Friday, April 28, 2006

This is porn

This is porn. To some people, anyway. To me it's just a tasteful nude. In fact, that's how I found it, by doing a Google search for "tasteful nude." But to some people it's still porn. Because the subject's naked. But I don't think so.

Now this picture is a bit more pornographic, which is why I'm linking to it rather than actually showing it. It's not really nasty porn. It's more soft porn. But most people would define it as mildly pornographic, because it's more gratuitous than artsy.

This picture...well, I think most people would define this as porn owing to the full frontal nudity.

This one is questionable. It's a beaver shot - and a big nasty one. But still, it really depends on what turns you on.

This one is way pornographic. Don't click on it.

But it's amazing what some people consider pornographic, especially the True Christians ™ posting over at Vox Popoli. Most of Vox's readers come to him via a right wing site popular with True Christians ™.

Gene is a True Christian ™. Gene worries about my soul because I write erotica. She's vexed by it. Gene hates pornography, but she loves to talk about it, and brings it up even when I don't. Gene apparently thinks about pornography. A lot. Gene thinks this is an example of pornography:




Gene also likes to quote people who tell her how she should think about things. Here's what she says another True Christian ™ told her to think about the Michelangelo's David and other Evil Art Forms:

Ravi Zacharias said that he reconsidered the role of nudity in art when he heard the story of student Michelangelo being asked why he painted nudes. “Michelangelo replied that he wanted to see people as God sees them. His instructor then said, ‘But you are not God.’Zacharias is a great speaker if you ever get the chance to hear him. ...With desensitizing people with porn or violence through media and the arts, one can mistakenly underestimate the tragedy of the loss of wonder. "

Bone Head (yes, that's what he calls himself) is also a True Christian ™. Here's what he thinks this is an example of pornography:



Yes, that's right. You're looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But when Bone Head looks at it, he doesn't just see porn, but gay porn. That's because he read somewhere that Michelangelo liked naked men.

So to True Christians ™ like Gene and Bone Head, taking your kids to the Sistine Chapel or to an art museum is the same thing as taking them to a peep show.

Gene and Bone Head think David and the Sistine Chapel are pornography. Smut. Filth.

Gene and I have had some interesting exchanges on race that I won't rehash. Let's just say that Gene had some unpleasant experiences in her childhood that have left her with a bit of a mistrust for people who don't look like her.

Gene's like a lot of True Christians ™ in that regard. They long for the good old days, when it was acceptable for True Christians ™ to Do Their Thing, which was often lynching people who didn't look like them or running about condemning people in God's name.

Sexual images don't excite True Christians ™, at least not in any way that they will admit. But I'd be willing to be that pictures of lynchings or people carrying sings proclaiming God's hate makes their hearts beat faster and sends the blood rushing to their naughty parts.

It doesn't do it for me, though. Sanctimonious hate is a turnoff to me. I just can't get into that kind of filth. But then again, I guess that's because I'm not a True Christian ™.

158 comments:

dlkjdfsa said...

Don't get me started on girls ankles. Bann the sandal! My member is becoming active :0 God hates exposed ankles!!!

Morgan said...

It starts with the ankles, my child. The next thing you know you're looking at the soft spot behind their knee and working your way right up to the Cavern of Hell.
Someone needs to pray for his soul.
Please tell me you didn't click on the links. I don't want you corrupted by the beaver shot.

way2much said...

I loved the beaver shot! That was very funny. I have been reading your posts for some time now. I found your site when I was looking up something for my class on Cyberporn. I was referred to your debate on porn and I was hooked on all 3 of your blogs since.
Sorry to see Billy D. close down and wondering where Shrub went. But I now read Rabbitslayer as well! All very interesting.
My class has come to an end but perhaps you may be interested in seeing what we all were blogging about. Here is the link http://loc8ed.com/cpblogs/
I am a Christian, but according to what you say - I am happy to say not a True Christian - I hope that doesn't offend anyone.

JohnR said...

Morgan: Why do you care? That is why I don't get into those discussions. What a waste of time and energy. You're not being any less snarky than those you disagree with. Let it go!!

JohnR

Oh, and the Christian disagreement has to do with modesty, not porn.

Morgan said...

I never said I wasn't snarky. I'm just pointing out the humorous side - and the irony - of True Christians ™.

JohnR, if you want to "protect" yourself from works of art like the gay Sistine Chapel ceiling or David, then knock yourself out. But the not-so-funny side of True Christians ™ is that they'd like to structure things so that everyone was protected from *anything* they didn't deem "modest."

I get into these discussions because I know where they will lead. And so I can use them as interesting examples.

dlkjdfsa said...

What's your definition of porn johnr?

Morgan said...

"I am a Christian, but according to what you say - I am happy to say not a True Christian - I hope that doesn't offend anyone."

Oh, I'm sure you did offend someone; True Christians ™ are very sensitive. But I wouldn't worry about it. They're offended by Michelangelo. Go figure!

I'm so glad you like the blog. I'm quite flattered, especially after visiting yours. Very nice! I'd love to exchange links if you're up for it.

I hate that BillyD shut his blog down and I'm worried about Shrub. No one's heard from him. Hope he's OK. It's not like him not to post Testicle Tuesday without and explanation.

Morgan said...

Good question, Robert. I'd like to know if John agrees with Gene and Bone Head that David and the Sistine Chapel are pornographic. Or too lacking in modest for decent people - whether True Christians ™ - or not, to view.

Cerella said...

People need to stop being soo judgemental! The human body is beautiful and should be celebrated.
There is NOTHING wrong with a "tasteful nude." Morgan, you just keep on keepin' on! :) I love your blog!

Anonymous said...

Morgan: why do you assume I agree with Gene/Jeanne and Bone Head?

I don't have a problem with the Sistine Chapel or David. You are reading too much into my response.

Anonymous said...

Morgan: why do you assume I agree with Gene/Jeanne and Bone Head?

I don't have a problem with the Sistine Chapel or David. You are reading too much into my response.

JohnR said...

Morgan: why do you assume I agree with Gene/Jeanne and Bone Head?

I don't have a problem with the Sistine Chapel or David.

You are reading too much into my response.

JohnR

JohnR said...

Whoops, sorry about that triple post.

JohnR

Morgan said...

John, I didn't assume anything. I was just curious as to whether you did.

Morgan said...

Why thank you, Miss Cerella. I quite agree. We were beautifully and wonderfully made - even that beaver in that beaver shot. How someone can find the body in its natural state repulsive is beyond me. I think the David statue is awesome. And I've always loved the Sistine Chapel paintings, even though they're totally gay.

Thanks so much for your comments! It's awesome to have a new reader, especially on in such a nice hat.

PS: I just checked your your profile and saw that you knit.Me too! I'm also getting into spinning and weaving.

thimscool said...

You have two other blogs?

EN said...

And Christians like Gene lynch people? Love it. Bravo, massive insinuation. I can picture Gene pulling the genitals off of a black man falsely accused of rape. His terror... Gene laughs demonically...

Now that I see how you feel about this Morg my real question is this. How far are you willing to go to protect your right to free speech? Are you willing to fight for it? Even better, are you willing to force your views on others? For instance if Gene doesn't want her kids looking at your stuff, or David, are you willing to use for against her?

Morgan said...

"You have two other blogs?"

I have two waiting in the wings that I have yet to launch But as for now this is my only active one.

Morgan said...

EN, I have no problem at all with Gene not looking at art. I'd hardly want her beside me in an art museum, throwing herself in front of the statue of David replica in an effort to Deliver Me From Evil. She has my blessing to hide herself away in the house and protect her family from germs, minorities and art all day long.

No, I fully support the True Christian's ™ right not to look at art. But I don't support their right to clear art galleries, libraries or airwaves of what "they" find offensive in the name of morality.

dlkjdfsa said...

How someone can find the body in its natural state repulsive is beyond me.

I know I got a unique view on things but looking at my bottom.... Well, I find my own butthole to be repulsive. I don't know what to do about it. I need it so much :) Bad taste? Let's bann it!

Morgan said...

"You can't ban your butthole, Robert. If you did you'd be full of shit, and I'd have to make you an honorary True Christian ™."

JohnR said...

Southside: Ideally the human body is a marvelous work of creation.

Realisically, go to the beach and you'll see plenty of examples of the ugliness of the body. Unless you're one of those "beauty in ugliness" types.

Morgan's first picture is a tasteful nude. The second is what I would call soft-core porn, good for 13-year-olds to spank the monkey too. The one Morgan warns us about is hard-core porn.

Oh, and Morgan, your beaver needs to be trimmed.

How about a nice bikini wax???

JohnR

Morgan said...

"Oh, and Morgan, your beaver needs to be trimmed.
How about a nice bikini wax???"

Sounds good. You're welcome to try if you can pull that stick out of it.

"The one Morgan warns us about is hard-core porn."

You looked? Even after I warned you? You are no True Christian ™.

"Unless you're one of those "beauty in ugliness" types."

JohnR, in Robert's defense he did say, "Ideally the human body is a marvelous work of creation."

But you're right. I was at the pool one summer when I was a kid and this guy climbed up the ladder ahead of me going to the diving board. His shriveled little sac was hanging out of his too-tight Speedos. It was so wrong.

JohnR said...

Well Morgan after the beaver pic I had to see if it was a joke.

But I have crawled on glass, drank some bleach, and flogged myself so I thinks its OK now.

In Gene/Jeanne and BH's defense, I think that part of their objection has to do with tempting others. You know the part in Corinthians about Paul telling people to abstain from meat offered to idols if it would make weaker/newer Christian question their faith. I think that is where they are coming from.

JohnR

Morgan said...

In Gene/Jeanne and BH's defense, I think that part of their objection has to do with tempting others... I think that is where they are coming from."

JohnR, I know that's part of it, but I think Gene and Bone Head are engaging in a bit of transference typical of True Christians ™. They feel weak or guilty in the face of temptation and believe everyone is like that. Or they believe that normal sexual feelings are somehow evil or bad.

Gene has never asked, but if she would I'd tell her what I told other who've asked me about my writing; the primary readers of my erotic writing are married women. The beauty of erotica is that the woman can cast herself and her husband as the main characters. As I put it once before, she becomes Sarah Comely and he's Lord Longcock or whatever. She gets worked up and when hubby comes home she attacks him before he puts down his briefcase.

I've gotten *lots* of nice notes from women who appreciate how the writing spice up their sex lives. These are often tired mommies whose libido isn't what it used to be. When they read a story and feel the resurgance of that long-lost tingle, their husband is as happy as they are.

I dont' deal in images or write about real people. I allow people to make images in their heads. Sex isn't a sin; it's not something to be ashamed of. It's fun! And if I can make it more fun for people I don't feel like I'm tempting them to evil, but to enjoy the full of who they were born to be.

dlkjdfsa said...

I saw two pigeons today that should have been locked up for what they were doing on the sidewalk.

way2much said...

"I'm so glad you like the blog. I'm quite flattered, especially after visiting yours. Very nice! I'd love to exchange links if you're up for it."

I am flattered as well at your impression of my blog! I am up for exchanging links.

I am fairly new at blogging, so it may take me some time to get used to interacting with others!

dlkjdfsa said...

All ya' gotta do way2much is not give a ratz ass what people think about you. It's all about opinions and there like the, oh dare I say, butthole.... Glad your on board!

Roland said...

True Christians ™

Is that truly a tradmearked thing? And why would anyone in their right mind want to be part of it.

I went and looked at all the pictures also. (When you write don't click on it, what do you expect someone to do?)

I will now have to go punish myself, also.

Where is my wife...

Morgan said...

"Is that truly a tradmearked thing? And why would anyone in their right mind want to be part of it."

No, not really. But I felt it was a good way to differentiate between us who are humbled by God's grace and the Rev. Dimsdales of the world who think grace comes with God-given directive to tell the rest of us how to live.

"I went and looked at all the pictures also. (When you write don't click on it, what do you expect someone to do?)I will now have to go punish myself, also."

I apologize. I put that there so I could spend the rest of the evening imagining all the lurking True Christians ™ who clicked it multiple times. Gene probably has it up for her wallpaper. *grin*

JohnR had to crawl on glass, drink bleach and flog himself after looking at it.

"Where is my wife... "

ROFL...you guys are too funny.

dlkjdfsa said...

Just wanted to OVERKILL the word butthole. I in no way, wa2much, meant be a butthole. The TrueChristians are experts on who buttholes are but can't see there own hole on there ass. There are already too many buttholes in bloggsville. OK, gotta get my bottom to work.

Morgan said...

"I saw two pigeons today that should have been locked up for what they were doing on the sidewalk."

