inappropriate contentography and the Christian viewpoint

[The Bellman]

Sorry, but I will NEVER see morality in inappropriate contentography, drugs, thugs, adultery, idolatry, etc. If this is what you want and what you consider to be freedom, then please feel free to live in your so-called free country. I would rather live in a moral country. Not a dictatorship, which I am sure will be your next attempted blow, but one that follows VALUES.

Nice strawman. Nobody's talking about drugs, thugs, adultery or idolatory. I will always choose to live in a free country, rather than one where some group's views of what is moral is forced on me. A country run by people like you would be terrifying, forcing YOUR values on everybody. Yes, it's called a dictatorship.

 

[wvernon]

I will always choose to live in a free country, rather than one where some group's views of what is moral is forced on me. A country run by people like you would be terrifying, forcing YOUR values on everybody. Yes, it's called a dictatorship.

Your statement is flawed. You say that you live in a free country where someone's morals are not forced on you. I take it that this is your definition of a free country. However, someone's morals are always enforced on others even in a free country. They are called laws. Someone's morals are forced on you every day. You don't have the right to murder, you don't have the right to do drugs, you don't have the right to have sex with children, etc. I would argue that you are enforcing YOUR morals upon myself and the rest of society by allowing inappropriate contentography to exist in this country and do it incredible harm. In this country people's morals are always forced upon others in the form of laws. The greatest issue is whose morals will be placed on everyone.We should all fight for what we believe is right. For me, I hope people with my values win for I believe my values are better for this country than opposing values.

 

[The Bellman]

Your statement is flawed. You say that you live in a free country where someone's morals are not forced on you. I take it that this is your definition of a free country. However, someone's morals are always enforced on others even in a free country. They are called laws. Someone's morals are forced on you every day. You don't have the right to murder, you don't have the right to do drugs, you don't have the right to have sex with children, etc.

Banning murder, etc. may well be enforcing someone's morals on me, but that is not the reason such laws exist. They exist to preserve society and protect their victims. Any law which exists purely to enforce morality is a bad law.

I would argue that you are enforcing YOUR morals upon myself and the rest of society by allowing inappropriate contentography to exist in this country and do it incredible harm. In this country people's morals are always forced upon others in the form of laws. The greatest issue is whose morals will be placed on everyone.We should all fight for what we believe is right. For me, I hope people with my values win for I believe my values are better for this country than opposing values.

You would argue incorrectly. Allowing inappropriate contentography to exist forces nobody's morals on anybody, and it has not been evidenced that it does any harm.

I hope people with values which advocate the maximum possible freedom win; I am opposed to other people forcing me to do something merely because they think it is morally right.

 

[PRINCESSOFCHRIST]

I M Totally Against It

 

[The Bellman]

I M Totally Against It

Great. Then don't buy it or use it.

 

[joebobned]

I believe in the freedom to choose between viewing or not viewing inappropriate contentography.

My belief is that inappropriate contentography is a poison. I believe that it makes light of sacred things (the gift of procreation) and that it destroys families, the ability for one to feel the spirit, and demeans the bodies we have been given.

 

[wvernon]

Okay, I'll support your right to view inappropriate contentography, but I'll just be against allowing it to be published or distributed in this country.

 

[MormonFriend]

I hope people with values which advocate the maximum possible freedom win; I am opposed to other people forcing me to do something merely because they think it is morally right.

To advocate for freedom, one must understand freedom. Addictions are bondage. inappropriate contentography is addicting. Bondage errodes freedom. How can someone who advocates for inappropriate contentography, also advocate for freedom? It is an oxymoron.

What is a value? It is not simply something one wants. To me it is something that is enduring and provides good for the individual and the society he belongs to. It is something of the greatest worth where certainly we must make personal sacrifices to obtain and hold, that is sacrificing something we may want.

