk at a triune God?
You say:
"God somehow mysteriously took them over and forced them to write just what he wanted them to write"
No. I said the writers of the Bible were INSPIRED. Muhammed was a guy who was "taken over". So was Joseph Smith. The Muslims believe Muhammed took dictation, word for word, which is why Islam does not evole as a religion; it cannot, because every single word is immutable. Christianity does because we are forever learning something new from the passages of the Bible. The Bible seems amazingly adept at being pertinent to new situations.
So, why are there no longer prophets? Christianity says Jesus ended the prophetic age to a large degree (and that included His Disciples, and the early founders of the Church) because much of what was prophecied had been fulfilled. We are now in the Church Age, and we have what we need for now. Catholicism argues that there will be prophets again at some point, but as of now we've had those we need.
Willis, the whole point is you believe what you like and I will do likewise. But it is BELIEF whether you want to admit that or not. And you say you admire those who practice love and charity, but why are those virtues? To a Satanist they are vices. To many primitive cultures ideas like forgiveness and charity are signs of weakness. The Comanche used to torture captives to death. There has been cannibalism, torture, ritual execution, head shrinking, etc. in human history. So why do you like the Christian notions of love? Are you not in your own way accepting certain parts of Christianity? Aren't you making a choice as to what parts to believe in? Most modern atheism is essentially Christian in form. As such you bend your knee to Christ as surely as do I. I just admit that fact. Christianity has been the cornerstone of almost all modern history.
Willis, the whole point of everything is for us to make choices, to decide our eternal fate. If it were clear and easy it wouldn't be worth anything - and would accomplish nothing. Who wouldn't toe the line if they KNEW the Bible was absolutely true - or that there was unquestionably a God. It's the decision to act upon a choice without complete evidence that is important. That is how one has free wAny jackass can obey the law if they know they will be caught and punished.
Yes, it IS a matter of faith. But so is what you believe. Why is YOUR belief system any better?
Oh, and Willis Eschenbach, millions have believed it over the centuries and still do to this day. There are people who have had supernatural experiences. Many of them have gone to their deaths for the faith (All of the Apostles save one did when they personally KNEW Jesus). Would YOU go to your death for your non-faith? Also, you speak of there being no more prophets writing the Bible. But in Catholicism there are recognized miracles at places like Fatima. You may want to scoff, but look at the evidence. The Catholic Church does a pretty thorough investigation of such things; the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje are still not approved by the Catholic Church, for instance. But you asked why prophets stopped; perhaps they haven't.
David Redfern and Willis Eschenbach yes, domestic violence and sex trafficking predate pornography. It's part of why it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Bible. But then, spacecraft did not exist when Isaac Newton formulated his theories. Does that make them invalid?
David, I live in St. Louis Missouri which may well be the capital of sex trafficking in America. There are any number of cases. I have personally met people whose children were taken by sex traffickers, so it is a big issue to me. There was a former church turned into a pizza place running women; kept them in cages until they could be shipped overseas. I suspect it's because we have a large Albanian community with the Albanian mafia here. They are centered very near my home.
David, you say:
"It also remains a fact that victims of paedophilia invariably know their abuser well, often a family member."
Don't you think that overstimulated sexual appetites might have something to do with that?
There was the Meese Commission back in the '80's, which concluded that, while porn did not CAUSE men to rape women it certainly encouraged those with such tendencies to do so.
In fact, I know of at least 22 studies that confirm a link between sexual violence and pornography. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12201/abstract Now, I take studies with a grain of salt - most especially psychological studies. But I know that some serial killers have said they were heavily into pornography.Ted Bundy was one. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/october/serial-killer-ted-bundy-describes-the-dangers-of-pornography Draw what conclusion you wish.
At any rate, I enjoy a good argument about masturbation and dirty pictures as much as the next man, but I do have things to do of greater importance (I'm going to get into a fight over flatulence on another thread probably). Do take care guys! .
David Redfern says:
Timothy BirdnowI just responded to someone elsewhere on the question of Arrhenius' research into CO2 and his belief in it's effects on global temperatures (he recanted his claims in 1906) and the research of Prof. Will Happer in 2020.
The difference between the two strikes me as being similar to the difference to when the Bible was written, and an attempt to write it today.
With all the facilities and advanced science available to Will Happer, he is undoubtedly in a better position to comment on atmospheric CO2 than Arrhenius ever was.
I understand the Bible was written many years following Jesus' death so, if someone attempted to rewrite the Bible today, would they also experience the divine intervention of God, or was that just a one off event? And why?
Consensus of belief does not make the belief necessarily true.
A bit like the scientific 'consensus' over climate change.
David Redfern, I really don't have time to go at this as much as I would like, but it is important and so I'm sticking with it best as I can. I appreciate your thinking on this and fear we will never agree. But it's worth putting it out there.
