Porn. The Elephant in the room.

[serpentdove]

[PeaceMakingPolygamist ] No.

Why are you obsessed with polygamy?

You are not a polygamist?

 

[elohiym]

You are not a polygamist?

Playing coy? You know that I'm not a polygamist. We've been through this several times already.

So not only do you continue to falsely accuse me of being something I'm not, you pretend as if we haven't had this exchange before.

Do you think porn is worse than your false accusations? The prostitutes will enter the kingdom before you.

 

[serpentdove]

[PeaceMakingPolygamist ] You know that I'm not a polygamist.

Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

 

[Meriggiare]

Porn is stupid. Lonely persons watch it because they lack intimacy.

That barely covers it. Some lonely people watch pornography because they lack intimacy, but that isn't the only reason people watch porn.
A great deal of children view pornography too. They view it because their friends have and want to seem grown up and perhaps even "cool", they view out of curiosity, and they even view it just to entertain themselves. Most young males going through puberty in this day and age view it to "stimulate" themselves.
Summing this up and moving on; It isn't just lonely adults or lonely children, there is a huge mixed audience for pornography.

(I must note: Healthy adults in healthy relationships also use pornography. I'm not justifying it's use. Just pointing out another audience to porn that should not be overlooked.)

In this day and age porn is extremely easy to get your hands on, too easy in fact. If you just have a cell phone and wifi you can watch porn from just about anywhere in your house. If nothing else there should be more restrictions guaranteeing that even less underage people can get a hold of pornography.

 

[elohiym]

Pornography can be a nude selfie a wife gives her husband while he's away fighting the war against ISIS; he will use it to channel his sexual desires and thoughts towards her; his nocturnal emissions will be about her. Sin or not?

Anyone is welcome to respond to that.

 

[serpentdove]

Anyone is welcome to respond to that.

Or not (Pr 26:4).

 

[elohiym]

Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."

 

[serpentdove]

[PeaceMakingPolygamist ] "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."

:yawn: Proof please (Eph 4:14). each:

Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom (1 Co 6:9–10). :mario:

 

[elohiym]

:yawn: Proof please (Eph 4:14). each:

Okay. Do you still sin sometimes or have you completely ceased from sin?

 

[elohiym]

(I must note: Healthy adults in healthy relationships also use pornography...

Without defining "healthy adults" and "healthy relationship" and without giving an opinion on the morality of pornography ... :idunno:

Can we agree that a married couple watching child pornography are not healthy and not in a healthy relationship? I'm sure we can agree on that.

If pornography is generally immoral, then are we really possibly talking about healthy adults in healthy relationships? Above I tried to give a specific situation where the context might make it amoral or perhaps moral. :idunno:

 

[Meriggiare]

Pornography can be a nude selfie a wife gives her husband while he's away fighting the war against ISIS; he will use it to channel his sexual desires and thoughts towards her; his nocturnal emissions will be about her. Sin or not?

That is correct. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact as long as it isn't degrading or used as a form of blackmail in the future there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
The only issue would be if the woman considers sending pornographic images immoral or a sin- or if the man receiving them considered it to be a immoral or a sin. Then they'd be going against what they believed in. At least in my opinion. I have a feeling some people will disagree.

 

[elohiym]

That is correct. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact as long as it isn't degrading or used as a form of blackmail in the future there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
The only issue would be if the woman considers sending pornographic imagines immoral or a sin- or if the man receiving them considered it to be a immoral or a sin. Then they'd be going against what they believed in. At least in my opinion. I have a feeling some people will disagree.

I agree with you.

 

[Meriggiare]

Without defining "healthy adults" and "healthy relationship" and without giving an opinion on the morality of pornography ... :idunno:

Ahem, let me define that now. I apologize for not doing that in the post. I intended to do that originally.
By my definition a healthy adult is someone who is mentally and physically sound. - No mental illnesses or physical issues. I can elaborate further on physical issues if you wish.
Secondly, a healthy relationship meaning.. well, a couple without blatant problems in their relationship. Such as differences in religion that conflict daily and cause friction. (Defining a healthy relationship would require a lengthy response. Do you get the gist of what I meant?)

Can we agree that a married couple watching child pornography are not healthy and not in a healthy relationship? I'm sure we can agree on that.

I agree with that.

If pornography is generally immoral, then are we really possibly talking about healthy adults in healthy relationships? Above I tried to give a specific situation where the context might make it amoral or perhaps moral. :idunno:

There are situations in which pornography is acceptable. Your earlier example was reasonable.

 

[Nihilo]

I understand. My position is that I cannot covet my wife anymore than I can covet what belongs to me. We are one flesh.

