Yes, my post too relate mostly to these issues. That is because I have (and still am to some extent) experinecing issues to do with porn in my m. I came he hoping to get some advice and have received much kindness and support. There has really only been one poster who insisted on rubbing salt into my wound through his continued glorifiation and support for porn. I left here on several occasions feeling totally distressed and began wondering if my whole views on this issue stemmed entirely from the blow to my self esteem I suffere. Was I wrong, was porn NOt degrading to women. Did porn not result in my h complaining about my post baby body, was porn the elixir to marriage problems????

After much soul searching I began to relaise that this poster (despite his support of porn use in marriage ) was constantly posting on these issues too. Did he , like me have some deeper underlying motivation for this,. Does he secretly harbour feelings about his own porn use.
I think its entirely up to the couples within a marriage to decide if its right for them or not, but him telling me porn was a positive thing and that women are 'just to insecure' was just too much.....Sorry, thats my vent

I see your posts in a completely different light than the ones mentioned above. I see yours as a desire to move past the issue of porn and strengthen your marriage. I see theirs as more of a way to justify an action or attitude that numerous people are struggliing with.

I hope things continue to improve for you.

And this is one reason why,IMO,there will always be an ocean of difference in how women and men view sexuality and appropriate behavior and why I see porn as being a long term problem in many aspects of life.

I have read a few "Romance Novels" in my lifetime.Most are generalized versions of the "swept off your feet" and carried away by handsome hunk in some romantic setting types with a sexual interlude placed in somewhere for effect.When you look at porn,you are talking close up views( and IMO sexually degrading poses) on vaginas,breasts and other body parts that are 2-dimensional and are nothing but images used by certain people to "get off" of to or fuel sexual fantasies which gets back to the idea of being unfaithful to your spouse in mind and soul that I agree with.Romance novels at least have romance in them,such as a beautiful setting or some type of dramatic situation to deal with.Porn reduces women to nothing but sexual images and empty receptacles.

To me,it's confusing young men about how they SHOULD treat REAL women in the THIS lifetime.It's also about the abuse and neglect of some women who are in the business out of their control or because,as someone else mentioned here,they have little choice otherwise or have no support system in place to show them a better way of life.In my experiences with women who do porn the money factor is all that keeps them there.It's a billion dollar industry and who's making the most off porn? No surprise.

Would I put down my romance novel if my husband was lying next to me and wanted to be intimate? Of course.There's no question who is more important.When it comes to porn,I believe a lot of women are feeling less so,in a big way.The obvious point is being missed by many.Women feel *devalued.

I will not be involved with a man who has to use porn in his life.I would rather be alone.


O

Actually you are following a god Horizon… Instead of following & serving God Himself (which lead to salvation and eternity), you’re following & serving a god you’ve created for yourself namely pornography. Pornography has become YOUR god Horizon and this god is currently controlling you…

It’s okay for people to do things they enjoy as long as it’s not degrading and damaging to themselves and other people…and as long it is morally acceptable. Horizon, you’re doing pornography because it feels right and good to you, not because it IS right. Feelings can be very, very deceptive… Many people are deceived by their feelings…they think as long as something feels good to do, it’s okay to continue doing it… This is part of the reason why WS’s allow themselves to get involved in an A’s…not because it’s right, but because if feels good at the time…

AverageGuy, I really appreciate your efforts in trying to let me see this issue from a guy’s POV and again, I don’t think you’re an insensitive jerk, but actually you haven’t really answered the questions in my quote…and therefore your post hasn’t really helped me to understand better. And yes, there are things in your explanation which confuses me (I will elaborate on that later).

AverageGuy, I know your view about porn use is not shared by ALL men. I know there are some men on this forum who don’t share the same view as you about this issue (such as AskMe and ForeverHers). I’ve also read you explanation to my H (who, as a Christian, is against the use of porn and will not use it himself) and he don’t agree with your view as well… Therefore it seems your explanation will only make full sense to guys who are porn-users and “mental betrayers” themselves. Sadly, your explanation DO appear like a justification and defense for porn using guys, although I know you didn’t intend it as such…

Anyway, allow me to give feedback and questions on some of the things you’ve said:

Like SoLostAgain, I would also submit that this is exactly why Christ pointed out that if you even Look at a woman with lust, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart… Just because SOME guys (not ALL guys) don't think of porn "that way," doesn't mean it isn't that way..... It certainly IS that way according to Christ (adultery of the heart/mental betrayal). ALL sin starts in the thoughts. It’s perfectly normal & okay for a man to be aroused by the sight of an attractive woman, but it becomes sinful as soon as the guy start to dwell on it in his thoughts. What is so difficult about this to understand? It seems rather simple to me…