Yes, subsequent evidence and knowledge generally are superior to earlier. Generally, not always.
The Gospels were written somewhere around 66 a.d. There are those who try to date them to later, but that is usually being done to discredit them. Most scholars generally believe they were written in the First Century. And the Epistles of Paul were written between 52 and 67 a.d.
At those times there were still people alive who experienced the events, or who knew someone who did. And at the time the Church was undergoing considerable persecution. How many people are willing to die for a fraud? That so many were willing (and all of the Apostles except John were executed horribly, while John died in the salt mines of Patmos) to face such a fate suggests more than just a good yarn being spun, in my opinion.
"Consensus of belief does not make the belief necessarily true."
No, it does not. But it does add to the credibility. And when you have so very, very many over the millenia, with people willing to give their lives for it, that suggests something more is going on. Certainly old Greta or Mike Mann aren't going to give their lives for AGW theory.
It's not smoking gun proof, but it is one piece of evidence in the pile. As Ive argued with the people claiming no vote fraud in the U.S. elections, I point out that any one piece of the puzzle would be an anomalie; a bunch of them form a pattern. It's one of the many pieces of evidence.
There is no smoking gun either way, for or against religion and the existence of God. That would invalidate the experiment, frankly. If people knew there was a God for certain they would have to take this stuff seriously. They would not be free to make the choices which determine what kind of person you are and want to be. They say there are no atheists in foxholes...
Cheers!
Jim Church posted a meme on his Facebook page against pornography and he apparently upset a number of our mutual Facebook friends who happen to be atheists. A big argument erupted with me left holding the bag (as usual). Apparently it is uncool to think porn is bad.
Jim basically said pornography is wrong from a moral perspective. This led to an argument on the validity of the Bible and on the existence of God.
Below is a reproduction of the thread:
Willis Eschenbach says:
Jim, with the greatest respect, God doesn't like porn? Funny, I never saw that in the Bible.
Can I tell you how offensive people are who want to tell me what God likes and doesn't like? YOU DON'T KNOW GOD'S MIND, STOP PRETENDING YOU DO! You can be against porn without claiming that God tells you what he's thinking.
Gotta say ... you guys are obsessed with porn. Hundreds of real problems out there, and with you it's porn, porn, porn ... no surprise, really. Your kind of "We know God's will" Christians tend to be terribly sexually repressed and frustrated, so your obsession with porn is totally understandable.
How about getting mad about domestic violence, or child abuse, or some issue that's actually important?
I add:
The thing is Willis Eschenbach child abuse and domestic violence have a root. That's why there are people here "obsessed with porn". I agree; child sex trafficking is one such issue that is of terrible concern. But one wonders if combating porn isn't a tool in combating sex trafficking?
BTW I think very little about porn; I just got into this because I saw a thought-provoki
Willis adds:
Thanks, Timothy. You say "child abuse and domestic violence have a root". And by some mysterious kind of causation, that unknown and undefined "root" makes people be "obsessed with porn".
I have no clue what this means. Absolutely none.
David Redfern throws in:
Timothy BirdnowSadly, child abuse and domestic violence were around a long time before contemporary pornography. So too, child sex trafficking which, I believe, is far more visible now because of the internet.
Having said that, in all my time as a Cop in the 70's and 80's, working in and around Glasgow, I can't think of a case of paedophilia or child trafficking. But there was plenty of pornography around.
I think the concept and collective awareness has been raised thanks to the internet, but I also think there is an awful lot of exaggeration about the subjects.
It also remains a fact that victims of paedophilia invariably know their abuser well, often a family member.
And we are frequently confronted with lurid numbers of how many thousand of children go missing every year in the US. What we don't hear is how many of those children wander home after 24 hours, the usual deadline before a missing persons report is officially raised by the police.
From first hand experience in the UK, 99% of them.
Tim replies:
Willis Eschenbach if we haven't heard a word you have said then perhaps you are not being clear? I would add that letting a guy walk off a cliff or drink cyanide is not an act of love - which is why there is preaching in Christianity. It's an attempt to save souls, not be killjoys. I would add that the part about love in Christianity is only a part of it and inevitably ends in the discarding of the rest of the Faith. In fact, the rise of modern Progressivism is precisely that; Christianity without Christ, the acceptance of "care for fellow man" without a spiritual core which leads to what C.S. Lewis observed "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies". Indeed he is right. But who is the moral busibody? Yes, sometimes it has been misguided Christians, but more often it has been secularists. The reality is Christianity teaches self control so govenment does not have to force people in line. Therein is the big difference between us and them (and that us includes you Willis); they want no limits on behavior but laws to act as guardrails, while we believe in self-restraint with few laws. Which is more loving? I would argue our way. But it presupposes certain moral standards, be they from the Bible or from observations of Natural Law. To be a Christian under the strictures of Biblical morality is much freer and more loving than to be a slave to one's animal instincts and the power structure of the self-appointed moral busibodies of the secularist Left. At any rate, I too remain your friend Willis! Have a great Sunday!
