The Ungodly Surveillance of Anti-Porn ‘Shameware’ Apps
wired.com> Fortify’s inclusion of Facebook’s Pixel isn’t just a privacy issue, it’s a security problem. While testing the app, we also noticed that the password to our account was sent in plaintext to Facebook in the URL of the tracking requests. Facebook claims to have filtering mechanisms to prevent its systems from storing this type of personal information, but Fortify’s apparent oversight is still concerning to experts like Galperin. “That’s a huge vulnerability,” she says. “It’s the sort of behavior that makes me feel like they don’t have security experts reviewing the app or its policies.”
> After being notified of the password issue, Olsen said Fortify would stop transmitting users’ unencrypted passwords to Facebook. As we went to press, the issue had not yet been addressed.
Oftentimes lost in these discussions (even in the posts here so far), is the fact that what is discussed is often done so under the implicit assumption that these tools are written perfectly. But a key consideration with regard to privacy is precisely that that is rarely the case. Even if you think these tools are hypothetically useful, you have to bake into the equation the relatively high probability that all this information will end up hacked and leaked to the public. Under those conditions I feel that it becomes pretty hard to defend these apps.
> Under those conditions I feel that it becomes pretty hard to defend these apps.
The problem is that there are precious little alternatives.
This article focused on Christians as a primary user of these tools. Put yourself in a Christian's shoes for a minute. You, being a Christian, are convinced your impulses and desires lead you to what is often harmful to yourself and those around you, and most importantly dishonoring to a God who you are convinced is honorable and good.
You don't want to just say "no internet", but much content on the internet is so very well tailored to those impulses and desires. You are often presented with content that requires an immediate internal fight, and you know that some of those fights don't turn out the way you want.
Look, when you are committed to fighting, you'll reach for any tool at hand. I'm not going to wait for a tank to magically appear for me when someone throws a punch at me.
Unfortunately even though these churches are using tools with privacy issues, at the end of the day: it's what is available. And, the fact that the whole concern of personal privacy is often times at odds with the bigger fight doesn't help.
> Look, when you are committed to fighting, you'll reach for any tool at hand.
I think this makes sense if you are trying to fight this, find this solution, and determine it is right for you. However, it feels like the "tool chooser" in many of these scenarios is different from the "tool user". A world that was geared towards individuals that wanted to fight their own impulses might create an app that just shut down your phone when you looked at questionable material, or charged you (like a "cursing jar" app). These apps instead seem to be "observer-centric", not "observed-centric". As such, it appears that oftentimes this is not the tool someone is reaching for, but the tool that is being handed out, if that makes sense. Clearly there exist other solutions to these "problems" (without getting into arguing whether this should be considered a problem or not). This honestly just feels like a lazy means of enforcement for the "accountability partner". In other words, the problem being solved here doesn't necessarily feel like it's "help me get over this", but rather "make helping me less of a burden on someone who's job is to help me, by letting them just look at an email at the end of the day."
Being a good Christian is all about trust! Just trust that Facebook won’t store your password and that Fortify will eventually fix this!
Being a good Christian shall not exclude rationality. Someone who has your password might use it or sell it to somebody who might use it.
> Being a good Christian shall not exclude rationality
I, for one, would question this.
Indeed I'd even say being a good human being is not always compatible with rationality.
being a good Christian is all about truth.
I'm trans and sexually active. I was raised evangelical, amongst the Pokemon-promotes-evolution, Satan-left-bones-in-the-earth-to-trick-us variety. This gives me the willies. It reminds me of being six years old and questioning whether everything I saw that wasn't church was evil.
I dealt with suicidal thoughts for many years, largely because my rearing amounted to being shoved in a box and told not to come out.
Also, "Covenant Eyes" sounds like it came straight out of The Handmaid's Tale.
Indoctrination of toddlers is one of the most evil things in this world. They still haven't developed their brains enough to have common sense, they will believe whatever the adults tell them is true. It's akin to brainwashing, and the worst part is that indoctrinated parents will indoctrinate their children themselves, just to be accepted in their community.
Wait for the kids to grow old enough to choose a religion for themselves, meanwhile you can still teach them values, ethics, and common sense.
Sorry you had to go through that. Christianity is so fucked up. I was raised Catholic and wasn't allowed to have long hair or dress myself or play flute in band etc. because it would turn me gay, heavily physically abused on a near-nightly basis, yada yada. No Pokemon or Harry Potter. Solidarity, friend.
I was raised Catholic, and none of that happened.
You were raised by a lunatic.
You were probably raised by a kind of Catholic I call "Catholic Light". They pray, go to church, think of god from time to time, and that's about it. Hardcore Catholicism is scary like any extremist religion, it will instill in children the fear of being watched and judged all the time, with no place to hide, not even your thoughts. It will make you fear eternal torture in hell because you're impure since birth, and every tiny sin makes you impure again. You become totally dependent on Catholic authority because only they can clean and save your soul, only for it to become dirty again almost immediately.
