Dear TheRougeX,

I have the impression that you believe very strongly in being rational and living according to your beliefs in an honest way. Could you please extend the same privilege to us benighted Christians? Surely you can see that one of the inevitable logical consequences of believing that there is a Creator God Who cares about His Creation is realizing that our bodies are in fact "on loan" to us from Him. There's no need to insult us for drawing one of the most obvious conclusions from one of our fundamental premises and then acting according to it, even though you don't share our fundamental premise. That's us acting with the same intellectual rigor and moral uprightness you seem to value.

RogueX - It probably doesn't make much sense to respond to your posts and questions since we have decidely differing "worldviews," but let me make a brief stab at trying to answer your question about porn anyway. Perhaps you might even come to see it in a "different light."

You contend that "Well.. uh... Playboy really /isn't/ that bad. It's pretty timid, compared to some of the other stuff out there. More artsy, less raunchy."

Perhaps you could make such an argument for the "front" of Playboy, but "behind the scenes" is a different story. Complete with "how to" very explicit porn videos, support for "alternative lifestyles," etc.

You then went on to argue from your worldview "Besides, why is porn "bad?" I've never completely understood that. It might not be morally acceptable to some people, but that doesn't make it 'bad' in an overall sense. "

You attempted to justify your position by drawing an analogy(which I believe is nothing more than a red herring) to other things that "may or may not" be "good for you as an individual: "Porn is no different than tobacco or alcohol; when used in moderation and not addictively, it hurts no one."

Then you try to reach a false conclusion based upon faulty reasoning in order to support your stance concering porn usage in general, and "soft core porn" in particular: "Though, one must say that porn is actually healthier than tobacco and alcohol, because it doesn't actively kill you, yet tobacco and alcohol seem to be okay."

RogueX - No, "one" must NOT say that porn is actually healthier than tobacco and alcohol. That you don't see the difference is sad, but understandable because of a differing "worldview" that excludes God and that reduces "Man" to little more than an animal driven by instincts and "whatever they want is justification enough."

To follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, your wife is entirely justified in doing what it is that SHE wants to do and there is "nothing wrong with it."

But wait, YOU got hurt as a result of her doing whatever she felt was "okay" for her, without any consideration for others. Oh yes, you DO try to "parse" the issue with respect to Porn into "hard core" and so-called "soft core" Porn. You allege that "soft core Porn" hurts no one. That is, unfortunately, a lie and you should KNOW that.

Let's see, how to make this very simple? How harmless would it be for your wife, or a daughter, or your mother, etc. to be a Playboy subject? You might say it would be okay, but would it really? How about if they then began to participate in the "harder Playboy" and made sex videos?

RogueX, sin (which I know you don't believe in since you are stridently against God), leads to more sin. Sin is enticing and it becomes blinding to those caught up in it.

Going back to your attempt to use cigarettes and alcohol as "similar" vices, let's explore that a little. Both can be abused and both can cause heartache to the individual and to those who might suffer consequences of that abuse.

But you try to equate Porn (soft core) with it while denying the far reaching impacts of the entire Porn industry. If you want an analogy, "Soft Core Porn" is to "Hard Core Porn" what "recreational cocaine usage" is to "hard core drug usage." It presents a "soft face," all the while trying to hide the demon beneath until it is too late.

CAN some people avoid become addicted to Cocaine? Yes. But they are nonetheless "playing with fire" and MIGHT very well get burned themselves through "one too many," just like alcohol abuse. At the very least, their "blessing" of Soft Core Porn" lends support for the whole Porn industry by furthering the notion that people are objects and that anything I personally want is "okay."

In short, it leads to, and then reinforces, "Moral Relativism." That is a decidely humanistic, evolutionistic, mindset that grants to the individual the sole authority to determine "right and wrong." It is founded in the concept that there IS no "higher authority" than Man himself, and each individual has the right to choose for themselves what is and what isn't "morally acceptable."

