Why is pornography wrong?

[Ken Rank]

Let's imagine time before the invention of fast-changing pictures projected onto a screen to create the illusion of life.

What would be pornography then? A realistic painting of sex? Paying a couple to perform a sexual intercourse in front of you?

Great post all around but I wanted to add to this thought of yours. But first of all, bravo for looking outside of our mainstream and modern lens to dig for an answer. Not many are willing to do that.

Definitions matter and so defining pornography is important here. The online dictionary says of pornography, "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." The underlined is where the weight of this word rests... "the intent to stimulate erotic feelings." I really think that when Yeshua was talking about adultery in Matthew 5:27-28, he is dealing with pornography in the sense that... when a man lusts in his heart for another woman, the images he is creating about her are combined with the intent to do the act... which means, the thoughts themselves are intended to stimulate. There is then no difference between that and a printed picture because in both cases the heart has to give in to the object to stimulate. Keep in mind, the printed picture is an object, and since the real life woman won't be touched, she too is no more than an object.

 

[AlexDTX]

What is the rational explanation about why pornography is wrong?

If you have to ask this question, then your heart is hardened.

 

[Russ Campbell]

Because God gave us clothes to wear, unless you sitting there naked typing this. Ugh.

Because it defies women the women that do it are horribly abused and it is an abomination to God

Russ Campbell

 

[RDKirk]

What I never really understood is why there's so much stigma surrounding seeing people getting along really (really, really) well while the viewing of people engaging in violence, murder, torture, war, crucifixion, etc. is (at least relatively) A-okay.

I mean, just sitting through the movie previews before the feature starts is virtually nothing more than a long series of shooting and explosions (American films, yay them ). Shouldn't the latter be stigmatized rather than the former? For example, why aren't there more posts on religious forums expressing guilt over watching violent footage?

Comparatively speaking, you're right.

But this thread isn't about violence. That wasn't the question.

 

[Vicomte13]

What is the rational explanation about why pornography is wrong?

That depends on your belief about the structure of the universe.

If you don't think there is a conscious God in it who cares, then there is no rational reason why pornography is wrong.

If you do, and you believe that the conscious God of the universe is the Jewish, Christian or the Muslim one, then the rational reason that pornography is wrong is that it is sexual immorality, and God will whack you for sexual immorality.

So, the rational answer depends on whether or not you believe in God and divine justice.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

You're breaking two commandments when you look at pornography.

1. You're lusting.
2. You're coveting something that isn't yours.

the answer is way too broad to be correct.

To look at images of your wife wouldnt be sinful. I would ask the broader question, is it sinful to lust after a woman who isnt married since

- desiring her is a prerequisite to marrying her
- lust seems to be sinful when applied to women who are already married, otherwise you couldnt "lust" your wife.

 

[ldelporte]

Matthew 5:21-30 (NIV)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

If you are wanting evidence that God finds pornography as sin, there you go.

If you are looking for some sort of naturalistic explanation then I don't know for sure. But there are solid reasons to know it's wrong according to scripture. To deny that is the case would be a matter of ignorance or willfully dismissing scripture that is clear as day.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

Matthew 5:21-30 (NIV)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

If you are wanting evidence that God finds pornography as sin, there you go.

If you are looking for some sort of naturalistic explanation then I don't know for sure. But there are solid reasons to know it's wrong according to scripture. To deny that is the case would be a matter of ignorance or willfully dismissing scripture that is clear as day.

If you want to take that verse absolutely literally, then you're making every husband a sinner going straight to hell, the ones who arent blind anyway.

You really should consider interpreting scripture better before making blanket statements like that.

 

[section9+1]

Questions like this are just looking for ways to justify their sin. There's enough verses and examples as people here have already illustrated. There's no verse explicitly condemning cannibalism in the bible either, yet I think it would be hard to find many Christians in favor of it.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

Jesus is taking the OT sin of adultery, which excludes relationships in your *own* marriage, and he extends the sin of adultery to looking at another *married* woman with lust.

