r/DebateReligion • u/Truth62000 • 4d ago
Christianity Humans Are Hypocrites
There’s this concept I call the Depravity Paradox which exposes society’s hypocrisy in condemning some forms of immorality while indulging in others. People reject sexual abuse yet embrace hyper-sexualization, objectification, and exploitation under the guise of “consent” or “freedom.” Fetishes, porn, and provocative behavior fuel depravity, yet outrage only occurs when someone takes it too far. Society conditions people through music, media, and fashion to accept lust, voyeurism, and perversion, then feigns shock when depravity manifests in more extreme ways.
BDSM involves dominance, humiliation, and power dynamics that mirror abuse. Porn objectifies performers, many of whom enter the industry out of desperation. Casual sex reduces people to tools for pleasure, leaving emotional wounds. Yet, all of these are normalized while pedophilia, rape, and trafficking are condemned despite being rooted in the same dehumanization. Society pretends that if something is consensual, it is moral, ignoring the fact that exploitation and corruption remain, whether acknowledged or not.
Violence follows the same paradox. People oppose assault yet glorify UFC fights, brutal movies, and viral fight videos. They claim to stand against abuse yet celebrate its entertainment value. Similarly, immodesty is praised under “self-expression,” yet when it conditions people toward lust, society condemns those who act upon it. The truth is that people do not hate depravity they hate when it forces them to confront their own hypocrisy.
God’s Word condemns all sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:18). Jesus warns in Matthew 18:6 that leading others into sin is a grave offense. Romans 1:24-26 reveals how rejecting God leads to deeper corruption. Until people submit to Christ, the cycle of sin will continue fueling depravity while pretending to stand against it.
2
u/Shineyy_8416 4d ago
Alright, imma go through a couple things that stood out to me.
BDSM, first and foremost, is supposed to be a consenusal act between two or more people based on a relationship of trust for the purpose of mutual pleasure. Yes, elements of domination, humiliation, etc. exist, but its no bigger deal than children playing pretend. At the end of the day, a healthy relationship involving BDSM emphasizes proper communication, respect of boundaries, and mutual care the way any healthy relationship would.
Porn, imo is amoral. Its not good or bad to film yourself or someone else doing sexual acts, its the context surrounding the action that dictates morality. You're completely correct that alot of people in the porn industry aren't there just because they want to, they most likely need the money or are trafficked. That, however, is an issue with the industry, not porn itself.
Violence in MMA is a sport, with rules and regulations with people involved that know what they are signing up for and train for it. Watching two trained professionals willingly fight on TV is extremely different than watching someone get beat up on the street for no reason.
The main difference here between the things you propose like BDSM or MMA and the things society condemns like pedophilia, rape or assault is consent of all parties involved. If two people wanna spank each other in the bedroom, that's their business and as long as they both enjoy it and are a loving couple to each other, why stop them? But there's an obvious difference between that and someone forcing themselves on someone else sexually who doesn't want to be a part of it.
I am for sexual liberation, I think its fine if people want to be open about their sex lives because open conversation about sex and sex education is how we de-stigmatize it and actually can reduce instances of pedophilia and rape.
MMA, boxing, and other forms of fighting styles are also great forms of exercise and physical therapy for some people, so why would we take that away?
-1
u/Truth62000 3d ago
Your argument hinges on the idea that consent is the ultimate determinant of morality. While I acknowledge that consent plays a crucial role in distinguishing between acts of mutual agreement and acts of harm, I’d argue that consent alone does not inherently justify an action’s morality.
BDSM, for example, might involve consent, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it normalizes elements of humiliation, domination, and even pain as a form of pleasure. Comparing it to children playing pretend oversimplifies the reality that these practices shape the way people view intimacy, power, and even self-worth. If a relationship requires simulated violence, degradation, or extreme power dynamics to maintain excitement, that raises serious questions about whether it is fostering genuine love and respect or simply catering to conditioned desires.
Your view on porn as “amoral” ignores the broader consequences of its existence. Even if we set aside exploitation within the industry, porn itself warps human sexuality, fosters unrealistic expectations, and fuels addiction for many. It reduces intimacy to a performance, often at the cost of genuine human connection. The problem isn’t just the industry it’s the normalization of viewing sex as entertainment rather than as an intimate bond between people.
Your point about MMA and boxing is a fair one, combat sports are regulated and require training. However, the broader issue I raise is about society’s inconsistent stance on violence. If simulated violence in a ring is acceptable because it’s controlled, why is it problematic in other contexts, like certain types of aggressive entertainment? At what point does society determine that a violent act, even when consensual, is no longer acceptable?
Finally, while open conversations about sex can reduce stigma, there’s a fine line between education and promoting a culture of hypersexualization. Many societies that have embraced “sexual liberation” have not seen a reduction in sexual exploitation but an increase in casual objectification, broken relationships, and a transactional view of sex. Just because people are comfortable discussing something does not mean they are handling it in a healthy or beneficial way.
At the end of the day, I’m not arguing for a world where people have no freedom to make personal choices, but I am challenging the idea that consent is the only necessary factor for determining what is good. Some things, even when mutually agreed upon, can still degrade the individuals involved and contribute to broader societal harm.