If anyone disagrees with them, they can "slam" the person and accuse them of being "religious fanatics." RogueX, there ARE religious fanatics just as there are atheistic fanatics. A BELIEF in something is NOT what makes that belief correct. The OBJECT of the belief is what determines the "correctness" or "wrongness" of that belief.

You are, apparently, attacking a "Christian" belief. That's okay. But it then becomes incumbent upon you to say why YOUR belief would be "superior" and in what "universal truth" it is based. But you are simply attacking that belief based upon your individual determination that "Soft Core Porn" is okay and harms no one. Aside from statistics proving that position wrong, all you are doing is arguing from a position of "I want it, therefore it MUST be right."

I contend that "right and wrong" are determined by God and are applicable to ALL of humanity. They are not susceptible to individual "likes and/or dislikes" and they are not a smorgasbord to "pick and choose" only those things that you "like."



Think about this, RogueX. Isn't this exactly what your wife has been doing?




This is an example of the fundamental difference in "worldviews." By contrast, for those who believe that we were created by God and in His image, and NOT evolved from some slime pit, God established the covenant of Marriage as His first covenant with Mankind, and established it as One Man and One Woman, for life.

You reject Christ, Christianity, and apparently all "religions" and leave yourself with only the naturalistic, evolutionist answers to the question "why am I here?" You leave yourself no alternative but to reduce Mankind to the level of animals reacting solely upon instinct, which itself came about in some unknown way as we evolved. The bottom line remains that each individual RETAINS, in your scenario, the right to determine right and wrong for themselves, irrespective of anyone else or THEIR chosen standards.

RogueX, you are still hurting immensely over your wife's infidelity and her choices, so I understand your "Taker" wanting to be in control. But you may seriously want to consider that there might be "some" truth in what serious believers in Christ have to say, based solely upon who the OBJECT of their faith is. It is that OBJECT that you might want to consider to determine if it is true or false before choosing a "set of standards" by which to live your life.

Rather than take your real pain out on others and dismiss them "out of hand" as just being "religious," perhaps you might actually find some answers to your many questions in a serious examination of the OBJECT of the Christian religion, Jesus Christ.

Why would I bring Christ "into the discussion? Because you yourself have brought it up previously and have ridiculed it, stating and/or implying that YOU have all the answers and they are just "stupid and mislead."


On 9/9/2006 you wrote: "I've lost so much, this summer. My wife, my favorite job ever, now one of my favorite pets... I feel as if I've done something wrong and am being punished for it. As if everything is my fault and this is just some sort of karmic retribution/punishment by God/what-have-you. What could I possibly have done to deserve all this pain and misery? am I really that bad of a person?"

Then on 9/12/2006 you wrote the following: "I still can't get over the idea that she's out there having a good time and being happy. That just strikes me as wrong. It is one thing that prevents me from being religious too... seeing the good people hurt while those who hurt them profit and are happy.

If God was such an ultimate good, he would not allow this sort of thing to happen. If God created us, we are his responsibility. By being inactive and allowing these things to happen, he is as guilty as those perpetrating the acts.

At the very least, God is far from being the greatest good.
"

RogueX, there ARE many religions in the world, including the religion of atheism, as a "religion" in this sense is defined and something you believe. Again, they cannot all be right. Nor can they all be wrong. In the final analysis, either God exists or God does not exist. That separates atheism (no God) from any other religion that believes in some sort of "Supreme Being." With respect to the various religions, they cannot be all wrong or all right. The "correctness" of the religions would be founded upon the correct "Supreme Being," not the interpretations or desires of mankind. The ONLY religion that holds up a specific person to believe and claims that THAT person is, in fact, God, is Christianity. Therefore, the person Jesus Christ is the one that you might want to consider examining to determine for yourself the question "Who do YOU say that I am?"

