|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Why do you think about porn and wearing.... |
| 51-68 of 68 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 10-23-08 06:32am - 5904 days | #51 | |
|
asmith12 (0)
Active User Posts: 79 Registered: Oct 17, '07 |
Ok, you've asked for it :-). Let's start with terminology. Here go several different definitions of religion which HUGE groups of people consider as more or less authoritative: 1. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx, Preface to: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 2. "Religion, broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God. It exists in its highest perfection in heaven, where the angels and saints love, praise, and adore God, and live in absolute conformity to His holy will. It does not exist at all in hell, where the subordination of rational creatures to their Creator is one not of free will, but of physical necessity. On earth it is practically coextensive with the human race, though, where it has not been elevated to the supernatural plane through Divine revelation, it labours under serious defects." - from "Catholic Encyclopedia" 3. about.com: they mention that "Some argue that religion doesn't really exist -- there is only culture.", but then give several different definitions, including the following: " * Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings). * A distinction between sacred and profane objects. * Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. * A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis. * Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual. * Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural. * A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. * A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. * A social group bound together by the above. " So now we have FOUR definitions (including Merriam-Webster one) which are obviously quite different (anyone wants to argue?). Moreover, as I have said, each of them has LOTS of followers. I think it perfectly illustrates my point that there is NO ONE SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE DEFINITION of religion (as well as any other not so trivial definition, BTW, but this is beyond the scope now). But that's not all. The same thing illustrates another my point - that as there is NO ONE SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE DEFINITION, and most of people still have some definition in their minds, it is THEIR choice of definition, ergo it is not completely external, but has elements of internal choice (unless the world is considered completely deterministic); and as definitions are THAT different (compare Karl Marx with Catholic Encyclopedia), this choice is not a nominal one, but is an ESSENTIAL one. So, my logic is the following: 1. Here go 4 examples of defining "religion"; they are substantially different. 2. Each of them is more or less accepted by rather wide population. 3. (1)+(2) means that there is no one single universally accepted definition; 4. most people have some definition of "religion" in their minds 5. (3)+(4) means that they at least have made their choice between available definitions (unless devised their own) 6. as the difference between definitions is substantial (1), it means that this choice makes difference in understanding of word "religion". 7. if we assume that the world is not completely deterministic (which is the thing modern science, most of modern philosophies and most of modern religions surprisingly agree - see for example "free will" in Christianity and "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" in science), (6) means that this choice involves "something" which is not entirely determined by external input, including historical one. At this point I didn't include further arguments about multitude of choices (which is obviously MUCH wider than these 4 examples), or about inevitability of differences due to interpretations of such vague definitions. I didn't include these (and other) arguments just because at this point I don't feel I need them, but I reserve the right to invoke them if necessary :-). So, guys, let's first try to discuss this fairly simple reasoning; if you will find a logical flaw in it - let's discuss, if not - let's accept it as a working hypothesis and go on from here. Motto: "All niches except for boring one!" | |
|
||
| 10-23-08 06:40am - 5904 days | #52 | |
|
asmith12 (0)
Active User Posts: 79 Registered: Oct 17, '07 |
Both :-). That was my point starting from the moment when I've mentioned difference between "belief" and "religion"; now you name it "faith" and "church", but it is still the same thing under different names (maybe I wasn't clear enough, but this is what I've meant). Please see also my LOOONG post in this thread on terminology and reasoning behind "no single authoritative definition", which IMHO implies "free will" in choosing "internal" definition, making it a bit more than just superposition of external inputs. Motto: "All niches except for boring one!" Edited on Oct 23, 2008, 06:45am | |