David Redfern demands:
Timothy Birdnow As I've asked elsewhere, and only had the word of a court in response, what is the definition of Pornography?
Does the Bible give one or is it down to mankind's interpretation.
Tim replies:
No David Redfern, the Bible doesn't give a definition to pornography. It doesn't use the word, but does use the word porneia which is usually defined as "fornication" or "prostitution" https://
David Redfern tosses in his 2 cents:
So we can glorify war, which we do; allow our children to play shoot em up video games, and promote pugilism etc. but someone having a wank over two people shagging is wrong? And that might not be just a man, does the Bible mention anything about coveting another woman's husband?
Even when the Bible was written there were prostitutes. Isn't it a woman's right to do with her body what she chooses without a bunch of blokes writing a book condemning her?
The Bible is, if nothing else, misogynistic. And much of it is down to one's personal interpretation.
And I'm not anti Bible or anti religion or anything else, I respect people who have faith, I just don't need it.
But I think the Bible needs to be interpreted through the prism of an age it couldn't even conceive of. Try to write a Bible today and one would face an impossible task.
Willis Eschenbach states:
Timothy Birdnow said:
===
"Willis Eschenbach the Bible is written by God THROUGH men, not directly by God."
===
And I suppose you know this because you were there and witnessed it?
What? NO?
I do love your absolute certainty about things that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be certain about. I get that you THINK that's true ... so freakin' what?
The only thing we can be certain of is that the Bible was written by men. Not dogs. Not aliens. Not women.
Men. Fallible men. Angry men. Excitable men. Loving men. Bitter men. Sad men. All kinds of men.
Now, you can claim that God somehow mysteriously took them over and forced them to write just what he wanted them to write ... and then gave up doing that a couple thousand years ago.
Why give it up? Maybe he didn't. There have been lots of folks since then that have made the claim you're making, that THEY were directly inspired by God to write what they wrote. Take Joe Smith, for example. He said that the Book of Mormon was written by God ...
David Koresh made the same claim, for that matter, that God was speaking directly through him ...
We have a word for those kind of beliefs these days. Insanity. For example, you don't believe God was working through David Koresh, or Joe Smith. But somehow, when it happened 2,000 years ago, you claim to know that God was working through those folks?
Fine. Believe it. But please, stop with the claim that your belief makes it true.
Tim replies:
Willis Eschenbach I am explaining to you Christian teaching - not stating I personally saw it happen. This is not an honest argument; you accept all manner of teachings you personally did not experience. Or were you present at the Big Bang? At the condensation of the solar system from a cloud of dust and gas? Have you personally seen a quark? A Gluon? A Boson? You accept these things on faith in the end. That doesn't mean you cannot apply reason, and test it for logic. But that doesn't mean you reject science out of hand because you personally haven't experienced it.
You say:
"I do love your absolute certainty about things that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be certain about."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing here? You are making absolute statements that I cannot know something unless I personally experienced it. But how do you know?
"The only thing we can be certain of is that the Bible was written by men. Not dogs. Not aliens. Not women. "
You miss the point on this. I said quite clearly the Bible was writtten by men - but was Divinely inspired. THAT is basic Christian belief. There are reasons to think the Bible is Divinely inspired. The relative unity of the multiple books of the Bible, for example, suggests an organization that is counter-intuitive in such a hodge-podge. Now, I understand the counter-argument; the Church left things out (like the Gospel of Jude) but still, passages are often echoed in other books in a way that suggests a kind of unity. There are historical examples in the Bible that scholars dismissed but later found to be accurate. One example the existence and location of Nineveh. William Paley wrote about that. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009QB2JV2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B009QB2JV2&linkCode=as2&tag=chriscouri-20&linkId=LM27F2PXW Sir William RamseyOURLXTX There was Sir William Ramsey who verified the accuracy of the Book of Acts in Asia minor as another example.
Then there's this. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1402192770/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1402192770&linkCode=as2&tag=chriscouri-20&linkId=RWXUO3JCD5YHV3SW
McGurvey points out that the "fiction" in the Bible is actually quite accurate in many details of foreign lands and events.
And then there are the prophecies in the Bible. I know what happens; critics try to claim a later date for many of them to explain their accuracy. But who is right and who is wrong?
Another point; the Bible has survived where all other such books have disappeared or been forgotten. Who reads the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for instance? What is it that has made the Bible stand the test of time?
The Dead Sea Scrolls too show the Bible has largely remained in tact, despite centuries. It's amazing, really.