Your contention, stated above, that "If God created us, we are his responsibility. By being inactive and allowing these things to happen, he is as guilty as those perpetrating the acts," is little different than the sort of thinking and rationalizing that goes on the heads of Wayward Spouses. It is always "someone else's responsibility" for their poor choices (in your case you cite God as the responsible person). You deny God, yet you attempt to assign guilt to God for making you, your wife, all of us, with Free Will INSTEAD of simply creating us with a robotic inability to do anything other than what He commands us. God did not create a race of puppets or robots. He created a race "in His owm image," and that includes the "Free Will" to choose to obey His commands or to disobey His commands. Mankind has "convenently" chosen to try to say that God doesn't exist, therefore none of "God's commands" are applicable to "ME," much less are binding, or even applicable to all of mankind DESPITE OUR FEELINGS, WANTS, AND DESIRES. "WE are Supreme, not God."
"WE, are individually Sovereign, and therefore, can do no no wrong, because a Sovereign has the right to determine what IS right and wrong for himself/herself regardless of anyone else's opinions."

Refusing to believe the truth, or believing in a falsehood, does NOT change the objective truth. That is true with respect to "religion" and it is true with respect to your opinion regarding Porn.

God bless.

Hey there, RX,

"Howso? How is Playboy, which is more artful nudity than porn, 'degrading to the spirit?'"

The spirit of intimacy.

View others nude...gives a false sense of intimacy. It's fantasy. It isn't intimate. This person isn't saying to you, RX, "Here's who I am, my spirit, myself"...you're an unknown customer...no identity, self or soul...it's false intimacy.

Falls under the marital boundary of not being intimate (sharing your stuff) with members of the opposite sex when you're married...nor allowing them to be intimate with you.

Which is the spirit of marriage...real intimacy...so you, as a human, can get the depth and width of being totally vulnerable with your partner...for life.

I believe, given your pain and very real vulnerability in your WW's actions, this may be where it hurts most...does it?

There is the concept of sacred in humans...not necessarily Christian...your sacred ground was torn up...decimated. KCM is examining all the ways of how this happens...from our intent to our actions...for clarity...and to aid his marriage.

As you said, sex as a biological drive and within our domain, our choice how to perceive it...what we make as our symbol. SF is an emotional need (EN)...and viewing nudity takes intimacy outside the sacred ground of marriage. Tells our brains a lot of stuff which isn't real...SF becomes a tool...instead of an expression, an act of love.

It's a choice. I believe it is an unhealthy one. We are tied up, as humans, with our emotional, mental, physical and spiritual selves in every molecule of us...we cannot feed one without the others digesting it, also. Our wholeness.

Viewing Playboy, one may say, "Well, they put themselves out there." Okay. Your choice to open the covers...your part, your half. To view or not to...what you feed your self, your soul, your wholeness...be aware of your payoff and find out if it is, in truth, real or false.

LA

Dear LovingAnyway,

Thanks for this post. I've actually been wondering about why soft porn is wrong. I had the intuition that it was wrong somehow, and accepted the Christian condemnation of it, but I like to understand WHY things are right and wrong. It helps me when it comes to actually not doing them...<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />...and this post, along with A.M.Martin's, gives me some good insight.

It's a privilege to speak with you directly. I appreciate your posts very much.

And so it is actually tricking the consumer, selling him something under false pretences, offering him a chimera which distracts him from the possibility of real intimacy, which is what would actually make us happy even though we don't realize it.

It harms the viewer!

That's a real "AHA!" moment for me.

Hey, RougeX, thanks for your challenge on this issue -- the dialogue has really helped me understand something.

You're welcome, Athan...privilege remains mine, though, to be read, heard and considered.

Thank you.

I don't believe the consumer is tricked...I believe we trick ourselves...the seller, the buyer and the posers. All humans...every one of them.

What we don't buy into remains our choice. Grieve what we chose when we didn't grasp...and celebrate what we don't buy now, that we do.

Fantasy harms. Just does.

LA

Yes, I agree. We're eager to be tricked. Otherwise it wouldn't work at all. A lot of people are making money off encouraging us to trick ourselves in this way that is so easy for us, though. It's so much easier to sell things in fantasy-land....