Subjecting a child to the fear of thought crime is the actual lunacy.
Yep.
Most of my early hacking endeavors and criminal mentality were developed while circumventing net nanny software and learning how to sneak and lie effectively.
I wasn't allowed a computer in my room, there were long stretches of time where I didn't have a door, and when I finally got a phone it was subject to daily random confiscation so that my texts could be read. I struggled deeply with a sense of identity.
Sorry you had to deal with that stuff, too. I know that you don't gain that kind of perspective without seeing it for yourself.
I'll say the same thing I said to soulofmischief: you're painting with a broad brush.
Who's to say my "Catholic light" behaviour isn't how the majority of what Catholics act? In fact, I bet that's so.
Characterizing a group by a small minority is the work of demagogues and thugs.
> Who's to say my "Catholic light" behaviour isn't how the majority of what Catholics act?
It's not about how the sheep act, or if they believe their own dogma. It's how the leadership acts, now and historically. And public sentiment is also localized. Not every Christian is born in white America.
> Characterizing a group by a small minority is the work of demagogues and thugs.
The small minority (a questionable label without citation) does the majority of damage, while the rest of the congregation fund and venerate them, sticking their heads up their own asses so that they don't have to see what they're really contributing to.
Painting your detractors as thugs is just so lame, so lazy, I know you can do better than that.
I was raised by a Catholic deacon, in a family of prominence in my local diocese.
Before dismissing my experiences and perspective, you would do well to question your own experiences and perspective.
Perhaps you were raised thinking you were Catholic, but I was raised according to what the Church actually peddles. I was deeply involved. Mass every Sunday morning, beatings on Sunday night (most nights, actually), religious education every week, forced participation in youth group and anti-humanitarian protests.
My traumatic and abusive experience is indistinguishable from a cult, and your effort to discredit my experience of the Catholic faith, intentional or not, is extremely harmful to me and others who have suffered.
And when I refused to be confirmed into the faith at 15? I was dropped on the streets and made homeless for years, just barely etching out a high school diploma despite my circumstances. That's the Catholic institution. Anti-education and anti-humanitarian at its core.
So I consider myself a fairly religious person. I went through RCIA and is in good communion with the Church. After I received Catechesis and was Baptized, I began to dig deeper.. I started reading many of the Encyclical Letters (Humane Vitae, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, etc.), history of early Church fathers, as well the works of theological philosophy such as Summa Theloica and so on, I've concluded that far too many "Catholics" either have very little or no understanding of Catholicism at all.
When you mix this with right wing politics, nationalists, extremists,.. you end up with something that ventures so far from Catholicism that it becomes unrecognizable.
Just to make a single example nowhere in the Catechism does it say you should be shunned for refusing Confirmation.. in fact being "forced" to do any of it deems it invalid! Nor those it justify any kind of violence or hate towards transgenders and homosexuals.
It really is a shame that many Catholics (and broader Christians as well) seem to struggle with treating LGBT brothers and sisters with dignity. Treating another human being with dignity and respect does not mean you endorse any of their actions, it's just... how we are called to love.
There's nothing I want more for people than for them to realize that they have immense value as a child of God outside of anything else - their sexuality, their appearance, etc. because it's heartbreaking to me that many feel they do not.
Anyway, it doesn't take much for me to reconcile being respectful of others with my faith. I guarantee that I consistently fail at doing this in a proper way but I do try. We're all sinners in the end and we all have things that we need to work on.
I am sorry you went through this.
I appreciate your heartfelt comment. The following is an honest criticism on your sentiment, which while well-meaning, is actually harmful to many children around the world right now who need a light shone on this issue.
> When you mix this with right wing politics, nationalists, extremists,.. you end up with something that ventures so far from Catholicism that it becomes unrecognizable.
The reality is that the past isn't so rosy, and that Catholicism and Christianity have always, in practice, served as political and financial instruments to those who wield them. The people at the very top know what they are enabling, just look at the response to pedophilia and abuse and how long it took for the Church to even appear to do something about it.
It's a transaction many gladly make, and one that was heavily advertised since the beginning: Sin on the weekdays, beg for forgiveness on the weekends. Receive a nicely packaged enemy to direct your class frustrations toward. All in exchange for a tithing and a warm body for any social causes.
> Just to make a single example nowhere in the Catechism does it say you should be shunned for refusing Confirmation.. in fact being "forced" to do any of it deems it invalid!
I wasn't forced to get confirmed. I had the option of becoming homeless and being cut off from my extended family, who were entirely Catholic and all attended different Churches (no isolated sects).
> It really is a shame that many Catholics (and broader Christians as well) seem to struggle with treating LGBT brothers and sisters with dignity.
...Have you read Genesis? The first book of the Bible? Where God destroys entire cities for having gay sex? That's basic Catholic literature, and if you are a true Catholic, it's something you believe in. If you don't believe in it, you're not a Catholic. It's not open for interpretation.