Specifically during the marital act. Which prompts the question, What does it mean to covet a woman? Unless you're seeing her as a servant or labor of some sort, what else could it mean to covet a woman, except to desire to unite with her bodily? And it is in this way that coveting is distinct from lust, because we can covet possessions without wanting to unite bodily with them. (Desiring to unite with an animal or other object is also an offense against chastity.)

We ought not to covet (Exodus 20:17). Why see inordinate desire (lust) as something other than coveting?

Because the Church teaches that lust is distinct, and that all offenses against chastity are transgressions against the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and not, Thou shalt not covet.

The idea of coveting is expressed in Greek words like epithumia and epithumeó, is it not?


We are discussing acts that can be sin in one context but not sin in another context

See my comment below about the difference between sin and trespassing.

, and trying to do so without agreeing on the definitions of words. That's not a recipe for success.

Pornography can be a nude selfie a wife gives her husband while he's away fighting the war against ISIS; he will use it to channel his sexual desires and thoughts towards her; his nocturnal emissions will be about her. Sin or not?

Let's discuss sin then, since I think we are at odds over this definition also, and it is perhaps the governing word in this discussion anyway.

A sin is a moral offense, which I call a trespass, that is done fully voluntarily, and that, in every way conceivable. So as to whether a trespass is a sin is all about the heart of the trespasser. And meanwhile, where there is no trespass, there can be no sin, regardless of our heart.

So with pornography, it is in and of itself a trespass or moral offense, and a grave one at that, according to the Church. Regardless, it is possible to engage in the production, distribution and consumption of pornography without ever sinning, when and only when the conditions, physical and mental and emotional and social etc., of the trespasser relegate the trespass to something other than fully free, voluntary and uncoerced. When we commit a moral offense, no matter how grave, in such circumstances, our guilt is reduced for the trespass, to either a venial (or forgiven) sin (e.g., gluttony), or it is all together eliminated.

My impression is that you believe that any bona fide moral offense (e.g., murder) is a sin, regardless of other circumstances. Is this correct?

 

[elohiym]

What does it mean to covet a woman? Unless you're seeing her as a servant or labor of some sort, what else could it mean to covet a woman, except to desire to unite with her bodily?

When my wife and I were single, I desired her to be my wife; that wasn't lusting, coveting or adultery, right? However, if she were married to another man at the time, I would have been committing adultery to desire her because I would be desiring to take the wife of another man. That is why Jesus called it adultery.

And it is in this way that coveting is distinct from lust, because we can covet possessions without wanting to unite bodily with them. (Desiring to unite with an animal or other object is also an offense against chastity.)

If you read Galatians 5 you'll see that the lust of the flesh isn't just about uniting bodily with the opposite sex.

Because the Church teaches that lust is distinct, and that all offenses against chastity are transgressions against the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and not, Thou shalt not covet.

There were two commandments in the ten; one stated don't commit adultery, the other stated don't covet your neighbor's wife. Jesus was making the point that if you violate the one against coveting you have already violated the one against adultery in your heart. It's that simple. Similarly, if you think to steal something, whether you do it or not, you have already committed the sin coveting that thing you thought to steal.

A sin is a moral offense, which I call a trespass, that is done fully voluntarily, and that, in every way conceivable. So as to whether a trespass is a sin is all about the heart of the trespasser. And meanwhile, where there is no trespass, there can be no sin, regardless of our heart.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I agree with that.

So with pornography, it is in and of itself a trespass or moral offense, and a grave one at that, according to the Church. Regardless, it is possible to engage in the production, distribution and consumption of pornography without ever sinning, when and only when the conditions, physical and mental and emotional and social etc., of the trespasser relegate the trespass to something other than fully free, voluntary and uncoerced. When we commit a moral offense, no matter how grave, in such circumstances, our guilt is reduced for the trespass, to either a venial (or forgiven) sin (e.g., gluttony), or it is all together eliminated.

You lost me there, especially the highlighted part if your first sentence is accurate.

My impression is that you believe that any bona fide moral offense (e.g., murder) is a sin, regardless of other circumstances. Is this correct?

Sin is transgression of the golden rule, the principle that summarizes the law and the prophets (Matthew 7:12). Murder is always wilful and requires malice aforethought. Taking another person's physical life was not always the sin of murder in the Bible narrative. For example, there were cities of refuge for those who killed but didn't murder.

 

[Nihilo]

Similarly, if you think to steal something, whether you do it or not, you have already committed the sin coveting that thing you thought to steal.

Lusting is not coveting. Lusting is offense against chastity.

Taking another person's physical life was not always the sin of murder in the Bible narrative. For example, there were cities of refuge for those who killed but didn't murder.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

I don't have wet dreams anymore, I've only been married for 16 years. My point being that the younger folk in overbearing religious environments can feel condemned over something that is a normal bodily function. Christians and there warfare against all things sexual only create more problems than solutions.