Hmmm…if porn is NOT a substitute for sex according to you, then why have you actually SUGGESTED porn as an option (3) in your other post to SUBSTITUTE sex in a situation where the man have a stronger sex drive than a woman? And if porn (and masturbating) is a simple way of releasing sexual tension, then why not have sex with your W or if she’s not available for sex, fantasize about your OWN wife in stead while masturbating? Again, why look at pictures of other woman and fantasize about them if you can fantasize about your OWN partner? (I’ve ask this in my quote but you’ve never actually responded on this question). And if a man can’t fantasize about his own wife because he don’t find her physically attractive anymore or don’t feel attracted to her anymore, it’s still not a solution to turn to porn or images about other woman in stead… The other day, Dr Phil said on one of his shows that partners who experience sexual problems within a marriage must not try to find solutions for it by turning OUTSIDE the M and turning AWAY from your partner, but actually they must resolve the problem WITHIN the marriage and WITH each other, even if it means receiving sex therapy with your partner. Another poster has said too many people look for simple solutions like porn which is simply NOT a solution on the long term. Porn (and other ways of “mental” adultery”) takes emotional energy away from the M and take the focus away from the partner.

Actually I think the REAL problem with guys who’re using porn is within themselves... As ladysheep has pointed it out from the book “Wild at Heart (Discovering the secret of a mans soul), by John Eldredge, there is something that has gone seriously wrong with the manhood of such a person… (Please go back to the quote ladysheep have given from that book earlier on this thread and read it again.) So, considering that, I can somehow agree with you that porn don’t really have anything to do with SF or with the spouse…

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges here AveraGuy… I understand what you’re trying to say and illustrate with this comparison, but it’s simply absurd to compare the reading of a Romantic Novel (which consist of FANTASY people who are not real) with the watching of porn woman (video or magazine) who are REAL people and where explicit and vulgar images are involved. You can’t even compare explicit and vulgar porn images & movies with a “Love Sceens” in Romantic Videos… Like letmejustsay, I find it difficult too to compare the major issue of the degradation of half the population to a romance novel or movie...

Octobergirl said it best when she wrote:

”Most Romance Novels” are generalized versions of the "swept off your feet" and carried away by handsome hunk in some romantic setting types with a sexual interlude placed in somewhere for effect. When you look at porn, you are talking close up views ( and IMO sexually degrading poses) on vaginas, breasts and other body parts that are 2-dimensional and are nothing but images used by certain people to "get off" of to or fuel sexual fantasies which gets back to the idea of being unfaithful to your spouse in mind and soul that I agree with. Romance novels at least have romance in them, such as a beautiful setting or some type of dramatic situation to deal with. Porn reduces women to nothing but sexual images and empty receptacles.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the above…

My, my, it is refreshing to hear blunt honesty wherever, and whenever, it happens to "break out."

EndlessHorizon - I appreciate your blunt honesty and your admission that your responses are NOT "careless." They ARE positions of personal opinion and belief that you share that are quite enlightening, imho, to many others. So thank you in advance for having the fortitude to clearly state your position and the dicotomy in beliefs for others to see clearly, between your position and that, perhaps, of others like myself who have surrendered our lives to the Lordship of Christ.

I also hope that you may "think about" and "consider" some of the things I may say in response that you may find have "merit" for you.


I would argue the point a little differently. I agree with Suzet*'s statement that you DO have morals, but I disagree with the further statement that you "through the moral issue out the window and ignore it."

What I mean by that is that you have a set of "morals" that you apply to yourself, and yes, you probably DO change them as the feeling suits you. They are "relative morals" that you, and the majority of people embrace Moral Relativism because it's what they "want" or "choose" in order to enable them to live whatever kind of life THEY want to live. It is NOT important if those morals are "embraced" by anyone else because there IS no "standard" with which to weigh or compare the relative merits of one set of morals versus another. THE sole determinant, and determiner, of those morals is the individual theirself. THEY are sovereign and in complete of all choices in their life.

In short, they are "secular humanists." The only one "on the throne" of their lives, or "in control" of their lives, is SELF. Other peoples' morals or laws will only be "obeyed" so long as the individual sees them as being "in their interest" or of "no consequence" to their own life and choices(for example, you don't smoke so "laws" against smoking or where one can smoke don't affect you, so they can do whatever they want and it won't affect you and your choice not to smoke).

