• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can all Religions unite in the belief that banning pornography is good?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Haha, I never heard that.

God did not tell him he had to do reproduce, or did God tell him that? Similarly, if I don't like it, I just don't eat it ... leave it for others to eat




They did not just speak about it. From 1910 till now Christianity grew from 600 million to 2000 million. That takes a lot of hard work so to speak

That was in the time this Thomas Aquinas was living. Maybe he was body and sex averse, but definitely not the others:D.
Very hard work, esp. considering the fact that many children died
You may want to read some about Aquanis, he felt sex that wasn't between husband and wife and didn't have the intent and purpose of reproduction was sin (thus, a married couple having sex for pleasure is sin).
Paul is pretty much the only more sex averse figure when he contradicted god (who said many times be fruitful and multiply) and said it's best to remain unmarried as he was, with marriage being a second best for those who can't control their sexual urges.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
In 2000 years 2 billion Christians. You don't get that by watching porn. You need to practice at least 2 billion times:D
And how many did it in the dark with parts of their cloth on? And how many were ashamed for it? How many are still ashamed because their tastes are not those of the priests? And what do the churches do to debunk their image as uptight?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You may want to read some about Aquanis, he felt sex that wasn't between husband and wife and didn't have the intent and purpose of reproduction was sin (thus, a married couple having sex for pleasure is sin).
I don't believe in sin. God gave us free will and loves unconditionally, so sin does not fit in this picture (sin, as in upsetting God)

Amazing, that they had this sin concept already in 1200, and still nowadays people are full of fear of sin; that's so sad
2000 years of being brainwashed means it must be in human DNA, and will take 2000 years at least to get it out I think
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
And how many did it in the dark with parts of their cloth on? And how many were ashamed for it? How many are still ashamed because their tastes are not those of the priests? And what do the churches do to debunk their image as uptight?
Yes, amazing how fear and guilt works. Very bad this guilt imposing onto others. You can see it's disastrous effect again now with Corona. People really get totally blind to see facts themselves and blindly swallow whatever the priests (now the governments) tell them. As if one guilt trip (church with sin) is not enough. People in charge know this very well, and abuse this fear on purpose.That makes it even worse. I am glad I overcame it.

Those priests accumulated a huge karma for themselves, scaring people with their fantasies what God wants. But doing it for already 2000 years, it's disastrous effects will remain at least for 2000 years I think, esp. when Christianity with 2 billion follower keeps growing. I don't know about Islam, but I think Islam is also full of guilt, so that is 4 billion (more than 50% of fearful people).
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Paul is pretty much the only more sex averse figure when he contradicted god (who said many times be fruitful and multiply)
Yes, God made it easy. So, if people use their brains and stop listening to priests and Imaams, they are much better off. They are free to have sex

Paul is pretty much the only more sex averse figure when he contradicted god ... and said it's best to remain unmarried as he was, with marriage being a second best for those who can't control their sexual urges.
That I think is good advice. Not talking about sin, thereby imposing a guilt feeling on these gullible people
IF you can't control your sexual urges THEN by all means do it and be smart, and enjoy it while doing it

