Perhaps you are attempting to apply a reductio to what I've been saying here, but I don't think it works. My point is that you *can* control your feelings and desires. The fact that there are innocuous things about which our feelings and desires rarely get out of control doesn't have any bearing on whether you can control what you feel. The fact that there are things you can want that are perfectly legitimate to want doesn't mean you can't control what you feel.
I'm sorry that you think so. I don't happen to think that his comments merited better than what he was dishing out. I'll grant that the diet thing isn't the world's greatest example (although the fact that so many Americans are overweight says *something* about their failure to control their feelings;-), but it doesn't change the fact that he was spewing vitriolic nonsense.
If you patiently wait, despite wanting something, you still want it, you just don't act on those desires.
If you patiently answer your young child's question of "Why?" for the 10,000th time without getting angry or frustrated, you have controlled your feelings. For some folks, that's easier than for others. In virtually all cases, it only takes practice. I used to have a ferocious temper. Then I learned to control it. Now things that used to make me angry...don't. That's controlling your feelings. It can be done. It's silly to say otherwise. The problem isn't that we "can't" control our feelings; the problem is that we claim that we can't, and everyone tells us we "can't". That gives us plenty of excuses to act out in the heat of the moment, and then to say "well, I couldn't help myself" or to try and blame it on someone or something else: "Johnny made me do it!" That's demonstrably false. The fact is that in such cases, we don't even try to control ourselves.
This, of course, is balderdash, and you know it is.
It might sound nice, but if you accept what someone tells you, without making some attempt to verify it, it's faith.
And this is precisely why the previous sentence of yours is nonsense. As I said earlier in this thread (possibly not to you): unless you personally verify literally every statement made by anyone prior to accepting it, you are acting on faith: you are trusting that a given source is reputable and reliable, and that as a consequence you do not feel obligated to verify literally everything that they say. And there is nothing whatsoever that is intellectually dishonest about this. You have to do it in order to live with people. You have to do it in order to learn anything about history. This is not blind faith, and neither is the Christian's faith in the reliability of the Bible (although a blind faith in the Bible is better than no faith in the Bible at all, if you're forced to choose;-)
There are examples from Victorian England where people were thought to be dead and even burried, because their heartbeats were too weak to be felt.
That's a much simpler explanation and it would make sense to only advance to the "it must be a miracle" explanations when you knew it wasn't something simpler.
It's a simpler explanation, and a false one.;-) It's false because a) it doesn't address the facts that 1) he predicted his resurrection beforehand - including that it would happen on the third day; 2) it doesn't address the fact that his body was laid in a tomb with a large stone rolled against the only entry and guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers...so how does he get out if no miracle occurred? 3) it doesn't address the fact that an earthquake "conveniently" happened on the predicted day to roll the stone away - and it doesn't address the fact that the soldiers saw an angel that so terrified them that they fell down and wouldn't get up; 4) it doesn't address the fact that if he was just a man having a near-death experience, the Romans and the Jewish authorities could have just rounded him up again and executed him again; 5) it doesn't explain the fact that the first women to the tomb on resurrection Sunday saw and heard an angel proclaiming that Christ was risen; 6) it doesn't explain the fact that the risen Christ appeared in the middle of a meeting of his followers, in a closed room, not once, but twice, right out of thin air; 7) lastly (for now) it doesn't address the fact that he ascended into heaven right in front of his followers.
In short, your "explanation" doesn't explain anything at all.
Why is "in wedlock" special. Why is lust good at one time and not at another?
I've already told you why I say so. That's what started this thread. What I've been interested in right now is why you think it's not even a valid concept for discussion as a principle for ordering society. Frankly, the vast bulk of human history is on my side (at least with respect to marriage); you as the innovator (and as the one who hasn't explained himself - yet) seem to me to be the one who owes the rest of us a justification of his views.;-)
Ditto with theft. Why is theft by some people allowed, and theft by me not? If theft is bad, nobody should do it.
All right, I'll tell you what I think. First, God owns everything by virtue of the fact that he created everything. Thus private property is legimitate. Secondly, the fact that God owns everything means that our "ownership" of anything is not absolute; in fact, it's a stewardship, and we have to manage "our" stuff according the rules of the one who *really* owns it and who has "given" it to us for our use. Thirdly, the rules are that no one has the right to take our stuff from us unless we or God give them permission. In the case of taxes, it is God who gives them permission (Romans 13). Other than that: it's theft.
See, the fact that you ask this question demonstrates the extent to which you have unquestioningly accepted reason as your final authority. The terse answer is: the Bible. This is what you anticipated, of course, in continuing thus:
If I just accept what I'm told, how do I choose what is right?
To ask the question is to answer it;-) But seriously: you are mistaken if you think that acknowledging the Bible rather than reason as the ultimate authority means that you have to turn your brain off. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that when there are things that you don't understand, it's not a crisis. It means that when there are things that no human being can ever understand, it's not a crisis. Because God understands it, and you can rely upon the facts that he presents even when you don't understand them.
Here's two examples of what I mean. Some folks have foolishly suggested that 1 Kings 7:23 tries to make the value of pi equal to 3, because it says that this particular object was 10 cubits in diameter, and 30 cubits in circumference. Except these same critics never bother to look at verse 26 of the same chapter, where it says that this same object was a handbreadth thick. As it turns out, you can do the math and discover that the diameter was measured to the outside edge, and the circumference was measured on the inside edge: in other words, the critics never allowed for the possibility of a 8" difference (or so; that's one handbreadth on either side) in the thickness of the object! This is a case where we can use our brains and figure out exactly what was going on, and see that there's nothing wrong with Bible geometry.
On the other hand, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, to my small brain this is pretty incomprehensible stuff. But even though I can't understand some things, it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they are true. This, really, isn't all that hard to imagine, is it? God is, after all, omniscient. So why wouldn't I expect that he would understand some things that I can't?
Surely the whole bible isn't poetry and allegory.
Correct. I didn't say that it was. I said that it's poetry and history and law and correspondence, etc.
Surely when Jesus walked on water it's supposed to mean that he walked, on water, and didn't sink. Is that too much to expect? Can't I expect part of an account of the acts of the son of god to include any literal passages?
Of course! But that's not what you were saying before, you know. You said that you expected the entire thing to be "word for word".
You haven't shown me that my tests are flawed
I can't tell you whether or not they are flawed if you don't tell me what they are;-) I may be mistaken - this has been a long discussion - but I think that you left that out.
And what else would you suggest? Blind faith in the bible.
No: eyes-open faith in the Bible. Like I've said: acknowledging the authority of the Bible doesn't mean that you shut off your brain. It means admitting the fact that there are limits upon yourself and upon all men: that there are things that are true about creation that we will never understand, but which we know nevertheless to be true.
My point is that the apostles didn't witness Jesus being the son of god, they witnessed him *claim* to be the son of god. They aren't eyewitnesses, they're second-hand story tellers.