Problem? Idols. Solution? Jesus Christ!

Granted most young men will suffer their prodigal child miseries of the world and pleasure leaving them high and dry before turning to Christ and finding joy and peace and contentment in Him.

That doesn't preclude us from warning young men from the misery the world offers.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Do you still sin ever?



You don't know? Are you doubting the "science" you've presented? Wasn't your brain "hijacked" by porn, or did you have free will, and therefore sinned willfully?



If you cannot keep from doing the things you don't want to do, you lack free will. That's common sense.

Consider you are misunderstanding Romans 7:15 because Paul is not talking about wilful sin but unintentional sin, like becoming unclean by accidentally touching something unclean (Lev 5:2), or menstruation for women (Lev 15:30). If you believe looking at porn is sinful and you do it in spite of that knowledge and spirit of grace, then your fate is Hebrews 10:27-29; whereas, if you wife menstruates, she no longer is guilty of sin for that and no longer has to make atonement with God for that.




Does that mean you no longer sin at all or that you have put this sin, and perhaps others, behind you?



Over *that* sin doesn't sound like he gave you victory over every sin? Why's He holding back? Why are you?

Paul paints a picture of a repentant heart in Phiilipians 3. Pressing on toward perfection. Forgetting what is behind, holding on to what we attained through Christ. (Phiilipians 3:12-16)

The point is the pressing on. Repenting.

Do we have free will. God holds us responsible for our actions. And also in His Great love and mercy gave us Himself to empower us and yes we have free will to choose and embrace His great gift.

The Holy Spirit convicts in a process gradually in the sanctification process, as we choose to take part in His way for our lives.(Romans 6:22)

 

[elohiym]

Lusting is not coveting. Lusting is offense against chastity.

Now read section 2534 et seq. Clearly, the Church teaches that lust is covetousness, as I've claimed.

2534 The tenth commandment unfolds and completes the ninth, which is concerned with concupiscence of the flesh. It forbids coveting the goods of another, as the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids. "Lust of the eyes" leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the fifth commandment.319 Avarice, like fornication, originates in the idolatry prohibited by the first three prescriptions of the Law.320 The tenth commandment concerns the intentions of the heart; with the ninth, it summarizes all the precepts of the Law.​

But let's consider the Church's definition of lust in section 2351.

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.​

It's simply saying that sexual desire is covetous (lust) when it is divorced from its procreative and unitive purposes or when the enjoyment is inordinate. They offer no evidence for its unitive purpose and no examples, and do not define what is an inordinate level of enjoyment.

Regardless, section 2534 connects lust and covetousness and helps support some of what I've been arguing.

 

[elohiym]

Paul paints a picture of a repentant heart in Phiilipians 3.

Okay.

Pressing on toward perfection.

Implies perfection is attainable in this life.

The point is the pressing on. Repenting.

Don't omit the word perfection from the point. The Lord said "be perfect."

Do we have free will.

Not according to the English definition of free will. All your choices are at least influenced by prior causes or divine intervention. We all act according to our beliefs, and until our beliefs change--and they can--we are in bondage so to speak to our current beliefs. That's really a good thing if you think about it, and is much better than the illusory idea of "free will."

God holds us responsible for our actions.

Our sins have been forgiven, no? He is trying to convince us that we are His children, and there are consequences for those who don't believe (Acts 17:28-29). Those consequences are what you may see as Him holding us responsible for our actions. The bottom line, however, is that our actions always reflect our beliefs in the moment.

The Holy Spirit convicts in a process gradually in the sanctification process, as we choose to take part in His way for our lives.(Romans 6:22)

Progressive sanctification is a deception, friend. Where are those who have been progressively sanctified to perfection? We should be seeing some of those people from time-to-time, right? But all I see mostly are people who claim they are being progressively made perfect but will never be perfect until the day they die, or a similar idea.

The foundation, the Rock, is the Son of God. Are you God's son? Yes? Good! That idea in your head is the foundation of the church. If that's true about you, that you are His son, then you are perfect, as perfect as you need to be. Perfect love is simply living by the golden rule, as the Lord taught.

43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,j 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same?

48 Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.​

It should be obvious His teaching above is about the golden rule and exactly how to be perfect. If you were God's enemy, you wouldn't want Him to withhold the rain from your crops; to love perfectly, your desire as a new creation should be to provide irrigation to all your neighbors, even the ones who consider you an enemy. How much time, and "progressive sanctifying," will it take to give you such a heart?

Regarding the "science" linked in the OP, it's seems just as much an anti-masturbation argument as an anti-pornography argument, perhaps more so. Do you see self-stimulation as sinful?