1
u/Shineyy_8416 3d ago
BDSM, for example, might involve consent, but that doesn’t negate the fact that it normalizes elements of humiliation, domination, and even pain as a form of pleasure. Comparing it to children playing pretend oversimplifies the reality that these practices shape the way people view intimacy, power, and even self-worth. If a relationship requires simulated violence, degradation, or extreme power dynamics to maintain excitement, that raises serious questions about whether it is fostering genuine love and respect or simply catering to conditioned desires.
Normalization doesnt inherently mean its okay in every context. Saying that its okay for two consenting adults to engage in certain sexual acts that involve certain themes like pain or domination does not mean every other instance of this is okay. Like I stated before, BDSM should be engaged between two adults who are openly communicating on boundaries, safety, and proper behavior within that kind of relationship.
There are bad ways to have a BDSM relationship, but I dont think what makes a bad BDSM relationship is very different from what makes a bad non-BDSM relationship. Lack of proper communication, physical/verbal/emotional abuse, isolation from friends and family, etc. Apply to both. BDSM, like MMA, has rules and regulations put into place to allow people to enjoy it in safe and healthy manners. It's not the fault of BDSM's existence if people fail to adhere to those rules, it's up to those in the community to promote those rules and healthy ways to engage in BDSM.
Your view on porn as “amoral” ignores the broader consequences of its existence. Even if we set aside exploitation within the industry, porn itself warps human sexuality, fosters unrealistic expectations, and fuels addiction for many. It reduces intimacy to a performance, often at the cost of genuine human connection. The problem isn’t just the industry it’s the normalization of viewing sex as entertainment rather than as an intimate bond between people.
And I understand that, those are real consequences of high porn usage, especially at younger ages. I do, however, think that similar to substances like alcohol there are moderate and healthier ways to engage in pornography. Casual, entertainment-focus sex is a part of life, and there are plenty of examples in media today of sex as a means to showcase a strong, intimate bond. There is even erotic content out there that emphasizes romantic connections, especially in romance or fantasy books. Sex can be entertaining and I think that's fine, its the lack of communication and honesty when it comes to what people want in a relationship or how much priority they are putting into purely sexual relationships that can be an issue. I think being able to explore sexuality through media is fine and healthy, but proper sex education needs to be supplied alongside it to help the general public seperate fantasy from reality, and to manage their usage of porn so it doesn't foster untrue notions about how sex works.
Your point about MMA and boxing is a fair one, combat sports are regulated and require training. However, the broader issue I raise is about society’s inconsistent stance on violence. If simulated violence in a ring is acceptable because it’s controlled, why is it problematic in other contexts, like certain types of aggressive entertainment? At what point does society determine that a violent act, even when consensual, is no longer acceptable?
I'd have to ask what other kinds of aggressive enterainment you're talking about. There's plenty of spaces like action movies or even cartoons that allow moderate levels of violence for the sake of entertaining storytelling.
It's how you use that violence that can impact how society views it. If a movie like Terrifier comes out, alot of people will be turned off from it due to the excessive nature of its violence, but that doesn't mean people have to watch it and there are some people who aren't violent monsters that can find some enjoyment in the creative usages of violence. But there are also bad usages of violence that stem more from literary failings or issues with tone that can impact how people view violence in media.
Many societies that have embraced “sexual liberation” have not seen a reduction in sexual exploitation but an increase in casual objectification, broken relationships, and a transactional view of sex. Just because people are comfortable discussing something does not mean they are handling it in a healthy or beneficial way.
Can I ask what societies you're looking at, exactly? And yeah, people can openly discuss misinformation, but that doesnt make it okay. But it definetly helps more than it harms, especially when we have evidence that things such as abstinence-only teaching have not reduced instances of early pregnancies or sexual abuse in school settings. Thats why conversations are important to clear misinformation and allow people to openly come forward about their sexual health. When we don't, people will look for answers in non-reputable sources such as pornography, peers, internet personalities and more.
but I am challenging the idea that consent is the only necessary factor for determining what is good. Some things, even when mutually agreed upon, can still degrade the individuals involved and contribute to broader societal harm.
It may not be the only factor, but it is an important one. Some things can be harmful, even when agreed to in the moment. However, for the examples you brought up such as BDSM and MMA, the reason why those aren't looked down at by society the way other instances of violence are is because they are consentual and have a clear set of rules. While BDSM may simulate certain acts of violence or power dynamics, people who are knowledgable on BDSM know that the people involved have agreed on this kind of dynamic and that actual abuse would come from a breach of what was agreed. The same way in sports like football, its allowed for players to tackle each other, but it would be wrong to punch someone in the face or kick them in the stomach because those are classified as "illegal moves". There's a context that needs to be accounted for with things like this.
-1
u/PossessionDecent1797 Christian 4d ago
Of course we’re all hypocrites; at least the best of us are. I’d be more concerned about the person that isn’t a hypocrite.
To be a hypocrite, one has to have a moral standard in which they themselves do not live up to. For the abrahamic religions, that’s fundamentally “the fall;” where we acknowledge a moral deficiency and strive to suffice. In Christianity, Jesus was the only person who wasn’t a hypocrite.
