Porn Is Unhealthy

[Mr Fish]

Graves is more of a deviant than me. Only fetishes i got is that i want to be devoured whole by a 65 year old woman.

 

[daveyd]

Well, like many sources of entertainment, porn can have negative aspects such as being addictive to some. If it's negatively impacting your personal relationships, career, etc. obviously that isn't healthy.

But let's not forget where a great deal of the anti-porn sentiment comes from. A few thousand years ago, a bunch of drunken barbarian control freaks wrote some stuff about a magical sky daddy. And this character they created (heavily plagiarizing from various pagan mythologies) really didn't want dudes to spill their seed, or have any fun at all for that matter.

Apparently some very uneducated people continue to this day to believe that this poorly written collection of fairy tales is actually a legitimate work of history. And so they obsessively worry about other dudes spilling their seed. In the case of Utah, they may also worry about someone staining their magical underwear. But the main point is we should all be ashamed of our naked bodies and biological urges because anything that is arousing or stimulating can only be created by the forces of darkness. Porn is vulgar because sky daddy doesn't want anyone enjoying "ploughing" as seed is only supposed to be used for making more fruit. Or something.

 

[zegh8578]

A friend of mine, growing up, was always the go-to-guy for porn.
Since then we lost contact, then I visited him shortly, well into adulthood.
While still living with his parents, with the volume on max, he watched deep-throating+gagging, it was so tremendously uncomfortable, first of all - gagging = not my cup of tea, secondly, the volume + parents in the next room, wtf, I took it upon myself to ask him to turn the volume down for the sake of his parents, and he immediately obliged as if it had never entered his mind before o_o

Porn is fine tho, but eh... there's porn and there's porn

 

[Vergil]

Well, like many sources of entertainment, porn can have negative aspects such as being addictive to some. If it's negatively impacting your personal relationships, career, etc. obviously that isn't healthy.

But let's not forget where a great deal of the anti-porn sentiment comes from. A few thousand years ago, a bunch of drunken barbarian control freaks wrote some stuff about a magical sky daddy. And this character they created (heavily plagiarizing from various pagan mythologies) really didn't want dudes to spill their seed, or have any fun at all for that matter.

Apparently some very uneducated people continue to this day to believe that this poorly written collection of fairy tales is actually a legitimate work of history. And so they obsessively worry about other dudes spilling their seed. In the case of Utah, they may also worried about someone staining their magical underwear. But the main thing we should all be ashamed of our naked bodies and biological urges because anything that is arousing or stimulating can only be created by the forces of darkness. Porn is vulgar because sky daddy doesn't want anyone enjoying "ploughing" because seed is only supposed to be used for making more fruit. Or something.

I enjoyed the part where you called people uneducated and then went on to show a complete and total lack of knowledge about Christianity. If you want to circlejerk how euphoric you are in this moment or build elaborate strawmen of Christianity, r/atheism is down the road a ways there friend.

 

[daveyd]

I enjoyed the part where you called people uneducated and then went on to show a complete and total lack of knowledge about Christianity. If you want to circlejerk how euphoric you are in this moment or build elaborate strawmen of Christianity, r/atheism is down the road a ways there friend.

Instead of insinuating my supposed total lack of knowledge about something, how about providing some shred of evidence that contradicts anything I may have misinterpreted / misrepresented in regards to your completely plausible and historically accurate stories? I know requiring evidence for something isn't really your forte, but it does tend to make for a more cogent argument than just throwing out a "straw man" defense.

 

[Vergil]

Instead of insinuating my supposed total lack of knowledge about something, how about providing some shred of evidence that contradicts anything I may have misinterpreted / misrepresented

I don't even know where to begin with your absolutely retarded post. You're the one making ludicrous claims that Christianity says "we should all be ashamed of our naked bodies and biological urges because anything that is arousing or stimulating can only be created by the forces of darkness.", or that Christianity is about "having no fun at all". The burden of proof is one you for making such wild and inaccurate statements. It's incredulous fedora tipper-tier posts like this that make it clear you haven't actually taken the time to read anything about the religion and instead just want to wallow in your own smug self importance and false sense of intelligence.