Bird sex is boring. They just sit atop one another and wriggle and that's that. Maybe that's why they have such elaborate courtships, because the actual mating is such a letdown.

Rabbit sex is funny. Years ago my husband kept rabbits and we had this one male that would pound the females like a revved up jackhammer for two seconds before collapsing, overhwelmed by his own performance. His name was Thumper, but on my recommendation we renamed him "Hump-her."

I find it endlessly astonishing how people get so worked up over something as ridiculous as sex. Plently of human sexual situations are as clumsy or quick as bird and rabbit unions. It's not always ethereal or graceful. It's just sex. One guy who disagreed with my writing erotica went on and on about how he and his wife "make love."

I pointed out that his sweet wife, while enjoying love-making - at times longed to be pounded like a ten-penny nail. Sometimes you want to make love. Sometimes you just want sex. That applies to men and women.

He never wrote back.

Roland said...

Update:

My punishment is completed!

You have got to put up more posts like this. ;)

way2much said...

"It's all about opinions and there like the, oh dare I say, butthole.... Glad your on board!"

Thanks - glad to be here!

"Just wanted to OVERKILL the word butthole. I in no way, wa2much, meant be a butthole."

I, in no way took you as one! I enjoy reading your comments and post!

"I pointed out that his sweet wife, while enjoying love-making - at times longed to be pounded like a ten-penny nail. Sometimes you want to make love. Sometimes you just want sex. That applies to men and women."

I agree! - How boring can their sex life be?? Variety is the spice of life!

Morgan said...

"Just wanted to OVERKILL the word butthole. I in no way, wa2much, meant be a butthole."

You fixate too much on observations, Robert. Relax, baby.

"I agree! - How boring can their sex life be?? Variety is the spice of life!"

When people see God as an angry punisher, they have a hard time believing He could ever approve of their giving themselves completely over to the pleasure we're capable of. But they want it, but they deny it for themselves over and over. That tension builds up and that's why you see so many True Christians ™ placing an angry, obsessive focus on sexual pleasure.

They can't justify a person's being both Christian and a sexual being. They think you have to be one or the other.

Anonymous said...

Sex is riduculous?!?!?!

JohnR said...

Sex is riduculous?!?!?!


JohnR

Morgan said...

JohnR, sex can be very ridiculous? TV and movies makes it look so flawless - everyone's perfect and there's no fumbling or awkwardness. No one's zipper ever gets stuck and the guy always knows just how to unhook the lady's bra.

Afterwards they bask in the afterglow; they're never shown moving over to avoid the wet spot. Or discovering two days later that the brass headboard has cut a groove in the wall. *grin*

We have an ideal for sex just as we have an ideal for beauty, but it's not always met because most of us are regular people and not movie (or porn) stars who can do it in takes until we get it right.

Even in my writings sex is always flawless; the men are hard and the women orgasmic. Why? Because the reader - in putting herself in the place of the leading lady - wants to fantasize of that Perfect Sexual Experience.

But in real life, sex - while warm, fun, loving, tender, rough or kinky - is often ridiculous. And that's because it's an extension of us as often fun and ridiculous people.

Amber said...

My brother and his wife are co-ministers and Christians. But they are what I call "true" Christians in that they embrace the words and (more importantly) the non-judgemental, loving attitude of Jesus' teachings.

If more "Christians" chose to follow the original *message* and not the rigid, negative judgementalism that has sprung up ever since almost the beginning of the religion, perhaps I'd become one too.

But there is just this inborn, stubborn part of human beings that will forever lean towards taking something simple, something beautiful and purposely projecting upon it all kinds of stupidity that had nothing to do with the original message whatsoever.

I don't remember Jesus shunning anyone. Rich man, prostitute, leper, criminal condemned to death; they were all embraced by Jesus.

Not tolerated, not judged, not pointed at and rejected, not lectured for being less than what they could be otherwise, but simply embraced for who they are.

Wasn't that the message?

Gene said...

How someone can find the body in its natural state repulsive is beyond me.
***
I never said it was repulsive, I believe it is sacred.


They feel weak or guilty in the face of temptation.
***
No, I am very sensitive to it. Try deliberately, to avoid viewing anything violent for a couple months and see what it does to your sensitivity. You can lose your complacency for violence and sensuality if you deliberately try to.



Or they believe that normal sexual feelings are somehow evil or bad.
***
No, I believe sexuality is a gift from God. I believe sensuality is spiritual and sacred. Purity causes one's body to be a temple worthy of worship. There is no erotica that can compare with sacred sensuality; it just destroys one's ability to experience sensuality on that level. That type of sensuality also bonds a married couple as one on a spiritual level.


The problem with sexual art is that it instills and encourages complacency, irreverence, and the loss of the sacredness of the gift of sex. When not kept sacred, sex can only slide towards the profane by definition.

I think you can check your click throughs, I did not view your photos, however, I expect your beaver shot was probably the animal, not the body part.

Morgan said...

Amber,

I think Jesus met people - and still meets people - where they are. He commands that we turn away from sin, and gives us a new commandment - to love one another as He loves us.

But his approach and message of love is wasted on the True Christian ™ crowd.

That's because to meet people where they are would mean not railing about the sins of others in a way that makes them feel superior - a feeling they love more than they love God. And they'd have to love people they don't want to love.

The ironic thing about True Christians ™, is that your statement about how you might become a Christian if you weren't so turned off by True Christians ™ is that their pious hatred makes it impossible for them to truly bring people to Christ.

But the fact is, True Christians ™ really aren't interested in saving souls. They're interested in using religion as a reason to look down on everyone else.

My advice is to avoid the True Christians ™ and follow Christ, who is nothing like them. Christ, to me, is like that big brother who says, "No, you can't do that, sis. I want the best for you because I love you." He's the guy I can sit down with and talk to without fear because he knows me that well.

Morgan said...

"The problem with sexual art is that it instills and encourages complacency, irreverence, and the loss of the sacredness of the gift of sex. When not kept sacred, sex can only slide towards the profane by definition."

My oh my. I write erotica and don't have the least amount of complacency about my sex life.

Profane by definition? Who's doing the defining? You?

Gene, from your narrow perspective, you fail to see that sexuality is a very individual thing. You may consider it "profane" to be taken from behind, or to give your man oral sex, or to do it with the lights on. But plenty of Christian wives out there don't have a problem living our their and their man's fantasies while still considering sexuality "sacred."

I love surprising my husband with new techniques that make him say, "Where did you learn THAT???" and study sex just like I study cooking, sewing or anything else I want to be good at.

Is it irreverant to make your man sweat and groan? Is a sexually satisfied man a dishonor to his wife? Does a sexually dissatisfied woman dishonor God?

Yes, sometimes I want sweet, slow lovemaking. But sometimes I want to be thrown down and pounded like a ten-penny nail. Is my orgasm an act of irreverence because it's not how you would have acheived it?

How do you do define "sacred" sex, Gene?

And also, how is the statue of David disrespectful of the sacred?

EN said...

Gene, let me explain how Morg operates. She puts words in your mouth and draws a picture of you that's over the top (Gene = Lynching). It's a cheap tactic, but it's very affective for turning the debate into bromides. You can't spend all your time defending yourself. Ask her to prove her assertions/assumptions.

Beth said...

Well, I agree with you completely, Morgan. There is a fine line between porn and art, but I believe it still exists. I have a ton of photography books and art books full of nude pictures, and I don't consider them porn at all. Porn is something that arouses and entices and excites...if someone can get off on 500 year old paintings, so be it, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to view it as "dirty" -- but rather as beautiful.

Morgan said...

".. I expect your beaver shot was probably the animal, not the body part."

JohnR and I kind of ruined that when he suggested I shave it and I told him I'd have to take the stick out first. ;-)

Morgan said...

EN, shouldn't you be over at VP humping Vox's leg?

Puleaze. Gene will do just fine without your attempts at coaching.

Morgan said...

"Porn is something that arouses and entices and excites...if someone can get off on 500 year old paintings, so be it, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to view it as "dirty" -- but rather as beautiful."

Exactly, Beth!! A person with a foot fetish can masturbate to a sandal ad. I know a guy who thinks dental braces are sexy.

Knee socks, cotton panties, aprons, pregnant bellies, hairy armpits - all these things are big turnons to various people, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

A person who puts out a book on pregnancy or a shoe catalog is putting out porn. For somebody.

If we go banning anything that people consider exciting we're going to have to burn all the books. This might make the True Christians ™ happy, but the rest of us are going to be very upset.

Gene said...

Profane by definition? Who's doing the defining? You?
***
The dictionary

The opposite of sacred is profane.

Irreverence is a lack of sacredness.

You are so far off in a different direction that I don't think you understand me.


Malcolm Muggerage talks about man creating his own impotence out of his own erotomania. Here is a case in point:

Beth said: I have a ton of photography books and art books full of nude pictures, and I don't consider them porn at all. Porn is something that arouses and entices and excites...if someone can get off on 500 year old paintings, so be it, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to view it as "dirty" -- but rather as beautiful." Beth has lost here ability to be stirred by simple nudeness.

Does anyone remember the underwear section in the Sears catalogue? Did that not make you blush when you were a child?

I have zero nude pictures and when I see one, it affects me because I am not accustomed to seeing them. I have not grown callous towards nudity and I don't want to be callous towards it. It keeps me the way I want to be: mezmorized with my mate.

Gene said...

If we go banning anything that people consider exciting we're going to have to burn all the books. This might make the True Christians ™ happy
***
Morgan; No one has said anything about banning.

Encouraging culture to be irreverant towards purity, temptation, and the word of God, by ones own actions is the problem. Since life imitates art, and culture is formed by the arts, as for erotic publishing, blessings are missed (spiritual sexuality, spiritual bonding) and pain proliferates (impotence, adultry, and divorce), are the long term costs.

Did you see the movie "Crash"? Maybe this is the case in every tragic scene in movies and in real life, but every sorrowful event that happened in that movie came from disobeying the word of God.

Gene said...

"Let me write the songs of a nation - I don't care who writes its laws." Andrew Fletcher


John Wesley's mother on sin:
"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things. In short, if anything increases the authority and the power of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin however good it is in and of itself."

EN said...

EN said: "She puts words in your mouth and draws a picture of you that's over the top (Gene = Lynching)"

Morg Said: "EN, shouldn't you be over at VP humping Vox's leg?"

You can't stop, can you Morg? It's an addiction. You can probably get help for it somewhere.

Morgan said...

"alcolm Muggerage talks about man...
Did you see the movie "Crash"?
Andrew Fletcher
John Wesley's mother on sin..'"

My goodness, Gene. God gave you a brain. I'd love to know what *you* think rather than watch you regurgitate everyone else's thoughts.

"oes anyone remember the underwear section in the Sears catalogue? Did that not make you blush when you were a child?"

No, baby. I wasn't raised to be ashamed of underwear or what goes in them.

"Beth has lost here ability to be stirred by simple nudeness."

How presumptuous of you, Gene. Beth simply has the intelligence to discern the difference between the body as a body and the body as a sexual object. If looking at the image of a body fills you with "stirring" then that's not necessarily healthy. It's all about context. If your personal inclination is to see human flesh as sexual, that comes from being told that the body is something to be objectified. Her reaction is of someone who holds the opposite viewpoint.

I'd love to know if you feel that sex in the marriage bed has to be "done" a certain way to remain "sacred."

I'd also love to know which picture on my post is more upsetting to you: the statue of David or the lynching. Or do you consider them equally "sinful."

Morgan said...

EN, when you're ready to contribute something useful to the conversation rather than just being a whiner, let us know. Otherwise, I'm going to have to consider you "my" Verlch. ;-)

EN said...

Damn, you're going to ban me for telling it like it is? So typical.

Morgan said...

No, EN. I'm not going to ban you. You make the rest of us look even smarter. You're welcome to stay. For the sake of juxtaposition.

EN said...

Excellent. I'm here to help. As one who goes to other blogs and does exactly what I've just done I thought you would understand.

Morgan said...

EN, since you are here, do you agree with Gene? Do you think Michelangelo's "David" is pornographic? Does it also fill you with "stirring?"
Did you click on the pictures?
EN-lighten us, Mr. Nelson. Please.

Gene said...

My goodness, Gene. God gave you a brain. I'd love to know what *you* think rather than watch you regurgitate everyone else's thoughts.
***
Some just say it better than anyone else.


"oes anyone remember the underwear section in the Sears catalogue? Did that not make you blush when you were a child?"

No, baby. I wasn't raised to be ashamed of underwear or what goes in them.
***
I know there are people out there with no sense of shame. You may be one of them; I am not.