Anyway, the priests themselves also do it a lot, we have seen the past year, with the priests making headlines in the news. They really know the consequences (having studied it for decades). IF they really believed it to be a sin, that will have you end up in Hell THEN they never would do it themselves. So, or they don't believe in God or they know that God does not care a bit whether or not you endulge in it. Whichever one it is, in both cases they behave in a sick instilling fear in others; they must have an agenda why they do this. People ruling the world (Catholic Church did not become that rich by being selfless) usually have a big agenda to work through to get that rich
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I don't believe in sin. God gave us free will and loves unconditionally, so sin does not fit in this picture (sin, as in upsetting God)
Sin is a core principle of Christianity.
They are free to have sex
That is very limited by Biblical law and policy. As Jesus said "to look upon a woman with lust is to commit adultery in your heart."
Amazing, that they had this sin concept already in 1200, and still nowadays people are full of fear of sin; that's so sad
2000 years of being brainwashed means in must be in human DNA, and will take 2000 years at least to get it out I think
If it were in our DNA then we'd see it, and we wouldn't see so much of the Western world moving away from it.
Anyway, the priests themselves also do it a lot, we have seen the past year, with the priests making headlines in the news.
Catholic priests, no, but not every church is Catholic, and not all churches are lead by a priest.
IF they really believed it to be a sin, that will have you end up in Hell THEN they never would do it themselves.
That isn't how sin works in the Bible. Ignorance of the law is not an accepted excuse.
That I think is good advice. Not talking about sin, thereby imposing a guilt feeling on these gullible people
The Bible teaches all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. According to the Bible, it doesn't matter what you believe, acts of sin are sin and those guilty are not worthy of redemption.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
The Bible teaches all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. According to the Bible, it doesn't matter what you believe, acts of sin are sin and those guilty are not worthy of redemption.
The OP title was "can ALL religions unite in the belief ....

What I believe does matter, and I am not a Christian
You might think that everything revolves around Bible, but that's false
There are still more non-christians than christians in the world
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The OP title was "can ALL religions unite in the belief ....

What I believe does matter, and I am not a Christian
You might think that everything revolves around Bible, but that's false
There are still more non-christians than christians in the world
:facepalm:
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I begs to be asked how you was able to muster out "you might think everything revolves around the Bible" when addressing me.
What a strange English sentence, I never saw or heard that (I begs, you was):).
But google translate totally agreed with you, so thanks, showing me some new English grammar:cool:

To answer your question:
When I gave my personal opinion from my POV, clearly stating I don't believe in "sin", you replied and went all Biblical-sin verses on me, not once, not twice, not.... Well you get it, I think. Though I never pictured you to 'revolve around Bible', you clearly made it look that way when replying to me. I have nothing whatsoever with the Bible's use of sin and violence, hence it's not part of my life, hence I don't use these phrases even, because I can not believe that Jesus even said or implied those things. I love Jesus, but not the Jesus some Christians try to impose on me, full of sin, guilt, fear etc.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
To answer your question:
When I gave my personal opinion from my POV, clearly stating I don't believe in "sin", you replied and went all Biblical-sin verses on me, not once, not twice, not.... Well you get it, I think. Though I never pictured you to 'revolve around Bible', you clearly made it look that way when replying to me. I have nothing whatsoever with the Bible's use of sin and violence, hence it's not part of my life, hence I don't use these phrases even, because I can not believe that Jesus even said or implied those things. I love Jesus, but not the Jesus some Christians try to impose on me, full of sin, guilt, fear etc.
Just because I discuss the Bible doesn't mean I agree with it.
But it was my life for many years and I was educated by the Church, so I still know it well.
In economic debates with Libertarians, I will bring up Libertarian authors like Milton or Nozick. Not because I agree with them, but I've read them and they are a part of the subject discussion.
What a strange English sentence, I never saw or heard that (I begs, you was):).
But google translate totally agreed with you, so thanks, showing me some new English grammar
I will try to keep this mind (I didn't know English isn't your primary language).
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I will try to keep this mind (I didn't know English isn't your primary language).
Oh, no DO NOT do that. I like to learn new things about English. As a matter of fact, I just thought this morning to start a thread, asking RF to point out my grammar mistakes so I can learn something. And here you came within a few hours after my 'prayer':D, you must have picked it up, unknowingly
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Oh, no DO NOT do that. I like to learn new things about English. As a matter of fact, I just thought this morning to start a thread, asking RF to point out my grammar mistakes so I can learn something. And here you came within a few hours after my 'prayer':D, you must have picked it up, unknowingly
Cool! Ask away and I'll do my best to help explain something if you need help, though I am out of the loop when it comes to youth culture and I end up having to ask my youngest nephews what something means, lol.
But I do have a habit of throwing out archaic and dated words and usages. Like using the word "save" to mean "except." 'Twas and 'tis are two other ones I like, as contractions for "it was" and "it is."
 