I know requiring evidence for something isn't really your forte,

Says the man who makes wild claims without backing himself up and when confronted with his bullshit gives 0 arguments what so ever and demands that the other side does all of the legwork.

but it does tend to make for a more cogent argument than just throwing out straw man defenses.

Yes and it also makes for an actual argument which you failed to make. Continuing to show your stupidity is your apparent lack of understanding of what a "straw man" is seeing as your post was littered with them and then you have the total lack of a sense of irony to accuse me of forming straw men when you're the one attacking your completely fabricated form of Christianity to sound smart.

But since I'm a generous man I'll gladly sit down and get you a bib as a spoonfeed you as to why what you wrote is the post equivalent to fecal matter.

A few thousand years ago, a bunch of drunken barbarian control freaks

This is just purely made up bullshit and conjecture. Barbarians? By what definition? Modern? Ancient Roman? As far as control freaks go again, where are you getting this from? The only hard part of countering your post is the complete and utter lack of argument there is to begin with? How are they control freaks? What makes them control freaks? Where are you getting the idea they were all drunkards from? Do you even actually know anything about Jesus or the Disciples that led you to this conclusion or are you just posting random shit? You have to actually have an argument to deconstruct here. This is the first step of your garbage strawman where you dismiss the founders of the Christian Church as all uneducated, drunks and control freaks but you don't give any evidence that any of this is true. It comes across as total conjecture from a man(?) that doesn't know what he's talking about and his far, far out of his depth.

wrote some stuff about a magical sky daddy. And this character they created

I'm guessing you've never heard of Israel and the jews then? Again, you make it out as if the entire Christian Church is based on the crazy ravings of a couple of people, that theres no history or culture behind it, just a couple dudes got in a room and made it up. You continue to construct your strawman by ignoring the histories, peoples and cultures that led up to the formation of the Christian faith.

(heavily plagiarizing from various pagan mythologies)

Completely false.
God comes from the Jewish faith but Christianity is considered to be the continuation of that same faith so it's not plagiary as far a Jesus......

The strawman gets a little bigger as you foolishly claim that the faith is based on plagiary from other sources and is not even it's own unique faith. Now Christianity is the mad, plagiaristic ravings of a group of random drunks who also were control freaks despite being "drunk barbarians".

really didn't want dudes to spill their seed, or have any fun at all for that matter.

So because Christianity promotes self control and being fruitful and multiplying theres no fun allowed? From this it can only be assumed the only fun you get is from masturbation since the only """"""""""proof""""""""" of Christianity being anti-fun is that it looks down on masturbation which as has been shown and posted about before in this thread, can and indeed has had, harmful effects. Now to this "enlightened" poster's strawman of Christianity is the plagiaristic ravings of a group of random drunks who also were control freaks despite being "drunk barbarians" and also they hated any form of fun..... despite being drunk barbarians.

Apparently some very uneducated people continue to this day to believe that this poorly written collection of fairy tales

Yes, let's look at a list of just a few of those "very uneducated people" who believed in Christianity.

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
   Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
   Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, thePensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
12. Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

But obviously these guys are all fucking idiots right? Clearly you're the superior intellect because "muh enlightened atheism!". Now with your increasingly desperate and pathetic strawman of Christ's Church: Some of the greatest scientific and philosophical minds, who pushed the boundaries of what we knew of the world are all the idiotic followers of uncivilized drunkards who loved plagarism and hated free thought and innovation almost as much as they hated fun.

And so they obsessively worry about other dudes spilling their seed.

So because the Bible has passages about avoiding giving into every lust you have Christians are all obsessed with the sexual activities of other men. It is only as "obsessive" as the one addicted to obsessively jerking his dick off makes it. It's not a core component of the religion, masturbation itself is not given a huge focus even. This part is really eye opening because it shows how hard you had to drive the conversation to someone fit Christianity in because you can't help but show off how "smart" you are by your dismissal of religion. The issue of masturbation is such a tiny part of Christianity but here you are trying to fit it into this discussion. Your strawman, bursting at the seams now, states that Christianity conned some of the greatest minds of the Human race despite being the brain child of a bunch of stupid, fun hating drunks who were obsessed with watching eachother's masturbation habits.