|
||
| 10-23-08 11:49am - 5904 days | #53 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Hmm, Heres how reality is on this subject, books and research are always subjective just like this post. The simple reality is just as simple as are these three. Science is not based on fact either, its based on known facts not all total facts. So why I think its awsome we all looked up definitions, they are not what day to day is reality. At its basic form, its what yesterdays definition was and that in its self is subjective as well as the following. 1. Religion: is one specific view of and individual of a higher power, nothing else needs adding. Thats the base line what it is and all else grows from there. 2. Being Religious: is how you feel you are spiritaully connected to your high power. Thats all there is and it grow from there. 3. Higher Power: Any one entity, or thing that you may seek to accomplish one two and or three or any combination of these. Thats the bottom line and related to this post these actors can relate to any or all as they see the desire or need to do so. There is no right or wrong, just a subjective view of the wearer. Cybertoad Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 10-23-08 01:23pm - 5904 days | #54 | |
|
asmith12 (0)
Active User Posts: 79 Registered: Oct 17, '07 |
Exactly my point. Motto: "All niches except for boring one!" | |
|
||
| 10-23-08 02:50pm - 5904 days | #55 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 11:18am | |
|
||
| 10-23-08 03:43pm - 5904 days | #56 | |||
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Now that I will agree with - at no point did I say Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary was the single authoritative source for a definition, just an authoritative source as regarded by the population at large. If we reference your previous remark toward calling it this (Merriam-Webster as an "authoritative source", especially on religious or philosophical issues? Gimme a break.) it seems you are simply stating that Merriam Webster shouldn't be considered an authoritative source, in this regard I think you can see why I disagreed. I was using one specific definition as not a sole definition but to illustrate that I was not confused that a difference exists between religion and belief. As it turns out, the root of the confusion is because I replied to this statement: "Why everybody (even porn users) implies that adult models cannot honestly believe in something?" When I replied I will admit I wasn't as precise as I could have been and instead of saying "religious belief" I simply said "belief" a number of times. In retrospect I can see how this brought you to the conclusion that I had the concepts jumbled up. Keeping track of what every post is in reference to and the delayed times between posting can confuse arguments. These posts are a series of letters, but the writers (myself included) often forget that whatever post they are replying to might not be as fresh in the minds of their reader as it is in their own mind at the time of writing. So, I hope that original confusion is thoroughly clarified. Back to our current tangent, I do agree there are many authoritative and widely accept definitions. In fact the first time that I referred to Merriam Webster as "an authoritative source" I said directly prior to that "There may be many definitions of 'belief' ". It may be noted that the definition in question was "belief" not "religion", but again many definitions are abound. The Webster's Unabridged that I happen to have here list 6 definitions plus a little paragraph on synonyms for the word.
As Wittyguy rather succinctly and I rather elaborately explained before - I do not think that belief is "completely external" I was simply stating that the catalyst that spurns the creation of the belief is at least in part, always external. A substantial part of the catalyst could be internal like in the case of a hallucination or in the manner suggested in the oft referenced "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. (For those that haven't run across this book, simply put he suggests that early humans had a stronger connection between the right and left side of the brain, causing people to frequently experience Command Hallucinations that was interpreted as the voice of a god. This seems a plausible explanation for why in the past strange acts were considered reasonably explained when a person said "This god told me to do it.". It was easy to accept since most people had heard from a god at one time or another.) Of course, the latter would only explain old beliefs that have now been passed down, from generation to generation. I think it is an interesting concept so I thought I'd mention it. Anyway, I do not think the world is completely deterministic and I'm beginning to think that we may be arguing for the same side with neither of us having adequately explained our position to the other.