Ah. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. But I'm afraid that this doesn't really help matters. Not only did they witness him claim to be the Son of God - but they witnessed him perform miracles. They witnessed the fact that he was dead - a fact confirmed by the Romans. They witnessed the fact that he rose from the dead. I think that this is more than sufficient corroborating evidence to support the claim. Your average dime store kook can't do this. Sun Myung Moon calls himself "Christ", but I think we both know
How do you get from the idea that man is not the perfect end product of the universe, to the idea that the bible must be?
I don't. My point was that for the rationalist or empiricist or atheist, man is the measure of all things; for the Christian, the Bible is the measure of all things. More specifically, my point is that the rationalist and empiricist, etc. are wrong, because a) their system is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and that in contrast the Bible is true.
You are presuming something here about my beliefs. I do not believe I, or man, are the ultimate being.
Well, yes, I'm guessing at what you likely believe, as a man of the 21st century West who is not a Christian. But what I was guessing is not that you think of yourself of of man as "the ultimate being". Rather, I said that for the rationalist, etc (and presumably you), reason is the highest authority.
If you expect the book to provide firm answers to important questions and be above reproach, then yes, I expect that the book should be interpreted word-for-word (the original if not mistaken translations). If you're reading a book of loose suggestions by someone widely held to be wise, but not divine, this restriction of course wouldn't apply because you're not being asked to accept something without question.
But what if your expectations are incorrect? I mean, why does it have to be "word-for-word"? For starters, the Bible is not scientific literature. It consists of other forms of literature: poetry, and letters, and law, and history, and so forth. Wouldn't you agree that it's pretty silly to suggest that we apply the rigors of "word-for-word" interpretation to a poem? Or how about to a book like Genesis, which has these massive chiastic structures in it? How can we not take such things into account when interpreting the Bible?
And of course, we can. The fact that we must exercise caution when we approach the interpretation of the Bible is already given, since we normally approach it via translations. But the fact that we exercise caution in understanding it doesn't mean that the truth isn't there. It is.
Thus, I suggest that you have unreasonable expectations of the Bible, because you seem to have certain preconceived notions of how divinely-given literature ought to look and of how it ought to be interpreted: preconceived notions that do not bear any resemblance to the Bible (and that are mistaken).
If someone tells me a theory and I prove it is at odds with the facts in a simple test I don't need to go to greater lengths to prove that the theory is incorrect.
You said this to defend your unwillingness to pursue further advanced research into the Bible. It appears to me, however, that because of your false preconceived notions about the nature of divine revelation and the Bible, your "simple test" in this case is giving you faulty results. Perhaps you should reconsider;-)
What evidence is there for your god, other than a book written by a guy claiming to be your god? Why is believing, without proof, a logical thing?
The evidence is all around you. The evidence (well, part of it) *is* you, and everyone else. The evidence is that the world conforms to the description of it in the Bible.
I suppose you deny these facts, but why?
All evidence is interpreted. All of it. There is no such thing as uninterpreted evidence. So the question isn't whether there is evidence for one or the other; the question should be whether one of them makes better sense of the evidence. I affirm that the Bible does, and that man's efforts at explaining things for himself apart from God fall hideously and tragically short because they are hopelessly self-contradictory.
They tell me to question what I'm told, even by them. They tell me to examine evidence and test what I can. They tell me to be wary of untestable claims.
They tell you, in other words, to make reason the measure of all things. They never tell you to qu
With respect to circular arguments and arguments from authority:
First off, at bottom everyone's arguments are circular. The rationalist or empiricist or atheist assumes from the outset that man is the measure of all things. This assumption is never questioned or challenged by them: its authority is simply assumed. Human reason is the highest authority for them, and its authority is supreme to them. I (and all consistent Christians) dispute that. The highest authority is not human reason. It is the Bible.
If you're using the bible as a basis for your belief, and not just philosophical musings such as the teachings of Buddha or something, you should expect perfection.
Wait a minute. You don't consider yourself a Christian, but you're going to tell me what my standards should be? Tell me, do you have this same standard of perfection for yourself?
But - so I don't seem to be ignoring you - what do you mean by "perfection"? Do you mean perfection in translation? Of course this is impossible. No human language can be perfectly translated into another; that's the first issue. Secondly, translations are done by imperfect people. There are no perfect translations. The KJV wasn't perfect in its day, and it's obviously less perfect now, given almost 400 years of change in the English language. There are no perfect modern translations, either. But the manuscripts that we have in the original languages are entirely reliable as to the contents of the autographs.
if you follow the letter of KJV you must accept that there were unicorns.
This is perhaps not entirely your fault, but you have a flawed idea of the Christian view of Bibles. There are, admittedly, some whacked out loonies who claim (on the basis of zero evidence) that the KJV is divinely inspired in the exact same way that the original documents were. This is hopeless nonsense. The orthodox Christian acknowledges that a given Bible translation is flawed. When he comes across something like this unicorn stuff in the KJV, he starts looking at the Greek or Hebrew (or asking questions of those who do know the Greek and Hebrew) to find out what it says. The fact that the KJV is flawed with respect to "unicorns" has nothing to do with whether it accurately translates what Jesus said about lust being ethically the same as committing adultery (and it *does* accurately translate that, and most stuff).
Further, people with a lot more authority than some nut on Slashdot (either or both of us, depending on your view) have said that the early translators of the bible mistook the Hebrew word for "Young Woman" for "Virgin". In other words, one of the key miracles of christianity was a typo. (And of course, the entire basis of the catholic church - but they're even loopier than most.)
This allegation is a lot older than you think. I was reading Justin Martyr (early 2nd century)'s "Dialogue With Trypho" just last week, and in it he addresses the Jewish claim that "young woman" is meant where Christians have said "virgin".
Unfortunately, the claim is baseless. In the first place, the Hebrew word in Is. 7:14 that's in dispute may legitimately mean either "virgin" or "young woman". In the second place, the correct understanding of it is manifestly demonstrated by the New Testament, where it is indisputably clear that Mary conceived without having had sex - because God caused her to do so. Thus, the fact that she was a virgin is indisputable from the New Testament, and it turns out that this fact sufficiently clarifies *which* sense of the Hebrew word is in view in Is. 7:14.
In summary: this is an ancient excuse that has been handled over and over and over in the history of the church. It doesn't hold water. One of the key miracles of history is and always has been the same: a miracle.
Some parts were, some weren't. Once again, I've read opinions both ways, but the people who seemed most careful and accurate were the ones arguing that the NT is a collection of works, some of which weren't completed for a
This is utter and complete malarkey. In fact, it's so thoroughly preposterous that I can't decide whether you trolling. You probably are.
If you can't control what you think, then you're incapable of rational, coherent thought. Period. Now, since that's so silly as to be idiotic, I don't really think that's what you meant (although that's what you said). I suppose that what you meant by "think" was "feel" - even though that's redundant on your part. So we'll focus on that.
And here again: you're wrong. You can and do control what you feel. Do you ever exercise patience? If so, then you have...controlled yourself (gasp!) Do you ever diet? Then you have...controlled yourself, and your feelings of hunger.