In the case of Utah, they may also worry about someone staining their magical underwear.

Mormonism is an incredibly tiny and fringe denomination of Christianity.

But the main point is we should all be ashamed of our naked bodies

Nowhere in the Bible does it stake we should be ashamed about our bodies, but at the same time we don't need to go around lustfully flaunting ourselves either. It's about self respect, not shame. Should we instead just start walking around all the time in our birthday suit? Is every woman who doesn't give you a nice view of her tits ashamed of her body instead of having some self respect for her body?

and biological urges

This is also wrong. It's about controlling your urges and not giving into every temptation you come across. Is self control bad now? Should we just eat, drink and fuck ourselves into a stupor because self control and respect means you're ashamed?

can only be created by the forces of darkness.

No, they are inherently a part of who we are. Even if you do not believe their source has anything to do with the beliefs of Christianity it is an undeniable fact that we have these temptations, whether through inherent sin or another explanation.

Porn is vulgar because sky daddy doesn't want anyone enjoying "ploughing"

God doesn't want you to spend all your time giving into harmful lust and temptation by constantly having your eyes glued to the computer screen and jacking off constantly. HE doesn't want you to spend all your time getting drunk until you pass out or eating until you puke either. Again, why is self control and self respect such a negative to you?

as seed is only supposed to be used for making more fruit.

Yea, the purpose of semen is to fertilize a woman's eggs and make children. Is there some kind of hidden use for jizz that you've been holding out on us?

Or something.

Or something indeed.

So in conclusion: Your post is nothing but self-masturbatory hogwash and even the bare minimum research is all it takes for you to see why your words are completely foolish but out of either pride, stupidity or just plain ignorance, you refuse to do so.
But that's ok daveyd,

 

[Throatpunch]

Someone vat this abomination.

 

[zegh8578]

Vergil, wtf man... christ... you just cant go for a day without finding someone to throat-hop, can you?
I wonder what that means.
Psychologically.

 

[daveyd]

Yea, the purpose of semen is to fertilize a woman's eggs and make children. Is there some kind of hidden use for jizz that you've been holding out on us?

Well, your mom really likes it when I shoot it in her face

Now you're just being pedantic. Obviously I wasn't disputing the biological function of semen. I was merely pointing out that the religious zealots think we ought not have sex for any reason other than procreation with our spouse because God wouldn't approve.

Mormonism is an incredibly tiny and fringe denomination of Christianity.

OK, but it's probably relevant when you're talking about Utah law, which is what the OP was about.

Blah, blah, blah, wah, wah , wah

In truth, my original post wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously as a critique of Christianity. That has already been done to death on the internet by people with far more patience and knowledge of the Bible than I have. Yes, I was poking fun and using hyperbole because religion frankly doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. No I don't think Christians are against all fun, but they are against things for arbitrary reasons. Self-control is good, if you need the threat of Hell / reward of Heaven as an incentive to be a good productive member of society, is that really self-control?

You have the right to believe whatever you want, but I have the right to find your ridiculous beliefs ridiculous. If someone believed leprechauns are real how seriously would you take them? Belief that the Bible is literally true is every bit as ridiculous to me.

The only thing I was dead serious about is that anti-porn sentiment has it's roots in organized religion (in the case of Western nations, that would be Christianity).

So in conclusion: Your post is nothing but self-masturbatory hogwash and even the bare minimum research is all it takes for you to see why your words are completely foolish but out of either pride, stupidity or just plain ignorance, you refuse to do so.

That's pretty ironic coming from someone who believes that the Bible is historically accurate and has valuable moral lessons. But I have no interest in endlessly debating an emotional religious person who is absolutely convinced that their religion is valid, as that will go nowhere other than ad hominem attacks.