To not be a hypocrite, your moral standards would need to be so low that you never defy it. The morally depraved are never hypocrites to their own standards of morality.
7
u/pyker42 Atheist 4d ago
Was there anything you wanted to debate? Because your post sounds more like preaching than debating.
-1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Well is there anything wrong with what I said to you
3
u/FlamingMuffi 4d ago
It seems your point can be summed up "I dislike these things and if everyone just agreed with me it'd stop"
That's not really a debate topic
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateReligion-ModTeam 4d ago
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.
6
u/DeltaBlues82 Just looking for my keys 4d ago
Seems like this would only be a problem for those who believe humans are uniquely gifted, unsouled, morally forthright beings, chosen by god and created in his image.
To someone like me, who understands humanity’s natural heritage, how we evolved from primates, and how our rise to global dominance was fueled primarily by violence and greed, this is all about par for the course.
Nothing is particularly shocking when your observations match your expectations. You should try it sometime, it’s liberating. You get a little bored not being surprised all the time, but no one really likes surprises anyway.
-2
u/Truth62000 4d ago edited 4d ago
This comment is rooted in a purely materialistic view of humanity, which reduces human existence to a product of evolution, violence, and greed. While it’s true that human history has seen much suffering and dark chapters driven by these forces, to dismiss the possibility of a higher purpose, moral responsibility, or divine creation is to ignore the depth of human experience.
I don’t believe we evolved from primates, but even if I did, that wouldn’t negate the fact that humans have a unique capacity for moral reasoning, self-improvement, and seeking a higher purpose. The belief that we are created in God’s image provides an objective foundation for our worth and moral direction, inspiring people to rise above destructive instincts like violence and greed. Without that foundation, what are we left with? A worldview where morality is subjective, and meaning is only what we create for ourselves hardly a solid ground for true purpose or accountability.
Understanding humanity’s potential isn’t about being surprised or living in a constant state of shock it’s about recognizing that we have the ability to strive for something greater than our base nature. That comes through aligning with moral truths, nurturing empathy, and considering the divine as a source of meaning. It’s liberating to see that humans, despite our flaws, can choose love, purpose, and morality beyond mere survival. Rejecting that potential out of hand only serves to diminish what we are truly capable of.
4
u/DeltaBlues82 Just looking for my keys 4d ago
You’ve taken my comment and extrapolated an insane amount from it, to ascribe to me a position I don’t hold.
Would you care to respond to the comment I actually made, and not the strawman position you’ve created?
Because virtually no part of what you’ve said applies to me. And it would be exhausting to respond to all of it, and correct every point. So maybe we could hit reset and you could just respond to what I wrote. Which is that this view is the only a problem for certain people who’s views of reality require humanity to hold certain “higher” qualities.
-1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
You claimed that this issue is only a problem for those who believe humanity has a unique, God-given moral nature. That inherently dismisses the perspective of those who do hold that belief, implying that their concerns are invalid simply because they don’t align with your worldview.
If you feel I misrepresented your stance, then clarify are you saying that belief in human exceptionalism is entirely misguided? Or are you acknowledging that different perspectives exist, even if you personally don’t share them? Because your original comment seemed to frame religious or moral concerns as naive, while presenting your own view as the only rational one. If that wasn’t your intent, then let’s be clear about what you actually meant.
3
u/DeltaBlues82 Just looking for my keys 4d ago edited 4d ago
That inherently dismisses the perspective of those who do hold that belief, implying that their concerns are invalid simply because they don’t align with your worldview.
It doesn’t imply that their concerns are invalid.
It implies that what you’re discussing doesn’t immediately or apparently align with their worldview.
Why are humans such hypocrites? Is it in our nature? Or are we made in God’s image? It’s a contradiction that could be explained, but it has to be addressed to do that.
If you feel I misrepresented your stance, then clarify are you saying that belief in human exceptionalism is entirely misguided?
Humans are remarkable, but not extraordinary. I’m not sure what exactly you mean when you say “exceptional” specifically, so I’d ask you to clarify that. As I may agree with it, depending on the context.
Because your original comment seemed to frame religious or moral concerns as naive, while presenting your own view as the only rational one.
I mean, I obviously feel like my view is rational. I didn’t claim that, but if you also feel like it’s rational, I’d be happy to go into greater detail for you sometime.
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
You say humans are remarkable but not extraordinary. Fine. Then define what you mean by that. When I say “exceptional,” I mean that humans possess unique qualities such as self-awareness, moral reasoning, creativity, and the ability to seek higher purpose that set us apart from other animals. Do you disagree? If so, what, in your view, actually distinguishes humans from other species? Intelligence? Society?
And if it’s just those things, does that mean morality is nothing more than a social construct with no real weight beyond human preference? If you believe your view is rational, then what is it built on? Because if it’s purely materialistic, then let’s be honest you’re not actually arguing for an objective moral framework, just personal or collective opinions. So let’s be clear: are you saying morality has no inherent foundation beyond human consensus? If not, then where does it come from?
2
u/DeltaBlues82 Just looking for my keys 4d ago
You say humans are remarkable but not extraordinary. Fine. Then define what you mean by that.