Many of your posts talk about fantasy and its seductions. I would be very interested to see a general essay about it from you. How it affects us, how it differs from reality, how hard it is to tell the two apart, how to escape from fantasy and return to reality, how it feels to get back. I envision something like the overall guides to Plan A/Plan B, Snooping, Reverse Babble, etc. that keep getting bumped for the newbies. I think that would add something of permanent value to the MB toolkit.

I guess it's all related to the Fog, but I'm not sure how. When the fantasy has received so much energy that it takes over the brain and we forget reality, is that when the Fog starts?

You said something somewhere about how it felt to get from fantasy to reality that reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Chesterton, talking about the symbolism of Christ giving keys to Peter, which I'd like to share with you:

"We are Christians and Catholics, not because we worship a key, but because we have passed a door, and have felt the bright sunshine and fresh breezes in the land of the living."

LA,

I'd be honored if you looked at my new thread. I just changed the name to "Catholic Doctrines and Marital Happiness -- #1 -- Divorce". It's meant to be psychological and speculative.

Excuse me for the self-serving TJ!

athanasius,

as you yourself have stated, everything you are doing here is self-serving. Why should a t/j be any different?

It's just especially impolite. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I've seen trolls come and I've seen them go. I call them like I see them.

Well, I'm at work so I can't take the time to really get into a debate here. I do want to clarify something though.

ForeverHers, I appreciate your analysis of my thoughts and such. I do want you to know, however, that I do not consider myself an Atheist. Atheists refuse to believe in a supreme being of any sort. On the contrary, I fully believe in some sort of cosmically supreme being, I just openly admit that I do not have the means to understand such a being, let alone define it. I tend to file myself more along the lines of the Agnostic, questioning and searching for the answers, instead of accepting the answers of others.

One interesting paradox I do want to mention is this, however: As a supposedly omnipotent being, God can do anything, correct? So when you say that God either exists or does not exist, are you not actually putting a limitation on a limitless being? Yes, it is akin to the "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it" paradox.

Anyway, that's just how I think. I don't place a definition on God (I usually don't even use that term.. it's just easier when talking to others) because it's not my place to do so. God is whatever God is. I will never be able to fully understand the existance of such a being, nor do I ever wish to try. I will, instead, study the world and look for common truths, and live by them.

LA - Thank you, also. I don't believe, though, that porn is false intimacy. But that's because I don't directly nor immediately relate sexuality (and hence, nudity) with intimacy. There are times when they are one in the same, but it is not always. To tell you the truth, had my WW spoken to me about wanting to do some of the things she did (the web-cam stuff she did comes to mind) and actually asked me if I would be okay with it, I would have been. I MAY have even let her sleep with the guy at the convention, had we had a real, in-depth talk about it, and set some boundaries that separated her sexuality from her intimacy. She, however, is not able to do that--separate sexuality from intimacy--even though she's always claimed that she could, and hence why she hid everything from me.

Bah, let me come back to this once I have internet at home again. We're still recovering from the ice storm, and I still don't even have power. Work is not a good place to process these kinds of thoughts. Feel free to comment on what I've left, but know it could be a few days before I respond.

EDIT: To add:


You are right. I apologize for my rudeness and insults. It has always been my desire to allow each to believe as they will; I sometimes allow myself to get frustrated though and violate my own beliefs by coming down on others. It's unfortunately something of a learned reaction--all through my life I've been attacked for how I (don't)believe, and sometimes it just makes me want to fight back. Please forgive me.

RogueX - I fully understand the "refusal to make a choice" position of Agnosticism because that is precisely the stance that I took before coming to know the Lord. The thoughts and issues you state are no different from what I considered, i.e. attempting to "evaluate" God from a finite human perspective. God cannot be known that way. But God makes it clear that regardless of what we choose to believe, we are either FOR God or AGAINST God, because God Himself "sets the rules and the standards."