Example: Alchohol results in the death of millions, and the misery of countless. Do you value the life of another? To what extent do you value the life of another? If you knew that obstaining from alchohol would save a life, would you for the benifit of the society (and very possibly for you own personal benifit) refuse to consume alchohol?

The Prohibition failed, and as a result we tolerate alchohol. The result of that tolerance is that we must also tolerate death due to alchohol, and the crime, broken homes, lost jobs, etc. etc. As a society, we made the choice. So where are our values? But as I recall from history, the law was overridden by the lawless.

inappropriate contentography has the same effect with its peculiar "cause and effect" syndrome. Society is like a large rowboat, where everyone is expected to contribute to our destination. For some reason, there are always those onboard that will not row, some that drop anchors and drag us. inappropriate contentography, alchohol, and other issues like it are like passengers drilling holes in the hull of the boat.

 

[The Bellman]

Okay, I'll support your right to view inappropriate contentography, but I'll just be against allowing it to be published or distributed in this country.

Fine. If you want to be against a free press, and in favour of censorship, that is, of course, your right. I am opposed to it.

It's always ironic to me that those who are opposed to freedom of expression rely on what they're opposed to to voice that opposition.

 

[The Bellman]

To advocate for freedom, one must understand freedom. Addictions are bondage. inappropriate contentography is addicting. Bondage errodes freedom. How can someone who advocates for inappropriate contentography, also advocate for freedom? It is an oxymoron.

inappropriate contentography is addicting in what sense? Clearly it's not addicting in the same way that (for example) nicotine is. It's addictive in the same way and sense that Star Trek is addicting...namely, people like it, develop a taste for it, and don't want to give it up. If you rail against inappropriate contentography "addiction", why are you not railing against Star Trek addiction, Star Wars, Babylon 5, and all the other things that are "addictive" in the same way?

In other words...no, inappropriate contentography isn't addictive. It's a form of entertainment some people like, and those that like it are reluctant to give it up, because they like it. No bondage.

What is a value? It is not simply something one wants. To me it is something that is enduring and provides good for the individual and the society he belongs to. It is something of the greatest worth where certainly we must make personal sacrifices to obtain and hold, that is sacrificing something we may want.

I'm not sure what you mean by this paragraph. Certainly, many people deem things to be of value to them which don't "provide good for the individual and the society he belongs to." But what sort of criteria that is to evaluate the worth of something, I don't know. Additionally, who gets to decide whether it "provides good for the individual and the society he belongs to"? I, for example, don't think any religion does that; should we therefore conclude that it is of no value?

Example: Alchohol results in the death of millions, and the misery of countless. Do you value the life of another? To what extent do you value the life of another? If you knew that obstaining from alchohol would save a life, would you for the benifit of the society (and very possibly for you own personal benifit) refuse to consume alchohol?

Yes, alcohol results in the death of many (I don't know about millions) and the misery of many, too. But again I'm not sure what your point is. I don't drink, so it's hard for me to answer about abstaining from alcohol.

The Prohibition failed, and as a result we tolerate alchohol. The result of that tolerance is that we must also tolerate death due to alchohol, and the crime, broken homes, lost jobs, etc. etc. As a society, we made the choice. So where are our values? But as I recall from history, the law was overridden by the lawless.

As regards this, our values obviously lie with freedom. Our society deems it of more value to give people the freedom to use alcohol than would be the gain in public health if we removed that freedom.

With everything in our society, there is a line between complete freedom and restricted use. We draw that line in the place that we think will provide the best combination of both. For example, every year a large number of people die in car accidents. To vastly improve public health, we could simply ban the automobile. Every year, thousands would be saved. However, this would be greatly restrictive on people's freedom, and we deem the loss of that freedom to be more important than the corresponding saving of life. So we allow that freedom and carefully restrict it to minimise the downside (deaths) as much as we can. We could eliminate the downside entirely, but choose not to. So it is with alcohol. And just about everything else that can harm people. People choke on peanuts, but we don't ban them. Freedom and safety/health are finely balanced.

inappropriate contentography has the same effect with its peculiar "cause and effect" syndrome. Society is like a large rowboat, where everyone is expected to contribute to our destination. For some reason, there are always those onboard that will not row, some that drop anchors and drag us. inappropriate contentography, alchohol, and other issues like it are like passengers drilling holes in the hull of the boat.

