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:
Shad had a good counter video on both sides (and a Mormon side.)
Pornography in the Bible is deemed what is acceptable in society mixed with what the person looking has in their heart and wedlock. If someone lusts for another in their heart and out of wedlock, it is sin. If someone can admire beauty without wanting to bed the figure, it is fine (within reason, obviously.)
The major issue is the “Christians” pushing their own version as the true belief. That is never true and there is always nuances in society that will counter someone else belief.
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.
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.