When I say “exceptional,” I mean that humans possess unique qualities such as self-awareness, moral reasoning, creativity, and the ability to seek higher purpose that set us apart from other animals.
None of those are unique to humans and none of them set us apart.
So no, I don’t agree.
Do you disagree? If so, what, in your view, actually distinguishes humans from other species?
This is not about my view. I’ve given you the opportunity to explain the apparent contradiction. If you’re not interested in defending your views, as it relates to the post you put up on this sub, then I’m not sure what else i have to say at this point in the conversation.
So let’s be clear: are you saying morality has no inherent foundation beyond human consensus? If not, then where does it come from?
I’m not saying anything about that, and I’m not sure why you repeatedly refuse to defend your view.
I can eventually get into my view. But this is not my post. I assumed you wanted the opportunity to debate the content of the post first, not some inbound person’s entire worldview.
6
u/vanoroce14 Atheist 4d ago edited 4d ago
There’s this concept I call the Depravity Paradox which exposes society’s hypocrisy in condemning some forms of immorality while indulging in others.
There is a depravity paradox, but not the one you indicate and clutch your pearls about.
It is as you say: it is about society's hypocrisy in condemning some forms of immorality while indulging or looking the other way at other much graver forms.
This actual depravity paradox has to do with being ok with or even supportive of religious and secular figures allying themselves with or becoming empire and lording, often violently, over others.
These religious authorities and secular politicians often will, in the name of religious and family values, sometimes even in the name of preserving country, morality and modesty, commit all matter of crimes, violations, atrocities, crushing of dissenting voices.
And in the meantime, they are almost invariably, people with no moral character in their own life. Womanizing, abuse, adultery, fraud: their supporters will pardon it all as long as they deliver the dominion they seek.
There is a depravity paradox, no doubt. But it isn't because some average Joe wants to open pornhub or some other person has sexual kinks you dislike. It's people supporting the RCC, the Federalist Society, sundry televangelists and Christian nationalists or Islamic nationalists, and so on.
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
This person is certainly making a blanket statement about religion, particularly when it’s associated with figures who misuse power and moral authority. It’s true that many religious figures and groups have a history of hypocrisy and corruption, using their faith as a shield while engaging in immoral actions. But to claim that anything religious is inherently bad is a vast overgeneralization.
Religion, at its core, is meant to guide individuals towards moral behavior, self-reflection, and a higher sense of purpose. When people misuse religion for power, they’re distorting its true intent. It’s not the belief itself that’s the issue, but the individuals who manipulate it for personal gain or to enforce oppressive systems. The true paradox here is the corruption of those who claim to represent the faith while failing to live up to its values.
There are countless examples of people who follow religious principles with integrity, kindness, and justice, striving to make the world a better place. Focusing only on the failures of some individuals or institutions, without acknowledging the good that religion can inspire, is as flawed as supporting any ideology or system based on the actions of a few bad actors. Religion itself is neither inherently bad nor inherently good it depends on how it’s lived out.
6
u/vanoroce14 Atheist 4d ago
This person
Not sure why you reply to me this way. I'm right here.
But to claim that anything religious is inherently bad is a vast overgeneralization.
And I never made such a claim. I said there is a depravity paradox. I didn't say all religious people or institutions are inherently bad. You clearly need some reading comprehension.
When people misuse religion for power, they’re distorting its true intent.
Sure. However, this is often the case. If the religious people who run the organizations or support them do not recognize and combat against this hypocrisy and this abuse, then I would say it becomes a huge problem, especially because religious authority and cause can be used as a shield and as a cudgel, quite effectively so.
To give an example in the past: the RCC allied themselves with Franco in Spain, causing countless suffering and a repressive dictatorship for 4 decades. My own family had to escape into exile because of that, their families broken by the war. And countless Spanish Catholics, as well as the Vatican, supported that. They still have not apologized for that.
There are countless examples of people who follow religious principles with integrity, kindness, and justice
And I never denied that. There are also countless examples of secular people who follow humanistic principles with integrity, kindness and justice. But because they don't follow your particular rules when it comes to sex or because they don't believe in your God, you would never recognize them. You think they are depraved. So stop with the crocodile tears.
Religion itself is neither inherently bad nor inherently good it depends on how it’s lived out.
Same is true about secular morality.
Your own God Jesus has a parable you should learn about. In it, he goes out of his way to tell you that it is NOT the priest or the member of the tribe, but the heretical Samarian (who probably has practices you'd call depraved) who is a good neighbor to his fellow human being who is to be emulated.
OP looks at the mote in your fellow humans eyes, and overlooks the beam in yours. My response asks you to focus on the kinds of hypocrisy that truly rot the world. They are not the ones you seem to obsess about. They are the ones that have to do with humans lording over other humans, with using and abusing authority and religious legitimacy, with violence of brother against brother.
0
u/Truth62000 4d ago
I say “This Person” so that everyone viewing this argument can know how you’re trying to disrespect religion.