"Beth has lost here ability to be stirred by simple nudeness."

How presumptuous of you, Gene. Her reaction is of someone who holds the opposite viewpoint.
***
Didn't Beth say she had "tons" of these books full of nude pictures?


I'd love to know if you feel that sex in the marriage bed has to be "done" a certain way to remain "sacred."
***
That is just silly. When following scripture, it does mention to come together often and not to refuse each other. I am not aware of any direction on "ritual".


I'd also love to know which picture on my post is more upsetting to you: the statue of David or the lynching. Or do you consider them equally "sinful."
***
Neither upset me. I have seen monochrome statues of this sort so often, I no long notice their nakedness. I used to notice in my younger days.

I don't know what the lynching was for; only that is was democratically approved.

The photo of the sign bothered me because it was an improper representation of God's word on homosexuality; It was obviously not written by an informed Christian, and possibly by an anti-christian to proliferate hate against Christians.

Gene said...

Regarding the photo of the sign:

If you ask any Christian, they will probably agree that if you point a loaded shotgun at your face and pull the trigger, you will die. It is not because they hate you, or they are intollerant; it is because it is true.

The most antichirstian person in the world can see it is a statement of caring if a Christian says please don't shoot yourself.
Plus you will never see anyone claim that Chistians hate people who shoot themselves.

Christians are against homosexuality amung other diviant behaviors because it is both distructive and self-distructive just like a self-induced shotgun blast to the face is distructive and self-distructive.

Morgan said...

"I know there are people out there with no sense of shame. You may be one of them; I am not."

Why do you feel shame when you look at an underwear ad?

"Didn't Beth say she had "tons" of these books full of nude pictures?"

I have tons of art books, too, Gene! Nudes are common in art books or - as you may call them - porn. ;-)

The really funny thing about your earlier post is that you proved yourself to be the one who can't see the body as sacred. When you look at a nude or partially clad body, you see it as a sexual object and feel shame. Beth and I can look at it and see it as a body. We aren't tempted, and have nothing to be ashamed of.

"Neither upset me. I have seen monochrome statues of this sort so often, I no long notice their nakedness."

But you just said you felt shame when looking at an underwear ad....now you say you feel nothing and don't notice. Could it be that others don't feel anything either, other than that they're looking at a statue. And if this is the case, how can you say that Michelangelo was wrong to create it? This is my point: art is open to interpretation. Just because one person sees it as tempting or shameful doesn't mean that everyone does.

"I don't know what the lynching was for; only that is was democratically approved."

My goodness, Gene....Does an action's being approved by a mob make it right? Are you in favor of lynch mobs? If a gang of five men broke into your home and voted to rape you or your daughter, would that be OK?

"The photo of the sign bothered me because it was an improper representation of God's word on homosexuality"

On this we agree

Beth said...

I think basically what you're saying (Gene) is that anytime someone sees a naked body they should (or are going to) be tempted. Is that what you're saying? What about doctors? Many nude pictures are not any more "arousing" than a doctor seeing a nude patient. Is it a sin for a doctor to his his patient naked? I think not.

"Beth has lost here ability to be stirred by simple nudeness."
Maybe, but at least I haven't lost my ability to type!

Morgan said...

"Christians are against homosexuality amung other diviant behaviors because it is both distructive and self-distructive just like a self-induced shotgun blast to the face is distructive and self-distructive."

Gene, I'm not trying to be snarky, really I'm not. But as one homeschooling mom to another, it worries me that your spelling is so bad.

Amung? It's "among."

Distructive It's "descructive."

Diviant? It's "deviant."

Geesh, girl.

You commented on VP that if you wanted to feel superior you'd blog on a teacher's board. I wouldn't suggest it, hon.

"Plus you will never see anyone claim that Chistians hate people who shoot themselves."

Perhaps not, but I've heard many a True Christians ™ say that a person who kills themselves is going to hell, without even factoring in that person's possible mental illness or circumstances.

Morgan said...

Distructive It's "descructive."

Distructive is "destructive."

Man, it's catching!!!

Gene said...

"I know there are people out there with no sense of shame. You may be one of them; I am not."

Why do you feel shame when you look at an underwear ad?
***
I was referring to your "there is nothing wrong with erotic publishing" attitude, not the underwear per se.



I have tons of art books, too, Gene! Nudes are common in art books or - as you may call them - porn. ;-)
***
Nude photos are common to you and Beth and others who purchase them; not to me.


The really funny thing about your earlier post is that you proved yourself to be the one who can't see the body as sacred.
***
You may have mistyped. Do you know what sacred means? While in our teens, my bother accidently dropped his towel in my presence. I looked away so he could maintain his privacy and dignity. That was a sacred, reverent act of respect; not an act of avoiding shame.


When you look at a nude or partially clad body, you see it as a sexual object and feel shame.
***
I either misexplained or you are making this up.



"Neither upset me. I have seen monochrome statues of this sort so often, I no long notice their nakedness."

But you just said you felt shame when looking at an underwear ad....
***
I think I said I blushed; I don't think the two are the same.

now you say you feel nothing and don't notice. Could it be that others don't feel anything either, other than that they're looking at a statue.
***
It could be the photo was small or that the statue was monochrome and not lifelike in color. Besides, I didn't complain about the stutue; you did.



And if this is the case, how can you say that Michelangelo was wrong to create it?
***
I didn't say that either. I have recently found that quote about Michaelangelo and decided to crank up my avoidance of nudity. I like the results so far.


This is my point: art is open to interpretation. Just because one person sees it as tempting or shameful doesn't mean that everyone does.
***
Try avoiding the violence just to experience what I am talking about.


"I don't know what the lynching was for; only that is was democratically approved."

My goodness, Gene....Does an action's being approved by a mob make it right?
***
If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right.

Morgan said...

I said: When you look at a nude or partially clad body, you see it as a sexual object and feel shame.
***
Gene replied: I either misexplained or you are making this up.

Gene said: "I have zero nude pictures and when I see one, it affects me because I am not accustomed to seeing them."

Again, Gene, how does it affect you?

You say the body is sacred. I think it is, too. You think sex is sacred. I do, too. But you seem to think that anyone who enjoys sex, or reads about it in a way to enhance their performance or who appreciates the human form as art (God is indeed the Greatest artist) is taking a less-than-sacred approach. Who are you to define what is sacred? If a couple chooses to lay in bed at night and read erotica as a form of foreplay, is that any less sacred than how *you* perform foreplay?

I'd be interested to know your take on this.

I asked: And if this is the case, how can you say that Michelangelo was wrong to create it?
***
You replied: I didn't say that either. I have recently found that quote about Michaelangelo and decided to crank up my avoidance of nudity. I like the results so far.

Gene, if you use a quote to make your point, you can't back away from it. The guy you quoted implied that Michelangelo was wrong to create "David."

"If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right."

What if he was caught whistling at a white girl, Gene? You know, black men were lynched for that. Would you approve of a lynch mob hanging a black teen for that? Do I even want to know the answer to that?

Morgan said...

"Many nude pictures are not any more "arousing" than a doctor seeing a nude patient. Is it a sin for a doctor to his his patient naked? I think not."

Good point, Beth. :-)
There are many ways to look at the human body. Not all of them sexual.

Morgan said...

But you just said you felt shame when looking at an underwear ad....
***
I think I said I blushed; I don't think the two are the same

Actually they are. You blush when you're embarrassed. I can look at an underwear ad and say, "Hmmm Olga bras are on sale. Yippee!"

That's my reaction.

Gene said...

I think basically what you're saying (Gene) is that anytime someone sees a naked body they should (or are going to) be tempted. Is that what you're saying? What about doctors?
***
No, That is not what I said.
Have you heard of the guy with the crown of thorns? Called himself the dragon or something. He was in trouble with the police for something.

I knew some cops who had to watch his hard porn videos for the case and they made comments that it was affecting them sexually in a negative way.

I have heard from cops that people who use meth have all kinds sex problems because I guess it makes them horny and it take more and more to function sexually.

EN said...

Clicked on the first two pix, not the third (I trust your judgement).

Don't really care what people do with their own lives as long as they don't see their little kinks as being appropriate for children and everyone else. This cultish behavior that says "you all have to join so everyone feels fine" is over the top. Schools have no business teaching that shit. They bring everything down to the lowest common denominater.

I like stills and some erotic stuff, but most video porn is either boring or sickening and often both. I don't care what 18 year olds do with some guys load, other than mine I mean, and I don't want to see it.

Now let me ask you something. Do you really believe that Gene lynches people? Do you believe she teaches lynching? Do you see the natural consequence of her views as leading to lynching?

Gene said...

Many nude photos desensitize the viewer.

*******

Gene said: "I have zero nude pictures and when I see one, it affects me because I am not accustomed to seeing them."

Again, Gene, how does it affect you?
***
I say yikes and run away with my arms flailing :D

you seem to think that anyone who enjoys sex, or reads about it in a way to enhance their performance or who appreciates the human form as art (God is indeed the Greatest artist) is taking a less-than-sacred approach.
***
No, I think they are desensitizing themselves.

Who are you to define what is sacred? If a couple chooses to lay in bed at night and read erotica as a form of foreplay, is that any less sacred than how *you* perform foreplay?
***
Who should one take lessons from on how to conduct ones sexual activities; from culture, from publishers who make money from erotica, or from the Bible?


I asked: And if this is the case, how can you say that Michelangelo was wrong to create it?
***
You replied: I didn't say that either. I have recently found that quote about Michaelangelo and decided to crank up my avoidance of nudity. I like the results so far.

Gene, if you use a quote to make your point, you can't back away from it. The guy you quoted implied that Michelangelo was wrong to create "David."
***
I read the quote as referring to the lifelike paintings. But I guess it could apply to statues.

"If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right."

What if he was caught whistling at a white girl, Gene? You know, black men were lynched for that. Would you approve of a lynch mob hanging a black teen for that? Do I even want to know the answer to that?
***
Of course not for whistling. I said I didn't know why and now you are giving me a poor reason for the lynching and claiming I approve. Is that really honest?

Sorry about the spelling. I am very anti-pedantic, and a little in a hurry. Time is a bigger priority to me than perfect spelling.

It's been fun girls but
I have to go after this.
I'll be gone all day tomorrow.

Morgan said...

Gene, you just gave me and Beth a non-answer.

I get the feeling you lump everything together: erotica is art is a medical exam is hardcore pornography.

Are you able to draw a distinction between these things?

Please don't think I'm being insulting, because I'm not. I'm just looking for an answer to our question.

A lot of people watch pornographic tapes without killing anyone. A disturbed person who watches pornographic tapes might be pushed over the edge. But a violent person could also be pushed over the edge by an underwear ad.

Morgan said...

"Who should one take lessons from on how to conduct ones sexual activities; from culture, from publishers who make money from erotica, or from the Bible?"

The Bible doesn't contain recipes for pancakes either, Gene. Is it wrong to buy a cookbook then, or should I serve my kids loaves and fishes at every meal because that's what Jesus fed the masses?

"I read the quote as referring to the lifelike paintings. But I guess it could apply to statues."

*grin* Do ya think?

"Of course not for whistling. I said I didn't know why and now you are giving me a poor reason for the lynching and claiming I approve. Is that really honest?"

I just found it telling that you automatically assumed the black guy had been hung for killing someone, but given our past conversations I wasn't at all surprised.

"It's been fun girls but
I have to go after this.
I'll be gone all day tomorrow."

It has been fun, Gene, and while we may not agree, you are a good sport.

Morgan said...

Again, Gene, how does it affect you?
***
I say yikes and run away with my arms flailing :D

"What are you running from?"

I've cut back on sugar so when I see a peice of cake I run the other way. But it's because I know I'm weak where cake is concerned. ;-) But I don't run around preaching against cake just because I'm weak. But I'm not about to transfer my weakness to others and start preaching the evils of cake to everyone.

And that, my dear, is a serving of analogy.

Roland said...

I think Gene reminds me of someone who has been or like to spiritually abuse people. I used to be like it. It is stupid.

Let's play with Romans 14 for a minute. (I'll use the NLT, good for understanding what's written, bad for those who place burdens upon others)

verses 1 through 4 say,
"Accept Christians who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong. For instance, one person believes it is all right to eat anything. But another believer who has a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables. Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won't. And those who won't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord's power will help them do as they should."

What if we switched wording and used
"one person believes it is all right to have sex with their spouse in a free and loving way. But another believer who has a sensitive conscience will only do the missionary position"

I don't care what problem someone has, it is the log in their own eye. People need to quit removing specks from others. You don't do it Morgan and I dare say that Gene and En are notoriously good at it.