And what of the science in the Bible that was unknown at that time? The Book of Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a sphere, for example. The Book of Job said the Earth floats free in space. There is mention of undersea volcanic vents in the Bible. These are just three examples. I am not saying the Bible is a book of science, but that there are things in it that should not have been known at that time by a bunch of goat herders.And the Book of Genesis gives the description of something strikingly similar to the Big Bang, and the progression of life from plants to animals to people is amazingly modern.
The Bible is also unique insofar as the message is quite different from that of other religions. It shows it's heroes warts and all - unlike other such books which make their heroes bigger than life. It also offers an unique path to salvation. In most other religions Man is seen as perfectible by his own efforts (sacrifices and the like) or has no hope at all (like the Egyptians since only Pharoah and his cronies had eternal life) or the Greeks (who became shadow-like entities in a gloomy underworld.) The Bible is quite unique in that way.
I could go on, but I really don't have time to delve really deeply into apologetics. Does it prove anything beyond a doubt? No. As you say, you can't be certain. But that is an act of faith, your doubt, as surely as my faith is a leap. In both instances a choice in what one believes has to be made. You choose simply to doubt. I would quote Henri Poincare who stated "To doubt everything, or, to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection".
BTW, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Francis Bacon, and a host of other great minds were ardent believers.
Also, how did concepts like a triune God come about? It's objectionable to many. Why? Because it's outside of human reason. It's exactly what one would expect from a deity that transcends the corporeal world. We talk with wonder about quantum spookiness, about things like the Many Worlds Interpretation and yet we balk at a triune God?
You say:
"God somehow mysteriously took them over and forced them to write just what he wanted them to write"
No. I said the writers of the Bible were INSPIRED. Muhammed was a guy who was "taken over". So was Joseph Smith. The Muslims believe Muhammed took dictation, word for word, which is why Islam does not evole as a religion; it cannot, because every single word is immutable. Christianity does because we are forever learning something new from the passages of the Bible. The Bible seems amazingly adept at being pertinent to new situations.
So, why are there no longer prophets? Christianity says Jesus ended the prophetic age to a large degree (and that included His Disciples, and the early founders of the Church) because much of what was prophecied had been fulfilled. We are now in the Church Age, and we have what we need for now. Catholicism argues that there will be prophets again at some point, but as of now we've had those we need.
Willis, the whole point is you believe what you like and I will do likewise. But it is BELIEF whether you want to admit that or not. And you say you admire those who practice love and charity, but why are those virtues? To a Satanist they are vices. To many primitive cultures ideas like forgiveness and charity are signs of weakness. The Comanche used to torture captives to death. There has been cannibalism, torture, ritual execution, head shrinking, etc. in human history. So why do you like the Christian notions of love? Are you not in your own way accepting certain parts of Christianity? Aren't you making a choice as to what parts to believe in? Most modern atheism is essentially Christian in form. As such you bend your knee to Christ as surely as do I. I just admit that fact. Christianity has been the cornerstone of almost all modern history.
Willis, the whole point of everything is for us to make choices, to decide our eternal fate. If it were clear and easy it wouldn't be worth anything - and would accomplish nothing. Who wouldn't toe the line if they KNEW the Bible was absolutely true - or that there was unquestionably a God. It's the decision to act upon a choice without complete evidence that is important. That is how one has free wAny jackass can obey the law if they know they will be caught and punished.
Yes, it IS a matter of faith. But so is what you believe. Why is YOUR belief system any better?
Oh, and Willis Eschenbach, millions have believed it over the centuries and still do to this day. There are people who have had supernatural experiences. Many of them have gone to their deaths for the faith (All of the Apostles save one did when they personally KNEW Jesus). Would YOU go to your death for your non-faith? Also, you speak of there being no more prophets writing the Bible. But in Catholicism there are recognized miracles at places like Fatima. You may want to scoff, but look at the evidence. The Catholic Church does a pretty thorough investigation of such things; the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje are still not approved by the Catholic Church, for instance. But you asked why prophets stopped; perhaps they haven't.
David Redfern and Willis Eschenbach yes, domestic violence and sex trafficking predate pornography. It's part of why it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Bible. But then, spacecraft did not exist when Isaac Newton formulated his theories. Does that make them invalid?
David, I live in St. Louis Missouri which may well be the capital of sex trafficking in America. There are any number of cases. I have personally met people whose children were taken by sex traffickers, so it is a big issue to me. There was a former church turned into a pizza place running women; kept them in cages until they could be shipped overseas. I suspect it's because we have a large Albanian community with the Albanian mafia here. They are centered very near my home.
David, you say:
"It also remains a fact that victims of paedophilia invariably know their abuser well, often a family member."
Don't you think that overstimulated sexual appetites might have something to do with that?