[color:"blue"]"Yes, that's the benefit of not following a god... I do things because I like to do them, I also realize that others do things for the same reasons. No exceptions."[/color]

This is the clearest admission of Secular Humanism that I've seen stated in long time, so thank you for your openness and honesty in stating your position, Endless Horizon.

Obviously, I personally CHOOSE a different "path," "set of Standards," "Moral Authority," etc., but it clearly sets forth for others to SEE the hazards in "group therapy" settings such as MB. It is important in knowing where a persons' personal "value system" comes from, or is based, that drives their "view" of things like morality, acceptable and/or unacceptable behavior, and whether or not a given person's "advice" should be contemplated by one seeking advice in a broad forum.

Frankly, it speaks VOLUMES, or should, to Christians on MB as to WHY they should be seeking CHRISTIAN counseling when encountering "life's difficulities," rather than secular counseling, whenever such counseling is available. It is NOT that any given piece of advice "cannot" be applicable to Christians, they can be (for example; most believers and unbelievers alike will support Monogamy and the idea of NO CONTACT with an affair partner if a marriage is to recover). But one has to be very careful as what advice is accepted and incorportated into their life and what sort of counseling is likely to be "consistant" or "variable", depending upon "circumstances" or biases ("feelings") of the counselor.

For the record, EH, you "fool yourself." You DO have a "god," it's just not the God of the universe. Your "god" is self. Understand that what I am saying is that the concept of "god" carries with it the inherent right of "sovereignty." The SOLE, and EXCLUSIVE, right to determine what is "Right and Wrong" not only for "self," but for EVERYONE. A "sovereign" is "lord" and everyone else is "beneath" the "lord" and is a "servant of the lord." Servants DO NOT have a right to question (that implies the person being questioned MUST give an answer that meets the questioner's 'liking'), much less disobey, the commands of the "lord." I do NOT mean that one cannot "ask questions for clarification," but if it comes down to "doing or not doing it," the servant only has the responsibility to DO what the Lord commands, even if the Lord chooses NOT to reveal WHY He has given a particular command.

[color:"blue"]"Yes, that's the benefit of not following a god... I do things because I like to do them, I also realize that others do things for the same reasons. No exceptions."[/color]

"Some Benefit," would be my response. This is NOT a carefully "thought out" response. This is "Fooling Yourself." This is surrendering your Reasoning ability to your "basest emotions." You fully "let go" and let your Taker, not your Giver, control your life as "lord." You "justify" you choices based on [color:"pink"]FEELINGS[/color], lust, desire, selfishness, etc., BUT NOT on reasoned thought or the concept of self-sacrifice or servanthood. It is TOTALLY based in "what's in it for me?" Don't believe that others CAN serve from a "selfless position?" How about Mother Theresa, as just ONE example of a refutation of your rationale?

Then you proceed to "tack on" the excuse that [color:"blue"]"others do the same thing and have the RIGHT to do 'their own thing, too'."[/color]

But, let's carry your "thought" to it's logical conclusion. Let's assume for the moment that YOU are right and I am wrong. We are then all "lords" unto ourselves and have the SOVEREIGN right to determine right and wrong for ourselves with NO responsibility to consider anyone else and NO ONE ELSE has the right to say (or even should say) that our chosen actions are WRONG. Hence, your spouse has every RIGHT to engage in adultery if that is what they choose, and NO ONE, including you, the spouse, can say it's "wrong." There is "no need" to get "upset" over marital infidelity, whether it's PORN or PHYSICAL ADULTERY or POLYAMORY. In fact, given the "lord unto ourself" rule, there CANNOT BE a behavior that is "wrong" because the individual themself gets to establish the "rules." That IS what being "sovereign lord" is all about...answerable to no one but their own "feelings" and "desires." The ultimate "Q", if you happen to be a Trekkie. (ever wonder just what "Q" really stood stood for? Quixotic, Quorum of ONE, Quantifiably selfish, ???)

[color:"blue"] "My ethics run broad and deep, and there's no simple black and white to them. That's the point of living, I think. I do what I feel is right."[/color]

No doubt you think they do. But you negated all that with your concluding sentence that makes any "broad and deep ethics" that you currently hold dear to be subject to your whim of "feeling." It is nothing more than a thinly disguised restatement of the old 1960's Mantra (I grew up in the 60's), "If it feels good, do it!"

That was the "Excuse" for all sorts of behaviors. [color:"pink"]FEELINGS[/color] (emotional responses) were elevated to the level of "god" in one's life and "justified" anything. That's the primary driving force behind the "sexual revolution." Toss out the "old ways" and just do whatever you FEEL like doing.