Again, inappropriate contentography is the same. It's a question of freedom vs the 'downside'. However, inappropriate contentography is also different in that despite repeated attempts, nobody can demonstrate that it is harmful in the way that, for example, alcohol is. So in order to make a case for banning it (IMO), you have to (a) demonstrate how and to what extent it is harmful and (b) demonstrate that the freedom involved is of less value than the harm that it does. I've never seen either (a) or (b) done.

 

[joebobned]

If you rail against inappropriate contentography "addiction", why are you not railing against Star Trek addiction, Star Wars, Babylon 5, and all the other things that are "addictive" in the same way?

Why are you advocating addiction?

I don't believe God want's us to be addicted to anything.

Each has it's own problems, but the problems associated with inappropriate contentography are usually much worse (marriage problems, job/work, etc.) The problems with being "addicted" to Babylon 5 or Star Wars are not small by any means.


Would you watch inappropriate content with the Savior?

 

[The Bellman]

Why are you advocating addiction?

I don't believe God want's us to be addicted to anything.

Each has it's own problems, but the problems associated with inappropriate contentography are usually much worse (marriage problems, job/work, etc.) The problems with being "addicted" to Babylon 5 or Star Wars are not small by any means.


Would you watch inappropriate content with the Savior?

I'm not advocating addition. I'm saying that expanding the meaning of the word "addiction" to include "likes something and prefers not to give it up" is to blur the word to the point where it's meaningless. I know many people who like something and prefer not to give it up - Star Wars, Babylon 5, inappropriate contentography...I myself must confess to a certain insatiable thirst for all things Trek. I've noticed no problems for any of these people - calling them "addicted" is simply disengenous.

 

[joebobned]

[inappropriate contentography is] addictive in the same way and sense that Star Trek is addicting...

I've heard of many more marriages failing to inappropriate contentography than Star Trek. I'm sure many more people lose their job's to inappropriate contentography than Star Trek.

You're right in the sense that no Nicotine is involved, but the destructive power of inappropriate contentography over one's mind can be terribly harmful.

I wonder if Christ is pleased with people fornicating in front of a camera?

 

[MormonFriend]

inappropriate contentography is addicting in what sense? Clearly it's not addicting in the same way that (for example) nicotine is.

Are you sure? Is not inappropriate content a stimulant? Sure, you don't ingest it through the lungs, but you do through the eyes. Does it not cause chemistry to take affect in the body? Does the body crave that to where it needs increased stimulation? Is there a pattern, like durgs, where you graduate to more and harder substances? Do you find yourself spending money, that you need for other essentials, and deprive family of real needs?

It's addictive in the same way and sense that Star Trek is addicting...namely, people like it, develop a taste for it, and don't want to give it up. In other words...no, inappropriate contentography isn't addictive. It's a form of entertainment some people like, and those that like it are reluctant to give it up, because they like it. No bondage.

You sound like the alchoholic in denial. They soon realize, when it is too late for many, that they cannot give it up!
Try giving it up for a year, and report back to us.

And I was once a Trekie. Now I like Stargate. But if either of these becomes more important than the needs of my family, if I chose to watch TV instead of going to back to school night, or a concert that my child performs in, I would say that "entertainment" was my enemy.

 

[MormonFriend]

Example: Alchohol results in the death of millions, and the misery of countless. Do you value the life of another? To what extent do you value the life of another? If you knew that obstaining from alchohol would save a life, would you for the benifit of the society (and very possibly for you own personal benifit) refuse to consume alchohol?