There was the Meese Commission back in the '80's, which concluded that, while porn did not CAUSE men to rape women it certainly encouraged those with such tendencies to do so.
In fact, I know of at least 22 studies that confirm a link between sexual violence and pornography. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12201/abstract Now, I take studies with a grain of salt - most especially psychological studies. But I know that some serial killers have said they were heavily into pornography.Ted Bundy was one. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/october/serial-killer-ted-bundy-describes-the-dangers-of-pornography Draw what conclusion you wish.
At any rate, I enjoy a good argument about masturbation and dirty pictures as much as the next man, but I do have things to do of greater importance (I'm going to get into a fight over flatulence on another thread probably). Do take care guys! .
David Redfern says:
Timothy BirdnowI just responded to someone elsewhere on the question of Arrhenius' research into CO2 and his belief in it's effects on global temperatures (he recanted his claims in 1906) and the research of Prof. Will Happer in 2020.
The difference between the two strikes me as being similar to the difference to when the Bible was written, and an attempt to write it today.
With all the facilities and advanced science available to Will Happer, he is undoubtedly in a better position to comment on atmospheric CO2 than Arrhenius ever was.
I understand the Bible was written many years following Jesus' death so, if someone attempted to rewrite the Bible today, would they also experience the divine intervention of God, or was that just a one off event? And why?
Consensus of belief does not make the belief necessarily true.
A bit like the scientific 'consensus' over climate change.
David Redfern, I really don't have time to go at this as much as I would like, but it is important and so I'm sticking with it best as I can. I appreciate your thinking on this and fear we will never agree. But it's worth putting it out there.
Yes, subsequent evidence and knowledge generally are superior to earlier. Generally, not always.
The Gospels were written somewhere around 66 a.d. There are those who try to date them to later, but that is usually being done to discredit them. Most scholars generally believe they were written in the First Century. And the Epistles of Paul were written between 52 and 67 a.d.
At those times there were still people alive who experienced the events, or who knew someone who did. And at the time the Church was undergoing considerable persecution. How many people are willing to die for a fraud? That so many were willing (and all of the Apostles except John were executed horribly, while John died in the salt mines of Patmos) to face such a fate suggests more than just a good yarn being spun, in my opinion.
"Consensus of belief does not make the belief necessarily true."
No, it does not. But it does add to the credibility. And when you have so very, very many over the millenia, with people willing to give their lives for it, that suggests something more is going on. Certainly old Greta or Mike Mann aren't going to give their lives for AGW theory.
It's not smoking gun proof, but it is one piece of evidence in the pile. As Ive argued with the people claiming no vote fraud in the U.S. elections, I point out that any one piece of the puzzle would be an anomalie; a bunch of them form a pattern. It's one of the many pieces of evidence.
There is no smoking gun either way, for or against religion and the existence of God. That would invalidate the experiment, frankly. If people knew there was a God for certain they would have to take this stuff seriously. They would not be free to make the choices which determine what kind of person you are and want to be. They say there are no atheists in foxholes...
Cheers!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:54 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 4138 words, total size 27 kb.
1
My opinion is that if you think porn is bad, don't look at it. If you're worried about your kids looking at it, take responsibility for protecting your kids. It is not someone else's responsibility to do it for you. But, you do not have the right to deny something to others because YOU believe it is bad.
Posted by: Bill H at March 15, 2021 11:14 AM (/sW5m)
2
By and large I agree Bill, but pornography is becoming ubiquitous and impossible to shield from our children. It's everywhere and there is no way to stop it.
A large part of the reason why is that there is no sense of shame for it any longer. There was a time it was limited to those who actually actively sought it out. Now it's a click away.
And there is no way to stop kids from getting into it. The kids generally know more than their parents about how to operate their computers and can easily bipass parental controls.
In the end I fear it is most destructive to society. The tendency to say "live and let live" is great, but in the end is it just live and let live? As I pointed out, there are real world consequences to it. Ted Bundy was a porn addict. I am pretty sure that guy who kidnapped those women and were holding them as sex slaves probably got the idea from porn, too.
There have to be some restrictions on immoral behavior. I don't favor making it illegal, but I do think we should return to a sense of it being shameful.
Of course, what is on television now would have been considered pornography just a couple of decades ago.
It's defining deviancy down. We are going very low now.
A large part of the reason why is that there is no sense of shame for it any longer. There was a time it was limited to those who actually actively sought it out. Now it's a click away.
And there is no way to stop kids from getting into it. The kids generally know more than their parents about how to operate their computers and can easily bipass parental controls.
In the end I fear it is most destructive to society. The tendency to say "live and let live" is great, but in the end is it just live and let live? As I pointed out, there are real world consequences to it. Ted Bundy was a porn addict. I am pretty sure that guy who kidnapped those women and were holding them as sex slaves probably got the idea from porn, too.