"Reap what you sow" applies not just to Agriculture. It applies to Values and Morals and Standards and Boundaries as well.

It has sunk our society to the lowest depths, including our rampant infidelity rates and our worldwide leadership in infanticide based upon "feelings" and WHO sits on the throne of EVERY persons life as "sovereign lord." Lust, desire, personal whim, lack of personal responsibility for our actions, lack of accountability to ANYONE, are but some of the things that we CHOOSE to put on the throne of our lives and make them "sovereign."

And then we "cry" and "moan" when someone else's "inherent right of sovereignty" is applied and WE are caught in the fallout of THEIR desires. Moral Relativism has no place in our lives, but without the One True Sovereign on the throne of our lives and us in "servanthood" to that Sovereign, WHO DO we have to blame for most of our troubles?

As an aside, this is WHAT the ACLU and others of similar "bent" are trying to mold in America through their efforts to "kick any mention of God out of our lives" and to ensconce the "lord" of Secular Humanist (or "do it if it feels good to YOU) on the throne of our individual lives, as well as our National life as a nation of people. They want the "religion" of "law unto myself" as THE "Established State Religion" of the United States of America, in direct contravention of the "Establishment Claus" of the Constitution. They want to "Abridge" the rights of fellow citizens to practice THEIR religious choice in ANY public setting. But, as we've seen with the "war on smoking," don't think it stops there....they will be seeking a ban on practicing religion, or at least the "Christian Religion," even in the privacy of your own home or car. Daniel and the Lion's Den and the "Firey Furnace" of Shadrach, Meshack, and Abenego will not be far behind, followed by the Sodom and Gomorrah-like "do whatever you feel like doing" pit of "ethics."


Moral Relativism can be defined this way: [color:" mauve"]"God didn't really mean that you would die."[/color] The same old lies keep getting dragged back up as our excuses and justifications to do what we "feel like doing."

Does it make "sense" to choose to REJECT the only true Sovereign Lord and put ANY human being (our self or anyone else) on the "Throne?"

So why do most people reject Christ as Lord and Savior? Because accepting Christ means SURRENDERING the "right" to sit on the throne and "make the rules" as one feels like doing. It means accepting that "Right and Wrong" IS defined and established OUTSIDE of ourselves and WILL APPLY to us even if we "don't feel like it."


You said that to Suzet*. I hope I have met the standard of not "carelessly" responding and have given you some "well thought out" things to consider.

Please DO respond if you feel like it and I will not consider any response to be "careless." It is, after all, an exchange of ideas about our fundamental "belief structures" and it is those things that will ultimately determine what, or who's, STANDARDS we embrace as being applicable not only to ourselves, but to all of mankind, because they come from whoever is actually sitting on the throne as "Sovereign Lord."

God bless.

Mmmm, sex.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

"For the record, EH, you "fool yourself." You DO have a "god," it's just not the God of the universe. Your "god" is self."

• Uh, no. I posted this in another thread:
  
  I rather have a belief in an entity that doesn't know what it is, and we in turn are its' way of figuring itself out. We learn things for ourselves, and those lessons help it. I intend to learn as much I can, and explore new things, physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally, on as many levels as possible.

""Some Benefit," would be my response. This is NOT a carefully "thought out" response. This is "Fooling Yourself.""

• Not really. It has many wonderful benefits, ranging from being worldly and peaceful to killing the man who would molest my children or rape my wife. Of course I am subjected to the same moral code of ethics, but those who "live by the sword, die by it" as well. I don't need any religious excuses or dogma to perform my cleansings, nor to spread my good intentions. I didn't need God to tell me to donate my Christmas cash to the Tsunami victims. Did you or your parishioners?

"Hence, your spouse has every RIGHT to engage in adultery if that is what they choose, and NO ONE, including you, the spouse, can say it's "wrong." There is "no need" to get "upset" over marital infidelity, whether it's PORN or PHYSICAL ADULTERY or POLYAMORY. In fact, given the "lord unto ourself" rule, there CANNOT BE a behavior that is "wrong" because the individual themself gets to establish the "rules." That IS what being "sovereign lord" is all about...answerable to no one but their own "feelings" and "desires.""

• Yes, that is what I am saying. If your spouse wishes to cheat, there's NOTHING that you can do to stop it, once it has started. A belief in a god, yourself, or nothing at all won't change things one iota, I'm afraid. Nurturing the relationship from the get-go is the key to stopping an affair, not your spiritual beliefs. The same could be said about the rapist, or megalomaniac- if these people were cared for and nurtured throughout their life, and brought up "morally", and with love, would they in turn become these monsters?
  