I will only state this quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as I have no interest in critiquing all of the religious nonsense you just regurgitated. The notion of all powerful, all knowing deity is the most extraordinary claim ever made by man. I see no evidence, just a lot of zealots insisting that they happened to have determined with absolute certainty the one true religion and the one true God. The fact that generally smart people who lived centuries ago identified as Christian (in many cases under threat of death / persecution for believing otherwise) does not make the religion any less absurd, nor the claims for the divinity of Jesus and the existence of an omnipotent deity any less extraordinary.

 

[Vergil]

Well, your mom really likes it when I shoot it in her face

Simply Epic

Now you're just being pedantic. Obviously I wasn't disputing the biological function of semen. I was pointing out that the religious zealots think we ought not have sex for any reason other than procreation with our spouse.

And the issue with that is....? Are you now trying to claim casual sex is a good thing?

OK, but it's probably relevant when you're talking about Utah law, which is what the OP was about.

But not relevant when talking about your blanket statement about all of Christendom.

In truth, my original post wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously as a critique of Christianity. That has already been done to death on the internet by people with far more patience and knowledge of the Bible than I have. Yes, I was poking fun and using hyperbole

Bullshit. If that was the case then why when I responded to you initially did you not say that and instead ask for me to provide a counter argument? If you didn't want a response, you shouldn't have literally asked for one.

because religion frankly doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Then why did you feel the need to shove religion into this thread? I'm just going to ignore the absolute ignorance it takes to claim that religion, the very thing that has existed since the beginning of and has served as the bedrock of civilization doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

No I don't think Christians are against all fun, but they are against things for arbitrary reasons.

Such as.....?
You know for someone who has "no interest in debating a religious person" you sure do seem to want to keep stiring the pot.

if you need the threat of Hell / reward of Heaven as an incentive to be a good productive member of society, is that really self-control?

IIs it really self control to let every temptation that crosses your path get a hold of you? Is it better those people have no incentive to reign themselves in? There are many reasons to take control of your life and Christianity is no less valid than any other.

You have the right to believe whatever you want, but I have the right to find your ridiculous beliefs ridiculous.

I never stated you didn't, but I also have to right to call you out on making incredibly foolish remarks.

If someone believed leprechauns are real how seriously would you take them?

I've already tackled this fallacy in the Theology Thread which is where I recommend you take this discussion if you actually care about anything other than your own self righteousness.

Belief that the Bible is literally true is every bit as ridiculous to me.

Yes, to you. The person who has made it incredibly obvious from their previous post has no idea what they're talking about and hasn't even done a modicum of research into the subject.

The only thing I was dead serious about is that anti-porn sentiment has it's roots in organized religion (in the case of Western nations, that would be Christianity).

And the point is? If everything Christianity agreed with and promoted was discarded we'd be living in one fucked world right now. Do you disagree with everything simply because religious people agree with it?

That's pretty ironic coming from someone who believes that the Bible is historically accurate and has valuable moral lessons

And would you like to hop on over to the theology thread (where I've already tackled this) and prove that it's not? Or would you just like to keep making statements without backing them up and then acting shocked when someone says you're full of shit?

But I have no interest in endlessly debating

Then why is this post full of smarmy attacks at me and Christianity? If you really have no interest in arguing, you wouldn't have made this post or at the very least, would have the maturity to not start shitflinging and then run away trying to claim the last word.

emotional

Conjecture. The only emotion I feel is smug self satisfaction at seeing you go full damage control and try to back out of the argument now that I've called your bluff and presented a legitimate counter to your argument which you've almost totally ignored.

as that will go nowhere other than ad hominem attacks.

Well you've already insulted all Christians/religious people as uneducated, ridiculous and less intelligent than yourself so I'd say it's a bit too late for that.

I will only state this quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Amusing coming from the person who has posted 0 evidence in response to mine and still seemingly refuses to do so. As far as evidence of the possible existence of God and the historical validity of the Bible, I'd be more than happy to take this to the Theology thread and prove you wrong there too.

I have no interest in critiquing all of the religious nonsense you just regurgitated.