There have to be some restrictions on immoral behavior. I don't favor making it illegal, but I do think we should return to a sense of it being shameful.
Of course, what is on television now would have been considered pornography just a couple of decades ago.
It's defining deviancy down. We are going very low now.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 15, 2021 12:38 PM (0FCbZ)
3
So you want to regulate internet content because, "I am pretty sure that guy who kidnapped those women and were holding them as sex slaves probably got the idea†from internet content that you deem unacceptable. Sounds like a Democrat notion to me.
What virtue is there in abstaining from something bad if that bad thing is unavailable?
To say that I am a good person because I don’t do a bad thing, when the only reason I don’t do the bad thing is that I have no access to the bad thing is hypocrisy. Would I do the bad thing if I had access to it? Who knows? But I cannot claim virtue by abstaining from something which is not available.
"I’m going to save you from evil by denying you access to evil†is an entirely Democrat way of thinking.
What virtue is there in abstaining from something bad if that bad thing is unavailable?
To say that I am a good person because I don’t do a bad thing, when the only reason I don’t do the bad thing is that I have no access to the bad thing is hypocrisy. Would I do the bad thing if I had access to it? Who knows? But I cannot claim virtue by abstaining from something which is not available.
"I’m going to save you from evil by denying you access to evil†is an entirely Democrat way of thinking.
Posted by: Bill H at March 15, 2021 05:17 PM (/sW5m)
4
Sure! And it's evident that our "president" is into child pornography. Smelling kids' hair and all that really is, although the Left denies it. Of course, Slo-Joe wouldn't recognize it as such.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at March 15, 2021 10:25 PM (5O9A0)
5
Bill you say "What virtue is there in abstaining from something bad if that bad thing is unavailable?" It's not about VIRTUE but about preventing a socially destructive thing. We do it all the time. We have laws against driving while intoxicated, for example, or driving too fast. But a little child can go online and watch a filthy stag movie. He can watch men rape a woman, or sodomize a horse,or whatnot and that's perfectly o.k.
I am not advocating for banning pornography, as I said, BTW. But there should be a reasonable standard of moral torpitude. Or do you think snuff porn is perfectly acceptable social material?
I'm sorry Bill but there is no society that does not maintain some sort of standard. And we do it all the time and always have. We know where the civilizations that have held such standards as you advocate have gone - to hell. They have all collapsed. If you hold no standards you have nothing to hold your culture together.
THAT Bill is far more like what the Democrats do than Conservatives. They advocate libertinism; we advocate for standards.
I am not advocating for banning pornography, as I said, BTW. But there should be a reasonable standard of moral torpitude. Or do you think snuff porn is perfectly acceptable social material?
I'm sorry Bill but there is no society that does not maintain some sort of standard. And we do it all the time and always have. We know where the civilizations that have held such standards as you advocate have gone - to hell. They have all collapsed. If you hold no standards you have nothing to hold your culture together.
THAT Bill is far more like what the Democrats do than Conservatives. They advocate libertinism; we advocate for standards.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 16, 2021 07:05 AM (ztiAl)
6
Dana, you may be right; the hair sniffer just might be into the youngens. It might be part of why the powers that be backed him for President; he would be easily controlled as a result..
I've always said Washington worked like The Firm. Blackmail and set-ups are the norm. We know Dennis Hastert was a do-nothing House Speaker and it later came out he was a pedophile. The Ruling Class had to know that; they had access to his files, after all.
I've always said Washington worked like The Firm. Blackmail and set-ups are the norm. We know Dennis Hastert was a do-nothing House Speaker and it later came out he was a pedophile. The Ruling Class had to know that; they had access to his files, after all.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 16, 2021 07:08 AM (ztiAl)
7
"But a little child can go online and watch a filthy stag movie."
I know many people who have children. Not one of them would allow their children to do that, or would ignore their child sufficiently that such a thing would happen. Every one of them takes responsibility for the well being of their children. They do not expect the government to do it for them. Of course, none of them are Democrats.
I'm sure that many Democrats rely on the government for the well being of their children and accept no responsibility themselves. Their children probably do go online and watch porn because their parents are irresponsible and the government is inept at child care. I don't feel sorry for them. They made their bed.
I know many people who have children. Not one of them would allow their children to do that, or would ignore their child sufficiently that such a thing would happen. Every one of them takes responsibility for the well being of their children. They do not expect the government to do it for them. Of course, none of them are Democrats.
I'm sure that many Democrats rely on the government for the well being of their children and accept no responsibility themselves. Their children probably do go online and watch porn because their parents are irresponsible and the government is inept at child care. I don't feel sorry for them. They made their bed.