And I certainly won't accept some other self-righteous prick^H^H^H^H^H individual telling me that I should feel guilty for my thoughts. Or worse still, that they make me evil! What you can control is what you do and how you treat the people around you. If everyone in the world stopped telling other people what they should or should not be thinking and concentrated on just treating everyone decently, then it would be a much better place.
This is laughable! By your "reasoning", you've already failed since you're not exactly treating *me* decently! (Not that I'm offended...;-) And your thoughts don't make you evil: the fact is, you (and everyone) are evil by nature. People aren't generally good. People are generally evil. They need to stop being evil, and that starts with what they think and feel.
trying to suppress "evil" thoughts and feelings is just a bad idea. When thoughts and feelings come to you, you can't really help it. It is much healthier to accept them, not feel guilty or bad, not beat yourself up, and accept them for what they are: just thoughts and feelings. Repression just leads to bad things.So, was Jeffrey Dahmer right or wrong? He didn't "repress" anything, did he?
You'd be a lot better off admitting the fact that what we do springs out of our hearts and minds. If our hearts and minds are full of evil, it's going to find expression in what we do. It's inevitable. Otherwise, why do people do bad things? Hmm?
The fact that you describe your response as the "only possible reasonable answer" indicates that you are prosyletizing.
LOL!
It does not! The worst you could say about me based upon that -- maybe, if you're really inclined to be uncharitable, given the fact that it was a single sentence of 8 words - is that I'm extremely confident about what I'm saying. That's not proselytizing!
Your circular reasoning is, um, a little... circular.
That's not a circular argument! A circular argument is more like: "The Bible is the Word of God because it says that it's the Word of God." To say "Lust is bad because Jesus says it is" is an argument from authority. But, since the rest of your paragraph here is actually addressing an argument from authority rather than a circular argument (as far as I can tell...see below), we'll just note the fact and go on.
All you've got is a book written over a period of a few hundred years after his death
False. Profoundly false. Did you know that buried in the Talmud is a story written by Rabbi Gamaliel that is an obvious parody of the gospel of Matthew? And did you know that Gamaliel couldn't possibly have written it after 70 AD? And that in order for him to have written a parody, Matthew's book had to have been written before them? And that in order for a parody to be worthwhile, the thing parodied has to be fairly widely known? And that all this points to a date for the book of Matthew absolutely no later than 70, and more realistically at least 10 years before that? And that this means it certainly was written during Matthew's lifetime?
This is a single example, addressing the book I've been mainly quoting here, that more than adequately addresses the silly nonsense you've been hearing from leftist whacks about the dating (and authorship) of the New Testament. Try reading the early church fathers sometime, and you will see (as I have) that your assertion doesn't hold a drop of water.
with quotes taken out of context
Please entertain the good folks here at Slashdot by proving this charge. I haven't taken anything out of context, friend.
and badly translated
Have you ever studied Hebrew? How about Greek? I have. Trust me on this: it's not mistranslated. I did quote the KJV because that's what I have at hand, but a number of modern translations say essentially the same thing...because the KJV doesn't have the sense of it wrong.
and you're putting enough faith in it to think that make decisions about "lust" in every context.
There seems to be a word missing there towards the end, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'll guess, though. I'm guessing that you are challenging my premise that the passages I've quoted thus far are sufficient grounds for me to make the statement that sexual desire outside the bounds of marriage is sinful. If I'm correct in guessing at your point, then I have to ask you to prove your assertion that the texts that I've quoted are inadequate to make that statement (about sexual desire outside marriage). I think that in particular the Matthew 5 passage more than adequately establishes the case about lust being tantamount to committing the sin. If you disagree, please explain why.
The black and white comes from you thinking that one line in a book that's over a thousand years old, not even written by the guy in question, has absolute answers that you can directly apply to life in a world that's completely different than the one this messiah of yours lived in.
No offense, friend, but that's not normally what people mean when they say a man is a "black and white" thinker. Normally they mean that he sees everything in terms of right and wrong, and that he doesn't see many moral questions as being difficult. Really, what you seem to be accusing me of is more like relying on a standard of authority that is ancient (almost 2000 years for the most recent, up to 3500+ for parts).
I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, I absolutely affirm that the Bible has answers for life in 2003. One good example is the subject we're discussing here. So far you have failed to demonstrate that the answer I've given based on the Bible - "Pornography is evil because it is intended to stir up lust in its viewers, and lust is sinful" - is invalid. I think that this answer
I'll freely admit that my post didn't deserve the "Insightful" bit. There's nothing earth-shattering in that one sentence of 8 words. But "Flamebait"? Please. That's just as silly. If you don't know how to moderate it, then please just don't moderate it at all. Thanks!
If you apply rules from the bible in blanket fashion, then of course you won't see any gaps.
What does it mean to "apply rules from the Bible in blanket fashion"? I'm seriously not trolling. I don't know what you are intending by this. In particular, I am curious what it is about a post completely devoted to questions of sexual morality - and focusing primarily upon a single passage of the Bible - that leads you to start talking about "blanket application" of "rules" from the Bible. I have been talking about a single biblical principle: that lust is sin because it is tantamount to actually committing the sins of adultery or fornication.
Is there any practical reason why lust is bad?
Just for the sake of making sure we're all clear here about what we're talking about: In this discussion, when I use the word "lust" I am referring to illicit sexual desire: that is, sexual desire that is not focused upon one's lawful wife or husband. I don't want anyone getting the idiotic idea that I am hung up about sex in the proper context.
Now, with that out of the way, let's address your question. In the first place, if you're speaking of pragmatics, I submit that the pragmatics are irrelevant. We know that lust is bad because Jesus says it is. If you want her, then you have committed the deed already in your heart; you have already committed the sin of adultery (or fornication). We don't need any more reason than this to abhor it.
If you're asking about the real-world effects of it - then I say that it is bad because lust that is not resisted ends up in actually committing adultery or fornication. No one commits adultery without first lusting after his co-adulterer.
It's all about actions.
But that's not what God says. God says that what comes out of the heart defiles us (Matthew 15:18-20). The reason that people do bad things isn't because they were raised badly, or because they had a bad day, or because they were drunk or high, or because they were angry. The reason that people do bad things is because they have corrupt, wicked hearts. It's not all about actions. It's about corrupt, evil, sinful hearts. By the time it gets to the action stage, the game is over, so to speak.
If there's no temptation, there's no virtue in resisting temptation.
I think I speak for lots of men who would gladly say that they would be thrilled to not have to exercise the virtue of resisting temptation. That would leave us time to practice other virtues.;-) The point is: resisting temptation isn't the only source of virtue. The fellow who is tempted to jump in the mud puddle but doesn't is no cleaner than the fellow who was never tempted to jump in it at all, and the fellow who wasn't tempted was able to worry about other things instead.
in two generations there won't be more than a few religious people in the first-world countries.
Ha ha! We've heard that one before. A billion Christians in the rest of the world aren't too worried, and neither am I.
Especially with silly black and white attitudes like yours.
Yes, it's really "black and white" of me to think that there is right and wrong when it comes to sex, just as there's right and wrong about other things.
