V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (01/22/85)
<<<<<line eater fodder>>>>
I don't seem to be getting all the net postings at this site. I apologize
for not replying or re-stating others points.
Anyway.....
The discussion on this net on porn is mostly persuasive argument:
one states premises
one offers supporting documentation or physical or social data
one draws conclusions
and if you are in a lousy mood, you state the mental incapacity of the side
makes them incapable of underatanding your enlightened position...
.... I KNOW that I'm right.... :-)
Why does he keep quoting Church Sources?? Can't he see the invalidity of them?
This is NOT net.religion!!!
This is why.
As I posted before, the Catholic Church and the other Christian Churces
address the problems of man's relation to man as well as other matters
more obviously theological, such as angels. For a Christian these have the
force of law. BUT since they address a problem experienced by ALL, these
positions and pronouncements have social value to non-believers also IF
the non-believer can accept the TRUTH or at least the USEFULLNESS of them.
Why do you ridicule or at least casually dismiss these positions as
silly, meaningless or a misguided attempt to force a particular DOGMA on all?
You obviously do not understand the purpose of religion.
Let me state again...porn is a moral problem and therefore is a social problem.
Social problems always have a moral element. BTW morality is NOT limited to
sexual activity and the 6th and 9th commandments. Again see a basic book on
ethics or morals by almost ANYBODY. You cannot discuss porn completely unless
you consider it as a moral problem.
Whom do we cite??? (porn busters!! I aint afraid of no porn!! <sorry>)
We cite our teachers. We had to have been taught something to get this far.
The Christian looks to his Church as a valid teacher. THAT is why I cite
Her!!!!!! She is my ultimate referee.
Whom do the non-believes cite? < I won't do it again>
Evidently in this discussion other non-believers who are or were their
teachers. I accept the validity of their sources as sources. I do not
accept their teaching when they contradict my conscience. I am willing to
listen to them and to try to refute them with citations or principles
from my side.
This is persuasive argument. We cannot run experiments.
This is about as dispassionate as I can be here.
BTW I'm probably done posting on porn. See my continued tirades in
net.abortion or net.religion.
Marchionni V6M at PSUVM through BITNET