  Would Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold kill so many randomly if those around them espoused goodwill and positive influences? We create our own demons. How you feel is simply regulated by your expectations in all regards, and as you say, "You reap what you sow."
  
  Now, before we get too carried away with suppositions and semantics, there obviously has to be some social moral laws in place in regards to the individual, else the whole of society would collapse. The 10 commandments are a good start, and are a common dictum for the masses to follow, generally, but not all the time, and with blind faith.
  
  There are always exceptions to the rule, and I accept that. It's evident that that's just the way it is. Corporations are greedy, the poor starve, mass murders are allowed to walk in our midst- unmolested, the list goes on and on. Give me a commandment that has not been broken, and I'll believe in your God.
  
  The Commandments are basic ethical philosophies which regulate day-to-day dealings with other folks in your society, and bridge the gap between cultures... however, this is hardly the case or beneficial, when another cultures' religious "commandments" differ from those of Moses.

"It has sunk our society to the lowest depths, including our rampant infidelity rates and our worldwide leadership in infanticide based upon "feelings" and WHO sits on the throne of EVERY persons life as "sovereign lord." Lust, desire, personal whim, lack of personal responsibility for our actions, lack of accountability to ANYONE, are but some of the things that we CHOOSE to put on the throne of our lives and make them "sovereign.""

• Ah, now we get to the root of the problem. A burdensome population, with not enough eyes to watch thy neighbour. There's a reason why there's so many creeps running about cities and towns these days. Everyone is too busy being concerned about themselves, and not concerned about the other guy. It always baffles me that people know more about a sports star or celebrity than they do about their next-door neighbour.
  
  I personally believe another problem poses an even deadlier, overwhelming factor in moral decay within our society. The media. People watch TV from day one, and are force-fed what is right, wrong, and normal. THAT'S the problem. Not lack of religious zeal. Religion just serves the function of expanding the better, nurturing qualities to a larger audience. TV though erodes it faster than you can shake a bible at it, and is widespread across the whole of the planet. Unlike Christendom.
  
  Want to know one of the most damaging forms of media? Our own. Western culture is the culprit. The medium is rampant with all the "issues" you claim are inherent with the "sovereignty of SELF". It's everywhere we are, it's in our music, commercials, ads. The adage: "Life mimics art/Art mimics life" has never been so profound as it is today.

""God didn't really mean that you would die." The same old lies keep getting dragged back up as our excuses and justifications to do what we "feel like doing.""

• No, God is just an imperfect being, like ourselves, with flaws and questions and fears. We will help it to help itself as we explore ALL our aspects, frailties and strengths. Maybe then, one day, countless eons down the road, we'll all live forever, and be gods ourselves...
  
  Truth be told though, in my opinion, we already are. We are made up of the starstuff that God himself is created of, and are thus, closer to him than most realize. I have no question that I will be back again, reborn (in eons maybe) of the same (star/god)stuff I am now... destined to do so until all the questions are solved.
  
  I have no problems accepting this, therefore I have no worries of making life-altering errors, even ones borne from selfishness, avarice, or even madness, since this is the cycle of birth and death, living and dying. Spiritually, we are here to learn, not ascend, as you would have me believe.

Horizon, I didn’t realize you have this skew view about God… It seems very much the same as the views and beliefs of the New Age people… Horizon, is there any chance that you might consider your view & beliefs about God to be wrong and incorrect? You’ve said that you’re still seeking for answers, so I’m just wondering.

Horizon, I guess your specific views about God makes me understand better WHY you think & behave the way you do and why your beliefs is so totally different from mine, but I would just be interested to know WHERE your beliefs about God are coming from (if you doesn’t mind to share)… Does it come from you childhood (maybe a certain religion or belief of your parents) or didn’t your parents belong to a certain religion or belief system at all? Or was your view and beliefs influenced by a certain group of people during your teenage years; early adult years or any time thereafter? Or is your current views & beliefs simply because it’s how YOU have made it out for yourself after some time of searching and exploring in an attempt to find “answers” for yourself? Or is it maybe because you felt betrayed; rejected; disappointed; “left out” (or any other negative feelings) by God for one or other reason on a certain stage of your life?

You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to share Horizon, but I would really like to understand better.

EndlessHorizon - If I can find the time, I'd like to respond more fully to your post. In the meantime, I will respond to just one part of it that is perhaps "more crucial" than the other ideas.



Okay, EH, I understand that this is your opinion. But if it's NOT a capricious opinion, I am curious on what "facts" you developed that opinion.