If a single person has sex with a married person, it is adultery, so that's covered. Sex between unmarrieds is fornication, and it is sin (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:9), so that's covered. If an unmarried person lusts after a porn star, he has either committed adultery (if the porn star is married) or fornication with the porn star in his heart.
How about women looking at male pornography
Yes, the same applies to women.
I assume gay porn is ruled out by some other part of the bible
The same principle is in play: it is created for the purpose of stirring up lust. If it's viewed for that purpose, then the viewer has sinned.
What if it's your wife in a porno?
Then she has sinned by creating it, if she created it for viewing by others (or if others besides yourself were involved in its creation).
A lot of people get pretty lusty about chicks in Catholic school girl outfits...are they evil?
Lusting after real live boys/men/girls/women/goats/toasters/whatever to whom you're not married is, yes, lust, and yes, it's therefore sinful. Lust predates pornography (obviously, since Jesus warned against lust).
I'd say Jesus needs a New and Improved Testament to fill in the gaps....
even if you claim that porn is a sin, does that make it evil?
Pornography is not "a sin". Creating pornography is sinful, and viewing it with the intention to either stir up lust or gratify it is sinful. The fact that pornography is created with the specific intent of stirring up lust is what makes pornography evil.
I thought the whole point of the christian church was forgiveness? To me, an act that is evil is one that cannot be forgiven, at the least.
This is inaccurate. An action is evil if it is sinful. A sinful action (or thought, or feeling, or word) is one that is done (thought/felt/spoken) that violates God's law. Any and every sinful action that we commit will be forgiven if we truly repent of it (repent: sincerely regret, and stop doing something) and trust in Christ for that forgiveness.
Even Hitler could have been forgiven. Even Stalin could have been forgiven. Even Hefner can be forgiven. Even autopr0n (the author) can be forgiven.;-)
You know, that's the exact sort of hair-splitting attitude that led to Jesus calling the Pharisees "blind guides", "hypocrites", and "whited sepulchres". The obvious point of Jesus's words is that it's not simply overt actions that count; it's what's going on in one's heart. You can commit adultery in your heart (by wanting to do so), and that's sin.
For the single person, this still applies. Sex outside of marriage is sin (see the 7th commandment, as well as prohibitions against fornication). For the single person to lust after a woman - whether she's married or not - is sin. So yes, it does apply to the single person.
I'm not the original poster, but I think I can answer the question.
But putting it into the catagory of actual 'evil' I just can't grasp.
Pornography is evil because it has a single purpose. That purpose is evil because Jesus says so: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Adultery is evil ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"); therefore lust is evil; therefore pornography - which is intended to stir up lust - is evil.
So you honestly equate it to the same level as, say, Hitler?Hardly. Murder is evil, and stealing is evil, but murder is obviously worse than theft. Hitler is obviously worse than Hefner, but that doesn't make Hefner a righteous dude.
Much of the world considers capital punishment to be barbaric.
Much of the world is therefore wrong about capital punishment.
And in this case, so are you - because even assuming that GameSpy was successful in getting the US government involved in attempts to extradite Auriemma, any so-called "crimes" that he supposedly committed are not subject to the death penalty.
Well forms of coercion can be very broad and exist in today's world hence my assertion that you're talking about an ivory tower model.
Well, firstly I've already acknowledged that some forms of coercion do exist: Minimum wage laws are a major form of coercion. Another form of wage coercion is exerted by unions. This doesn't change anything. If an employer is dissatisfied with the performance of his minimum wage employee, he will terminate him. Worse, an employer is forced by minimum wage laws to forgo hiring teenagers and others at really low rates to do really mundane jobs (does anyone really need to be paid minimum wage to sweep a floor?). Two consequences: teens don't get hired to do those jobs, thereby losing an opportunity to get an entry-level job in a firm, and losing the opportunity to demonstrate that they can do bigger and better things for a higher wage. Second, higher-paid staff get forced to do $0.50/hr-level work for higher-level wages - which leads to boredom on their part and lost efficiency for the company. It's idiotic.
The ironic thing is that most people who whine about someone being "overpaid" are looking at the wrong end of the scale. They're motivated by envy, and they resent the fact that someone's getting paid a lot more than they are themselves. "If I can't get paid more than $20,000 to work at McDonald's, Alex Rodriguez shouldn't be paid $25 million to hit a lousy ball!" These folks claim that's not "fair" - but honestly I don't see what's "unfair" about it at all. It's only "unfair" in some socialist worker's paradise (and maybe not even there; star Soviet athletes had a much better life than the peasants in the factories and on the farms). The reality is that due to various illegitimate restraints on the markets, the real overpaying occurs on the *low* end of the scale - because of minimum wage laws!
Okay, so my story has changed over the course of this thread;-) So sue me. At least you weren't overpaid to read it. Were you?;-)
You're talking about some model economy that economists use to teach classes.
No, I'm not. A given individual's salary is an agreement between that individual and his employer. Unless the employer has been coerced into paying a wage that is higher than what he would have paid otherwise, the employee is NOT overpaid. This is not an ivory tower model. This is the real world. Now, it may be the case that afterwards the employer may regret his salary decision - a case of buyer's remorse. The usual result of that is: termination. In such cases the employer has decided that the employee's services are not worth what he is paying. This may be because he has determined that he can get the same services for less from someone else, or it may be because he has decided that the quality of services performed by the employee are poor.
Let's take one of the usual absurd examples: sports salaries. It doesn't matter if you or I think that Alex Rodriguez is overpaid. His employer didn't think so when he made the contract. It doesn't matter if you or I would never pay any athlete millions of dollars. Their employers are perfectly happy to do so. The fact that the sports team owners make money - lots and lots of it - while paying out millions in wages seems to me to suggest that maybe they know what they're doing. Note that it's the sports team owners who are *unwilling* to spend money on player salaries who usually lose and who rarely make it to the postseason.
Summary: apart from coercion, no one is overpaid. There are two possible outcomes when an employer gets buyer's remorse: either a salary renegotiation, or the employee gets fired.
Even in a mostly free market it takes time to correct imbalances so you could certainly consider some people overpaid.
No, you can't, unless the government has set price controls on wages. In the case of minimum wage laws, for instance, there are absolutely some people making the so-called "minimum wage" doing work that would never be considered to be worth the established "minimum wage" in a free market. These people could be said to be "overpaid" - but it's the government's fault, and the effect of such laws is to create unemployment.
The labor markets function exactly the same as any other market with respect to their reactions to government price controls. If the feds slap price floors on the market (e.g., "minimum wage" laws), then unemployment is created because employers refuse to pay some people at that ridiculous rate. If the feds slap on a price ceiling, then a job surplus is inevitably created, because people will refuse to do the work for the government-mandated maximum.
other companies will have to increase wages in order to keep up
This is also an over-simplification. They don't "have" to do anything of the sort. If they continue to pay lower wages than their competitors in the employment market, then they may possibly one day have difficulty in finding enough employees.
But the real point is that the market dictates what is the "right wage", so to speak; an employer can choose whether or not to pay that wage, or to pay more or less. The critical thing is that employers must be free to decide for themselves what they will pay for labor, and if that is the case, then it is completely absurd to talk about "overpaid jobs". No one's "overpaid" in a free market.