You reasoning seems sound enough, I'd have to brush up on my logic again to make sure it is 100% valid logic, but I don't see any glaring errors. Again, your post here seems to be pushing the idea that beliefs aren't created by entirely external elements - which I agree with. The origin of a belief, the components that made it what its, generally are external, but the way it was assembled and of course that occasional spark of internal stimulation, that is what makes the final product. Beliefs, ideas and thoughts can often be examples of the sum of the parts being less than the whole. So, with enough deliberation, I think it has been shown that we were largely saying the same thing. That said, I'm not sure I entirely understand your connection between Christianity's "free will" and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The concept of "free will" in a universe under the thumb of an omniscient god always seemed rather puzzling to me. It begs the question: Is it seen as a difference to an observant being if the observed must do the action or chooses the action that the observing being already knows the observed will do? I suppose for an omniscient god, observing us would be like rereading an old book. Still if something, anything, knows the final outcome - how is it different from determinism? As for the Uncertainty Principle, that simply states that in quantum physics, the more precisely you know the value of one of a pair of certain conjugate variables, the less precisely you know the value of the other half of the pair. The principle relates to the concept of particles as waves and waves as particles - the difficulty of the concepts to be described and understood largely explains why quantum physics had so much trouble being accepted by the scientific community. Amusingly, the oft referenced "Schrödinger's cat" was originally devised to illustrate the absurdity superposition in quantum mechanics. The Uncertainty Principle is certainly an interesting chapter in quantum physics, but I'm not quite sure I see it as exactly a validation that science doesn't support determinism - the interesting thing is the quantumly determinism might be valid in the sense that a determinist might say that when you roll that die, due to preceding events it will land on 6. Quantum physics would show that yes, it did land on 6 - it also landed on 1 and on 2 and so on as all outcomes have occured. We just happen to be observing only one of the outcomes. Still, I would say I believe the world not to be deterministic. Not that it would change anything if it were, I just like to imagine that if any higher beings exist, we can keep them on their toes. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |||
|
||||
| 10-23-08 03:45pm - 5904 days | #57 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
Of course that is unless one of the religions is correct. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 10-24-08 12:13am - 5903 days | #58 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
LOL Ya no kidding ! Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 10-24-08 09:28am - 5903 days | #59 | |
|
exotics4me (0)
Active User  Posts: 664 Registered: Jan 12, '07 Location: USA |
Interesting topic, I'm not much of one to ask about certain religions, but I have studied Philosophy a great deal. I usually do see myself as Christian, but also had a Buddhist grandfather. Though most people would argue that Buddhism is more of a Philosophy than religion. The biggest reason that I noticed this though is that I just was looking at a picture set and the model had a cross on, a huge cross at that. I'm going to take a few stabs at it, if these have been mentioned, sorry, just dropping by and didn't have time to read all of the replies. The first thought I had, gut instinct said, "It is to present the model as a good girl next door gone bad". Remember the surge of barely legal sites a few years ago that had the models all with pigtails and brightly colored cotton panties? Similar to that, except today, the most popular form of porn, as far as I can see is amateur, girl next door porn. So, I think the cross gives off that image, maybe even gives a feeling of "She might be a virgin" since Christianity believes in no sex until marriage. Keeping in mind that I am saying that as the things that came to my mind, so I would think other men have these same thoughts when seeing a cross on a model, if not, I really am screwed up in the head! The other one that would be more logical is that many "new" Christians that I know are much more open-minded. I just had a patient last week that quoted the Bible scripture from Genesis about Adam and Eve being naked, but not ashamed. So, maybe they are really religious and just wear the cross to show that. Outside of that, I can't thing of any other reasons. I do know that I thought the set I looked at was a little tacky with a huge black cross on. My first time I jacked off, I thought I'd invented it. I looked down at my sloppy handful of junk and thought, This is going to make me rich. - Chuck Palahniuk | |
|
||
| 10-28-08 05:39pm - 5899 days | #60 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 11:19am | |
|
||
