This is the only forum where it makes any sense at all to post this story:

Salvation on the Strip

It's a short read, and it's done in a conversational tone. Regardless of your view of Christianity, I think it's worth the time.

Note on my replies: not hostile at all. Might come across as a bit edgy, but that's just a function of my taking reason seriously.

The very premise behind this statement is shaky. 'Addiction' to porn can easily be construed as an 'addiction' to satisfying your sexual desires. From there, the medium is simply a matter of personal preference, and really, who's to judge one's personal preference? The porn is a trigger, just as one's wife may be; just as one's young secretary may be; just as one's favorite soap opera actress may be, and so on.

It seems to me that if this organization were truly concerned with humanitarian ends, they wouldn't give a crap about bringing bibles. You can get guys and gals out of the porn industry without handing out bibles; bringing them is just a signal that their motives are impure. If one were really concerned that another human being was living in the path of harm, religion wouldn't be a part of the equation.

Marriage is a social institution, and really, has nothing to do with spirituality. Please don't mistake me here; I'm not saying that marriage isn't connected to the church. Far from it. Historically, church and state have been closely intertwined and engaged in a collaborative mission to control populations. I'm sure I don't need to dig out the textbooks to illustrate this... The humanitarian angle here is a facade for pure evangelicalism.

This is a purely subjective judgement. His empty is my sexy, and so on.

Notice we're given no substantial evidence that this actually happens. Even if it has happened to this pastor, there is no way to tell how often it happens. Logic tells me that it's not so often, considering a porn chick/dude constantly bursting into tears and running into bathrooms during conferences might land her/him in some crap with the boss. There are plenty of people looking to get into porn, porn employees (including actors/actresses) are more replaceable than most people realize. Very few of them would subject themselves to such displays of vulnerability at their industry get-togethers. This objection is more questioning the pastor's credibility than anything.

These human beings interact with each other constantly when they collaborate to create their porn. They collaborate during business deals. They collaborate with other humans all the time, almost constantly. There is no lack of human interaction in the porn business. This entire premise is shot. It's rhetorical.

The pastor is trying to link the consumer of porn (presumably the person reading the article) and the image he/she sees, setting up a sympathetic subjective position. It's pretty transparent.

#1: This guy said he doesn't affiliate with a particular storefront church, so I'm curious... What church(es) does he speak at? How often? EVERY time he preaches, he gets a woman saying these things to him? It's always a woman, never a man? Point is, we'll never know, as this is pure, unsubstantiated BS.

#2: Even if it were true, the woman's perspective on 'why she lost her marriage' is entirely subjective. Many divorcees delude themselves as to the reasons why their marriages break up.

All this quotation tells me is that you need to either: a) re-evaluate the system under which you are working, i.e. the church and its morality, because obviously it's obsolete... or b) re-evaluate the moral status of porn; is it really that bad?

god i wish i was in vegas right now

I bet this guy believes Jesus is God, who wants to take me up on that bet?

I bet aaron thinks so too? Any takers?

I don't believe there's a lot of value going point by point with you, as there are fundamental worldview differences being put forth. I think it's sufficient to say that "reason" doesn't appear to be driving your statements. Most of your statements begin with worldview assertions. In particular, you seem to be holding a sort of post-modernism where truth is merely subjective.

This one is worth thinking about in particular. If you've never worked for or known someone who has worked for a boss who doesn't give a crap about his or her employees, then there's a reason this makes no sense to you. I don't think that statement was to imply that the girls run from every single guy who touches them, which seems to be how you've interpreted it, since you've added the word "constantly" that is not found in the article. A more reasonable interpretation is that when the girls get a break, they hide in the bathroom so that they would actually be left alone. They can't really take a break out in the lobby because guys will see them there and they will still be "on."

What sort of "substantial evidence" would satisfy your "logic"?

This demonstrates ignorance on two levels. The first is about how visiting speakers work within churches, and the second is about interpreting colloquial speak. If I say "there's one annoying student in every class" in a conversation, I'm using EVERY in the colloquial sense and not the strict sense.

This last thought it what drives me to view your comments as not based so much on "reason" as something else.

I thought that it was good read Aaron, thank you.

It is always nice to hear about people that are not stuck in the mainstream christian box.

Why don't we have a NL Holdem Church also, someone can minister to all the poker players?

All people need God, no matter where they are at, Jesus Christ went to all levels of people, so whats so new about this guy?