Unless you have evidence of some sort of illegal activity, it's simply impossible to be "overpaid". A worker gets paid what someone is willing to pay him. Period.
This talk of what's "deserved" for one's work is blatantly leftist. Who's going to say what's "deserved"? By what standard?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry that you think so. I don't happen to think that his comments merited better than what he was dishing out. I'll grant that the diet thing isn't the world's greatest example (although the fact that so many Americans are overweight says *something* about their failure to control their feelings ;-), but it doesn't change the fact that he was spewing vitriolic nonsense.
If you patiently wait, despite wanting something, you still want it, you just don't act on those desires.
If you patiently answer your young child's question of "Why?" for the 10,000th time without getting angry or frustrated, you have controlled your feelings. For some folks, that's easier than for others. In virtually all cases, it only takes practice. I used to have a ferocious temper. Then I learned to control it. Now things that used to make me angry...don't. That's controlling your feelings. It can be done. It's silly to say otherwise. The problem isn't that we "can't" control our feelings; the problem is that we claim that we can't, and everyone tells us we "can't". That gives us plenty of excuses to act out in the heat of the moment, and then to say "well, I couldn't help myself" or to try and blame it on someone or something else: "Johnny made me do it!" That's demonstrably false. The fact is that in such cases, we don't even try to control ourselves.
This, of course, is balderdash, and you know it is.
It might sound nice, but if you accept what someone tells you, without making some attempt to verify it, it's faith.
And this is precisely why the previous sentence of yours is nonsense. As I said earlier in this thread (possibly not to you): unless you personally verify literally every statement made by anyone prior to accepting it, you are acting on faith: you are trusting that a given source is reputable and reliable, and that as a consequence you do not feel obligated to verify literally everything that they say. And there is nothing whatsoever that is intellectually dishonest about this. You have to do it in order to live with people. You have to do it in order to learn anything about history. This is not blind faith, and neither is the Christian's faith in the reliability of the Bible (although a blind faith in the Bible is better than no faith in the Bible at all, if you're forced to choose ;-)
There are examples from Victorian England where people were thought to be dead and even burried, because their heartbeats were too weak to be felt.
That's a much simpler explanation and it would make sense to only advance to the "it must be a miracle" explanations when you knew it wasn't something simpler.
It's a simpler explanation, and a false one. ;-) It's false because a) it doesn't address the facts that 1) he predicted his resurrection beforehand - including that it would happen on the third day; 2) it doesn't address the fact that his body was laid in a tomb with a large stone rolled against the only entry and guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers...so how does he get out if no miracle occurred? 3) it doesn't address the fact that an earthquake "conveniently" happened on the predicted day to roll the stone away - and it doesn't address the fact that the soldiers saw an angel that so terrified them that they fell down and wouldn't get up; 4) it doesn't address the fact that if he was just a man having a near-death experience, the Romans and the Jewish authorities could have just rounded him up again and executed him again; 5) it doesn't explain the fact that the first women to the tomb on resurrection Sunday saw and heard an angel proclaiming that Christ was risen; 6) it doesn't explain the fact that the risen Christ appeared in the middle of a meeting of his followers, in a closed room, not once, but twice, right out of thin air; 7) lastly (for now) it doesn't address the fact that he ascended into heaven right in front of his followers.
In short, your "explanation" doesn't explain anything at all.
Why is "in wedlock" special. Why is lust good at one time and not at another?
I've already told you why I say so. That's what started this thread. What I've been interested in right now is why you think it's not even a valid concept for discussion as a principle for ordering society. Frankly, the vast bulk of human history is on my side (at least with respect to marriage); you as the innovator (and as the one who hasn't explained himself - yet) seem to me to be the one who owes the rest of us a justification of his views. ;-)
Ditto with theft. Why is theft by some people allowed, and theft by me not? If theft is bad, nobody should do it.
All right, I'll tell you what I think. First, God owns everything by virtue of the fact that he created everything. Thus private property is legimitate. Secondly, the fact that God owns everything means that our "ownership" of anything is not absolute; in fact, it's a stewardship, and we have to manage "our" stuff according the rules of the one who *really* owns it and who has "given" it to us for our use. Thirdly, the rules are that no one has the right to take our stuff from us unless we or God give them permission. In the case of taxes, it is God who gives them permission (Romans 13). Other than that: it's theft.
That's my
See, the fact that you ask this question demonstrates the extent to which you have unquestioningly accepted reason as your final authority. The terse answer is: the Bible. This is what you anticipated, of course, in continuing thus:
If I just accept what I'm told, how do I choose what is right?
To ask the question is to answer it ;-) But seriously: you are mistaken if you think that acknowledging the Bible rather than reason as the ultimate authority means that you have to turn your brain off. It doesn't mean that at all. It means that when there are things that you don't understand, it's not a crisis. It means that when there are things that no human being can ever understand, it's not a crisis. Because God understands it, and you can rely upon the facts that he presents even when you don't understand them.
Here's two examples of what I mean. Some folks have foolishly suggested that 1 Kings 7:23 tries to make the value of pi equal to 3, because it says that this particular object was 10 cubits in diameter, and 30 cubits in circumference. Except these same critics never bother to look at verse 26 of the same chapter, where it says that this same object was a handbreadth thick. As it turns out, you can do the math and discover that the diameter was measured to the outside edge, and the circumference was measured on the inside edge: in other words, the critics never allowed for the possibility of a 8" difference (or so; that's one handbreadth on either side) in the thickness of the object! This is a case where we can use our brains and figure out exactly what was going on, and see that there's nothing wrong with Bible geometry.
On the other hand, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, to my small brain this is pretty incomprehensible stuff. But even though I can't understand some things, it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they are true. This, really, isn't all that hard to imagine, is it? God is, after all, omniscient. So why wouldn't I expect that he would understand some things that I can't?
Surely the whole bible isn't poetry and allegory.
Correct. I didn't say that it was. I said that it's poetry and history and law and correspondence, etc.
Surely when Jesus walked on water it's supposed to mean that he walked, on water, and didn't sink. Is that too much to expect? Can't I expect part of an account of the acts of the son of god to include any literal passages?
Of course! But that's not what you were saying before, you know. You said that you expected the entire thing to be "word for word".
You haven't shown me that my tests are flawed
I can't tell you whether or not they are flawed if you don't tell me what they are ;-) I may be mistaken - this has been a long discussion - but I think that you left that out.
And what else would you suggest? Blind faith in the bible.
No: eyes-open faith in the Bible. Like I've said: acknowledging the authority of the Bible doesn't mean that you shut off your brain. It means admitting the fact that there are limits upon yourself and upon all men: that there are things that are true about creation that we will never understand, but which we know nevertheless to be true.
My point is that the apostles didn't witness Jesus being the son of god, they witnessed him *claim* to be the son of god. They aren't eyewitnesses, they're second-hand story tellers.