Do you have no interest or you simply cannot? If you had no interest in critiquing what I had to say why did you literally ask me to provide evidence and therefore a response? Could it be you're not actually interest in having a theological discussion and were merely posturing thinking I wouldn't actually give a response?

The notion of all powerful, all knowing deity is the most extraordinary claim ever made by man.

But the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened and then randomly by coincidence nothing combined with nothing and exploded for no reason creating everything and then things magically rearranged perfectly by pure coincidence to create the perfect specific circumstances for life to exist isn't extraordinary? Is the idea that the whole existence of the universe from the stars to our extremely specific and complicated DNA is all a pure and total coincidence is completely rational?

I see no evidence, I see no evidence, just a lot of zealots insisting that they happened to have determined with absolute certainty the one true religion and the one true God.

You haven't looked for any.

The fact that generally smart people who lived centuries ago

I already knew you didn't actually bother to read my post but could you be less obvious? Not all of those scientists and great thinkers were "centuries" old. This also ignores the large amount of modern day scientists who are religious as well.

identified as Christian

This is dangerously close to being another strawman built on the assumption that all of these people were lying about being Christian.

(in many cases under threat of death / persecution for believing otherwise)

It must be nice, not having to back up anything you say with facts. These scientists all not only believed in God, many had direct support from the Church and cited God and faith as their inspiration.

does not make the religion any less absurd

But it does refute your statement that people who have faith are "uneducated". Quit trying to move the goalposts, they're your shitty words, stop trying to distance yourself from them.

nor the claims for the divinity of Jesus and the existence of an omnipotent deity any less extraordinary.

Already addressed this and invited you to come over to the theology thread to be taught.

Basically to sum up this post. Either A: If you actually don't want to have this discussion, say so without being a passive aggressive little bitch about it and making a long paragraph in response to me and then say you don't want to talk about it anymore.
Or B: Move this over to the Theology thread
Eitherway your total dismissal of my post as "Blah, blah, blah, wah, wah , wah" despite asking for it, your lack of any evidence to back up your claims, and your attempt to damage control your original post and abort from this discussion leaves me satisfied enough to end it here if you so wish.

 

[R.Graves]

Can you fuckers move this shit to a PM?

 

[R.Graves]

Graves is more of a deviant than me. Only fetishes i got is that i want to be devoured whole by a 65 year old woman.

I'm a bigger deviant than fish? Didn't you say you had a thing for ghouls as well?

 

[Atomkilla]

Only on fucking NMA can I find people discussing Christianity in the porn thread...with strawmen popping on all sides.

I love you guys, I wish you would die.

 

[Throatpunch]

GG nice job derailing this chaps. Pls take it elsewhere.

Also Vergil can you try to slim your posts down maybe? I'm sure you could integrate some of those quotes there. That'd be great.

 

[R.Graves]

Graves is more of a deviant than me. Only fetishes i got is that i want to be devoured whole by a 65 year old woman.

That's still a pretty strange fetish fish. You wish to be swallowed whole. You realise that would kill you right?

 

[Hassknecht]

That's still a pretty strange fetish fish. You wish to be swallowed whole. You realise that would kill you right?

Vores, man. Don't try adding logic.

 

[R.Graves]

Vores, man. Don't try adding logic.

I'm not disparaging him just saying is all. You would die.

 

[Mr Fish]

That's still a pretty strange fetish fish. You wish to be swallowed whole. You realise that would kill you right?

But what a way to go!

 

[R.Graves]

But what a way to go!

Jacking off in someone's stomach? Wouldn't she/he split open if they somehow managed to swallow you whole. You're a pretty big guy. You must be you're Swedish.

 

[Mr Fish]

Anyway, next question then.

If someone starts to become a bit deviated in their fetishes because regular porn has gotten boring, stale and uninteresting to them and they start to explore things like bondage, rape-play, bdsm and shit then do ya'll think that that is unhealthy long-term for a stable relationship or does it simply mean that they have a new criteria for what kind of partner they want to hook up with that shares their strange sexual tastes?