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
The Kamasutra was created in the Indian culture. There are temples in India with reliefs depicting people in sexual acts. Tibetan Buddhism created images of Buddhas in sexual union with female partners. So, no, I don't think all religions can agree that "pornography is bad".
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
The Kamasutra was created in the Indian culture. There are temples in India with reliefs depicting people in sexual acts. Tibetan Buddhism created images of Buddhas in sexual union with female partners. So, no, I don't think all religions can agree that "pornography is bad".
I don't agree at all.

Nudity is not pornographic. Sex depicted as something sacred is not pornographic according to many definitions of what is pornographic.

For instance, the Bible speaks of the male penis as "Wet with dew" and female vagina, cervix, and womb as garden enclosed, breasts as Twin Fawns and other terms for a womans breasts and figure. We will suck the abundant breasts of Jerusalem who is a woman Isaiah 66 says.

The high priest in Theology of the body symbolized a male penis, and the "Holy place" symbolized a female Vagina aka "Holy of Holies".

The high priest could only enter the holy of Holies on the day of atonement , and if he did so unworthily , he could die. He entered with fear and trembling.

Sacred sexual imagery and acts between two lovers is not necessarily pornographic.

Total disrespect of women and degradation of the female body is indeed bad and at the vast vast majority of pornographic sites

For instance, why is it that every porno site I go to advertizes "Horny sluts in your area, get laid by horny nympho *****es now" or something like that. They never tell you it can get you your brains blown out if that woman has a husband or significant other.

I was caught in a man's house , in his bed, with his wife. We were both fully clothed but I still feel much guilt about it. I didn't know it was some guys apartment we were in.


Bottom line is, pornography can lead to using people for sexual gratification and unbridled lust, is absolutely filled with consequences ranging from STD's, trauma, sex addiction, drug addiction, shame, guilt, abortion, fatherless children, increase in crime, manipulation of people for sex, cheating on one's significant other or spouse, violence, disrespect of women.

I had no disrespect for the female body or gender before I got into porn. Immediately after filling my mind with images like that , my brain wanted more and more, and women were simply objects, and it was okay to use women and discard them, because that is the message porn sends.

Also, most women aren't as good looking as porn stars, so porn addiction gives unreal expectations, which causes the woman grief, and the man can be very disappointed. It causes an emptiness and a hardness of heart and makes it difficult to truly love people who are your type and turn you on.

Pornography works on the same neurotransmitters and chemicals as meth, cocaine, and heroin. It's highly addictive but more shameful of an addiction because one is far more shameful and causes far more guilt to be a sexual creep and pervert in my experience. Junkies are respected in prison. Sexual perverts are sometimes beaten within inches of their lives, tortured, or murdered, and chronically antagonized. The sex offenders all have an obsession with porn.


When I stopped looking at porn because the Capitol Hill Queens and the Virgin Mary insisted I do (my conviction), I became more happy. I like the guy I see in the mirror more. There is less darkness in my heart. I feel more virtuous. I'm not as irritable and fiending for some gratification of a sexual obsession, it's easier to interact with women, I feel more noble and chivalrous and pure of heart. I'm all together a stronger person as well with more self-control. It's also easier to concentrate and focus without all these sexual images in my imagination. I'm also more mature.
 

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
If you've come to this conclusion, good for you. I think "Western" pornography is rooted deeply in a negative attitude against the body, spread by Christianity. The body is bad, sex is bad. Mary was the only person besides Jesus who was conceived immaculate. Conversely, every other conception except Mary's is "stained". Sex is something that "must" be done "quickly" and lovelessly, out of the rejection of the physical because it is a necessary evil, and afterwards one can feel guilty.

I don't have my own experience in this field, but the "sex therapies" that have been spread in the West in connection with Osho and Tantra seem to put a lot of emphasis on the fact that men should respect women, "serve" them, so to speak. Another interesting aspect is the attitude of the Japanese towards pornography.

Pornography in Japan - Wikipedia
 
Top