Morgan, I would suggest reading a book called "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse." It is very informative about people who try to force others to follow "their way"

Sadly, I think that neither Gene or En will admit to having logs in their eyes.

Doesn't hurt to lead them to water though, does it? :)

All in all, an intersting read.
Thanks.

Gene said...

Are you able to draw a distinction between these things?
***
Yes I can. There will always be exceptions and what ifs, but the less exposure to unnecessary nudity, the better to avoid desensitizing and maintain reverence. Also, minimizing exposure to unnecessary frivilous distraction is a plus.

Having one's purity, or purity in general, irreverantly mocked causes of a lot unnecessary sexual activity such as taking a dare or young people, in an attempt to "fit in", sacraficing their virginity outside marriage, sometimes with disasterous results.


"I read the quote as referring to the lifelike paintings. But I guess it could apply to statues."

*grin* Do ya think?
***
Since statues are similar in color to a dead corps, I didn't think of the statues at all till you brought it up.



I just found it telling that you automatically assumed the black guy had been hung for killing someone, but given our past conversations I wasn't at all surprised.
***
No. I automatically assumed it was a murder because of the death penalty portrayed in the picture. I couldn't tell if it was a black man. I use a 12 inch screen but assumed it was a black man because it was posted by you and because of the style of rigging and period clothing on the people.

EN said...

"En will admit to having logs in their eyes."

Well that's bullshit. However, I don't lynch anyone and I'm betting lots of money that Gene doens't either and Morg knows it. Always the cheap misdirection. It just never ends. It would be far more accurate to say that serial killers love porn.

Beth said...

I'm sure serial killers also love chocolate milk, too.

Gene said...

The really funny thing about your earlier post is that you proved yourself to be the one who can't see the body as sacred.
***
Show me where you got this. I think you are misreading my meaning.


I checked my original post on Michaelangelo and I did say "paintings".

But I'm not about to transfer my weakness to others and start preaching the evils of cake to everyone.
***
I was not pleased when my overweight sister-in-law told my 8 year old child it was ok to put sour cream on her food once in a while. I was specifically teaching her to look at food as fuel and not "face entertainment".

I don't tell anyone how to eat unless they ask, which people often do. You invited me to this conversation and asked me many questions and now I am told I am pushing my views.

I was asked last night what my secret was, after 4 kids, of still being bikini-worthy. If you want to know my secrets, which include how to handle cake, I would be glad to share.

Since my spiritual info proved unhelpful, maybe my cake eating tips could be of some benefit.


"What are you running from?"
***
Anything that impares the tenderness of my heart. Desensitiziation in irreverence.

It is never a bad idea to get advice from someone who is where you want to be. Though I do not wish to be a minister, I do want a tender heart like Ravi Zacharias.


I think Gene reminds me of someone who has been or like to spiritually abuse people. I used to be like it. It is stupid.
***
Roland, Is this because of something I actually said, or something that Morgan said that I said. Please explain.

Anonymous said...

Gene--methamphetamine addicts don't have sexual problems because "it makes them horny or something". They have sexual issues because: a)meth is made from crap like watch batteries and lantern fuel, and poison is generally considered detrimental to a healthy sex life b) going weeks or months without sleep or food would screw with your woody, too, and c) the lifestyle that surrounds the drug is rife with sexual, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Get gang-raped a few times and see how responsive you are.

And what the hell does meth users' sexual issues have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that their sex problems stem from an overexposure to nudity? Wha. . .?

Anonymous said...

But anyway, I really dig your *personal* decision to keep your heart "tender". That makes a lot of sense to me, and seems a much more valid argument for the avoidance of nudity than most I've heard. As a personal choice, that rocks.

As public policy, though, it can blow me.

Morgan said...

The really funny thing about your earlier post is that you proved yourself to be the one who can't see the body as sacred.
***
Show me where you got this. I think you are misreading my meaning.

I've told you twice but since you seem a bit slow on the uptake I'll tell you again.

You say that when you see picture of a nude, you run away. The sight of the human body fills you with fear of your own weakness, Gene. that's not reverence, that's shame. You automatically associate the body with sexual temptation.
Beth, others and I can look at a picture of a nude and thing, "Oh, a nude." If the body is beautiful we can appreciate the lines of it, or the flesh tones. The body is God's work of art. That's how we see it. And we appreciate it. That, my dear, is reverence.

"You invited me to this conversation and asked me many questions and now I am told I am pushing my views."

Gene, dear, you actually started all of this by bringing up my erotica not once, but twice over at VP on unrelated posts. You did this, I imagine, hoping to shame me somehow. Note that no one paid you any attention and the reason is that many True Christians ™ over either enjoy their porn or stay away from criticizing friends who do.

The fact is we've disagreed in the past and you thought this was the nice way to get a holier-than-thou upper hand. But all you've done, with your ramblings about crystal meth and your backtracking on statues and your rampant spelling errors is make yourself look ridiculous.

Roland is exactly right, Gene. You use morality as a weapon. If you weren't interested in telling people what they should and shouldn't do then why did you go out of your way to bring up my erotica in unrelated posts? I invited you to comment here because you *kept* pushing your morality over on VP, not because you care about me but because you thought it would damage me somehow.

So much for that tender heart...

Like anon, I don't have a problem with your running screaming from the room at the sight of a nude. But before you start one of your True Christian ™ rants about how nudity affects you, remember that you don't speak for everyone, just the True Christians ™.

Morgan said...

"It would be far more accurate to say that serial killers love porn."

True Christian ™ Jimmy Swaggart loves porn. "Book of Virtues" author and True Christian ™ Bill Bennett loves gambling.

There's a whole lotta vice out there, Mr. Nelson, and the True Christians ™ who crow the loudest are often the biggest offenders.

Yep. You'll get that porno mag or slot machine handle back when you pry it from the True Christian's ™ cold, dead fingers.

Soooo...if porn encourages some people to become serial killers, I guess it's also safe to say that it also encourages some people to become preachers.

Amber said...

Um....*big eyes here* Wow, this turned into quite the uh...thing.

(It's early, my vocab hasn't kicked in quite yet. ;-P)

Before I say what I came to add, I'll just say this; it saddens me unbearably to read of "Christians" saying things like having homosexual feelings is like putting a shotgun to your head.

I just sort of scanned everything after that, somewhat in shock.

For one thing, it's not; one is an expression of love, even if it's not "love" as defined by everyone and the other is suicide. I cannot relate to anyone who would choose such a comparison. Even if the Bible is right on homosexuality being "bad" somehow (and I do not believe that, by the way), wow. Just...wow.

What Would Jesus Say?

I doubt he'd say something like that.

And again, this is exactly why I can never embrace Christianity, even though I know there are many Christians who do not have those kinds of feelings, like you, Morgan and my bro and his wife, etc., etc..

So I will continue to go on alone, taking what I found to be wise and generous and good in Jesus' teachings and keep myself apart from any group endeavors.

It's just too bad. :-(

Anyway, Morgan, I came back to say that I also use reading erotica (Porn for women! *g*) to improve my sex life with my husband. My belief is that anything my husband and I do in the proverbial bed together with love under the eyes of God is perfectly okay with God. Or Jesus or any other deities that might be watching. ;-P (Okay, yes, sarcasm does not become me...hehe)

Like the women who have written you, I have also gotten emails from women thanking me for helping them with their sex lives (or in other parts of the marriage) and it's because I've been very open in the past off and on about what we do and what works for us as a married couple who believes in monogamy and the sanctity of marriage.

HOWEVER! I would never ever assume nor want everyone to do things exactly our way. Our way works for us but another couple may need a completely different way in order to feel fulfilled.

But one thing is clear; being secretive about techniques and skills because we are too "modest" as women to share doesn't help anyone.

If a wife does not want to share or read about another wife's fantasies or eroticism, then she doesn't have to.

But that doesn't make it wrong for the rest of us to share and grow from it.

Like you said, whether some people want to believe this or not, I put myself and my beloved husband into every single erotic scenario I read. I always have, all my life. And what I write, too, because I've just recently started to try and do a little erotic fiction myself. Mostly because my husband has become somewhat protective of me putting "us" out there, due to me feeling a little too vulnerable in the past. So he suggested I try my hand at erotica.

It's fun and fulfilling for me and maybe it will even inspire some other wives to try some things with their husbands.

That would be great.

As to who chooses to read it, whether a man reads it for his own porn uses while shunning his wife instead of turning TO her, or a child reads it when they shouldn't, I cannot control that any more than I can control someone who is an alcoholic buying wines from our winery and drinking too much of it.

Everything has a purpose and if some choose to abuse that purpose, that is their problem. But it does not mean we have to stop doing what we know is valuable and constructive just because someone else may choose to indulge in behavior that IS damaging and destructive.

Hope I made sense. :-) I feel like I'm babbling again. *laughs*

EN said...

"True Christians ™ who crow the loudest are often the biggest offenders."

You got stats on that? Just more bullshit to shape the debate into, "See, you suck also." That's a liberal argument for everything. No standards, no crime.

I could really give a damn who likes and doesn't like porn but I still haven't seen you address the issue of whether or not Gene is into lynchings as you insinuated? How awful to insinuate that she would commit such a foul act as a justification for what you do. As if you're not as bad by comparison.

As for chocolate milk and porn, it's also safe to say that not everyone likes chocolate milk but all serial killers like porn. It's a false argument; Serial killers also eat, as does everyone. If you walk the dog back on serial killers, their tendencies start with porn, not chocolate milk.

Anonymous said...

EN,

It is also true that most porn viewers are not serial killers.

I suspect that there might be a few causes other than porn that make serial killers to go off to the deep end, don’t you think?

And I also find your style of argumentation interesting, since you bring it up. I guess you’re ready to provide ‘stats’ to back up your assertion that 100% of serial killers are porn addicts. No? Then shut up about how liberals argue, hypocrite.

As for the lynching thing, Morgan seems to be pushing a button of yours. I suggest you reread what she posted. It is a fact that people calling themselves Christians lynched many a black man for ‘un-Christian’ behavior (yes I can provide references if you’re actually stupid enough to ask for them).

I’d expect a good Christian to be cognizant of this history, and guard against thought and language that tends to use Christianity to demonize others without cause. White guilt didn’t come out of a vacuum. Morgan is trying to get Gene, and other “True Christians” to think about it.

Morgan said...

Thanks, anon. You put EN in his place so nicely I can think of barely anything to add. ;-)

Serial killer Orville Lynn Majors, who was sentenced to 360 years for killing elderly patients, appears to have been motivated by a hatred of old people.

So, no, not all serial killers are motivated by porn. And as anon points out if porn turned people into serial killers there'd be a lot more serial killers given the numbers of people who enjoy recreational porn.

Of course, Mr. Nelson could have figured this out on his own if he'd thought to to a five-second search.

As to my statement that "True Christians ™ who crow the loudest are often the biggest offenders", it stands. You have but to see examples of hypocrisy from the True Christian ™ examples I noted to see proof in action.

Morgan said...

"Before I say what I came to add, I'll just say this; it saddens me unbearably to read of "Christians" saying things like having homosexual feelings is like putting a shotgun to your head."

Just keep in mind, Amber, that Gene's perspective is that of a "True Christian ™. It's obsessed with pointing out the flaws of others. It's not introspective, but constantly scans everyone else for signs of sin. Once sin is perceived - and it is perceived in just about everyone who doesn't agree with the True Christian ™ - that's when the True Christians ™ begins to "witness" to others, only that witness consists is comparing their holiness (Gene's tender heart) to the Evil of Others.

It's serving self over Christ.

way2much said...

Just wanted to note that this post is particularly interesting to me since I am wrapping up a class on Cyberporn and Society!
This is what we spoke about for 14 weeks! Does porn promote violent behavior, etc? (studies show NO!) Who watched porn and are they addicted? How much money the business makes - we are talking billions a year! Who promotes porn - did you know AT&T, AOL and other major corporations have their hand in the cookie jar? - I kid you not!
I have not read EVERY COMMENT yet because I just didn't have the time! Wow - I have never seen so many comments on one post before - good job Morgan!

thimscool said...

Anon at 12:42 was me. Screwed up because I was in a hurry.

I agree that this is an interesting thread and post, way2much. But the fact that it is about porn is a little distracting (especially that last photo).

This concept to True Christians runs much deeper. As someone who is interested and receptive to Christian ontology, yet unconvinced, I am very frustrated by these people.

It's hard to focus on the essential message if people are constantly harping on about the untouchables. Jesus did not spend his time grousing about all the low lifes that were screwing up the place. He embraced them with forgivenss and healed them at the root of their 'sin'.