The OT sin of adultery was against another man's wife, so shouldnt pornography in this case can be argued as against another man's wife?

 

[ldelporte]

If you want to take that verse absolutely literally, then you're making every husband a sinner going straight to hell, the ones who arent blind anyway.

You really should consider interpreting scripture better before making blanket statements like that.

Take it up with Jesus. His words, not mine.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

Questions like this are just looking for ways to justify their sin. There's enough verses and examples as people here have already illustrated. There's no verse explicitly condemning cannibalism in the bible either, yet I think it would be hard to find many Christians in favor of it.

If you want to be extra religious, go ahead. Maybe priests should stay single too?

 

[mercyfollowsme]

Take it up with Jesus. His words, not mine.

No, you have the responsibility of examining scripture correctly. Not to make it fit your own image.

 

[Rajni]

Comparatively speaking, you're right.

But this thread isn't about violence. That wasn't the question.

Given some of the responses, it would seen that porn does violence to those involved, so I'd say they're one and the same. I think it's more a case of the log in one's eye; those weighing in on the evils of erotic content would have more credibility if they also make it a point to condemn violent content too. Rather like a vegan who is against killing having more credibility if they were also against abortion (I never understood pro-choice vegans, as it's like being pro-life yet pro-death sentence... but that's another thread).

Depending on what porn one is looking at, however, violence doesn't have to be a concern. Maybe I should have been using the term "erotica" instead, as "porn" might be more of a hardcore thing that definitely falls into the category of "I could have gone my whole life without seeing that".

The term "porn" is also tagged onto things other than sex, things which are violent, such as "torture porn" (I've even heard the Passion of the Christ movie referred to as that), and "violence porn", which is, according to the Urban Dictionary:

"An expression used to state that the display of graphic violence is no more ethical, socially acceptable or 'healthy' than graphic sex." (something I've been saying all along, just not very well, I guess).​

Just noticed this, too -- The Passion of the Christ is cited in that entry in an example sentence: "IMO, The Passion of the Christ is yet another of Gibson's violence porns." Good to know I'm not so alone in my disdain for the use of Christ's suffering as 'entertainment'. And people wail and gnash their teeth over erotica? Yeah, sure okay....

I'm thinking when it comes to terminology, I need to distinguish between "porn" and "erotica". The latter gives the impression that it does a better job of keeping the integrity of the characters involved (and actors, if it's a film) intact. Love of and devotion to the beloved's spirit and soul is emphasized and it's not just all about physical attraction (think Song of Solomon versus whatever's trending on some trashy site).

 

[ldelporte]

No, you have the responsibility of examining scripture correctly. Not to make it fit your own image.

2 Timothy 4:3
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

If you think that scripture is not clear on lusting being a sin, then perhaps you are trying to make it fit YOUR image.

Trust me, my interpretation of that scripture is most certainly NOT serving to fit my preference. If it were up to me, lust would not be sinful. But it clearly is.

And what is pornography if not rooted firmly in the sin of lust?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's like saying what's the difference between witchcraft and satanism? The essence is the same-the details are different.

I am not arguing against the concept of how words can be similar and yet different.
I just do not see much difference between the word "wicked" and "evil."

If I say a man is wicked or evil, it is saying the same thing.
Some synonyms can mean the same exact thing. It is what it says in the defintion for the word synonym.
So what was your point about all of this, anyways (in relating to the topic of this thread)?


...

 

[Sammy-San]

I am not arguing against the concept of how words can be similar and yet different.
I just do not see much difference between the word "wicked" and "evil."

If I say a man is wicked or evil, it is saying the same thing.
Some synonyms can mean the same exact thing. It is what it says in the defintion for the word synonym.
So what was your point about all of this, anyways (in relating to the topic of this thread)?


...

I find semantics interesting. Do you?