Ah. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. But I'm afraid that this doesn't really help matters. Not only did they witness him claim to be the Son of God - but they witnessed him perform miracles. They witnessed the fact that he was dead - a fact confirmed by the Romans. They witnessed the fact that he rose from the dead. I think that this is more than sufficient corroborating evidence to support the claim. Your average dime store kook can't do this. Sun Myung Moon calls himself "Christ", but I think we both know
I don't. My point was that for the rationalist or empiricist or atheist, man is the measure of all things; for the Christian, the Bible is the measure of all things. More specifically, my point is that the rationalist and empiricist, etc. are wrong, because a) their system is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and that in contrast the Bible is true.
You are presuming something here about my beliefs. I do not believe I, or man, are the ultimate being.
Well, yes, I'm guessing at what you likely believe, as a man of the 21st century West who is not a Christian. But what I was guessing is not that you think of yourself of of man as "the ultimate being". Rather, I said that for the rationalist, etc (and presumably you), reason is the highest authority.
If you expect the book to provide firm answers to important questions and be above reproach, then yes, I expect that the book should be interpreted word-for-word (the original if not mistaken translations). If you're reading a book of loose suggestions by someone widely held to be wise, but not divine, this restriction of course wouldn't apply because you're not being asked to accept something without question.
But what if your expectations are incorrect? I mean, why does it have to be "word-for-word"? For starters, the Bible is not scientific literature. It consists of other forms of literature: poetry, and letters, and law, and history, and so forth. Wouldn't you agree that it's pretty silly to suggest that we apply the rigors of "word-for-word" interpretation to a poem? Or how about to a book like Genesis, which has these massive chiastic structures in it? How can we not take such things into account when interpreting the Bible?
And of course, we can. The fact that we must exercise caution when we approach the interpretation of the Bible is already given, since we normally approach it via translations. But the fact that we exercise caution in understanding it doesn't mean that the truth isn't there. It is.
Thus, I suggest that you have unreasonable expectations of the Bible, because you seem to have certain preconceived notions of how divinely-given literature ought to look and of how it ought to be interpreted: preconceived notions that do not bear any resemblance to the Bible (and that are mistaken).
If someone tells me a theory and I prove it is at odds with the facts in a simple test I don't need to go to greater lengths to prove that the theory is incorrect.
You said this to defend your unwillingness to pursue further advanced research into the Bible. It appears to me, however, that because of your false preconceived notions about the nature of divine revelation and the Bible, your "simple test" in this case is giving you faulty results. Perhaps you should reconsider ;-)
What evidence is there for your god, other than a book written by a guy claiming to be your god? Why is believing, without proof, a logical thing?
The evidence is all around you. The evidence (well, part of it) *is* you, and everyone else. The evidence is that the world conforms to the description of it in the Bible.
I suppose you deny these facts, but why?
All evidence is interpreted. All of it. There is no such thing as uninterpreted evidence. So the question isn't whether there is evidence for one or the other; the question should be whether one of them makes better sense of the evidence. I affirm that the Bible does, and that man's efforts at explaining things for himself apart from God fall hideously and tragically short because they are hopelessly self-contradictory.
They tell me to question what I'm told, even by them. They tell me to examine evidence and test what I can. They tell me to be wary of untestable claims.
They tell you, in other words, to make reason the measure of all things. They never tell you to qu
First off, at bottom everyone's arguments are circular. The rationalist or empiricist or atheist assumes from the outset that man is the measure of all things. This assumption is never questioned or challenged by them: its authority is simply assumed. Human reason is the highest authority for them, and its authority is supreme to them. I (and all consistent Christians) dispute that. The highest authority is not human reason. It is the Bible.
If you're using the bible as a basis for your belief, and not just philosophical musings such as the teachings of Buddha or something, you should expect perfection.
Wait a minute. You don't consider yourself a Christian, but you're going to tell me what my standards should be? Tell me, do you have this same standard of perfection for yourself?
But - so I don't seem to be ignoring you - what do you mean by "perfection"? Do you mean perfection in translation? Of course this is impossible. No human language can be perfectly translated into another; that's the first issue. Secondly, translations are done by imperfect people. There are no perfect translations. The KJV wasn't perfect in its day, and it's obviously less perfect now, given almost 400 years of change in the English language. There are no perfect modern translations, either. But the manuscripts that we have in the original languages are entirely reliable as to the contents of the autographs.
if you follow the letter of KJV you must accept that there were unicorns.
This is perhaps not entirely your fault, but you have a flawed idea of the Christian view of Bibles. There are, admittedly, some whacked out loonies who claim (on the basis of zero evidence) that the KJV is divinely inspired in the exact same way that the original documents were. This is hopeless nonsense. The orthodox Christian acknowledges that a given Bible translation is flawed. When he comes across something like this unicorn stuff in the KJV, he starts looking at the Greek or Hebrew (or asking questions of those who do know the Greek and Hebrew) to find out what it says. The fact that the KJV is flawed with respect to "unicorns" has nothing to do with whether it accurately translates what Jesus said about lust being ethically the same as committing adultery (and it *does* accurately translate that, and most stuff).
Further, people with a lot more authority than some nut on Slashdot (either or both of us, depending on your view) have said that the early translators of the bible mistook the Hebrew word for "Young Woman" for "Virgin". In other words, one of the key miracles of christianity was a typo. (And of course, the entire basis of the catholic church - but they're even loopier than most.)
This allegation is a lot older than you think. I was reading Justin Martyr (early 2nd century)'s "Dialogue With Trypho" just last week, and in it he addresses the Jewish claim that "young woman" is meant where Christians have said "virgin".
Unfortunately, the claim is baseless. In the first place, the Hebrew word in Is. 7:14 that's in dispute may legitimately mean either "virgin" or "young woman". In the second place, the correct understanding of it is manifestly demonstrated by the New Testament, where it is indisputably clear that Mary conceived without having had sex - because God caused her to do so. Thus, the fact that she was a virgin is indisputable from the New Testament, and it turns out that this fact sufficiently clarifies *which* sense of the Hebrew word is in view in Is. 7:14.
In summary: this is an ancient excuse that has been handled over and over and over in the history of the church. It doesn't hold water. One of the key miracles of history is and always has been the same: a miracle.
Some parts were, some weren't. Once again, I've read opinions both ways, but the people who seemed most careful and accurate were the ones arguing that the NT is a collection of works, some of which weren't completed for a
This is utter and complete malarkey. In fact, it's so thoroughly preposterous that I can't decide whether you trolling. You probably are.
If you can't control what you think, then you're incapable of rational, coherent thought. Period. Now, since that's so silly as to be idiotic, I don't really think that's what you meant (although that's what you said). I suppose that what you meant by "think" was "feel" - even though that's redundant on your part. So we'll focus on that.
And here again: you're wrong. You can and do control what you feel. Do you ever exercise patience? If so, then you have...controlled yourself (gasp!) Do you ever diet? Then you have...controlled yourself, and your feelings of hunger.