Sin is a concept that I find most difficult to accept. I understand it, and I find it compelling; but I am deeply suspicious of this as a tool for controlling the masses (a common complaint against most religions). I think that a more gentle, forgiving, and yet firm approach to correcting 'sin' makes the concept more palatable.

Now, perhaps EN or Gene will say it doesn't matter what I want, and that God will judge. I have no problem with that view, since I've brought up the topic. But what bothers me is when True Christians seek out the flaws and sins in other so that they have someting to hold over them.

It's childish. And in the mean time, there are some that are still seeking, who might turn away to avoid the smell of poopy diapers.

thimscool said...

I'm sleepy. I meant "who might be turned away".

I am trying to reinforce the point that this behavior is detrimental to Christianity and does nothing to spread the faith. It is self serving, and lets the True Christian feel holier than thou (pride).

Roland said...

Gene - I was specifically teaching her to look at food as fuel and not "face entertainment".

I don't tell anyone how to eat unless they ask


I assume your daughter must ask to not find food enjoyable and wishes to know the best way to go about it...

------
Gene - (Roland)I think Gene reminds me of someone who has been or likes to spiritually abuse people. I used to be like it. It is stupid.
***
Roland, Is this because of something I actually said, or something that Morgan said that I said. Please explain


You like to tell other people how to live. You do not present facts and let them decide.

----

En - I don't lynch anyone and I'm betting lots of money that Gene doesn't either

Gene - "If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right." (in reference to the lynching picture)

Woohoo! How much money we talkin', En?

Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone. And when they all went their way, Jesus threw nothing! But, if Gene was there, she might just show Jesus a thing or two, right? ;)
----

Something funny:

But you just said you felt shame when looking at an underwear ad....
***
I think I said I blushed; I don't think the two are the same.


If you blushed and it wasn't shame...,
were you "turned on?" :)

----

This is exactly the cr*p that makes people not want to get near the one who was on the side of the sinner and not the "righteous" (and I can see En's "righteousness" shine through)

En, do you know how to love another? Or do you only understand controlling others?

----
Thimscool - Sin is a concept that I find most difficult to accept. I understand it, and I find it compelling; but I am deeply suspicious of this as a tool for controlling the masses (a common complaint against most religions). I think that a more gentle, forgiving, and yet firm approach to correcting 'sin' makes the concept more palatable

And that is what Jesus was trying to tell us.
Love.
I am glad you can see past the junk of the True Christians ™, Thimscool.

And as for sin. It just means there is a separation between us and God. A severed relationship, so to speak.

But, even though God allows, He doesn't force. Remember the tree of good and evil. He allowed, even when He desired a different way. And yes, He even provided that different way.

People like En in particular would have gotten along famously with the Pharisees. Wait, En are you blushing? Are you mad? Well, well...

scooterhawk said...

En - I don't lynch anyone and I'm betting lots of money that Gene doesn't either

Gene - "If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right." (in reference to the lynching picture)

Woohoo! How much money we talkin', En?

Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone. And when they all went their way, Jesus threw nothing! But, if Gene was there, she might just show Jesus a thing or two, right? ;)

Roland, you are using scripture out of context and confusing spiritual law with secular. Jesus was not opposing capital punishment, but rather moral judgment, which is reserved for God alone.

Lots of stone throwing seems to be occurring on this particular post. I would humbly remind those of you that follow Christ that it is not our definition of sin that matters but rather God’s. I would also point out that sin emanates from the heart, so eating a chocolate donut may not be a sin in and of itself but if eating it leads to gluttony then it should be avoided. More importantly, if we, as Christians, KNOW that an act or item will lead another to sin, then we are also culpable.

God Bless.

scooterhawk said...

En - I don't lynch anyone and I'm betting lots of money that Gene doesn't either

Gene - "If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right." (in reference to the lynching picture)

Woohoo! How much money we talkin', En?

Let the one among you without sin cast the first stone. And when they all went their way, Jesus threw nothing! But, if Gene was there, she might just show Jesus a thing or two, right? ;)

Roland, you are using scripture out of context and confusing spiritual law with secular. Jesus was not opposing capital punishment, but rather moral judgment, which is reserved for God alone.

Lots of stone throwing seems to be occurring on this particular post. I would humbly remind those of you that follow Christ that it is not our definition of sin that matters but rather God’s. I would also point out that sin emanates from the heart, so eating a chocolate donut may not be a sin in and of itself but if eating it leads to gluttony then it should be avoided. More importantly, if we, as Christians, KNOW that an act or item will lead another to sin, then we are also culpable.

God Bless.

JohnR said...

Morgan: How come you let a 'Kum-by-a Christian' like Amber off the hook and concentrate on Gene?

Jesus was tolerant and non-judgemental?

I don't think so.

Amber needs to reread the Pharisees are a brood of vipers.

The Syrophonecian woman with the daughter who had an evil spirit; he called her a dog.

Also, when he sent the adulterous woman away after the crowd left he called her a sinner. He never said she was innocent of the charges, only forgiven.

He said he brought a sword. He knew he would divide families and he brought down an empire. He preached a hard and narrow road. Only through Christ can you get to the father.

If Gene's version of Christianity is rigid, Amber's is so amorphous as to undefinable.

I don't usually get into these thing but I can't stand the claim that Christ was non-judgemental and tolerant. He was neither.

JohnR

You've gotten popular quite quickly. We won't always agree (esp about PS, where you're just WRONG;)) but that does make the discussions more interesting.

Oh, and can you trademark Kum-by-a Christian for me? :)

Morgan said...

"More importantly, if we, as Christians, KNOW that an act or item will lead another to sin, then we are also culpable."

This is true, and as Gene wrings her hands over how my erotic writings may serve as a stumbling block for someone seeking Christ, she completely ignores Amber who says she'd like to accept Christ but is put off by the arrogance of people like Gene.

JohnR: You need to take note and do a careful read of Amber's post, and note what she said here:

"If more "Christians" chose to follow the original *message* and not the rigid, negative judgementalism that has sprung up ever since almost the beginning of the religion, perhaps I'd become one too."

Just how am I supposed to give Amber's version of Christianity off the hook when she admits she doesn't call herself a Christian? Hmmm?

What True Christians ™ fail to realize is that their example does more to put people off of Christ than lead them to Him. Look at Christ and ask yourself WHY people flocked to him. He was a threat because people listened. People listened because they loved him. If you ask me, the devil is thrilled with True Christians ™. They make his work so much easier.

"Jesus was not opposing capital punishment, but rather moral judgment, which is reserved for God alone."

Scooterhawk, maybe I'm waaaay off base, but I sort of think that Jesus would frown on someone lynching an innocent man and, baby, that did happen Back In The Day.

Gene stepped in it with both feet when she suggested a lynch mob who democratically votes to kill someone is in the right. I have to think it had a lot to do with the color of the victim. On VP, she wrote that she'd been jumped by a gang of thuggish youths when she was a kid. Apparently she didn't think it was OK that the gang had all *agreed* to hurt her for no reason.

If it had been a white person hanging in that picture surrounded by a mob of blacks you can bet your sweet ass her opinion would have been a lot different.

But see, that sort of irony fails to True Christians ™, who finds it far easier to point out the speck in her sister's eye while ignoring the mote in her own.

scooterhawk said...

Scooterhawk, maybe I'm waaaay off base, but I sort of think that Jesus would frown on someone lynching an innocent man and, baby, that did happen Back In The Day.

Morgan, Yes I’m sure Jesus is against any violence committed against an innocent person, but the blurb of Gene’s Roland uses “If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right." (in reference to the lynching picture) seems to indicate that Gene is in favor of capital punishment not random racial mob violence.

Look at Christ and ask yourself WHY people flocked to him. He was a threat because people listened. People listened because they loved him. If you ask me, the devil is thrilled with True Christians ™. They make his work so much easier.

People flocked to Christ because he spoke with authority. However, if you read the Bible carefully you’ll notice that many more rejected his teachings because He forced them to make difficult choices about their lives and who they should be living it for. God’s love for us is the reason for His grace. Our love for Him is the reason for our obedience.

I admit that some Christians confuse the sin with the sinner and this impedes those who want to know Christ for fear of judgment and rejection, but if accept sin then you are not following God’s commandments. The distinction works both ways.

thimscool said...

Not just capital punishment, but rather a public execution with a mob no doubt pleased to see the results.

And even if it was the result of a jury trial, our justice system has been perverted from the start, because of people thinking that they should stand in God's place.

Who here has read "To Kill a Mocking Bird" (or seen the excellent film)?

Lust for 'justice' is unChristian, from my outsider's perspective, and unbecomming for all but the victem or their loved ones.

Did you get upset about OJ? Why exactly?

scooterhawk said...

Thimscool:

I’m not advocating, nor am I denouncing capital punishment. What I am saying is that using the scene in the Bible where Christ defends the adulteress as an argument against state sanctioned execution is contextually wrong.
I don’t know what is being depicted in the picture Morgan posted. She provides no context. What I do know is that capital punishment in this country was public for most of our history and seeing a crowd around the body of a hanged man would have been no more shocking to the folks that lived in the 19th century as seeing a crowd at a baseball game would be for you and me today.
Vengeance = Wrong
Justice = Good
Wisdom allows you to discern the difference
To Kill a Mockingbird is an excellent book.

Amber said...

Well, I was going to say something but Morgan has already answered for me and quite well.

I'm not a Christian. However, I've read the bible cover-to-cover three times now, every single word (okay, skimming past the Begats) and dipped into it here and there many many more times over my life.

So I'm well aware that Jesus was not exactly "Happy Fun Ball Jesus" or "Kum-by-Yah" Jesus or whatever. :-)

However, I'm much more interested in Jesus' message overall as I interpret it to be than in how pissed off he got at the moneychangers.

As I said before, my brother is a minister and I love talking to him about Christianity. He explains it so well that I'm charmed. He and others like him are the only reasons why I've ever been tempted to look into it more.

Most of all, I am warmed by his joy in his faith. :-)

Again, for the record (or for those who read a little too quickly *smiles at JohnR*):

I'm Amber and I'm NOT a Christian.

I am kind of interested at times. I have for years now.

And then other times...scans some of the comments here...so not.

scooterhawk said...

Most of all, I am warmed by his joy in his faith. :-)

Amber, your brother sounds like someone who understands what Jesus meant when he said:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

and you should continue to look to him as your example of Christian behavior. Everyone sins, we all fall short of God’s glory. Please have patience with those of us who stumble in our daily walk and might not always be the ambassadors that we should be. =)

thimscool said...

I reject the idea of religious authority. I am undecided about whether I believe there is a God that has authority over me (and everything). But, given that there is a God, I am certain that I will not submit to somebody else’s interpretation, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Scientologist, etc. I mean that I want no laws based exclusively on any religious document.

This is the essence of the founder’s intention of the separation between Church and State.

But I don’t mind the use of ‘silent moments’ that are obviously meant for prayer. In fact, I don’t mind prayer, and I am often most moved by the bible passages read at weddings and funerals. But should someone use the opportunity to rail against the sinners, then you’ve got to wonder whether they are grinding an axe.

If you’re not comfortable talking about how Christianity was perverted to justify slavery and racism, then perhaps we could talk about the genocide of the indigenous people. No doubt the cause was greed for land, gold, oil, trade, and geo-strategic dominance. But that’s sinful, right? I mean, we’re slaughtering them wholesale, aren’t we Padre? How can we sleep at night?

Manifest Destiny. Well worth a google.

If you want to make a dent in the secular world, you have to put on your full cloak of armor, and fight nobly for your faith. You shouldn’t cower behind your cynical sense of superiority. Come out to meet the world and show why Jesus was right.

Now more than ever your help is needed. Don’t drop everything you are doing and send money to some PO Box.

Do change your attitude, reach out to help, and repudiate the real sins in our society.

Do embrace and help those who are suffering the consequences of sin, and if you are prone to anger, then direct it against those that really profit from sin. And no it isn’t the pornographers, the gays, the drug addicts, or people who can’t speak English properly.

I'm not saying that you should give them your car keys; but it wouldn't hurt to break some bread with the hungry. I'm sure that you all do this, as part of your church activities.

I am not trying to denegrate organized religion. I believe it has much to teach. But it is not my master, and the degree to which I must limit my freedom will not be controlled by religious doctrine.

scooterhawk said...

If you’re not comfortable talking about how Christianity was perverted to justify slavery and racism, then perhaps we could talk about the genocide of the indigenous people. No doubt the cause was greed for land, gold, oil, trade, and geo-strategic dominance. But that’s sinful, right? I mean, we’re slaughtering them wholesale, aren’t we Padre? How can we sleep at night?