Posted by: Bill H at March 16, 2021 08:16 AM (/sW5m)
8
I do not, by the way think that snuff porn, or any other form of porn is morally acceptable. That's why I don't watch it. I do not, however, accept the "cancel culture" which says that anything I don't approve of should be banned.
There are no shades of gray in that principle. To say that Democrats are wrong to ban the things they are banning but that I am right to ban the things I am banning is hypocrisy.
There are no shades of gray in that principle. To say that Democrats are wrong to ban the things they are banning but that I am right to ban the things I am banning is hypocrisy.
Posted by: Bill H at March 16, 2021 08:21 AM (/sW5m)
9
Bill, you say that good parents police their kids online. REALLY? Most of those kids are better with computers than their parents and the adults have no idea what the kids are getting into. Parental blocks are a joke; the kids get around them when they are six years old.
As I said and repeat, I do not favor a ban either, but I do favor stricter regulation of pornography. Much of the porn that appears online has been made by women who have been sex trafficked, for example. Trump was the only guy who seemed to care about THAT.
There are plenty of things that should not be interfered with by government, but some things - like the really nasty kinds of porn - most definitely meet the classification of societal interest. To argue otherwise is simply to argue for anarchy and depravity.
As I said and repeat, I do not favor a ban either, but I do favor stricter regulation of pornography. Much of the porn that appears online has been made by women who have been sex trafficked, for example. Trump was the only guy who seemed to care about THAT.
There are plenty of things that should not be interfered with by government, but some things - like the really nasty kinds of porn - most definitely meet the classification of societal interest. To argue otherwise is simply to argue for anarchy and depravity.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 17, 2021 07:02 AM (nJOER)
10
Well, we will have to accept the fact that we have different points of view. You believe that something is "nasty" and your opinion is sufficient to ban that thing from others. If another person considers that thing acceptable, he is out of luck because you don't like it.
I don't live in that universe. In my universe, if I don't like something, if I consider a thing evil, that does not mean that others have to think the way I do. I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on others.
You appear to think that way selectively. It is okay for people to disagree with you on some things, but not on others. On selected things you are the arbiter and those things must be banned. Good for you, but I would suggest that you not come burn and books on my front lawn.
I don't live in that universe. In my universe, if I don't like something, if I consider a thing evil, that does not mean that others have to think the way I do. I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on others.
You appear to think that way selectively. It is okay for people to disagree with you on some things, but not on others. On selected things you are the arbiter and those things must be banned. Good for you, but I would suggest that you not come burn and books on my front lawn.
Posted by: Bill H at March 17, 2021 08:33 AM (/sW5m)
11
"Most of those kids are better with computers than their parents and the adults have no idea what the kids are getting into..."
Parents are responsible for their children, and if they cannot keep up or are not willing to expend the effort to do so, then they should not have children. Part of that responsibility is not to allow your children to do anything unless you understand what they are doing.
I am older than those parents, quite a bit older, and I find my way around computers quite well. I design a build websites for businesses, and I programmed computers to perform setups for machinery in steel plants. Every bit of it was self taught.
Parents are responsible for their children, and if they cannot keep up or are not willing to expend the effort to do so, then they should not have children. Part of that responsibility is not to allow your children to do anything unless you understand what they are doing.
I am older than those parents, quite a bit older, and I find my way around computers quite well. I design a build websites for businesses, and I programmed computers to perform setups for machinery in steel plants. Every bit of it was self taught.
Posted by: Bill H at March 17, 2021 09:10 AM (/sW5m)
12
Bill we can indeed agree to disagree.
You and others defending pornography keep saying it's because I don't LIKE it. No. The objections are that it is destructive to society and to the individual, and that there is in fact a moral code - be it a religious code or a matter of Natural Law - but pornography falls outside of that code. In the end it will eat our culture. And from a religious standpoint it is a destroyer of souls.
It's not personal opinion. I know of at least 26 studies that have linked sexual violence to pornography. And we know people like Ted Bundy admitted to porn addictions. And who do you think is doing those pornos? Many of those women were kidnapped and are performing as slaves.
It's far more than personal opinion.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth Bill (as it seems everyone who is arguing on your side seems to do); I NEVER said government should ban pornography. But it is reasonable and logical to place basic restrictions on it. We restrict alcohol from 12 year olds and nobody sees a problem. We have a bureau of weights and measures to make sure consumers aren't getting cheated. We have health and safety standards. But we can't consider this a health and safety issue?
"On selected things you are the arbiter and those things must be banned."
Hardly. But I do accept there are standards that are inherent in Natural Law and in the nation's founding and in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint espoused by the Founders.
I suspect you would hold a very different view if you found out your daughter was being coerced into pornography.