Let's be honest here for a moment, if we can. THE issue is NOT your or my opinion of some "nebulous concept" or "human construct" of what some supreme being called "God" might be like....as created in our own image in our own minds and constrained by what we think can, and can't, be done, as an "explanation" of why all that exists does, in fact, exist.

What we have in the "Christian God" is the 2nd person of the Trinity, who lived as a real, historical, person,on this earth. HE can be examined in detail and his claims can likewise be examined for veracity or falsehood.

Neither you nor I can "deny" His existence and "fall back" on some "mental construct" that is based solely in our minds imaginings. Jesus Christ STANDS as the "difference" between ALL other religions (or claims to NO religion as in Atheism). There is nothing "ABSTACT" about Jesus.

Quite simply, He either IS who He said He is, or He is not. IF not, then Christianity is of no more "importance" than any other figment of Man's imagination.

So,my question would be two-fold. Have you examined Jesus Christ in detail and, if so, what did you find to cause you to REJECT Him rather than accept Him as your personal Lord and Savior?

For your information, your "opinions" are no different than other opinions that are not based in fact. Prior to my acceptance of Christ, I even "made up" an entire religion for a Philosophy class I took in College. With NO "objective reality," i.e., Jesus Christ, anyone can dream up anything they want and call it a "religion." But that does NOT make it true anymore than the current day "flat earthers" are "right" about their concept of the earth.

I look forward to your response.

Well, I'll try to answer both your questions, since they are kind of related. I'm running a bit behind today, so it will be a bit brief.

My upbringing was Christian, but there has always been a strong psychic "force" within the family. I incorporate many philosophies from many religions- from Muslim, Christian and Wiccan mainly. I'm not a witch, or an atheist, and in fact I seriously considered being a Buddist at one point in my life. My majority of personal philosophies stem from that religion mostly. Basic concepts:

• 1. The universality of suffering - People discover through rebirth, aging, and death that life is full of sorrow. We suffer this sorrow until deliverance is achieved.
  
  2. The origin of suffering - Suffering is caused by the false desires of the senses that have been deceived into clinging to the impermanent world. The quest for immortality further aggravates human suffering.
  
  3. The overcoming of suffering - If false desires cause suffering, then the desires need to be suppressed, abandoned, or rejected in order to nullify their effects. Ignorance of the way of deliverance and the delusion that there is a permanent self are the primary cause of suffering.
  
  4. The way leading to the suppression of suffering - The noble eightfold path is a sacred path with eight branches called right views of understanding, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct or action, right livelihood, right effort or endeavor, right mind control or concentration, and right mindfulness. These eight branches are not stages that can be lived out in succession or isolation from one another. They are different dimensions of a total way of life.
  
  While Buddha did not deny the existence of gods, he taught that the worship of gods obstructed one's quest for Nirvana. To him the gods inhabit the cosmos and are impermanent like all of us, so they too must escape rebirth through Nirvana.

My concepts though are my own, and are a form of modified "Buddism" for the most part. Example: I don't necessarily believe in Nirvana either. I think simply that life is just an endless life-cycle. To me, being dead is becoming whole with the universe, and hence the belief that there is a "heaven". It must certainly be heavenly having no burdons or worries!!

I incorporate a large outlook of my "understanding of life", to the structure of life around me, from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Everything is related I think, gods included.

My rejection of Christianity stemmed from the incorporation of the belief that a god indeed "listens" to us. That's why I reject God as you guys like to believe. I was asked how I know this is correct? Eh, my intuition tells me so, that's how I know. Faith. However, I do believe in the very real power of prayer. I just feel it needn't be directed at "God" to be effective.

I wouldn't dream of invalidating anything you guys have to say either, because although it's intuition guiding me, there's always room for improvement. Not accepting your beliefs would go against my own codes I have stated in other various posts. I would fail the basic lesson of Understanding. I understand that you have your own personas and it's your own life to do with it as you please. Right now, you two choose to follow a monotheistic belief. That is fine, you need to do that in your life, now. I understand.

Anyway, at this dark time in my life, it is a very holistic healing experience to discuss these things with you. It has brought out an even greater purpose that just saving my marriage. It's about becoming whole with myself and those around me. I have seen a big change in my social life the past month, with my thoughts and demeanor becoming elevated. Sometimes too much so, the comedowns can be hard. It serves me well to have reaffirmed why I am here on the Earth; it a time to reflect, albeit at the cost of great sadness. Well, needless to say, thanks guys for the opportunity.

Peace.