My answer is found in Matthew 31-38:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." 38

Just because a man or nation claims to do something in His name does not make it so. Judge everything by the fruit it produces.

I whole-heartedly agree Thimscool that evil flourishes in dark places and it is up to good men to bring the light of Christ to those places. I do not serve a passive God and as a Christian I am called to action to do what I can to aid those in need.

Erik said...

good heavens! takes like 3 days just to read thru all the comments (thru is my lazy way of writing =oP ) Allow me to take the middle road here as I think it will reach the balance that neither side in this debate has reached thus far.

Pornography is somewhat difficult to define. To my knowledge there is no debate on the harder porn, but there is on the softer porn. And going further there are those who declare "art" nudes as porn also. From a legal/general view, porn is explicit material with the intent to "arouse". As indicated in this post this is still a difficult line. What arouses one doesnt arouse another.

From a personal standpoint it is much easier to define. We all know where our personal line is, and that is likely the same place we would draw it for our children (if not more conservative for them.) As Gene has stated, withdrawing yourself from the "stimulus" tends to make a person more sensetive to that stimulus. I think this is easily observable. It is also observable in the progression from dept.store ads to SI: swimsuit to the Fredericks catalog to Playboy.

The affects of porn on the brain have also been documented. It is proven that, in males, porn will illicit a sexual response from the brain, and therefore chemical/hormone release before conscious thought can occur. (interesting stuff!) As such it brings up a response that cannot be filtered by normal means. Simply put, it must be avoided. On that the Bible does tell us to "Flee from sexual immorality" Jesus also said that if one looks upon a woman to lust after her has already commited adultery in his heart. We can debate whether or not the accidental look and subsequent hormones are sin or not but it certainly makes it hard to not dwell upon it once the hormones are in the blood.

That being said, art does make extensive use of nudes and it isnt a bad thing. Certainly there can be a lack of taste (common to art) but that doesnt make the nude itself pornographic, even if it is used that way by others (13yo boys? what isnt porn to them?) If art-nudes bring up a response in you, then you are more sensitive to such imagery than others might be and it is up to you to avoid them (should you care to) It is not a bad thing to be sensitive to it, just recognize that you ARE sensitive and realize that others are not. (same if you are calloused, realize that and take it into account)

I have more to add to this but it took so darn long to read thru all the comments that I cannot continue at this time. Will try again later

Erik said...

Morgan

The wife and I got a chuckle out of the "Cavern of Hell" comment. And I got around to adding you to my blogroll today.

dlkjdfsa said...

Erik - From a legal/general view, porn is explicit material with the intent to arouse.

Every artist is a pornographer.

From a personal standpoint it is much easier to define.

Ah, so porn is subjective. I agree, those damn ankles!

art does make extensive use of nudes and it isn't a bad thing.

as long as there wearing socks above there ankles!

Certainly there can be a lack of taste

Subjectivity again, strange how this comes up in art..

13yo boys? what isn't porn to them

The answer is the blindfold, one on the eyes on the head the other on the minds eye.

it is up to you to avoid them

Now we're talking freedom, God bless the USA

thimscool said...

Scooterhawk,

I am not judging Christianity for Manifest Destiny.

I am joining in the criticism of True Christians for projecting an unsympathetic, judgmental version of their gospel, which leads some people to rail against the faith. This is destructive, and serves only the pride of the perps.

Roland said...

Scooterhawk -
Roland, you are using scripture out of context and confusing spiritual law with secular. Jesus was not opposing capital punishment, but rather moral judgment, which is reserved for God alone.

Morgan, Yes I’m sure Jesus is against any violence committed against an innocent person, but the blurb of Gene’s Roland uses “If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right." (in reference to the lynching picture) seems to indicate that Gene is in favor of capital punishment not random racial mob violence


Then let the courts decide. Not a mob. No matter what the problem is. She WAS advocating the mob. Read more carefully Scooter.

Jesus was against the mob mentality. Not against fair justice. Or do you still think I am taking it out of context?

Erik - Allow me to take the middle road here as I think it will reach the balance that neither side in this debate has reached thus far

Erik, that is the side I am on. Seems to be Morgan as well. I think you just worded it differently. It does, in the end, come down to a personal choice. Just as the Rabbitslayer pointed out. I know that because you think the "Cavern of Hell" is funny also.
There are those who do not, and won't allow others to find it funny either.
Those are the True Christians ™.
And more than you know, I pity them. I used to be one of them. Good thing Jesus is more about mercy than we can ever imagine. Justice yes, but the entirety of Scripture can be summed up in one word. And it ain't justice.

thimscool said...

Uhhh. I'm stumped.

How could you sum it all up in one word? Is the word 'God'?

I think the problem is that no amount of words could ever be sufficient to explain every mystery. So any finite number leaves open room for many different interpretations. The truth is that there are as many interpretations as there are people, some are just more informed than others.

The variety of faiths can be bewildering, and I think that ultimately people must be guided by their own heart. People seem to believe in God because of a feeling. I respect that.

However, I don't find it convincing, even if I myself have felt such feelings...

I am curious if there is anyone here that actually talks to God/Jesus? I mean, like questions, answers, comments, debate, jokes... If so, would you mind providing some detail about the nature of the experience.

Gene said...

You did goood on this one Morgan; you are at 108 comments; sheesh!

Ribbitslayer enjoyed Ravi Zacharais's speaking, so I am not imagining the power of his message to inspire. Inspiration in a non-Christian direction, but inspiration nontheless.

I have gotten my ass kicked, and beaten, by God for not being reverent enough, and the blessing has been unimaginable.

I am far behind because of my absense from Christianity, but I will try to address a few points.

The issue on the food: This is my child. Isn't it my job to teach my child discipline? Disipline is about what you get; not what it costs. The info I was passing on to my daughter was from Larry North, who suffered from childhood obesity and was the son of the founder of "Overeaters Anonomous". Larry now has a chain of fitness centers. Should I just let my child soil her pants indefinately, at will, and grow unhealthy by not giving direction on "intake" from these experts?

I use their guidelines and I am the size of one of your thighs. Bottom line is there is a larger choice from the mating pool the closer one is to optimal weight, if not being a natural beauty,

I am new to Christianity after being absent for over 18 years, maybe more. I thought the realization that "murder" among other negative activities, was a matter of "maturity". I didn't know it was a matter of religion.

What I have learner here is that; some do not believe their own actions will ever matter. Some deny their own actions could ever make a difference.

I have been taught, that everything I do, can and might, effect someone in a positive, or negative manner; so I must choose my actions with care. I learned this from a single mother; to be reverent and treat the sacred with respect.

Gene said...

committed against an innocent person, but the blurb of Gene’s Roland uses “If he was caught murdering someone,

Key word is "caught"

Gene said...

you can bet your sweet ass her opinion would have been a lot different.

But see, that sort of irony fails to True Christians ™, who finds it far easier to point out the speck in her sister's eye while ignoring the mote in her own.
***

It makes no difference

Gene said...

I heard a black man speaking in tounges for the first time this Sunday; It was exhilerating; try it, you'll like it.

Gene said...

On VP, she wrote that she'd been jumped by a gang of thuggish youths when she was a kid. Apparently she didn't think it was OK that the gang had all *agreed* to hurt her for no reason.
***
That was thuggish blach youths, 4 to 12 years old I might add, but you didn't mention the black class mates who rescued me. You also didn't mention my 2 best friends being a black and a jew amd my husband being a mexican and my four children being half mexican. I guess you think that is for "looks".

Gene said...

As Gene has stated, withdrawing yourself from the "stimulus" tends to make a person more sensetive to that stimulus. I think this is easily observable.
***
This Sunday, I just saw "Aladin" the play at Disneyland for the fourth time. It no longer makes me weep.

Gene said...

Amber who says she'd like to accept Christ but is put off by the arrogance of people like Gene.
***
If I can help Amber; let me know; maybe I have been where she is now.

scooterhawk said...

Then let the courts decide. Not a mob. No matter what the problem is. She WAS advocating the mob. Read more carefully Scooter.

Roland:

No she wasn’t. Again the picture Morgan provided has no context to it. You are simply applying your own prejudice and drawing a conclusion that a “mob” is “lynching” a black man. As I pointed out to thimscool earlier, capital punishment was a public event during most of our nation’s history. What you could be seeing is a public hanging of a criminal, but without the proper frame of reference your assertion holds just as much irrational prejudice as you believe Gene’s does.

Jesus was against the mob mentality. Not against fair justice. Or do you still think I am taking it out of context?

Yes.

scooterhawk said...

My goodness, Gene....Does an action's being approved by a mob make it right?
***
If he was caught murdering someone, yes it is right.

Roland, et al:

After reading all of Gene’s postings I stand corrected. Gene was in fact, approving of a “lynching” not a sentence carried out by the due process of law.
Gene, that is one scary admission if you honestly believe it.

Morgan said...

"This Sunday, I just saw "Aladin" the play at Disneyland for the fourth time. It no longer makes me weep."

On Sunday night, I saw my husband naked for the gazillionth time. It still makes me excited. If you're so easily deadened, Gene, that's your issue. Don't go putting it on everyone else, especially on such flimsy evidence as your reaction to a Disney play.

Morgan said...

"That was thuggish blach youths, 4 to 12 years old I might add, but you didn't mention the black class mates who rescued me. You also didn't mention my 2 best friends being a black and a jew amd my husband being a mexican and my four children being half mexican. I guess you think that is for "looks"."

I don't think anything of the sort. I am puzzled, though, how you can go on VP and make a blanket statement that "blacks teach their kids to hate" when a black person helped save you from the thugs. You've never publicly allowed, Gene, that individuals can and should be exempt from such a sweeping generalization. But you've refused to back off of it in our debates, which hardly honors the black person who came to your rescue.

As far as your husbands Mexican heritage, it has nothing to do with your animosity towards blacks which has been apparent in your statement son the issue, Gene.

Morgan said...

"After reading all of Gene’s postings I stand corrected. Gene was in fact, approving of a “lynching” not a sentence carried out by the due process of law.
Gene, that is one scary admission if you honestly believe it."

I read it the same way and it is indeed chilling if she thinks that, especially given her own experiences with a mob mentality.

thimscool said...

Case in point:

I asked someone to witness to me and we're talking about Gene's feelings about black people.

scooterhawk said...

Case in point:

I asked someone to witness to me and we're talking about Gene's feelings about black people.
Thimscool:

I’m sorry I must have missed that post. I don’t want to go too far off topic on Morgan’s board but if you still want someone to witness to you I’d be more than happy to do so. I can be reached by email at scooterhawk@hotmail.com.

God Bless

thimscool said...

Scooterhawk,

Thanks. I emailed you. I guess I didn't ask very directly, so I tried to elaborate in the email.

The end result of True Christians crusading against the sin and indecency in the world is that it becomes a farce in the minds of the public.

It is so much easier for people to dismiss Christianity, when the main spokespeople are talking about assassinating foreign leaders.

Then it becomes a sport to make fun of the goofy hypocrit christians for a couple of days, until the press decides to trun to the next sensation. What a waste

In this arena, Gene seems to enjoy here contrary statements about how guilty blacks should be hanged, with a side helping of passive agressive barbs about how she is the size of someones thigh. It is behavior designed to attract attention to Gene, and we feed it.

Meanwhile, we don't talk about how to make it such that the True Christian, Pat Robertson types, are not the dominant voice in Christianity.

The visible results of the faith have become a straw man, while the truths and wisdom requires respect and patient study to appreciate.

That was the case in point.

Gene said...

After reading all of Gene’s postings I stand corrected. Gene was in fact, approving of a “lynching” not a sentence carried out by the due process of law.
Gene, that is one scary admission if you honestly believe it."

I read it the same way and it is indeed chilling if she thinks that, especially given her own experiences with a mob mentality.
***
You didn't take the time in history into account. Back then, and in that community, that may have been their "due process" and you were viewing the sentencing.

Slavery was acceptable and practiced all over the world for over 6,000 years in most cultures and was never even questioned till white religious people did in recent history.

Back then, executions were public, so how can you say this is even a lynching in the picture? If it is a lynching, this is not ok in our current time. You asked me if the picture was disturbing. I wasn't there; I don't know the details and now you are giving me your interpretation, and saying I didn't properly respond to your interpretation.

If you are stranded with 90 people (what ever the count of people in the crowd in the picture) on an island and one person is caught murdering someone, you had no jail or legal system, what do you do?
.
I am more concerned with stopping a murderer from striking another innocent person than I am with giving them a chance to do it again.