And I certainly won't accept some other self-righteous prick^H^H^H^H^H individual telling me that I should feel guilty for my thoughts. Or worse still, that they make me evil! What you can control is what you do and how you treat the people around you. If everyone in the world stopped telling other people what they should or should not be thinking and concentrated on just treating everyone decently, then it would be a much better place.
This is laughable! By your "reasoning", you've already failed since you're not exactly treating *me* decently! (Not that I'm offended...;-) And your thoughts don't make you evil: the fact is, you (and everyone) are evil by nature. People aren't generally good. People are generally evil. They need to stop being evil, and that starts with what they think and feel.
trying to suppress "evil" thoughts and feelings is just a bad idea. When thoughts and feelings come to you, you can't really help it. It is much healthier to accept them, not feel guilty or bad, not beat yourself up, and accept them for what they are: just thoughts and feelings. Repression just leads to bad things.So, was Jeffrey Dahmer right or wrong? He didn't "repress" anything, did he?
You'd be a lot better off admitting the fact that what we do springs out of our hearts and minds. If our hearts and minds are full of evil, it's going to find expression in what we do. It's inevitable. Otherwise, why do people do bad things? Hmm?
LOL!
It does not! The worst you could say about me based upon that -- maybe, if you're really inclined to be uncharitable, given the fact that it was a single sentence of 8 words - is that I'm extremely confident about what I'm saying. That's not proselytizing!
Sheesh. Thanks for the laugh, though. ;-)
That's not a circular argument! A circular argument is more like: "The Bible is the Word of God because it says that it's the Word of God." To say "Lust is bad because Jesus says it is" is an argument from authority. But, since the rest of your paragraph here is actually addressing an argument from authority rather than a circular argument (as far as I can tell...see below), we'll just note the fact and go on.
All you've got is a book written over a period of a few hundred years after his death
False. Profoundly false. Did you know that buried in the Talmud is a story written by Rabbi Gamaliel that is an obvious parody of the gospel of Matthew? And did you know that Gamaliel couldn't possibly have written it after 70 AD? And that in order for him to have written a parody, Matthew's book had to have been written before them? And that in order for a parody to be worthwhile, the thing parodied has to be fairly widely known? And that all this points to a date for the book of Matthew absolutely no later than 70, and more realistically at least 10 years before that? And that this means it certainly was written during Matthew's lifetime?
This is a single example, addressing the book I've been mainly quoting here, that more than adequately addresses the silly nonsense you've been hearing from leftist whacks about the dating (and authorship) of the New Testament. Try reading the early church fathers sometime, and you will see (as I have) that your assertion doesn't hold a drop of water.
with quotes taken out of context
Please entertain the good folks here at Slashdot by proving this charge. I haven't taken anything out of context, friend.
and badly translated
Have you ever studied Hebrew? How about Greek? I have. Trust me on this: it's not mistranslated. I did quote the KJV because that's what I have at hand, but a number of modern translations say essentially the same thing...because the KJV doesn't have the sense of it wrong.
and you're putting enough faith in it to think that make decisions about "lust" in every context.
There seems to be a word missing there towards the end, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'll guess, though. I'm guessing that you are challenging my premise that the passages I've quoted thus far are sufficient grounds for me to make the statement that sexual desire outside the bounds of marriage is sinful. If I'm correct in guessing at your point, then I have to ask you to prove your assertion that the texts that I've quoted are inadequate to make that statement (about sexual desire outside marriage). I think that in particular the Matthew 5 passage more than adequately establishes the case about lust being tantamount to committing the sin. If you disagree, please explain why.
The black and white comes from you thinking that one line in a book that's over a thousand years old, not even written by the guy in question, has absolute answers that you can directly apply to life in a world that's completely different than the one this messiah of yours lived in.
No offense, friend, but that's not normally what people mean when they say a man is a "black and white" thinker. Normally they mean that he sees everything in terms of right and wrong, and that he doesn't see many moral questions as being difficult. Really, what you seem to be accusing me of is more like relying on a standard of authority that is ancient (almost 2000 years for the most recent, up to 3500+ for parts).
I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, I absolutely affirm that the Bible has answers for life in 2003. One good example is the subject we're discussing here. So far you have failed to demonstrate that the answer I've given based on the Bible - "Pornography is evil because it is intended to stir up lust in its viewers, and lust is sinful" - is invalid. I think that this answer
Hmmm. Interesting. Ridiculous, but interesting.
I'll freely admit that my post didn't deserve the "Insightful" bit. There's nothing earth-shattering in that one sentence of 8 words. But "Flamebait"? Please. That's just as silly. If you don't know how to moderate it, then please just don't moderate it at all. Thanks!
I wasn't raised a Christian.
What does it mean to "apply rules from the Bible in blanket fashion"? I'm seriously not trolling. I don't know what you are intending by this. In particular, I am curious what it is about a post completely devoted to questions of sexual morality - and focusing primarily upon a single passage of the Bible - that leads you to start talking about "blanket application" of "rules" from the Bible. I have been talking about a single biblical principle: that lust is sin because it is tantamount to actually committing the sins of adultery or fornication.
Is there any practical reason why lust is bad?
Just for the sake of making sure we're all clear here about what we're talking about: In this discussion, when I use the word "lust" I am referring to illicit sexual desire: that is, sexual desire that is not focused upon one's lawful wife or husband. I don't want anyone getting the idiotic idea that I am hung up about sex in the proper context.
Now, with that out of the way, let's address your question. In the first place, if you're speaking of pragmatics, I submit that the pragmatics are irrelevant. We know that lust is bad because Jesus says it is. If you want her, then you have committed the deed already in your heart; you have already committed the sin of adultery (or fornication). We don't need any more reason than this to abhor it.
If you're asking about the real-world effects of it - then I say that it is bad because lust that is not resisted ends up in actually committing adultery or fornication. No one commits adultery without first lusting after his co-adulterer.
It's all about actions.
But that's not what God says. God says that what comes out of the heart defiles us (Matthew 15:18-20). The reason that people do bad things isn't because they were raised badly, or because they had a bad day, or because they were drunk or high, or because they were angry. The reason that people do bad things is because they have corrupt, wicked hearts. It's not all about actions. It's about corrupt, evil, sinful hearts. By the time it gets to the action stage, the game is over, so to speak.
If there's no temptation, there's no virtue in resisting temptation.
I think I speak for lots of men who would gladly say that they would be thrilled to not have to exercise the virtue of resisting temptation. That would leave us time to practice other virtues. ;-) The point is: resisting temptation isn't the only source of virtue. The fellow who is tempted to jump in the mud puddle but doesn't is no cleaner than the fellow who was never tempted to jump in it at all, and the fellow who wasn't tempted was able to worry about other things instead.
in two generations there won't be more than a few religious people in the first-world countries.
Ha ha! We've heard that one before. A billion Christians in the rest of the world aren't too worried, and neither am I.
Especially with silly black and white attitudes like yours.
Yes, it's really "black and white" of me to think that there is right and wrong when it comes to sex, just as there's right and wrong about other things.
He needs to repent and become a Christian.