| 11-25-08 03:34am - 5871 days | #62 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
Kahn, I think this one is for you to delete. | |
|
||
| 11-25-08 10:46am - 5871 days | #63 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Yes, the spam was deleted. All three copies. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 11-25-08 03:13pm - 5871 days | #64 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 11:19am | |
|
||
| 11-25-08 07:26pm - 5871 days | #65 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
This forum isn't about me so I usually try to keep out of the discussions. Yes, I could raise questions about us judging those performing in porn based on their choice in jewelry or go on about the values (or sometimes lack thereof) of the Judeo/Christian "followers" and how they change with the weather ... but no, that's not really right for now. Best I just keep the place swept up and let you guys sort out the important stuff. ;) Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson Edited on Nov 26, 2008, 04:32am (Khan: typo) | |
|
||
| 11-25-08 11:10pm - 5870 days | #66 | |
|
IKnoPorn (0)
Active User  Posts: 61 Registered: Jan 15, '07 Location: Los Angeles, CA |
Wow! There are obviously some really smart people here, I couldn't even begin to adequately converse at the Master's Thesis level of Religious Studies going on here... So, I'll get back to Cybertoad's original question, about crosses and porn. The hottest sex I've ever had was from a Roman Catholic girl who thought that sex was evil and her cramping periods were due to God punishing her for having sex. But sure enough, each month we were back at it, she even started saying that when we did have sex, it made her periods less painful. This confused her, but that only seemed to make the sex hotter. One thing she did wear was a little gold cross. She never took it off. So, due to our past relations, whenever I see a woman wearing a cross, I remember my past girlfriend and smile a big smile ;0))) So I think crosses are a turn on for this reason. Maybe the director(s) of the movies Cybertoad has seen had a similar (or the SAME LOL) girl as I used to have! Maybe it's as simple as that! Before I risk insulting anyone Catholic, please understand this is just my opinion, and recollection of fond memories. I'm not Catholic, or even Christian, I just see the cross as a symbol of a past relationship, that still seems exciting even many years later. Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. - Batman | |
|
||
| 11-26-08 09:23am - 5870 days | #67 | |
|
IKnoPorn (0)
Active User Posts: 61 Registered: Jan 15, '07 Location: Los Angeles, CA |
A bit odd to reply to my own post, but I thought a clarification was needed: The sex was _between_ her periods, not during them! Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. - Batman | |
|
||
| 11-26-08 06:42pm - 5870 days | #68 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I think that was a wise decision because I think you would have distracted the rest of the class with all the heavy breathing and screaming...Ha..Ha..Ha. Sorry couldn't help myself. I'm not too surprise about what you say the sex being pretty intense between you and your ex-girlfriend. There are quite a few current and past pornstars with a strict Religious background. I don't know if it's all that pent up sexual energy that makes them seek pornagraphy? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-26-08 07:27pm - 5870 days | #69 | ||
|
IKnoPorn (0)
Active User Posts: 61 Registered: Jan 15, '07 Location: Los Angeles, CA |
LOL (almost!) at your pun, corny as it sounds. I didn't even consider how silly I sounded. I may have touched upon a new "niche" with that comment, I wonder if "period sex" is popular? Not that I've ever looked for it, I'm sure it's out there, I'm just afraid at what I might find...
My ex-girlfriend had a special code system which she would mark in her calendar each time we had sex, and each time she had her period. She would elaborately color each entry, but used the code words in case her friends/parents found her calendar. Such elaborate deception to hide the plain fact that she simply LOVED it. Interestingly enough, the main reason we broke up was because I didn't have the "stamina" she needed to be truly satisfied. I'm no Casanova, but I'm not Premature Charlie either. She always had an extremely promiscuous side that simply could not be tamed. Her Religion told her (or at least she thought it told her) that sex was bad. And because of that, she had a hole stigma about it. And she never took off that cross, although it did get "tussled" around a bit ;-) You have a good point. People go to great lengths to satisfy themselves, and are willing to rationalize other parts of their life that might be in conflict with it. And when they have extremely strong desires that they cannot express in their daily life, then self-invented strategies will surely come about. Perhaps that means going into the pornography business, or perhaps it manifests itself as a fetish or out of the ordinary impulse. Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb. - Batman | ||
|
|||
| 51-68 of 68 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | Page 2 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