EH, I'm not sure I understand. You reject Christ and Christianity because a "god" might actually be able to hear you, and I suppose, respond to you?

Did something happen where you were looking for a certain response to some prayer that didn't come out the way you wanted? Or is it just a general rejection of a Living God who CAN hear and respond and who IS Sovereign and Creator?

I don't think God can hear prayer, and if it does, it's as a random thought to it. Maybe similar to a conscience, and intuition? I dunno, I haven't got around to puzzling that one out. I may never. "God" may never do it for itself, since IMO it's as one with us as we it. *shrugs* However, I'm not overly worried about it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

EH, wait a minute, you stated that you rejected Christianity because you didn't think that God could hear you. But now you are shrugging that off and saying that "criteria" is not that important to you. IF you are basing a rejection of Christ on that criteria, it can't also be "unimportant" to you.

THE issue remains NOT whether or not God can actually hear your prayers, it is WHO is Jesus Christ?

So that brings us back to your criteria for rejection. What say you about Jesus Christ? Is he who he said he is?

Well, you're placing a larger emphasis on my comments on the power of prayer than me. I think God "hears" us and understands us as much as we understand the earthworm beneath our feet. Our prayers to him go unanswered, at least by it.

I shouldn't have brought up the two seperate topics in the same paragraph. My bad. That is not my reason to reject God however, there are many (mainly scientific) reasons. In fact, I'm very nearly convinced that God doesn't even know we exist at all! It's that belief in nature and creation wherein I reject God.

Jesus Christ. Yes he was a man that existed. For sure. Just like Mohammand, and Budda. These may have been possible reincarnations of the same spiritual entity, particularly advanced along the spiritual path of learning, or other individuals of intense spiritual charisma, directly or more closely related to the collective spiritual entity- God if you will. Possibly older beings or "angels".

Though I don't like to accept the theory within my philosophy, perhaps Jesus and Co. actually "ascended". If you can actually attain that sort of understanding, to the point of absolute truth, do you then move on? To where? A new dimension, or do you maybe become a part of the universe, omnipotent yet unaware of it?

What do you think, assuming you would like to respond? What is Heaven to you, and how to you get there, in your own words? Further, what IS God to you, and more importantly, what is it? What came first, the chicken or the egg?

My philosophy works much more smoothly without thought of a conscious, macrocosm, aware of everything, and capable of anything. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

lol. Of course it does, there is no one but "self" to answer to and "this life" is "all there is."

But your philosophy does not answer the question either.

You use the same uninformed example that many people do when they try to equate Jesus with Muhammed, Buddha, or any other human being. NONE of the "other guys" ever claimed to be God. Jesus did. And then he "backed up" his claim with actions to "prove" the legitimacy of his claims.

So, your "speculations" about Jesus are based in unfounded, or uniformed, opinion. That's hardly the way to form a "life" opinion upon. One would think that a careful examination of the subject before making a choice or formning an opinion would be the "hallmark" of a careful, thinking, man.

Consider it this way, would anyone be "convicted" of a crime without examination of the "proof" and then forming an opinion about "innocent or guilty as charged?" Or do we just take any opinion and accept it as FACT?

Now consider this, even Satan KNOWS the truth about who Jesus is, but he still chooses to not accept him. So do many humans, but you are seemingly saying that your "opinion" supercedes the need for an honest appraisal, or hearing, of the facts in "the case."

That hardly seems like an "enlightened" thing to do, don't you think?

"Jesus did. And then he "backed up" his claim with actions to "prove" the legitimacy of his claims."

That's cause he was a madman (claiming that), and he got crucified for it. Show me your unequivocal proof you speak of... One that isn't diluted by generations of hand-me down histories and even shorter generational life-spans...

EndlessHorizon - the "proof" is there, out in the open, for all to see. The facts are "in evidence" and is up to you to either "disprove them" or to "reject them out of hand" regardless of their reality and truth simply because you CHOOSE to not accept Jesus Christ AS the Messiah and, therefore, YOUR Lord and Savior.

The "miracles" that attested to Jesus were not performed in secret. Even the resurrection was "proven" by the physical appearance of Jesus to MANY people.

Intellectual honesty requires either an acceptance of Jesus for who he is, or the chosen rejection of him because one does not want to acknowledge him as both LORD and Savior (just as Lucifer and his angels do). "Truth" is independent of opinion or a refusal to accept "truth" as being "applicable" to one's own life. There is nothing new in that. It has been that way since the beginning.

