It can't be done in moderation without still being a sin. I think the comparing porn to alcohol is an apples to oranges comparison. One is not like the other in this application to be of use. One is always a sin the other isn't in moderation.
The choice here seems to be: if your options are a potentially destroyed life or eternal damnation, which would you pick? Now obviously the choice is simplistic, but there are many scenarios in life where one has to choose the least worst option simply because there are no good options. I'd love to choose 'neither', but in this admittely cruel hypothetical that would be ducking the question. Concerning porn and alcohol, I think the point here was that not everyone who drinks becomes an alcoholic, just as not everyone who watches porn, or struggles with porn become addicted. That doesn't mean porn isn't a problem, or some how less of a sin because it's occasional rather than frequent, but we have to allow nuance: porn can be destructive without it ever being an addiction for a particular viewer. In the same way, alcohol can be destructive for those who aren't alcoholics. Moderate drinking can increase one's cancer risk: is that sin potentially? So, struggling with porn but theology is Biblical, or not struggling with poor but theology isn't Biblical? Sin in the knowledge of what one is doing (Romans 7, perhaps), or in in ignorance? Knowing all too well the former circumstance, I would rather that than be in the quagmire of false theology. Who knows, does this false theology make room for the acceptable use of porn? It's not so straightforward, these kinds of questions.
The Biblical answer is neither, right? I’m told repentance is always an option, and the more gooderest one at that. The Bible does choose neither, so I'd rather be guilty of ducking the question than telling someone I'd rather they watch porn. Thanks for the clarification. Interesting question...Living in a sinful world brings death. I don't want to die with my own hands around my throat which is difficult with our modern diets. Is there anything I can eat or drink that won't have some kind of possible negative effect on my health/life? I say this with the upmost respect Truly you have a dizzying intellect!
Within the context of the question, the Biblical answer would seem to be that it's better to be in relationship with Jesus than have a happy life, as harsh as that is. You know, if your eye causes you to sin; better to lose one of thy members than the whole body, etc. If you want to come up with an alternative scenario then that's fine, but in that case you aren't really engaging with it -- if these two choices, then... . Sure, but that's not the point. Interesting -- the food that sustains is the food that poisons. Ha
I think the intent is satiric hyperbolism, within the context of a known loving relationship, to demonstrate in as harsh a way as possible the severity of the evil of bad theology in the mind of the speaker. An effective communication technique that was not lost on two teenage boys. Sort of like Paul saying "I wish you guys would cut your balls off" or Jesus saying "Get behind me, Satan."
I never said it could. I said one could consume porn in moderation without destroying their life with an addiction to it, just like alcohol. I also said I'd rather see young Christian guys watching porn than watching the theological toxic waste from places like IHOP. I never said watching porn wasn't sinful. In the context of the comparison it was entirely relevant. Against the assertion that porn is inherently bad because some people destroy their lives with addiction to it, the comparison to alcohol is entirely appropriate. Some people destroy their lives with addictions to alcohol but the majority of people who drink do so without destroying their lives. I'd venture to say the majority of people who consume porn do so without destroying their lives with addictions to it. Whether one or both is sinful is a different discussion. With regard to the option to choose neither, of course I'd rather a young Christian guy watched neither porn nor IHOP and their ilk. The purpose of the discussion isn't to say "haha, neither, I win", but to indicate just how toxic I regard the garbage from IHOP to be. As I said before, when faced with a wolf in wolf's clothing you know what you're dealing with and you know that you'd going to need to have your defenses ready. When dealing with a wolf in sheep's clothing you're less likely to appreciate the danger until later and possibly not until you're caught up in it. One good thing about porn, in the context of this discussion, is that it makes no pretense of being spiritually sound or theologically uplifting. It is what it is with no claims of being anything else. Places like IHOP are arguably more like the apple that looks nice but is poisoned, or the Trojan horse that looks like a valuable gift only to reveal the deadly surprise once you've wheeled it into the camp.
Would just love to see this fleshed out. Grounds, perhaps, for another thead: "True religion," maybe. I'm on it.
Perfect motto for the times, but at least there's no pretense as to what you're getting. Unlike certain preachers I could mention.
Let me give another example. Let's say I'd rather put my own excrement into a bun and eat it than eat a McDonalds burger. Does this mean I want to eat my own excrement in a bun (or that I regard excrement as being nutritionally useful), or is it an illustration of just how undesirable I consider eating McDonalds burgers? I'd rather young Christian guys didn't watch porn at all. The comparison to groups like IHOP isn't about saying that porn is a good thing, it's about indicating just how destructive I consider groups like IHOP. Or, put another way, if you're going to dance with a wolf it's better to dance with a wolf in wolf's clothing than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Does that make it any clearer?
Point of order... I was there. I already explained the intent, as I knew the speaker intimately. He was mi padre. Back to the rant... thoughts on it.. other than porn?
Then someone is fatally wrong. And I challenge the notion that the New Testament is ultimately religion.
Well, at most one of us can be correct. I would challenge the term "fatally wrong" though. I think my fellow monotheists are fairly close to the truth. You can challenge the definitions of words all you like. They still have meanings whether you approve of them or not. I for instance could say that Judaism is a covenant and not a religion. But it still fits the definition of "religion".
Well, why not? "To whom much is given, much is expected" (Luke, 12:48). "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3:2) God expects more from people who know better. Conversely, God expects less from people who don't know better. It isn't you fault you weren't born into a Jewish family and don't know the whole truth. And so yes, I expect that God will accept your "fairly" close religion as sufficient.
I believe you would be hard pressed to justify this abstruse and frankly, bizarre viewpoint with any combination of scripture, which you have previously claimed to be truth. Then again, I hesitate to give you opportunities to harden your stance against the truth of Christ with such (typical) nonsensical declarations, which lend to the false assumption that you have won an argument. But several points can be gleaned from your statements: You believe punishment is coming, in various degrees, for many, with the harshest sentences for the Jew, who supposedly knows the whole truth but fails to do what? I will presume he fails to obey the letter of the Law, but you might mean something else(?), seeing as how only the Jew has access to the "whole truth," at least initially. You have stated elsewhere that salvation is not necessary, but here you affirm a belief that punishment lies ahead for many, based upon what they know, in a religious sense. But according to your post and previous posts all one has to do is to subscribe to a form of religion, preferably a monotheistic creed, and all will be well. Fairly close is good enough. And though the argument is centuries old, I would ask again: why is the Jew chosen and what is he commissioned to accomplish? Is it to demonstrate his righteousness by obeying the law or to reveal the righteousness of God? Or something else? And to be clear, if obedience to a form of religion was required to attain peace with God, then I would be in a precarious state, as I have failed and continue to fail. But if the Gospel is truth, then my righteousness is completely fulfilled in the person of the Son of God and my punishment has been gracefully placed on His able shoulders. Therefore, peace with God is attained without and apart from religion (or Law). The scriptures abound, but of course, as you have noted previously, you have access to the true interpretations of the text and will not be swayed. But what you have stated above is nowhere supported contextually. Frankly, if your claim to true religion is based upon adherence to legal or religious requirements only, I fail to see any hope for the Jew, let alone the non-Jew, however "fairly" he approaches the Jewish religion. I see a "Lamb" persistently manifested in the OT as the only hope for Israel.