If a single person has sex with a married person, it is adultery, so that's covered. Sex between unmarrieds is fornication, and it is sin (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 6:9), so that's covered. If an unmarried person lusts after a porn star, he has either committed adultery (if the porn star is married) or fornication with the porn star in his heart.
How about women looking at male pornography
Yes, the same applies to women.
I assume gay porn is ruled out by some other part of the bible
The same principle is in play: it is created for the purpose of stirring up lust. If it's viewed for that purpose, then the viewer has sinned.
What if it's your wife in a porno?
Then she has sinned by creating it, if she created it for viewing by others (or if others besides yourself were involved in its creation).
A lot of people get pretty lusty about chicks in Catholic school girl outfits...are they evil?
Lusting after real live boys/men/girls/women/goats/toasters/whatever to whom you're not married is, yes, lust, and yes, it's therefore sinful. Lust predates pornography (obviously, since Jesus warned against lust).
I'd say Jesus needs a New and Improved Testament to fill in the gaps....
What gaps?
Pornography is not "a sin". Creating pornography is sinful, and viewing it with the intention to either stir up lust or gratify it is sinful. The fact that pornography is created with the specific intent of stirring up lust is what makes pornography evil.
I thought the whole point of the christian church was forgiveness? To me, an act that is evil is one that cannot be forgiven, at the least.
This is inaccurate. An action is evil if it is sinful. A sinful action (or thought, or feeling, or word) is one that is done (thought/felt/spoken) that violates God's law. Any and every sinful action that we commit will be forgiven if we truly repent of it (repent: sincerely regret, and stop doing something) and trust in Christ for that forgiveness.
Even Hitler could have been forgiven. Even Stalin could have been forgiven. Even Hefner can be forgiven. Even autopr0n (the author) can be forgiven. ;-)
You know, that's the exact sort of hair-splitting attitude that led to Jesus calling the Pharisees "blind guides", "hypocrites", and "whited sepulchres". The obvious point of Jesus's words is that it's not simply overt actions that count; it's what's going on in one's heart. You can commit adultery in your heart (by wanting to do so), and that's sin.
For the single person, this still applies. Sex outside of marriage is sin (see the 7th commandment, as well as prohibitions against fornication). For the single person to lust after a woman - whether she's married or not - is sin. So yes, it does apply to the single person.
But putting it into the catagory of actual 'evil' I just can't grasp.
Pornography is evil because it has a single purpose. That purpose is evil because Jesus says so: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Adultery is evil ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"); therefore lust is evil; therefore pornography - which is intended to stir up lust - is evil.
So you honestly equate it to the same level as, say, Hitler?Hardly. Murder is evil, and stealing is evil, but murder is obviously worse than theft. Hitler is obviously worse than Hefner, but that doesn't make Hefner a righteous dude.
Much of the world is therefore wrong about capital punishment.
And in this case, so are you - because even assuming that GameSpy was successful in getting the US government involved in attempts to extradite Auriemma, any so-called "crimes" that he supposedly committed are not subject to the death penalty.
Well, firstly I've already acknowledged that some forms of coercion do exist: Minimum wage laws are a major form of coercion. Another form of wage coercion is exerted by unions. This doesn't change anything. If an employer is dissatisfied with the performance of his minimum wage employee, he will terminate him. Worse, an employer is forced by minimum wage laws to forgo hiring teenagers and others at really low rates to do really mundane jobs (does anyone really need to be paid minimum wage to sweep a floor?). Two consequences: teens don't get hired to do those jobs, thereby losing an opportunity to get an entry-level job in a firm, and losing the opportunity to demonstrate that they can do bigger and better things for a higher wage. Second, higher-paid staff get forced to do $0.50/hr-level work for higher-level wages - which leads to boredom on their part and lost efficiency for the company. It's idiotic.
The ironic thing is that most people who whine about someone being "overpaid" are looking at the wrong end of the scale. They're motivated by envy, and they resent the fact that someone's getting paid a lot more than they are themselves. "If I can't get paid more than $20,000 to work at McDonald's, Alex Rodriguez shouldn't be paid $25 million to hit a lousy ball!" These folks claim that's not "fair" - but honestly I don't see what's "unfair" about it at all. It's only "unfair" in some socialist worker's paradise (and maybe not even there; star Soviet athletes had a much better life than the peasants in the factories and on the farms). The reality is that due to various illegitimate restraints on the markets, the real overpaying occurs on the *low* end of the scale - because of minimum wage laws!
Okay, so my story has changed over the course of this thread ;-) So sue me. At least you weren't overpaid to read it. Were you? ;-)
No, I'm not. A given individual's salary is an agreement between that individual and his employer. Unless the employer has been coerced into paying a wage that is higher than what he would have paid otherwise, the employee is NOT overpaid. This is not an ivory tower model. This is the real world. Now, it may be the case that afterwards the employer may regret his salary decision - a case of buyer's remorse. The usual result of that is: termination. In such cases the employer has decided that the employee's services are not worth what he is paying. This may be because he has determined that he can get the same services for less from someone else, or it may be because he has decided that the quality of services performed by the employee are poor.
Let's take one of the usual absurd examples: sports salaries. It doesn't matter if you or I think that Alex Rodriguez is overpaid. His employer didn't think so when he made the contract. It doesn't matter if you or I would never pay any athlete millions of dollars. Their employers are perfectly happy to do so. The fact that the sports team owners make money - lots and lots of it - while paying out millions in wages seems to me to suggest that maybe they know what they're doing. Note that it's the sports team owners who are *unwilling* to spend money on player salaries who usually lose and who rarely make it to the postseason.
Summary: apart from coercion, no one is overpaid. There are two possible outcomes when an employer gets buyer's remorse: either a salary renegotiation, or the employee gets fired.
No, you can't, unless the government has set price controls on wages. In the case of minimum wage laws, for instance, there are absolutely some people making the so-called "minimum wage" doing work that would never be considered to be worth the established "minimum wage" in a free market. These people could be said to be "overpaid" - but it's the government's fault, and the effect of such laws is to create unemployment.
The labor markets function exactly the same as any other market with respect to their reactions to government price controls. If the feds slap price floors on the market (e.g., "minimum wage" laws), then unemployment is created because employers refuse to pay some people at that ridiculous rate. If the feds slap on a price ceiling, then a job surplus is inevitably created, because people will refuse to do the work for the government-mandated maximum.
This is also an over-simplification. They don't "have" to do anything of the sort. If they continue to pay lower wages than their competitors in the employment market, then they may possibly one day have difficulty in finding enough employees.
But the real point is that the market dictates what is the "right wage", so to speak; an employer can choose whether or not to pay that wage, or to pay more or less. The critical thing is that employers must be free to decide for themselves what they will pay for labor, and if that is the case, then it is completely absurd to talk about "overpaid jobs". No one's "overpaid" in a free market.
Unless you have evidence of some sort of illegal activity, it's simply impossible to be "overpaid". A worker gets paid what someone is willing to pay him. Period.
This talk of what's "deserved" for one's work is blatantly leftist. Who's going to say what's "deserved"? By what standard?
From here you ought to be able to make some more interesting extrapolations about who loves whom more.