You chose "science" and "nature" as the "causitive factors": [color:"blue"]"That is not my reason to reject God however, there are many (mainly scientific) reasons. In fact, I'm very nearly convinced that God doesn't even know we exist at all! It's that belief in nature and creation wherein I reject God."[/color]

EH, you have "crossed over the line" from science into faith in that stated "belief" for why you reject God and Christ. Science CANNOT prove "origins" anymore than "faith in God" can prove "origins," if you are attempting to apply the "scientific method" to answer that question. Neither possible "causative event" is reproduceable and observable and "fail" the "scientific method" test. Belief in Creation AND belief in Evolution are both based in FAITH, not science. You reject the documented eyewitness testimony of many witnessess who attest to the validity and reality of the bodily resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ, while in the same breath accepting that all that is, and ever will be, came about through random chance. THEN you "tack on" an Eastern mysticism philosophy about "God as some energy" as in a "Star Wars-like 'Force'" that can be harnessed and controlled by man but that does not exert any independent control over, or on, man.

It's an interesting philosophy, but one that is founded in "faith" and not science. Once again I would "challenge" your philosophy of human thought against the real life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You prefer "science" as the explanation of "all that is," so science is NEUTRAL in itself. The "interpretation" of observations and tests is a human function whereby "biases" are attempted to be laid aside and the "facts speak for themselves," either proving or disproving the foregoing hypothesis. "Science" has laid upon the table for examination the "person" of Jesus Christ. In as much as you can look at "data" and evaluate the data to attempt to determine "what happened," be it fossils or historical data about ANY historical figure, you CAN form an opinion as to the "preponderance" of the evidence or the "paucity" of the evidence and the subsequent infusion of unsubstantiated speculation (hypothesis or theory) as to "what really happened."

"Intellectual honesty" demands applying the same rules to Christ and the Scriptures as it does to other similar things. For you to make a claim as "fact," such as; [color:"blue"]"That's cause he was a madman (claiming that), and he got crucified for it. Show me your unequivocal proof you speak of... One that isn't diluted by generations of hand-me down histories and even shorter generational life-spans... "[/color] is less than "intellectual honesty." You are an intelligent man, EH, and I would expect that IF you wish to reject Christ, you would be able to do so AFTER a careful examination of the facts, rather than an unsubstantiated opinion, such as you stated.

IF you want to "examine the data" I will be happy to attempt to accomodate you. In much the same way that you and I could review the evidence for Mars or Venus and arrive at a conclusion about the facts and the "Reality" of the existance of those planets and their "ecosystems," we can do so about the evidence that describes Jesus and the "observable facts" EVEN THOUGH neither you nor I were physically present to "observe for ourselves." We DO put our trust in the "validity of the observations made and the recordings of those facts, regardless of the fact that WE were not physically present there ourselves. But understand that even an "acknowledgment" of the facts concerning Jesus Christ does not amount to "accepting Christ." THAT takes a "step of faith" and a willingness to surrender one's life to THE Creator of the universe. It requires taking "self" off of the "throne of sovereignty" and putting the Living God there, (in his rightful place, in my very humble opinion).

But at least after an examination of the facts an individual can make an "informed choice" to reject that which is freely offered, if they "don't want to accept the gift."

You "challenged me" to [color:"blue"]"Show me your unequivocal proof you speak of... "[/color]

I am willing to attempt that. WHAT would you "accept" as "unequivocal proof?" I give you the resurrected Christ as "exhibit 'A'." There is no "dilution" of the evidence by "generations of hand-me down histories and even shorter generational life-spans." IF you think that is the case, then you've established a "Hypothesis" and the hypothesis requires an examination of the facts to determine whether or not the hypothesis can be supported or shown to NOT "fit the observable facts."

Would you like to begin with the resurrection, or perhaps with the "notion" that Jesus was just a "lunatic" who may have "believed" what he was saying but who was "just as crazy as any 'loon' in a "loony bin' who is convinced he is Napoleon (or the reincarnated Napoleon)?

Side Note: Perhaps, EH, we should move this discussion to a separate thread as it is getting a bit "far afield" from the topic of Porn and I wouldn't want to "threadjack" Suzet's thread without her permission.

ForeverHers, you and Horizon are welcome to continue your discussions on this thread. I follow the dialogue and find it very interesting and insightful. Maybe I can change the title of the thread to something like "Discussions on porn, religion and science"? Please advise.

Suzet, the thread, like your marriage and the advice you seek, is YOURS. You can do whatever you want to with it, YOU are in control of the horizontal, you are in control of the vertical..... grin! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You set the "outer limits AND the inner limits" of your thread! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

So we'll continue as long as EH, and others, may wish to contribute and discuss.