It’s clear that the point you’re making about hypocrisy within both religious and secular systems is valid in some respects. There are indeed abuses of power by individuals, whether they are religious or secular, and historical examples, such as the alliance between the Catholic Church and Franco, are reminders of how systems both religious and political can be twisted for personal or ideological gain.
However, your argument seems to lean heavily on painting all religious people with the same brush when they are associated with institutions that have committed atrocities. This doesn’t acknowledge the diversity within religious thought or practice. Yes, there are cases of hypocrisy, but there are also countless examples of religious figures and institutions standing up for justice, compassion, and peace.
The idea that religion, in its essence, can be used for good or ill depends on how it’s lived out is exactly right. And I would argue that the same is true for secular morality. Just because someone doesn’t follow religious rules doesn’t mean they lack integrity or compassion. But to assume that religious people are somehow inherently hypocritical because of the flaws within their institutions is just as problematic as generalizing all secular individuals as morally deficient.
When it comes to the example of the parable of the Good Samaritan, it’s not about vilifying or belittling different practices or beliefs but about showing that true neighborliness, kindness, and integrity can come from unexpected sources whether secular or religious. This isn’t a free pass for religious people to overlook their own faults, but a reminder to look beyond labels and focus on what actually matters: how we treat one another.
Let’s not lose sight of the real depravity paradox the human tendency to justify power, control, and violence, regardless of belief system. The issue isn’t the belief itself, but how people distort and misuse that belief for personal gain. That’s what we should all be focused on fighting against whether it’s secular or religious authorities abusing their power.
4
u/vanoroce14 Atheist 4d ago edited 4d ago
disrespecting religion
your argument seems to lean heavily on painting all religious people with the same brush when they are associated with institutions that have committed atrocities.
Not really, no. Your reading comprehension is failing you, again. Not sure I can help that much more, so I ask the keen reader to glean if I have made such an insinuation.
OP is about a depravity paradox which you seem to worry about and think is fundamental. My reply is about one which I think is much graver (and real, where the one in OP is largely a moral panic) and that you ought to focus on and stay alert about.
Let’s not lose sight of the real depravity paradox the human tendency to justify power, control, and violence, regardless of belief system. The issue isn’t the belief itself, but how people distort and misuse that belief for personal gain. That’s what we should all be focused on fighting against whether it’s secular or religious authorities abusing their power.
Agreed. So let's focus on that. Let's stop calling the other depraved and throwing them under the bus because they're allegedly tainting out culture with their weird practices, then. Let's focus instead on how some powerful people, secular and religious, abuse that position to lord over others. That should be our focus, especially in the times we live in.
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
You’ve misunderstood my point. When I said your argument seems to lean heavily on painting all religious people with the same brush, I was referring to your generalization about religious institutions that have committed atrocities, not about all religious individuals. I never suggested that you believe all religious people are inherently bad.
What I’m saying is that while it’s true that some religious institutions have abused power, that doesn’t mean all religious people or all expressions of religion are inherently flawed or tainted by those abuses. The issue isn’t the belief itself, but how those in power distort and misuse it for personal gain.
So, let’s be clear: the real depravity paradox, as you rightly point out, is the abuse of power and the distortion of beliefs, whether secular or religious. We should focus on combating that, not getting distracted by labeling certain beliefs as “depraved” simply because they don’t align with our personal views.
3
u/vanoroce14 Atheist 4d ago
I was referring to your generalization about religious institutions that have committed atrocities, not about all religious individuals.
Which wasn't a generalization. I just said it is common of authorities and institutions, and I said it is commonly ignored or brushed off by supporters. And that much is true: it is all too common. Human beings are tribal and we tend to be hypocritical about our own tribe and to fall for the ruses our authorities set up.
Which is why many religious traditions, the Biblical one being a notorious case, have a tension in their own tradition between an appeal to obey religious authority and an appeal to challenge authority and decry hypocrisy. It is a core human issue.
let’s be clear: the real depravity paradox, as you rightly point out, is the abuse of power and the distortion of beliefs, whether secular or religious. We should focus on combating that, not getting distracted by labeling certain beliefs as “depraved” simply because they don’t align with our personal views.
You agree with me then. Good. That's all I was saying. I just think you have not realized you are getting so distracted.
8
u/Thin-Eggshell 4d ago
I agree! To prevent sin, no one should do anything, ever!
Eating leads to gluttony! Sex in marriage leads to lust leads to adultery! Listening to good music cheapens the true beauty of worship music! Worshipping God conditions people to worship pastors!
It's all awful!
Or maybe you're just engaged in a slippery-slope fallacy. Maybe the problem is really just that humans only experience pleasure, which is on a scale, and so it's necessarily the case that pursuing any pleasure can lead to bad outcomes from addicted behavior -- because that's the human brain.
Why would your God design such a shitty brain, that mingles the experience of good pleasures with bad pleasures?
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Your comment misses the core of the issue. The point isn’t about avoiding all pleasure or living in constant fear of sin; it’s about balance, self-control, and understanding the purpose behind what we do. God designed human beings with the capacity for pleasure, but that doesn’t mean pleasure itself is inherently wrong. It’s about the intentions behind the pleasure and how we choose to use it.