Let's get a little more specific then, to hopefully clarify the issue.




No, it is not "akin" to any such thing. The direct answer to your question is "No, God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it." God created the entire universe and sustains it by His power even today.

There is no "limit" being place upon God. The "limit" you speak of is a human limitation, based in the finite limits of human existance. ANYTHING that God wills, God can do. It really is that simple.

But what you are really getting at is the difference between TRUTH and opinion. There is no limitation on God and His existance regardless of any opinion by Man. God exists, period. God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind through His inerrant, inspired Word.

If you, me, or anyone chooses to NOT believe what the Word of God clearly says, that is NOT God's fault, that is the fault of our having a sin nature that CANNOT come to God without God's grace and mercy preceding our being able to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

But a refusal to believe does nothing to change the TRUTH of God's existance any more that someone who might believe that gravity didn't exist for them and they could step off a tall building and NOT fall. The TRUTH operates independent of their belief, even if that belief is a "sincere belief." They would simply be "sincerely wrong."

Jesus was quite plain and clear, "NO ONE can come to the Father but by me."

That is truth, established by God, that operates independent of ANY human opinion.

God bless.

Okay, maybe you didn't quite understand the paradox I spoke of.

For God to be omnipotent, he must be capable of doing anything, without any limitations.

"Can God create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?"

If you say he CAN create the rock, then he is no longer omnipotent, because he created a rock which he cannot lift. Therefore there is a limit to what he is capable of, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

If you say that he CANNOT create the rock, then he is no longer omnipotent, because there is something that he cannot do. Therefore, there is a limit to what he is capable of, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

This is an old paradox, debated amongst philosophers for centuries.

FH, I do believe in a supreme diety.. a creator of sorts, but I do not personally believe in the Christian concept of God. The Christian concept of God is extremely limited and it seeks to define an infinite being using finite descriptions. God is something that no one and nothing, not even the Bible, can accurately depict.

IMHO, the only way to truly find God is to study all things. Truth is not written in one book, it is written in ALL books. It is not found in one religion, it is found in ALL religions. It is not found in one culture, but ALL cultures. Only by seeking out the commonalities of all things will one find God, because if God all things truly come from God, then how can you find God by only reading one book?

RogueX - this is nothing more than a "straw man" argument wherein you (generically speaking) seek to apply human reason to God. For what reason that can you conceive of would God create such a rock. Everything that God does is for His honor and glory and dealing in such hypotheticals changes nothing about the character and nature of God. All this is is another form of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question. It is a twisting of truth just as Satan attempted to twist real biblical truth in his temptations of Jesus.

Let me take your "reasoning," your "conundrum" out of the realm of God for a second and apply it to the creation of the universe and life as we know it. ALL calculations point to the impossibility, by all known statistical probability analysis, that life arose from non life. Yet, proponents of "evolution" as the "answer" continue to "believe" in evolution because their only other alternative is a Creator God, which they reject. So do you tell these evolutionists that Evolution cannot be true because because the amount of random trials needed to "create life" is larger than the amount of time they believe the universe has been in existance, to say nothing of it requiring vastly more combinations of atoms that are projected to exist in the entire universe? You can, but isn't that the same sort of "conundrum" you are attempting to place upon God? Because human mind cannot conceive of "omnipotence" and cannot "prove creation or evolution" does that render all of them de facto "false?" No, but it is quite obvious that BOTH Creation by God and Evolution by random chance CANNOT BOTH be true, yet one most certainly is true based upon the simple fact that life DOES exist. So it becomes an issue of FAITH, not science, to support either explanation of "how things got here."



"I do believe in a supreme diety.. a creator of sorts, but I do not personally believe in the Christian concept of God." Well, you have a lot of company. Even Satan goes further than you do. Satan knows that God is supreme and knows that Jesus is the Son of God. It is NOT "knowledge" that is at issue. It is "surrender" that is at issue. Satan will not surrender to God. Neither will most of mankind.


