Originally posted by kirksey957If God is a woman (especially the naked variety) then from God.
Along the lines of another thread on alcoholism: sin or disease, I will open up this thread and we will see what happens. To the theists on the site, I pose the question to you: "Do feelings of arousal (notice I did not use the term lust) come from God or the Devil?"
If God is a man then from bodily function.
😛
Originally posted by kirksey957Well,
Say some more.
Every boner I ever got is related to a naked or imagined to be naked woman.
Nuff said.
Expansion in <edit>
Ok. So if god is a man, I don't get aroused thinking of "him".
Must be a woman.
Or.
Ok.
If it is just a bodily function and God is a man, he has a strange sense of humor. Or he is as lustful as I am. Because he made me to be just like he is.
Originally posted by kirksey957This is an excellent question, well worth some examination.
Along the lines of another thread on alcoholism: sin or disease, I will open up this thread and we will see what happens. To the theists on the site, I pose the question to you: "Do feelings of arousal (notice I did not use the term lust) come from God or the Devil?"
Consider the arousal effect between two different persons seeing
a pornographic image. One person becomes aroused, another disgusted.
Since two different results were observed, is this enough to conclude
that the arousal was due to the aroused person's mindset, and not
from the stimulus? If so, it seems that the person is responsible for
his own arousal, for he should takes steps to alter his own mindset
toward such images if he believes arousal to be ungodly. And if arousal is ungodly, then I suppose it could be argued that that person has sinned by becoming aroused without taking steps to prevent it.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo... this is really deep.
This is an excellent question, well worth some examination.
Consider the arousal effect between two different persons seeing
a pornographic image. One person becomes aroused, another disgusted.
Since two different results we ...[text shortened]... d by becoming aroused without taking steps to prevent it.
Dr. S
You are saying that "A pervert is his own creation"?
Another old question I just made up.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S,
This is an excellent question, well worth some examination.
Consider the arousal effect between two different persons seeing
a pornographic image. One person becomes aroused, another disgusted.
Since two different results were observed, is this enough to conclude
that the arousal was due to the aroused person's mindset, and not
from the st ...[text shortened]... ued that that person has sinned by becoming aroused without taking steps to prevent it.
Dr. S
Only you can take the subject of arousal and put it such a clinical sense that every man would go soft 🙂
Just kidding....
procreation is a fundamental aspect of the human race, arousal is a necessary part of that, a biological function in other words.
Now lets say I believed in god with enough conviction, would I see arousal as a sin? Well, I guess taht depends on what the circumstances of that arousal were. If I was aroused by my wife (not that I'm married *shudder*) in the comfort of our own home, then I believe it would be fair to say that I was not sinning. Let's not forget that the church frowns on the use of contraception, so an entirely non sexual standpoint is somewhat difficult. But if I was aroused by small children in a playground, then my arousal would be a sin, so aspect is also important. Marriage was designed to act as a shield within which procreation can take place without fear of offending go and afterall, god needs more followers.
I guess whether I believe in god and/or sin or not, there are some things which are definitely wrong and others which are not. Perhaps religion merely narrows those perimeters.
Originally posted by StarrmanJust a clarification.
Let's not forget that the church frowns on the use of contraception, so an entirely non sexual standpoint is somewhat difficult.
I do not believe that all denominations frown upon it; the only
mainstream church to have taken an active stance on it is the
Roman Catholic Church, to my knowledge.
Nemesio
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think it's a question of definition.
Without arousal how can you resist temptation? (or not resist as the case may be)
You could consider the pornographic image to be the temptation, and thus arousal would be failure to resist that temptation.
Or, as you say, arousal could be a prerequisite for being faced with real sexual tempation, and also evidence that you have thus far refrained from fully succumbing (I hope that word is allowed now) to temptation, since to succumb to the temptation would result in a disappearance of the arousal.