There is a difference between murder and accidently killing. Murder is the deliberate taking of another person's life for personal gain or pleasure.

Now that you have added your "mob rule" twist to the execution, I'll add my twist of the word "caught". Caught means guilty without a doubt.


I asked someone to witness to me and we're talking about Gene's feelings about black people.
***
Did you read the thread at VP, and see what I really said, or did you read Morgan's twisted version?

I don't think too many at VP agreed that Morgan's "interpretation" about what I was saying was correct or even close.

Your witnessors won't be able to understand what you are asking unless they read books by "Thomas Sowell", an economist. You can google and find articles he has written on the topic. This is the only source I know off the top of my head.

Gene said...

Don't go putting it on everyone else, especially on such flimsy evidence as your reaction to a Disney play.
***
Just an example of desensitizing in a non-sexual context.

Just trying to help,.. sorry,.. carry on.

Morgan said...

"Just an example of desensitizing in a non-sexual context.

Just trying to help,.. sorry,.. carry on. "

Gene, it's not helpful to use yourself as as the standard for everyone else. I can see my husband naked over and over and still find him exciting. I can watch Old Yeller over and over and still cry when they shoot the dog. Not everyone becomes as numb as you seem to be.

Gene said...

That is a good point about your husband. Hubby and I are still quite fond of each other after 22 years as well.

A lot of couples do desensitize. I guess that is your point. But do they desensitize because they lose their respect for each other; by not showing or receiving reverence from each other? And what causes irreverence faster than coveting?

Morgan said...

"I don't think too many at VP agreed that Morgan's "interpretation" about what I was saying was correct or even close."

VP is largely an echo chamber and most of what I say is disagreed with, Gene, and you know that.
If they agree with me, they often remain silent there. That's why no one defended your stance on porn.

"There is a difference between murder and accidently killing. Murder is the deliberate taking of another person's life for personal gain or pleasure."

It sounds like you're equating a mob's lynching an innocent black man with someone accidentally shooting a hunting partner. Hardly the same thing, but I have to give you credit for having the nerve to draw an analogy between the two. I'd be embarrassed to sound so ridiculous.

Morgan said...

Thimscool,
I also missed the post in my scanning and apologize. Please do email me at morganofthelake@hotmail.com
I'd be more than happy to give you my take on this. I do believe it's possible to have conversations with God, and see him as a far more loving entity than Gene does. He's a teacher and a guide who doesn't "beat" people or "kick their asses."
Fear feeds the agenda of the True Christians ™, who seek to convince people that they need right wing nutjobs to tell them how to live so God won't hurt them.
How sad.

scooterhawk said...

“You didn't take the time in history into account. Back then, and in that community, that may have been their "due process" and you were viewing the sentencing.”

I did take history in to account. Since the founding of this country, assuming of course that the picture depicts a scene from 19th century America, those who have been accused of crimes, even slaves, were entitled the Constitutional protection of due process. The whole point of our legal system Gene is to provide guaranteed protections against what you advocated in your earlier post.

“Back then, executions were public, so how can you say this is even a lynching in the picture?”

This is the argument that I used in your defense before I read through all of your postings. The context of the debate between Morgan and yourself made it clear that you were BOTH talking about a lynching but you qualified it by saying that it was ok as long as the person being lynched was a murder. You might want to look up the word “lynch” in the dictionary. No definitions I’ve come across suggest anything legal about lynching.

Morgan said...

"This is the argument that I used in your defense before I read through all of your postings. The context of the debate between Morgan and yourself made it clear that you were BOTH talking about a lynching but you qualified it by saying that it was ok as long as the person being lynched was a murder. You might want to look up the word “lynch” in the dictionary. No definitions I’ve come across suggest anything legal about lynching."

Gene's backing away from this the same way she backed away after being pressed on whether the statue of David was porn. At first it was, then she wasn't talking about statues. At first she wasn't sure it was a lynching, then after we clarified it, she tried to justify lynchings.

If you have convictions, Gene, defend them. If you think David is porn or lynchings were justified, don't contradict yourself so much.
If you find yourself in doubt, think harder about them. That's a good thing.

Gene said...

The sky looks blue.

Morgan said...

EN said:
"Now let me ask you something. Do you really believe that Gene lynches people? Do you believe she teaches lynching? Do you see the natural consequence of her views as leading to lynching? "

What nonsense, EN. I don't believe Gene lynches people, or that she teaches lynching. But I believe that when Gene sees a picture of a black man being lynched, her kneejerk reaction is to think the hanged man had it coming or that the mob was justified. She as much as said so.

Gene said:
"A lot of couples do desensitize. I guess that is your point. But do they desensitize because they lose their respect for each other; by not showing or receiving reverence from each other? And what causes irreverence faster than coveting?"

Do you think it is possible for couples who never view porn to get desensitized to each other? Is it possible for a man who sees his wife go from a 20-year-old hardbody to a 45-year-old with stretch marks to lose his sensitivity? Even if he never sees another woman naked, he may still covet the image of her in a younger form. She may feel the same way as she looks at his knobby knees and potbelly.

Now, I'll tell you something. I consider myself a lucky woman. Even though I've had five kids and now have a size 12 body that is *not* what it used to be, my man and I still have a lot of fun in the sack. That's because I'm open to doing a lot of things other women wouldn't do. Let's just say what I lack in beauty, I make up for with enthusiasm. ;-)

That has a lot to do with having a healthy, open attitude about sex and going outside the Bible to learn how to please my man.

And to give him credit, he's ever bit as adventurous as I am.

Now, I write erotica and read erotica and have learned a lot in the process that I take into the marriage bed. I can use what I create and what I read to enhance our sex life. There's no coveting involved in our use of erotica, and it's the same for a lot of other women.

I don't care how nice-looking a woman is, if she's prudish her man's going to lose interest and even if he doesn't look at porn he may well covet having a woman who will do what his wife will not, just as a wife who doesn't care for porn may find herself longing for a man who will treat her like the lusty wench she wants to be.

People can and do become less sensitive and covet others without any influence of pornography.

Gene said...

The whole point of our legal system Gene is to provide guaranteed protections against what you advocated in your earlier post.
***

If you came out and asked me if it is ok the hang someone without a trial, when a justice systems was available and in place, I would have said no.

How do you know there weren't 12 people who sentenced him to the hanging? The picture would have been the same. Guy hanging and the group not showing any sadness for him.

eaglewood said...

"I find it endlessly astonishing how people get so worked up over something as ridiculous as sex. Plenty of human sexual situations are as clumsy or quick as bird and rabbit unions. It's not always ethereal or graceful. It's just sex. One guy who disagreed with my writing erotica went on and on about how he and his wife "make love."

I pointed out that his sweet wife, while enjoying love-making - at times longed to be pounded like a ten-penny nail. Sometimes you want to make love. Sometimes you just want sex. That applies to men and women.

He never wrote back."

I never wrote back because I did not see the point. You obviously got me mixed up with someone else there. While my wife and I like to "make-love" we also enjoy a good old roll in the hay, or to simply screw each other until we are exhausted and the sun is coming up.

My problem is not with sex. Sex is good inside the context of marriage. The issue I had is the same one I have now. You paint those who have a more conservative view as evil because we have a higher standard on what we consider pure. It is the standard I uphold for my family and what I believe to be biblically correct. I do not expect you to adhere to those standards it is not my place to judge. It is up to you to study the scriptures and determine if your writings hold up to His standards not mine. I personally find racism and the action brought about by racist men to be just as abhorrent as other sins including those of a sexual nature. The fact that there are sexual sins is not something I came up with. They are well documented in the Word. That does not mean that sex in the proper context of marriage is wrong or evil it is actually quite wonderful. It really gets on my nerves when you paint people with a broad brush and not allow for individuality here. You just determine that people that disagree with you on what is modest and pure are also people who spit out the bile of hatred and wish evil upon those who are different then they are.

As far as a definition of pornography goes it is quite simple. It is an image, written story, or spoken story that is designed to elicit a sexual response. While works of art such as “David” do not fall into that category I do find them to be tasteless. That does not mean that I am going to work to have them removed, I just will actively seek to not be in a position where I have to view it.

As far as your tired mommy thing goes, I see it as an excuse. My wife and I have been married 15 years and we have had 5 children. That has not affected her libido, what affects her libido is when I act like jerk. When I act that way then I am quite sure she is not going to be in the mood, but if I am not I am quite sure that we will be having a wonderful night. I still contend that if a woman “NEEDS” outside influence to spark her libido then there are other problems in that marriage. As my wife has explained to me on a number of occasions a woman’s sexual arousal is primarily relational not visual like a man’s. So if all is well with the relationship she should have no problems thinking sexually about her husband.

Morgan said...

"The issue I had is the same one I have now. You paint those who have a more conservative view as evil because we have a higher standard on what we consider pure."

I think you've got that backwards, Eaglewood. If you look at the comments, you'll see it's the True Christians ™ who are questioning the faith of people who don't share their "sacred" approach to sex.

"You just determine that people that disagree with you on what is modest and pure are also people who spit out the bile of hatred and wish evil upon those who are different then they are."

I don't determine any such thing. I don't have to. True Christians ™ do that on their on. As I pointed out, I didn't bring up my erotica on VP. Gene did, and on several unrelated posts. She did it because she wanted to expose me to scorn, which is among the True Christians ™ favorite hobby.
I don't consider modest people to be hateful; I do consider people who think I'm going to hell unless I adopt their standard of modesty to be quite hateful. Or at least very silly.

"I still contend that if a woman “NEEDS” outside influence to spark her libido then there are other problems in that marriage."

You can contend whatever you want, but you're not a woman and you can hardly use your limited experience with one woman to say what is and is not appropriate or "needed" by another. I know plenty of women who have wonderful marriages, love their husbands and still find their libidos lagging. That can be due to fatigue, hormone issues or any number of things.

Often the boost they get from a bit of erotica is enough to rev that that stalled sexual engine. And have you ever considered that women and men may *both* enjoy erotica together? Just because you don't add other spices to your sex life doesn't mean it's wrong for someone else to do it.

Also, sexual fulfillment for a woman isn't always tied to the relationship. If a woman gains 50 pounds in the marriage, her husband's attraction to her may be diminished. But it's the same way for a woman. If he's slovenly or clumsy in the sack, it will likely affect her response, I don't care how nice a guy is.

So why your wife is sweet to give you her opinion, you're silly to think she represents all women.

Now only one thing is missing, Eaglewood, your holier-than-thou opinion that oral sex is wrong because any couple who can't be satisfied with the missionary position have relationship problems.

Heavens, man. Just because you claim to be a prophet doesn't mean you have all the answers.

eaglewood said...

"Eaglewood, your holier-than-thou opinion that oral sex is wrong because any couple who can't be satisfied with the missionary position have relationship problems.

Heavens, man. Just because you claim to be a prophet doesn't mean you have all the answers."

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said oral sex is wrong or evil. NOT ONCE. Although I think this is private we have engaged in said pleasure and find nothing wrong with it. I have only said that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. This is not my only my opinion, it is in the Word.

Being a prophet does not mean I am not subject to common or uncommon human errors. As a prophet I am called to teach the message of Yeshua's great love and the truth of His Word. That is all, nothing more nothing less.

Arguing this with you is frutless, as I pointed out to Gene (I think it was Gene) over at VP. Do I think what you write is wrong? Yes I do. Will I tell you that you are destined to go to hell because of it? No I will not. What sends people to hell is the unbending refusal to accept the free gift Yeshua gave us when He died on the cross and then subsiquently raised from that death.

Roland said...

Thimscool:
Uhhh. I'm stumped.

How could you sum it all up in one word? Is the word 'God'?

The word is Love.

(If you want Bible references, Galatians 5:14;Leviticus 19:18)

Love is desiring the best for all.

Some choose to do it by giving others the options available and allowing a choice.

Some try to do it by 'making' others do the right thing.

Love allows. Love unites. Love binds. And without it, all is meaningless. And for all those following this thread, love is not sex. Just in case anyone misunderstood.

Love.

Morgan said...

Eaglewood, it's probably better to keep your conversations over at VP, where you will be assured of an echo chamber and won't have to worry about being challenged. That way, you can serve as a prophet to other True Christians ™ who will *always* agree with you and you can avoid these exchanges of ideas. (Ideas are prickly things, and probably ungodly since they make one think.)

I believe this is called "preaching to the choir," and it seems it would suit you.

"Do I think what you write is wrong? Yes I do."

Honeybun, you are one-hundred percent welcome to think anything I say or do is wrong, even if you can't give me a good answer as to *how* reading a story with sex in it is wrong in God's eyes. I shot down every argument you advanced. I've not gotten angry with you; I just didn't pull any punches.