He is still mainstream on his Christian doctrine of Jesus being God, thats as mainstream as you can get.

You don't have to go into a strip club, a bar, a pokerroom, a brothel, or anywhere else to witness to people. God is much bigger than that, He can bring a person that is really hungry for God to a place where a minister wouldn't have to put up with all the spiritual nonsense that he probably has to put up with.

Sure there are times when God would actually need someone to go into some of these types of places to speak the word, but not all the time, are going to tell me that these people can't be spoken to outside of their enviroment?

Pletho, you can just stop responding to my posts. I don't give a **** what you think. You are the embodiment of all that is wrong with Christians today.

So now god hates porn too? Was this in Leviticus?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4GmL...eature=related

He he...

I've always wanted to go to a porn convention.

I Want More Porn

So that is an ex porn star??

No its just a song echoing the idea expresed in the OP article.

Which position on sex is more "reasonable": One that says it's acceptable to voluntarily give out sexual services in exchange for other benefits in order to satisfy someone's sexual urges and bring them pleasure,

or one that says sexual intimacy should be withheld until exactly the point in time when it's too late to go back if the connection isn't there?

It depends on what sort of basis you have placed your "reason." There is no reason in the abstract, there is only reason based upon assumptions.

In particular, given the culture today, it would not be seen as acceptable if a 17 year old person voluntarily gave out sexual services in exchange for other benefits in order to satisfy someone's sexual urges and bring them pleasure, so in particular it would seem as if this position is being defined via the law as opposed to some abstract basis of exchange of goods. Am I correct?

If so, then in 48(?) out of 50 states in the US, such an activity is illegal and therefore not reasonable.

Another way of saying this is that you would need to more clearly define your basis of reason before anyone can comment on what makes something reasonable or not.

Also, what is this "connection" that you're talking about?

You have a strange view of "reasonable."

I think he was trying to say it's subjective and determined by what you base it off of, and he is correct I would think.

Some people think things are reasonable that others do not.

Thanx for the link Aaron. I enjoyed reading it. The disturbing part to me is the fact that we're in the 21st century and people still think that sex, prostitution, pornography are inherently bad or immoral. (Most disturbing of all is these people are the majority). The idea that porn is immoral in any way makes as much sense as whether eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is immoral in any way. I'm hoping that someday humanity can break free from this archaic notion of morality.

So sure about that?

I was reading part of a guy's autobiography who was a porn addict and he said it almost ruined his marriage because it started to take over his life. He was spending hours and hours a day on it. He had a really hard time getting over the addiction and confessing it to the wife and he loved his wife.

Plus the business loss is enormous. A lot of companies are experiencing lost workers time from the people surfing porn while on the job. In turn that shakes corporate confidence in the worker group and they pull the business out and move to countries where porn isn't the number 1 addiction.

Who'd have ever taken up porn if he'd known he'd ruin his marriage and or take the bread out of his family's mouth?

I agree. Considering the (exponential?) moral gains we've made in the past century, I'm sure we're not far off from that day.

I understand that some humans will always take things too far, whether it be watching porno, eating, drinking, working out, etc. So many people die every year from water intoxication. Does this mean that drinking water should be deemed immoral?

Surfing the internet at work can be deemed immoral since one is effectively stealing. This doesn't imply that surfing the internet itself is immoral.

Seriously? I would love to see a cite for that.

it is great because all the arguments ITT about porn are really commonly applied to the activists against poker. "people ruin their lives from playing poker! people lose their jobs and houses due to losing all their money playing poker! ____'s marriage ended because her husband was addicted to online poker!, most states don't have legalized gambling so obviously poker is immoral!"

Just surfing I came across the number of 20 million by looking at Michael Leahy's book review: Porn Nation.

Then there's this Oprah interview:

http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprah..._ss_20051130/1

A quote from the interview:

Rob Weiss, the founder of the Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles, says Kirk, Tammy, Rebecca and Josh are not alone—porn addiction is becoming an epidemic in this country.

Rob says porn addicts become hooked on their brains' chemical responses to the stimulating material. "I think of sex addicts as being drug addicts—only their drug is their own neurochemistry, Rob says. "It's what turns them on. … I talk to guys who say that hours and hours and hours go by, and they're not even aware of the time change because they're so filled with adrenalin and dopamine and serotonin."

Contrary to popular belief, sex addiction is not about sex, Rob says

same thing, right?