More from the ongoing "Christian" vs video games drama
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
I've been a fan of Shad for a long time but that video disgusted me. He was acting exactly like the Pharisees and Sadducees, who constantly tried to legalese their way out of God's commandments. These were the very same people that wrote the Talmud, a book using legalese to "interpret" scripture to mean the exact opposite of what God commands.
Shad was arguing that coomer bait isn't wrong and that lust isn't sinful. His argument rests entirely on the failed philosophies of rampant individualism and libertarianism, ideas which have become so prevalent in the mainstream right, and Christianity, as to warp Christian doctrine in the minds of modern Christians. Shad was also attempting to be a Christian, but appease the world. You can't be the former if you do the latter. He knows much of his audience are gamers and enjoyers of coom bait. He makes a lot of it himself, under the guise "it's for me and my wife". So, he didn't want to come out with a stance that might be controversial in the sinful nature of today's world, which is inherent cowardice and not what God commanded us to act like.
He tried to legalese his way around the fact that Christian doctrine clearly states that lusting after a woman who isn't your wife is the same as adultery (Matthew 5:27–28). He also argued that it's up to each of us to avoid temptation and sin, which is true, but completely negates social pressures and environmental factors. The more you subject people to temptation, the more likely they are to sin. Shad was suggesting otherwise, that it's perfectly fine to drown men in sexual temptation, but then act surprised when more and more men fall victim to lust.
Shad's argument also ignores Jesus' 2nd commandment to us, to love our neighbor as ourselves, Our neighbors aren't just the people living right next to us, but our nation and people. If you truly love someone, you won't subject them to an endless stream of insurmountable temptation. We don't constantly throw drugs at toddlers and kids and then act surprised when they become drug addicts, and we don't do so, because we love them, and protect them because we love them. Similarly, we shouldn't be throwing an endless supply of sexual temptation at men from every aspect of society, and then act surprised that men fall to sin.
If you love someone, you protect them, even from temptations that you know they may fall into. Love isn't just a feeling. Love is an action, and best displayed in action.
That wasn’t what he said at all. He stated that if you see ankles and it tempts you just over the picture, get away from it. If a pretty anime picture is advertising for McDonalds and you shrug when you walk by, it’s fine. He also stated that there is a hard stop for media when it’s created for the sole purpose of lustful acts (porn sites and the like.)
As for social norms, it’s up to us to set the social norms. By removing media we find objectionable, we create an underground of temptation by those who have not learned the downside of sin. By teaching people to avoid said media, the media goes away or is just straight ineffective. It’s not that the media exists is the problem, but men have forgotten about how to avoid the temptation of sin.
Go watch his video again. He was completely separating the temptation of lust from environmental factors, putting all blame on the men who fall to lust. He is only half right. We are responsible for our own actions, but his argument rests on the false premise that we're not part of a collective, a group, and that we have no responsibility for other members of our group. That is an antithetical viewpoint to the "love thy neighbor" commandment of Jesus.
Why do you think so much media is intentionally designed to draw the male gaze? Even people who aren't intentionally designing their art, media, or entertainment to drive men to lust, still know the nature of men, that "sex sells", and it's aimed almost universally at men, to put sexually attractive women in their products, to sell the sex appeal, purely to drive engagement from men. That is intentionally designed lustful temptation.
However, most art, media, and entertainment made nowadays is specifically designed to be destructive. It's designed to tempt men into falling into lust, to weaken and control men, which is the exact same intent and design for why porn is so widely available in the West, or anywhere globohomo wishes to subvert.
I agree with this. If we truly love our neighbors, we'll shape a society, an environment, which is conducive to healthy living, so that our neighbors aren't tempted and fall into sin.
Again, I disagree with this statement. You and Shad are intentionally ignoring the environmental factors at play. Men becoming addicted to porn directly correlates with its widespread availability. Drug use is directly tied to the availability of drugs. Alcohol use is directly tied to the availability of alcohol. Smoking is directly tied to the availability of cigarettes. And, the usage of those things is also tied to how society treats them, if they're pushed or not, accepted or not.
We're in the downward slide from the peak of civilization in the West. This is the period where people eschew the responsibilities, lessons, laws, and traditions of their ancestors, who conquered, built, and maintained civilization. Instead of these burdens, people increasingly shirk them in favor of increasing comforts, pleasure, and hedonism, a never ending pursuit of a new dopamine high that only results in a death spiral for the individual and society. This is abundantly clear everywhere throughout society, at every level. This is the time where we should be the most restrictive of what temptations people are exposed to, in an effort to deny or delay the slide of civilization toward collapse, if that can be achieved at all. This all rests, however, on the premise that our civilization deserves to be saved, and that we love our neighbors.
I know this is a difficult concept to grok in the oversexualized society we Westerners all grew up in, but it is possible to appreciate beauty, purely for the aesthetic value, without lusting for it. Unfortunately, a generation of coomers struggles to look at even classical sculptures without thinking "muh dik", so will trip all over themselves for coomerbait games.
Oh, I absolutely agree. I've posted long form comments for why banning porn is good, and for why porn isn't speech, which explained my position further. Art can show nudity but still be constructive and beautiful. It's the intention behind the art that matters, and how well it's conveyed in the art. Art, media, and entertainment being made now is intentionally being made to be destructive, to be ugly, to drive men to lustful temptation.
I hope we can return to a time where that's not the case, and soon. That will require a correction of a great many things, which can only occur through one path, but I've written about that numerous times. No need to go through it here.