If you wish accuse me of tyranny I can then accuse you of a childish "I can do anything I want" attitude. That is the core of the argument being made; that people are absolute in their autonomy and can do whatever they wish. THAT is at the core of the liberal woldview. The difference is you aren't advocating for government to make sure they don't hurt themselves, but that is where this thinking will lead Bill. With freedom comes responsibility; you cannot have one without the other. You seem to be arguing for license, not freedom.
That said, I see no value in us shouting at each-other here.
You and others defending pornography keep saying it's because I don't LIKE it. No. The objections are that it is destructive to society and to the individual, and that there is in fact a moral code - be it a religious code or a matter of Natural Law - but pornography falls outside of that code. In the end it will eat our culture. And from a religious standpoint it is a destroyer of souls.
It's not personal opinion. I know of at least 26 studies that have linked sexual violence to pornography. And we know people like Ted Bundy admitted to porn addictions. And who do you think is doing those pornos? Many of those women were kidnapped and are performing as slaves.
It's far more than personal opinion.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth Bill (as it seems everyone who is arguing on your side seems to do); I NEVER said government should ban pornography. But it is reasonable and logical to place basic restrictions on it. We restrict alcohol from 12 year olds and nobody sees a problem. We have a bureau of weights and measures to make sure consumers aren't getting cheated. We have health and safety standards. But we can't consider this a health and safety issue?
"On selected things you are the arbiter and those things must be banned."
Hardly. But I do accept there are standards that are inherent in Natural Law and in the nation's founding and in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint espoused by the Founders.
I suspect you would hold a very different view if you found out your daughter was being coerced into pornography.
If you wish accuse me of tyranny I can then accuse you of a childish "I can do anything I want" attitude. That is the core of the argument being made; that people are absolute in their autonomy and can do whatever they wish. THAT is at the core of the liberal woldview. The difference is you aren't advocating for government to make sure they don't hurt themselves, but that is where this thinking will lead Bill. With freedom comes responsibility; you cannot have one without the other. You seem to be arguing for license, not freedom.
That said, I see no value in us shouting at each-other here.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 18, 2021 08:39 AM (H1ky5)
13
"Parents are responsible for their children, and if they cannot keep up
or are not willing to expend the effort to do so, then they should not
have children. Part of that responsibility is not to allow your
children to do anything unless you understand what they are doing."
So you want helicopter parents, locking kids in their rooms? You have to know this is impossible. Children are in the world.
Do you think that XXX porn should be on commercial television? Answer me that; should it be there for anyone to watch at any time of day? If you say no then you are as much a "book burner" as I. Who are you to dare tell someone they can't watch men shagging horses at the dinner hour on television?
Should recreational heroin be legal? China was almost destroyed by Opiumin the 19th century, and it was largely the fault of the British who forced the Chinese to accept it with almost identical reasoning as you employ here.
Should it be legal to put antifreeze in bourbon to give it more of a kick? That used to happen with bootleggers and people went blind. Bootleggers did it because it was a cheap way to give zing to their product. But it's illegal for distillers, and with good reason.
There are reasonable restrictions that sometimes should be put on things.
Again, I don't say there should be an outright ban, but there certainly should be some effort to keep control of it. Or do you like kiddie porn and snuff porn? Not personally, but do you think they are o.k.? If we can restrict that we can certainly put reasonable restrictions in place.
BTW I'm glad you are good with computers, but by and large most kids are better than their parents.
So you want helicopter parents, locking kids in their rooms? You have to know this is impossible. Children are in the world.
Do you think that XXX porn should be on commercial television? Answer me that; should it be there for anyone to watch at any time of day? If you say no then you are as much a "book burner" as I. Who are you to dare tell someone they can't watch men shagging horses at the dinner hour on television?
Should recreational heroin be legal? China was almost destroyed by Opiumin the 19th century, and it was largely the fault of the British who forced the Chinese to accept it with almost identical reasoning as you employ here.
Should it be legal to put antifreeze in bourbon to give it more of a kick? That used to happen with bootleggers and people went blind. Bootleggers did it because it was a cheap way to give zing to their product. But it's illegal for distillers, and with good reason.
There are reasonable restrictions that sometimes should be put on things.
Again, I don't say there should be an outright ban, but there certainly should be some effort to keep control of it. Or do you like kiddie porn and snuff porn? Not personally, but do you think they are o.k.? If we can restrict that we can certainly put reasonable restrictions in place.
BTW I'm glad you are good with computers, but by and large most kids are better than their parents.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 18, 2021 08:48 AM (H1ky5)
14
Jim basically said pornography is wrong from a moral perspective. This led to an argument on the validity of the Bible and on the existence of God.
Posted by: Replica Watches at December 08, 2023 08:45 PM (dNv0V)
62kb generated in CPU 0.2569, elapsed 0.4308 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4081 seconds, 200 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.4081 seconds, 200 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