And I didn't put words in your mouth. It just seemed a natural progression, given that the analogy you drew was equally ridiculous.

A prophet? Eaglewood, I wasn't making fun. We're *all* prophets when you think about it, whether we consider ourselves called or not.

Morgan said...

"Love allows. Love unites. Love binds. And without it, all is meaningless. And for all those following this thread, love is not sex."

Verily. And amen.

eaglewood said...

"Eaglewood, it's probably better to keep your conversations over at VP, where you will be assured of an echo chamber and won't have to worry about being challenged. That way, you can serve as a prophet to other True Christians ™ who will *always* agree with you and you can avoid these exchanges of ideas. (Ideas are prickly things, and probably ungodly since they make one think.)

I believe this is called "preaching to the choir," and it seems it would suit you."

I would get no love from Vox's crowed either. I do believe that it was on your blog that I stated the Vox's theological underpinnings were on shaky ground at best. I post there very little and my last post there was simply to tell Gene that her arguments would fall on deaf ears because only a call from the Holy Spirit would change your mind, and quite frankly that is how it should be.

You left out the part where I said that I was not condemning you. It is not my place, as I have stated before the only one who can convict is the Holy Spirit, and last time I checked I am not He.

Progressing an argument to an area they have not commented on is putting words in someone’s mouth. By making that statement you told each person that reads that is what I said.

You have yet to of actually shoot down one of my arguments, only rephrased your original statements and added leading questions and statements. I think that I have not made my position clear enough. My position all along has been that the Word states that certain situations involving sex are in fact sin. All of those revolve around sexual actions outside of marriage. If you are writing stories that glorify these extramarital sexual activities then you are at least passively condoning that sin. That is why I think it is wrong.

As far as a woman’s sexual arousal goes I will agree that I am limited on the number of women that I have encountered sexually. As a mater of fact my wife is the only woman I have had any kind of sexual relationship with. I do not consider that a bad thing. But that does not mean that my knowledge of sexual response is limited to her. I used her as a reference to give myself a little credibility because I am a man and I am more acquainted with what is sexually stimulating to a man. Some women are more visual than others, some are more relational, and others are more aroused by what they hear. I emphasized the word “need” for a reason. I am not talking about want or desire but need. Fatigue can be overcome and hormone issues are medical in nature. As far as enjoyment goes it does not make it right. I am sure Ted Bundy “enjoyed” killing all the women he did but that did not make it right.

Roland said...

Eaglewood - I would get no love from Vox's crowed either. I do believe that it was on your blog that I stated the Vox's theological underpinnings were on shaky ground at best. I post there very little and my last post there was simply to tell Gene that her arguments would fall on deaf ears because only a call from the Holy Spirit would change your mind, and quite frankly that is how it should be.

Only a call from the Holy Spirit would change ANYONE'S mind.

I don't think you are intending to be quite so confrontational with Morgan. Make it all inclusive.

I used to be more like Gene. I hate what I was. Jesus reminds me daily of what everything is about.

I know some people who think love is telling someone they don't dress nice enough for God. Sure, you're 'saved', but you don't show you're drawing closer to Him. Would He like that?

That kind of junk makes me want to scream.
They read 1 Corinthians 13 and think that is what love is about. They can't see what love really is.

I gotta quit. Feel like screaming. (sigh)

eaglewood said...

Roland,

I am glad to see we are in agreement on how others sometimes view how love should be shown. Jesus met people where they were, and then in a loving way showed them how to improve. I on the other hand can only aspire to His level of inspiration. I am still fallible and weak and prone to my own judgmental ways.
I would not count myself in the legalistic crowd anymore, but I am conservative in my theology. I too feel that people push what they believe on others too much rather than letting the Holy Spirit lead and woo.

Morgan,

We only really disagree on one area, and that is whether or not a Christian should be writing erotica. Like I said it is not my place to judge you. That is between you and G_d. You are right in one area though. People go overboard in defending their perceived biblical position without listening to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I have been there too many times myself and am still learning to control my tongue when my buttons get pushed. Because I have had an addiction to pornography in both the written and visual formats, this is a hot button issue for me. I think that the wise thing to do at this point would be to bow out gracefully and leave the argument to those with more level heads.

Morgan said...

"I post there very little and my last post there was simply to tell Gene that her arguments would fall on deaf ears because only a call from the Holy Spirit would change your mind, and quite frankly that is how it should be."

Ah, the moralists final stab. "Well, Morgan's not listening to us. Let's hope she'll listen to God since God agrees with us."

Eaglewood, how incredibly arrogant. I am regularly convicted on a number of things by the Holy Spirit - convicted the point that I cannot have peace until I change - but not my writing.

I am sorry to hear about your past porn addiction, and am happy to hear that you've overcome it. But reformed addicts are the most rabid zealots. Just ask any smoker who tries to light up around someone who's kicked the habit. Still terrified by their own recognized weakness, they project it onto the other smoker.

That's what you and Gene have done. You both seem to have weaknesses for nudity and pornography, which bring out feelings of weakness or intense shame. You see me as someone who seeks to lead people like you astray.

But Eaglewood, I don't *write* for people like you and Gene, any more than the winery markets its wine to alcholics. My erotica is written for healthy women and coupels who enjoy using it. Stronger people can enjoy erotica without it turning into an addiction, just as they can enjoy a glass of wine without becoming alcoholics.

Rather than going after me and hoping *I* hear the Holy Spirit, perhaps you and Gene should pray for strength. I'm not saying this to be mean, it just seems to me that you want to cast yourself as the "victim" of pornographers when porn is something people seek out. It's not like I'm slipping dirty stories wrapped in brown paper under folks' doors in the dead of night. Readers have to buy this stuff, and jump through a few hoops to do it.

If you don't like porn or erotica, don't view it. If you view it, blame yourself. Not me.

Roland said...

Morgan,

Settle down. I think Eaglewood was trying to be reconciliatory. He knows it is his problem to work with. The Holy Spirit speaks to all of us. He knows it.

I know sometimes it is easy to get our backs up when attacked, but be kind to him. I think he is still struggling and needs prayers and encouragement.

As a side note, I am defending nude pictures. I used to be far more like Eaglewood. Give him time and some grace.

We all need that.

Morgan said...

"I used to be more like Gene. I hate what I was. Jesus reminds me daily of what everything is about."

That is such a good point, Roland. I've met a lot of reformed True Christians ™ who woke up and realized that the anger and finger-pointing was not being inspired by the Holy Spirit but by something else entirely.

I think True Christianity ™ is another form of addiction. Perhaps that's why so many people have a hard time seeing it as damaging. It feeds a need to feel superior and True Christians ™ never lack friends who will tell them how holy they are as long as they tout the "party" line. If a True Christian ™ starts to question the
True Christians ™ way, they are accused of being "liberal". It's like the alcoholics who shame their drinking buddy into being weak because he can't finish the bottle of liquor.

True Christians ™ are so addicted to their own pride that they seek to get a fix by pointing out the flaws in others.

"My heart is tender," they say. "God will convict you for not thinking just as I do."

They can feel good when they do this, and special too, because other True Christians ™ will praisd them in comparison to their target.

If a non-Christian, like Ambr, points out to the True Christians ™ that their angry manner is a stumbling block to her finding Christ, True Christians ™ ignore her. After all, what is winning souls in comparison to the Holy High of feeling superior? Apparently it's worth little. They'll have a hard time wooing people like Amber, who thinks for herself. But there are always weak, insecure people to woo. And therefore a steady supply of people to lead - not to God - but into the fold of the True Christians ™

Roland said...

Morgan After all, what is winning souls in comparison to the Holy High of feeling superior?

They actually think they are winning souls that way.

Morgan said...

"They actually think they are winning souls that way."

That's a tactic I don't understand. When I first began to write professionally (not the porn stuff, but magazine articles and the like) I sought the advice of other writers. One was a local author guy who was so arrogant and full of himself and dismissive that he almost turned me off to writing. I was worried. "Is this how writers act?"

So I turned to someone else, a mid-level newspaper editor, a hyper little leprechaun of a man who wrote brilliantly and went on to be lured away to a plum job. This guy didn't preach to me, he *shepherded* me and gave me confidence that I needed to turn my writing hobby into a career. He was honest with me. He didn't condemn with his criticism, or use it to make himself look better. He wasn't the sort to think that you could help someone better themselves by trying to publicly expose their shortcomings (Gene ;-)
His approach was that of a teacher, a mentor and True Christians ™ would do well to learn from his example.

But they won't. I still maintain that leading souls to Jesus is a secondary motivation to elevating themselves before men.

JohnR said...

Morgan: Amber said she loved her brother's attitude toward Christ, so she has an excellent example. How do the True Christians prevent her from believing if she has her brother's example.

Maybe she just doesn't want to believe and the True Christian is the excuse.

Amber is preventing Amber from believing and no one else.

JohnR

Roland said...

That's true JohnR, but the True Christians™ aren't helping any are they.

Also, what did Jesus mean by
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Does that mean you can double someone's damnation? Or is it just a reference to stopping others from coming to the faith?

Morgan said...

JohnR:
There could be any number of reasons that Amber's path to Christ is taking the time it is. True, it will ultimately be up to Amber, but let's hope Christ is more understanding than you are.
You should be ashamed of yourself, JohnR, for making such a nasty statement. But if you're not, rest assured that some of us are surely ashamed on your behalf, and hope that people won't think you represent other Christians.

Even with the type of good example set by her relatives, such True Christian™ attitudes as you've just espoused can be confusing and frightening to people who haven't yet reached to take the hand of Christ.

Morgan said...

"Does that mean you can double someone's damnation? Or is it just a reference to stopping others from coming to the faith?"

Roland, I'd wager it may meant that becoming a True Christian™ is to veer off course, and to convert others to True Christianity™ compounds the error by leading more astray.

I think we see a lot of this. Anyone who seeks to shame or humiliate - rather than help - an admitted seeker is surely not acting in the interests of Christ.

JohnR said...

Morgan: Could you please point out the nasty part of my statement?

I don't understand your assertion.

There was nothing nasty implied at all. I think you're reading something into it that isn't there.

JohnR

Morgan said...

"Maybe she just doesn't want to believe and the True Christian is the excuse."

This is the nasty part, JohnR. You know nothing about this woman other than that she says she wants to come to Christ. That puts her further ahead of the game than a lot of the people, but you choose to throw that in doubt. Such ugliness discourages from professed Christians discourages people like Amber.

JohnR said...

Sorry Morgan, no nastiness there. You're reading it into my post. I simply pointed out the excellent example in front of her that she ignores.

She, I believe, focuses on the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwell Christians. They make me itch too but that doesn't affect my beliefs.

You don't know me either, but you imply that I am a True Christian.

Sorry, but I fall into more of the Bane catagory without the pictures of naked women and fantasies of killing 'ragheads.'

JohnR

Morgan said...

"Sorry, but I fall into more of the Bane catagory without the pictures of naked women and fantasies of killing 'ragheads.'"

*grin* I suppose there's a bit of Bane in all of us. If I didn't really care about Gene, I'd direct her over to Bane's blog and have her preach her porn message to him. She only *thought* I was brutal. I'm a velvet glove compared to Bane. But I like the man's style.

JohnR, I don't know you but only know what you say, and anyone who condemns someone on their way to Christ for not having arrived smacks a bit of a True Christian ™.

Amber has only told us that she hasn't gotten there. She has the good example of her relatives, but the angry self-righteousnous of the True Christian ™ frightens her a bit.

You can have someone saying, coming in the water and you'll want to go. But if someone beside them is screaming, "Why aren't you in the water yet? Are you an idiot?" you're going to be reluctant to swim with them.

JohnR said...

Well, Morgan, I can't help that you're reading condemnation into my post, where none is intended.

It is none of my affair if Amber becomes Christian or not.

We all have to make our own decisions.

My point was she is ignoring the forest (her bro). for the trees, (TCs).

If she is afaid of becoming a True Christian despite the examples in front of her, then it is HER problem.

You make it sound like she fears herself.

But enough on the subject. This is another one that we will have to agree to disagree on. ;D

JohnR

Anonymous said...

Just like garlic shrimp, tasteful pornography, fine-grade heroin,
and the Christmas season, one can have just too much of a good
thing when it is consumed in excess.

We are all moused out, I’m afraid, having crawled over every one
of the four Disney parks and most twice over. In fact, I am now
just four visits away from being recognized as a certified Walt
Disney World tour guide, which might not be such a bad retirement
gig if I didn’t now have my heart set on making PVC deck furniture . . .