I'm not sure what you mean by this paragraph. Certainly, many people deem things to be of value to them which don't "provide good for the individual and the society he belongs to." But what sort of criteria that is to evaluate the worth of something, I don't know. Additionally, who gets to decide whether it "provides good for the individual and the society he belongs to"? I, for example, don't think any religion does that; should we therefore conclude that it is of no value?

There is an obvious principle to apply here. It is irrelevant as to whether you drink or not. Speaking generically, would you feel safer in a society that, like you, did not drink? Some can handle the alchohol and many cannot. Booze certainly is not a necessity. An alchoholic would never know of his condition if he never took that first drink. When he does, the society as a whole has to suffer with him. With these facts, an intelligent society would conclude, hey, ... lets dispense with the production of alchoholic beverages, and use that precious grain for feeding the starving people in the world, and at the same time make our society more productive and safer.

inappropriate contentography follows the same principles and patterns, and perhaps is more distructive because people don't realize what is going down, as the cancer spreads throughout.

Much of the reasons for Purity over inappropriate contentography are spiritual in nature. One does not have to be religious to understand this. There are laws we are subject to by the physical universe we live in. We call that "physics." There are also laws that govern the quality of social interaction and progress. These laws are not measured with thermometers, scales, spectrometers, or anything that measures our physical surroundings. They are unseen principles such as honesty, integrity, virture, love, compassion, and the list goes on. In both realms, the concept of action vs. reaction is true.

I cannot go into depth here, already past my bedtime. A value is more spiritual in nature. We value life. For that to be completely true we must value all aspects of life, including how life is taken and how life is created. Sexuality is the genisis of life. Take that for granted, and you inevitibley lower your standard and value of life. Is this personal philosophy or is it fact?

On the religious side, it is obvious that God does oppose anything that is not virtuous. There is a delimma for those who are caught up in inappropriate contentography to understand this aspect. If inappropriate contentography is evil (no doubt in my mind), and by definition to depart from evil yields understanding (Job 28:28), then the understanding of this to the inappropriate contentoholic is blocked. They cannot and will not understand this until they depart from it and repent of it. Until they do, they will rationalize and self-justify to make it seem acceptable. They only fool themselves.

 

[The Bellman]

I've heard of many more marriages failing to inappropriate contentography than Star Trek. I'm sure many more people lose their job's to inappropriate contentography than Star Trek.

I've never heard of a marriage failing due to inappropriate contentography. I've never heard of anyone losing their job to inappropriate contentography.

You're right in the sense that no Nicotine is involved, but the destructive power of inappropriate contentography over one's mind can be terribly harmful.

If you could support this claim, I would be interested.

I wonder if Christ is pleased with people fornicating in front of a camera?

I'm not in the least concerned over what a failed minor Jewish prophet is pleased with.

 

[The Bellman]

Are you sure? Is not inappropriate content a stimulant? Sure, you don't ingest it through the lungs, but you do through the eyes. Does it not cause chemistry to take affect in the body? Does the body crave that to where it needs increased stimulation? Is there a pattern, like durgs, where you graduate to more and harder substances? Do you find yourself spending money, that you need for other essentials, and deprive family of real needs?

Yes, I'm sure. No, inappropriate content is not a stimulant in the way some chemicals are. It is a stimulant in much the same way that any type of entertainment is a stimulant. No, there is no evidence that the body craves it to the point where it needs increased stimulation, any more than a Star Trek fan craves "increased" Star Trek. No, there is no pattern, like drugs, where you graduate to more and harder substances. No, I have never heard of anyone spending money that they need for other essentials, and depriving family of real needs.

You sound like the alchoholic in denial. They soon realize, when it is too late for many, that they cannot give it up!
Try giving it up for a year, and report back to us.

Yeah, I'm a Star Trekaholic in denial.