 

[mercyfollowsme]

2 Timothy 4:3
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

If you think that scripture is not clear on lusting being a sin, then perhaps you are trying to make it fit YOUR image.

Trust me, my interpretation of that scripture is most certainly NOT serving to fit my preference. If it were up to me, lust would not be sinful. But it clearly is.

And what is pornography if not rooted firmly in the sin of lust?

I thought this was a debating forum, I'm not impressed.

You quote Timothy 4:3, but you cant seem to interpret the context of Matt 5.

All husbands are sinners if lust is universal. If lust is defined as being outside of marriage, then lusting after unmarried women is not sinful. The context of adultery in the OT was specific to another man's wife.

If I'm wrong, then please explain. I'm not trying to justify any behaviour, i just hate religious slogans that have no truth.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Given some of the responses, it would seen that porn does violence to those involved, so I'd say they're one and the same. I think it's more a case of the log in one's eye; those weighing in on the evils of erotic content would have more credibility if they also make it a point to condemn violent content too. Rather like a vegan who is against killing having more credibility if they were also against abortion (I never understood pro-choice vegans, as it's like being pro-life yet pro-death sentence... but that's another thread).

Depending on what porn one is looking at, however, violence doesn't have to be a concern. Maybe I should have been using the term "erotica" instead, as "porn" might be more of a hardcore thing that definitely falls into the category of "I could have gone my whole life without seeing that".

The term "porn" is also tagged onto things other than sex, things which are violent, such as "torture porn" (I've even heard the Passion of the Christ movie referred to as that), and "violence porn", which is, according to the Urban Dictionary:

"An expression used to state that the display of graphic violence is no more ethical, socially acceptable or 'healthy' than graphic sex." (something I've been saying all along, just not very well, I guess).​

Just noticed this, too -- The Passion of the Christ is cited in that entry in an example sentence: "IMO, The Passion of the Christ is yet another of Gibson's violence porns." Good to know I'm not so alone in my disdain for the use of Christ's suffering as 'entertainment'. And people wail and gnash their teeth over erotica? Yeah, sure okay....

I'm thinking when it comes to terminology, I need to distinguish between "porn" and "erotica". The latter gives the impression that it does a better job of keeping the integrity of the characters involved (and actors, if it's a film) intact. Love of and devotion to the beloved's spirit and soul is emphasized and it's not just all about physical attraction (think Song of Solomon versus whatever's trending on some trashy site).

The thing is that Jesus is not against violence. He will return one day and do violence to those who will seek to harm Him and He will bring them to an end. However, sex is a sacred act behind close doors between a man and a woman. God never shows us that sex is something to be displayed for all the world to see. This would lead people to think of such a thing as no longer sacred or special anymore (As God intended to be). See, the problem is that you do not agree with God and His Word in regards to sexual immorality. Porn is wrong because it is fornication (i.e. sex outside of marriage and it invites people to engage in fornciation by it's publication). The Bible says whoremongers will be cast into the Lake of Fire. That's it. There is no debate. God says that is what is going to happen to people who are sexually immoral. End of discussion. God will have the last word on Judgment day against all sinners or those who are wicked.


...

 

[Sammy-San]

The thing is that Jesus is not against violence. He will return one day and do violence to those who will seek to harm Him and He will bring them to an end. However, sex is a sacred act behind close doors between a man and a woman. God never shows us that sex is something to be displayed for all the world to see. This would lead people to think of such a thing as no longer sacred or special anymore (As God intended to be). See, the problem is that you do not agree with God and His Word in regards to sexual immorality. Porn is wrong because it is fornication (i.e. sex outside of marriage and it invites people to engage in fornciation by it's publication). The Bible says whoremongers will be cast into the Lake of Fire. That's it. There is no debate. God says that is what is going to happen to people who are sexually immoral. End of discussion. God will have the last word on Judgment day against all sinners or those who are wicked.


...

By sacred do you mean inviolable?