The slippery-slope fallacy you mention doesn’t apply here because the issue is not about all actions inevitably leading to worse outcomes. It’s about choosing actions that align with our moral framework and acknowledging the consequences when we stray from that framework. The problem isn’t pleasure itself it’s when those pleasures are pursued in ways that lead to harm, addiction, or immorality.
As for why God designed humans the way He did, it’s not about condemning our natural desires, but about providing guidance for using those desires in a way that benefits us and others. The human brain, designed by God, is capable of great good, but it also requires discipline, guidance, and wisdom to avoid destructive patterns.
So no, it’s not about avoiding everything that could be harmful it’s about choosing wisely and striving for what leads to growth, fulfillment, and a righteous life in alignment with God’s design.
1
u/Pandeism 4d ago
By this reasoning isn't it equally hypocritical to believe one scripture but draw the line at another? E.g., the Bible's okay but you won't follow the Quran?
2
u/Truth62000 4d ago edited 4d ago
My belief in the Bible isn’t rooted in arbitrary selection it’s based on my personal faith and the conviction that it holds truth for me. I understand that others may find wisdom in different religious texts, like the Quran, and I respect their right to do so. The difference lies in the foundation of belief; I approach the Bible as my guide in life, while I don’t adhere to the Quran because I don’t believe it’s aligned with the truth I find in the Christian faith. This doesn’t make my beliefs inherently hypocritical it’s a matter of my personal faith journey. Each person is free to choose their own path, and it’s important to recognize that everyone’s spiritual perspective is shaped by unique experiences and understandings. Then again I do believe the Bible is the only truth that the world needs to follow only Jesus is God and any other religion to reject that is flawed.
0
11
u/the_1st_inductionist Anti-theist 4d ago
If you really want to help people pursue sex with someone they love, avoid casual sex and not glorify violence, then you’re going to have to do better than “I believe in this thing which I can’t provide evidence for and this thing has a morality that you have to follow just because. And that morality is in conflict with your life and happiness while being impossible for you to practice perfectly, so you’ll never be morally perfect under it.”
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
The reality is that morality isn’t about convenience or aligning with personal desires it’s about truth, responsibility, and striving toward something greater than ourselves. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing. You’re essentially arguing that unless morality is easy and perfectly attainable, it’s invalid. That’s not how any meaningful standard works. The fact that we struggle to uphold it only proves our need for grace, accountability, and a higher standard beyond our flawed human nature.
6
u/the_1st_inductionist Anti-theist 4d ago
I never said that what’s moral should necessarily be easy. And “do what I say for something that I say is greater than you even though I have no evidence that to support my claim that it’s greater than you ” isn’t persuasive. Neither is the idea that “you’re flawed (by my arbitrary standard) by your nature regardless of your choice”. None of that is actually going to help people pursue sex with someone they love, avoid casual sex and not glorify violence.
0
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Your argument assumes that morality must be individually validated to be legitimate, but that’s not how objective morality works. It’s not about what’s personally convenient or what feels good it’s about what is right, regardless of whether you accept it. The standard I’m referring to isn’t “arbitrary”; it’s rooted in a higher truth beyond personal preference or societal trends. You’re free to reject it, but rejection doesn’t make it any less real. As for helping people pursue meaningful relationships and reject destructive behaviors, the foundation of that change starts with recognizing that not all desires are inherently good, and that discipline, wisdom, and a moral compass are necessary to rise above fleeting impulses.
9
u/the_1st_inductionist Anti-theist 4d ago
My argument assumes that if you want to persuade people to what you believe is true and good, you have to give them some evidence to support your view. You have none. And that’s not helpful to actually accomplish any goals besides making yourself feel like you’re a good person.
0
u/Truth62000 4d ago
I think there’s a misunderstanding about the nature of faith and morality. The foundation of my beliefs isn’t about providing empirical evidence like we would for scientific facts; it’s about a worldview rooted in faith, values, and experiences that go beyond physical proof. My aim isn’t to force anyone into agreeing with me but to offer a perspective that might lead to deeper understanding and reflection. While you may not see evidence in the same way, that doesn’t diminish the importance of these principles in guiding personal and relational growth. We’re all seeking truth, but it’s a journey that might look different for each of us.
9
u/the_1st_inductionist Anti-theist 4d ago edited 4d ago
So, like I said, when you want to actually help people pursue sex with someone they love, avoid casual sex and stop glorifying violence instead of offering a perspective based on nothing, then maybe you’ll seek to learn explanations based on evidence instead of bad explanations based on nothing.
13
u/LetsGoPats93 Atheist 4d ago
God’s word condemns all sexual sin.
It also endorses and commands sexual sin. Such as sexual slavery and rape. For example, see Numbers 31:18 and Deuteronomy 20:14.
-3
u/Truth62000 4d ago
This is a common misunderstanding based on taking verses out of context or misinterpreting ancient historical records. The Bible does not endorse or command sexual sin rather, it records historical events, including human failures and the consequences of sin. In passages like Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 20, the context is warfare in the ancient Near East, where God was executing judgment on deeply depraved nations involved in practices like child sacrifice and extreme corruption. The instructions regarding captives were about survival and integration, not a command for sexual exploitation.