And I was once a Trekie. Now I like Stargate. But if either of these becomes more important than the needs of my family, if I chose to watch TV instead of going to back to school night, or a concert that my child performs in, I would say that "entertainment" was my enemy.

Good for you. Now, just as soon as you can evidence that inappropriate contentography causes people to find it more important than the needs of their family, or choose to watch it instead of going to back to school night, or a concert that their child performs in, you'll have something.

There is an obvious principle to apply here. It is irrelevant as to whether you drink or not. Speaking generically, would you feel safer in a society that, like you, did not drink? Some can handle the alchohol and many cannot. Booze certainly is not a necessity. An alchoholic would never know of his condition if he never took that first drink. When he does, the society as a whole has to suffer with him. With these facts, an intelligent society would conclude, hey, ... lets dispense with the production of alchoholic beverages, and use that precious grain for feeding the starving people in the world, and at the same time make our society more productive and safer.

Yes, I'd feel safer. So what? As in my previous post, in my opinion (and in society's) the increased safety is not worth the corresponding loss of freedom.

inappropriate contentography follows the same principles and patterns, and perhaps is more distructive because people don't realize what is going down, as the cancer spreads throughout.

Great. As soon as you can evidence these claims, you've got something. The only problem is that you can't.

Much of the reasons for Purity over inappropriate contentography are spiritual in nature. One does not have to be religious to understand this. There are laws we are subject to by the physical universe we live in. We call that "physics." There are also laws that govern the quality of social interaction and progress. These laws are not measured with thermometers, scales, spectrometers, or anything that measures our physical surroundings. They are unseen principles such as honesty, integrity, virture, love, compassion, and the list goes on. In both realms, the concept of action vs. reaction is true.

Again, great. As soon as you can evidence that inappropriate contentography decreases one's honesty, integrity, virtue, love, compassion etc., you'll have something. You can't.

I cannot go into depth here, already past my bedtime. A value is more spiritual in nature. We value life. For that to be completely true we must value all aspects of life, including how life is taken and how life is created. Sexuality is the genisis of life. Take that for granted, and you inevitibley lower your standard and value of life. Is this personal philosophy or is it fact?

Sorry, but that's false. A value is simply something that somebody values. It is NOT necessary to valuing life to value how life is created, or to value sexuality beyond an enjoyable experience. What you state may well be a personal philosophy; it is not fact, nor can you evidence it.

On the religious side, it is obvious that God does oppose anything that is not virtuous. There is a delimma for those who are caught up in inappropriate contentography to understand this aspect. If inappropriate contentography is evil (no doubt in my mind), and by definition to depart from evil yields understanding (Job 28:28), then the understanding of this to the inappropriate contentoholic is blocked. They cannot and will not understand this until they depart from it and repent of it. Until they do, they will rationalize and self-justify to make it seem acceptable. They only fool themselves.

No, it's not obvious that god opposes "anything that is not virtuous", nor is it even evidenced that inappropriate contentography is "not virtuous". It might be YOUR belief that the god YOU believe in doesn't like inappropriate contentography; that does not make it "obvious".

There might be no doubt in your mind that inappropriate contentography is evil; that does not make it fact.

Your closing "they must depart and repent, until they do they won't realise..." is simply nonsense. I could say exactly the same thing about people who like to bowl, or people who play a lot of scrabble. It's not good you just SAYING it's so terrible...you have to evidence it. So far you haven't, and I doubt you can.

 

[Rae]

inappropriate contentography is addicting.

No objective study I know of has shown this. Sorry. I don't believe it.

 

[Rae]

Is there a pattern, like durgs, where you graduate to more and harder substances?

Nope.

Do you find yourself spending money, that you need for other essentials, and deprive family of real needs?

Nope.

Does the body crave that to where it needs increased stimulation?

Of course not.

 

[wvernon]

No objective study I know of has shown this. Sorry. I don't believe it.

And how many objective studys of inappropriate contentography addiction have you looked at?