"The Christian concept of God is extremely limited and it seeks to define an infinite being using finite descriptions." This is a false statement. God cannot be "defined" by human descriptions other than to describe some of the aspects of God that HE has chosen to reveal to us. To argue from this position begins with a premise that the "indescribable" in human terms is automatically false and therefore sufficient cause for an individual to reject the specific that God HAS revealed Himself to us. I would challenge you to describe "Love" in finite human terms so that it is completely described and proven as an exercise in what I am trying to say. That Man is limited in his ability to describe something to his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of others is NOT proof that it doesn't exist.




The "short answer" to your question is BECAUSE God, not us, is Sovereign. God reveals Himself to us in His chosen method. For ALL religions of the world except for Christianity, there is nothing outside of the imaginings of the human mind to support or "prove" their concept of "god." But in Christianity, there is a PERSON, who lived, who can be examined historically, who was sent by the Father and who was Himself God the Son (the second person of the Trinity).

The question that Jesus put to the disciples is the same question that He puts to us today; "Who do YOU say that I am?"

"if all things truly come from God, then how can you find God by only reading one book?" Because God is not interested in "Man's opinions." God has chosen to reveal Himself and His plan for reconciling fallen mankind to Himself. GOD chooses the method, not us. You claim that Man can "find God" on his own, and I would contend that Man cannot find God through his own efforts. It takes the Grace and Mercy of God to draw people to Him and to "create a heart" that CAN find God. Man can, and certainly has throughout history, chosen all sorts of "gods" for themselves. But truth is not dependent upon Man's opinion or desire. It is founded in the One who IS truth and who IS Sovereign.

That is the concept that most people reject. That God, not Man, is Sovereign over our lives, is the impediment most prevalent in Man's futile search for "god" on his own. Those people want to "create 'god' in their chosen image" rather than the reality that God created Man in His image, for His honor and glory, not ours.

I forgive you with joy! It's my Christian duty! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Thanks for your gracious reply!

I've been away two weeks, and really MB is becoming less a learning experience and more a distraction from my real-life commitments (just for me -- my situation is special -- I'm not married!), so I'm just going to check out of this thread.

God bless! Goodbye.

I do not wish to get into the big is porn OK in moderation debate, but I would like to add my experience at this time to the table. My husband has an addiction to "soft porn" that has ruined my marriage in many ways. Yes, this addiction is a symptom of underlying issues, flip to that yes it has probably been the demise of our relationship. It has ruined the trust and it will be extremely difficult to rebuild. He says he has never looked at videos or anything like that just pictures. You would not think "art" would have that much power over a man.

They think with something other than a brain!

RX,

Good to see you again...I just caught your reply to me from Athan's bump...

"I don't directly nor immediately relate sexuality (and hence, nudity) with intimacy."

This is fascinating to me, given your holistic approach to life...that you can separate physical being from emotional, mental, and spiritual beings...

I see them as all part of each other...truly inseparable, until death...all of them within each molecule of our bodies.

So physical intimacy cannot be separated from sex...because taking off our clothes is being vulnerable to another in a conscious, stated form...which IS intimacy...just as instructions during the act are..."I like it when you touch me there" is an intimate statement...the choice to share our physicality is an intimate act...bearing emotional, physical, mental and spiritual vulnerability...whether we are having sex with a person we are committed to or not...part of the gut-wrenching portion of betrayal...

Granted, we can choose the perception it's just skin...anybody's skin...on skin...I believe that perception is hazardous in it's fantasy...that's a soul within a body you're touching and being touched by...there is no such thing as just skin.

So I gotta challenge you on this compartmentalizing of sex...because I don't hear your highest honesty in it...I hear an old belief, well-established, put away and relied upon...and I'd like another look-see at it...in your adult state, from all of you...all your being. As is.

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

I don't ask for much, eh?

My condolences on the time of the ice-storm...we had the snow from that storm system and it's many weeks later and I have yet to see a naked curb...I know they're there, though. Just can't see 'em yet.

LA