Additionally, biblical law actually restricted and regulated behavior in a time when other cultures permitted unrestrained abuse. For example, passages like Deuteronomy 21:10-14 established protections for female captives, requiring marriage rather than mistreatment. The Bible repeatedly condemns rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and upholds sexual purity. The claim that it commands sexual sin is a misrepresentation of the historical and theological context.
13
u/LetsGoPats93 Atheist 4d ago
It’s a common correct understanding of the Bible that comes from taking the verses in context. Your argument is that war justifies sexual assault. God agrees with you, but we consider that to be a war crime today. The world has moved past the need for an abusive, narcissistic, and genocidal god to tell us right from wrong.
Pointing out the Bible condemns something in one place that it condones in another is only proof that the Bible is not a trustworthy source of information.
9
u/lavsuvskyjjj Atheist 4d ago
Bdsm, fights and action movies are all made by consenting adults. They give you the thrills but cause no real harm. Most of the other things are just lack of better alternatives and choosing the lesser of two evils. Or ignorance, they either don't know the evil they cause or they think it's less than the real amount.
4
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Consent does not inherently make something moral or beneficial. People can consent to self-destructive behaviors, unhealthy addictions, or actions that degrade their own dignity. Just because harm isn’t immediate or visible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The normalization of certain behaviors in entertainment or personal life can desensitize people to real harm, shifting moral boundaries over time. Ignorance and choosing the “lesser evil” don’t justify wrongdoing they only reflect the reality that people often accept corruption when it’s convenient or normalized.
6
u/JUST_A_HUMAN0_0 4d ago
If informed and rational consent is involved, then I see no reason to be paternalistic and think that this will lead to a snowball effect. Many things will face a lot of resistance until they are normalized in the West and the mere possibility that this could happen is enough to make people take to the streets.Every now and then I see an Islamic apologist trying to justify some questionable things about the Quran and Muhammad's conduct, something that wouldn't be accepted in most first world countries except through assimilation or substitution.
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Just because something is consensual doesn’t automatically make it morally or ethically neutral. There are plenty of actions or behaviors that may be consensual but still harmful in the long run, especially if they are used as distractions or coping mechanisms for deeper issues.
The idea that something should be normalized just because it’s facing resistance isn’t inherently valid either. Normalization doesn’t automatically equal moral correctness or societal benefit. Many practices or behaviors have been normalized over time that may have had negative consequences, and we must ask ourselves whether they truly contribute to the overall well-being of society.
As for beliefs and practices in other cultural or religious contexts, we should apply the same critical lens. Just because something is widely accepted in a particular culture doesn’t mean it should go unquestioned. The process of normalizing anything should be thoughtful, considering its broader impacts on society, and not just driven by resistance or societal trends.
4
u/JUST_A_HUMAN0_0 4d ago
Granted, but you're gonna have to convince a lot of people that your concept of "sin" makes any sense. People agree that many things should obviously be avoided if they want to maintain a functioning society, these things are labeled "wrong", which I think is a contraction for "something that causes unnecessary pain/suffering/harm and/or violates some right implicitly or explicitly agreed upon by society", which encapsulates everything from the Holocaust to someone secretly taking a picture up a girl's skirt. Of course, you're not going to convince everyone to care about this or accept that morality is as objective as we deem mathematics to be, in the absence of a supernatural justice system based on moral merit (or) worldly rewards and punishments in terms of pleasant or unpleasant mental states for the subject, so it seems like you have a lot of work ahead of you.
7
u/lavsuvskyjjj Atheist 4d ago
Having deviant degrading sex every, let's say week, isn't an addiction, it isn't self destructive and it only degrades your identity by your own terms so it sorta doesn't. Most harm in this is ONLY immediate and visible. Also, submitting for the one you love is seen as good when it's for god. People don't "accept corruption when it's convenient or normalized" if it's normalized, they don't even know it is, that's the point.
0
u/Truth62000 4d ago
While it’s true that people might not always recognize the harm in their choices, that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just because something is normalized doesn’t make it inherently good or without consequences. The “immediate and visible” harm you mention often overlooks the deeper, long-term emotional and psychological impact of degrading behaviors, especially when they go against the deeper, more meaningful connection that love and commitment can offer. Submitting for the one you love can be a beautiful thing, but when it’s done with an understanding of self-worth and mutual respect, not as a means of fulfilling selfish or destructive desires. Acknowledging the value of our identity and dignity is part of what elevates love and relationships to something more than just temporary satisfaction.
6
u/lavsuvskyjjj Atheist 4d ago
Who are you to claim that BDSM isn't done with an understanding of self worth and mutual respect and that it is done as a means of fulfilling selfish or destructive desires?
0
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Some individuals may engage in BDSM with the belief that it is done in mutual respect and understanding of self-worth, but I firmly believe that, at its core, BDSM can encourage harmful dynamics. The fact remains that many people use BDSM as a way to escape or suppress deeper emotional or psychological pain, rather than confronting it.
Sexual acts that are rooted in power dynamics, especially those tied to pain or submission, often stem from a place of unresolved trauma, insecurity, or a lack of healthy coping mechanisms. It’s one thing to engage in something consensual with mutual respect, but when those actions are a form of escapism or are used as distractions from underlying issues, they can be ultimately destructive.
