That and looking at a naked person in lust so looking at a person can still be bad in many ways.

Dark: nudity in and of itself is not wrong. I think the argument that you are born naked makes it "okay" makes absolutely no sense to me. Is there any other way to be born?

I think there can be tasteful nude modeling but it's not common. I think the use of nudity is for the sexual side and nothing else.

Adam and Eve were naked until their innocence was taken away. Before the Fall Adam and Eve didn't care they were naked because it didn't mean anything...

I think pornography is destructive. I think it ruins marriages and creates an over-sexed population. I don't think it fills a sexual need but instead increases one. I also think it creates an unhealthy view of what sex is. The average person doesn't look, or perform, the way that people do in porn. It's just not realistic. Not to mention how much time, money and effort that goes into the creation of porn which in my opinion has no intrinsic value. What good is a movie of naked people?

Sure, I think pornography is wrong in a moral sense but in a more practical way I just think it is a harmful habit. I think too much time and money is spent on aquiring and using pornography. It's just so wasteful.

I'm not sure how else to say what I'm trying to get across....

ah you see what i was meaning is, if nudity was bad acording to a creator then people would be born clothed. does that maybe make more sense?
as far as what good a movie of naked people can be, it could be say educational, but i would agree on the whole that its just for self gratification.
what good is porn? well you could argue that it makes jobs because while it might not be liked there is a market for it and alot of people need jobs and cant really do anything else.

onto nude photography though, i would say that that is different to pornos (being sex films) in that it can be considered a form of art.
i think just because alot of people choose to look at it in a sexual way is their own problem.
think like this, is say, the statue of david, porn or art? most would say art, but there may be people that look at it in a lustful way.

im not saying im either for or against, im just stating points of view

nope, that doesn't make any more sense.... just because we are born naked doesn't mean there is any justification for nudity/pornography being okay.

Nudity can have an educational purpose and if it is made in such a way (ie for sex education courses) but beyond that I just don't see the benefit. Consider the amount of money spent on pornography in any given year. According to Forbes the porn industry grosses about 14 billion dollars. You could create jobs/demand in nearly any other industry with 14 billion dollars being spent there. The jobs/moeny from this industry would shift to something else if porn were gone.

It is different technically although again it's only an art form when viewed as such. I guess nude photography is more tastefully done than porn. I don't really have a problem with nude photography done for arts sake but I still don't think it's overly useful either. Although I feel that way about art in general Yeah, the statue of David is art even though it does show off male genitals. Not many people would say it is pornographic.

I don't think the issue here is with nudity but with pornography. It's the hardcore porn (porn with sex in it) that is the issue. The rest of it is debatable as to it's benefits to society but I just don't feel porn has any redeeming value. Some people may argue with me about that but we've gotten by without it for many years I don't see why we need to spend 14 billion dollars on it now.

Gods creations are beautiful and I don't think he cares if we look at it as art but if we look lustfully at it it's a sin. I believe that people who make or work in hardcore pornography are sinning. It should be a law not to post yourself nude on magazines or the web or anywhere. Only the person your married to or live with you should be able to see you nude. I don't know if anyone else would agree with me.

I don't disagree with you but the simple fact is that there is no reasible way that a law like that would pass. There just isn't enough support for it. You can't have a 14 billion dollar industry taken out all of a sudden because a small group of people don't like it. That's part of democracy. If the majority is for or against something than the will of the majority is what determines that.

Like I said, I agree with you but until society values things like chastity then something like this will never happen.

people would have sinned at some point...

Originally posted by Lowell

---

What about Indecent Exposure? Don't you think the world would be a better place if we never ate the apple, and everyone was still naked?

---

Originally posted by 2dnoodleman

---

people would have sinned at some point...

Originally posted by Lowell

---

What about Indecent Exposure? Don't you think the world would be a better place if we never ate the apple, and everyone was still naked?

---

---

[sigh] I really wish people understood what happened in the garden of eden better than they do....

Originally posted by geeogree

---

Originally posted by 2dnoodleman

---

people would have sinned at some point...

Originally posted by Lowell

---

What about Indecent Exposure? Don't you think the world would be a better place if we never ate the apple, and everyone was still naked?

---

---

[sigh] I really wish people understood what happened in the garden of eden better than they do....

---

That's assuming you believe what happened word for word. I don't think that that's how it went down, but I think it might be a story that stands for a longer process of how it happened. I'm not actually sure what I think about the story

I think it is quite clear in terms of morality the same action under different circumstances has to be looked at differently. The same with nudity.

Zylo: I agree.

Ziggy: I disagree with the idea that the "original sin" was somehow avoidable. There were 2 commandments given in the Garden of Eden. 1 was to multiply and replenish the earth (make babies) and the other was to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now, if there was a tree that contained the knowledge of good and evil then it you could assume that Adam and Eve did not have a knowledge of good and evil but simply existed in the Garden. When they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they then understood both good and evil. This then gave them the knowledge of how to have children which was impossible before. So basically God gave them 2 commandments which could not both be kept at the same time. So after they partook of the fruit they were cast out of the Garden but now had knowledge of good and evil and were now able to choose to follow God or not.

If Adam and Eve had never partaken of the fruit then mankind wouldn't have existed. But even if you believe that they could have still had children without partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil how could there possibly be any point to life on this planet? If mankind had no conecpt of either good or evil then there couldn't be any good or evil ever done. You couldn't be happy because you had no concept of either happiness or sadness.

I just don't buy the idea that partaking of the fruit was avoidable and that the world would be better off without it having taken place.

well, I don't believe that eating a fruit caused all of this to happen so there really isn't a point to me debating this. However, I never said that man developing a sense of good and evil was avoidable. I guess I believe perhaps a more scientific version of what happened rather than the story of Adam and Eve.


By the way, this is getting waaaay off topic and I don't think that's supposed to happen in this forum

that response was less for you actually and more for 2noodle... I just forgot to put his name in there too....

OH, okay

yeah, and I think I remained on topic in theory....

I was arguing about Adam and Eve and how there is no way that they would have remained in a state where nudity had no meaning.... so, I was on topic but was on a sort of tangent that didn't really matter but was related.

Still, to kind of get the discussion back on topic.... I think pornography is something that is so engrained into society that it will never go away. The industry is too powerful to be removed. It's like the tobacco industry.... no benefits, a lot of drawbacks.... but it still exists because it has enough money to keep politicians from getting rid of it. Sure it's taxed but like that actually fixed anything....

Sad, but true. As harmful as it can be to society, it's like a virus, in that you can never truly get rid of it no matter how hard you try

Originally posted by geeogree

---

It's like the tobacco industry.... no benefits, a lot of drawbacks...

---

Wait what are you talking about. There are no drawbacks. People watch porn to get turned on. The one benefit.

One benefit, zero drawbacks. Uhhh.

Well, here's one drawback...sex addiction

some people don't think that is a drawback.... just a lifestyle choice

God doesn't HATE it, God INVENTED it. Don't you read the bible?

God created parthenogenic lizards, but then gave the rest of us Males and Females. Does that make any sense to you, if God didn't want porn?

Ask yourself; why didn't God make humankind Parthenogenic?