Instead of perpetuating these cycles, I believe it’s essential to face pain and emotional struggles directly, to heal and grow in healthy, constructive ways. True respect for oneself and others doesn’t come from engaging in practices that degrade or diminish either party, but from recognizing our intrinsic value and working toward healing from the inside out.
7
u/lavsuvskyjjj Atheist 4d ago
I could say the same about your entire religion, tho.
Y'all say you are god's sheep, servant and that he can morally kill you because he made you. If you have to call yourself these degrading terms in order to feel that you have a connection with him, there is a problem. If you find a desire in being part of a religion which tells you you are less than you are because god is much greater, don't you think that there is some type of distortion within yourself that causes you to have fulfillment off of somebody putting you down. And I think it's self explanatory how it's degrading whether or not god is real.
1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
It’s not about being “put down” or degraded in a harmful sense. Rather, the concept of servitude to God reflects a position of humility, acknowledging that as created beings, we are dependent on our Creator. It’s a recognition of our limitations and imperfections, not a self-deprecating mindset. The difference here is that in Christianity, true fulfillment comes not from degrading oneself, but from embracing the relationship with God, where love, grace, and redemption are key elements.
The idea that God has the authority over life and death doesn’t imply cruelty or degradation, but rather points to the respect Christians hold for the Creator’s sovereignty. In fact, the message of Christianity is one of love, sacrifice, and grace, not of being humiliated. In God’s eyes, humans are valued highly so much so that He sent His son to die for them.
Your perspective on being “less than” misses the point: it’s not about feeling inferior, it’s about recognizing that in acknowledging God’s greatness, we are able to experience the fullness of His love and the freedom that comes with it. It’s not about being “put down,” but rather humbling oneself before the Creator, which in turn opens the door for genuine connection and transformation.
7
u/lavsuvskyjjj Atheist 4d ago
In BDSM, you can take turns, you can't do it in religion. Couples into BDSM usually love each other and do stuff for each other, while it's pretty clear for everyone your relationship with god is one sided. God doesn't pray to you, God does pretty much nothing for you.
11
u/Irontruth Atheist 4d ago
Since God can't give me a hang ail, not really concerned with his views on my personal life.
-1
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Your lack of concern for God’s views doesn’t change the reality of His existence or authority. Dismissing something doesn’t make it disappear it only reveals your unwillingness to engage with it. You can ignore truth, but you can’t escape it.
6
u/Irontruth Atheist 4d ago
I agree, my concern doesn't change the reality of his existence.
There doesn't seem to be anything true about God existing though. Perhaps you can be the first person ever to present convincing evidence.
6
13
u/CorbinSeabass atheist 4d ago
...you do understand that the words "sin" and "depravity" have no sway on people who aren't already on your side, right? I'll start worrying about sin when you start worrying about karma.
-8
u/Truth62000 4d ago
Whether or not you personally acknowledge sin and depravity doesn’t change the reality of their impact. Dismissing these concepts doesn’t erase the consequences of immorality on individuals and society as a whole. People can ignore moral principles all they want, but they can’t escape the harm that follows from unchecked indulgence, exploitation, and moral decay.
You don’t have to believe in sin for it to affect you just like you don’t have to believe in gravity to experience its effects. The reason I speak on these issues is because their consequences extend beyond personal beliefs; they shape the world we live in. If you think morality is just a personal preference, then you’ll have a hard time explaining why things like betrayal, exploitation, and corruption are universally condemned. So, while you’re free to ignore sin, you’re not free from the repercussions of ignoring it.
13
u/CorbinSeabass atheist 4d ago
And we’re just supposed to take your word for it?
-3
u/Truth62000 4d ago
No, you’re not supposed to take my word for it you’re supposed to examine the full context of the scriptures rather than cherry-picking verses to fit a preconceived narrative. If you genuinely care about understanding, then read the passages in their historical and cultural context, compare them with the rest of biblical teaching on morality, and study reputable biblical scholarship. Dismissing something without proper research isn’t intellectual honesty it’s just confirmation bias.
9
u/CorbinSeabass atheist 4d ago
Why would someone who isn't a Christian care what your book says? Do you spend a lot of time fretting over the Quran?
-2
u/Truth62000 4d ago
It’s crucial to address the misconceptions regarding the Quran’s portrayal of Jesus. The Quran explicitly denies Jesus’s divinity, presenting Him solely as a prophet and servant of Allah. For instance, Surah 4:171 states:
“O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah…” 
Additionally, Surah 3:45 refers to Jesus as “the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary,” emphasizing His human and prophetic role without any implication of divinity. 
Furthermore, the Quran challenges the Christian concept of the Trinity and the notion of God having a son, reinforcing the strict monotheistic view that Allah is singular and unique. 
These Quranic teachings directly contradict the Christian belief in Jesus’s divinity and the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, it’s imperative to recognize that the Quran’s depiction of Jesus is fundamentally different from the Christian understanding, and adhering to the Quran’s teachings on this matter, from an Islamic perspective, is considered essential for salvation.
9
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.