Also see Leviticus, etc. Or look at my patron saint, Joan of Arc, who got burned at the stake at age 17 for wearing pants.
> There's nothing I want more for people than for them to realize that they have immense value as a child of God outside of anything else - their sexuality, their appearance, etc. because it's heartbreaking to me that many feel they do not.
Thank you for believing in the innate humanity of every individual, and the right for their lifestyle choices to be respected and not infringed upon.
Unfortunately, that sentiment is anti-biblical, and you need to choose between maintaining that attitude and supporting an institution that has historically supported, and continues to support, unjust crusades and anti-humanitarian principles and political fascism.
Because you cannot do both, unless you don't fully understand the topics.
> Anyway, it doesn't take much for me to reconcile being respectful of others with my faith.
That's great. I was beaten almost nightly by a deacon who was revered in my community, shaken and spit at and told I had Satan inside of me, viciously whipped with the buckle ends of my tormentor's massive belt collection, until I couldn't cry anymore, because "men don't cry and I will whip you until you learn not to cry."
Every Sunday I would watch him dispense parables of love and acceptance, I would watch my community look up to him and ask him for advice. And then, on the way home, I'd be avoiding black eyes.
I remember one time on the way to Church, he and my brother began assaulting me. He stopped the car, pulled me out of the vehicle and threw me in a ditch, pinning me down. I was fifteen, finally getting old enough to fight back, and I managed to get him on the ground and kick him in the ribs until he stopped trying to attack me.
Then he got in the car, left me stranded on a highway and went to tell a sermon while I limped for miles back home. Then called the police on me and told them I was dangerous and armed, and when we got to the precinct he went on a violent rant about how I was an athiest, and I feared for my life as the police just watched, as they always did.
This wasn't a few times. This isn't just one bad apple. This is institutional, and I am a direct victim of this system from which you are fortunate enough to be on the beneficiary end of. I lived in fear of death my entire childhood.
The Church is not what you think it is. And remember that there are gigantic Catholic communities in Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and the Philippines, where systemic child abuse is still not only tolerated but in some cases encouraged.
I reaffirm my previous statement. You were raised by a lunatic who abused you over and over, and you assume it was the religion that was the cause of your trouble.
It's likely that even without this religion, your father would have become a fanatic of a different one - and become just as insufferable.
No one is dismissing your pain, we just realize you're painting with a wide brush. Catholics are many millions of people. I'm not surprised there are lunatics among us.
It wasn't my father. I didn't live with my parents. You're also glossing over the fact that this man was venerated and protected by the church. That they had a leadership position in the church and community. That it's part of a much larger systematic abuse within the church. That the church has a long and colorful history of this kind of behavior from leadership including many popes, countless bishops and even more priests. The crusades.
You're pretending that this isn't a gigantic structural, institutional issue because you don't want to accept you've been praying to a made up deity and supporting a terrible institution. You also glossed over my point that a large majority of Christians and Catholics are in countries with much different views on normalized child abuse.
You can blind yourself all you want to reality, you can convince yourself my situation is unique, but it's not. If you truly care about yourself and the church, I implore you to take a few more deep dives into the church's history, and not cherry-pick the good parts while ignoring the awful parts.
There's a lot of good things in the bible and in the clergy. There's also a ton of bad, which is quite often minimized by people such as yourself. What you're doing is harmful, plain and simple.
The article doesn't strike me as super biased, but it may be a bit shallow regarding the issues.
If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus, then I'd be interested in:
- How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.)
- How could that guy's accountability partner have better recognized false positives?
- How could that guy's accountability partner been more of a friend and less of a (seeming?) jerk?
- Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?
> If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus
This isn't so much about religion (or even morality or ethics) "protection" but rather a discussion about privacy.
> How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths?
A simple content filter does a similar job, but without privacy invading surveillance. Even better if it has a way to circumvent it. E.g. the filter could just say "are you sure?" and then let me past. Many apps like that work well for self-accountabiluty. If that's not offering enough accountability then I'd argue the answer to the question is "you don't."
> Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?
While privacy is extremely important and app stores and device manufacturers are central to upholding it, I think a key here is that whoever willingly runs some kind of spyware app is willingly giving up their privacy. All the app store or device manufacturer should do is make sure that anyone who installs an app that spies on them, is aware that it's spying on them.
For example, an app can't use GPS or Microphone on iOS without the user knowing and that's the way it should be.
I cant't see where religion and inclusiveness comes into this eiher to be honest. I doubt there are religions appealed by privacy violations of the kind that would require (as in this example) always-on secret microphone recording in an app.
To answer the questions about the guy's accountability partner: the guy didn't (truly and freely) choose his accountability partner, his "accountability partner", actually "monitor", chose him.
Add: And it seems the guy was rushed ("forced") into installing the app and agreeing to the "solution".
I cannot imagine how hard it has to be for a religious memeber of the LGBTQ community. One part of you, the religious part, is abused by religious leaders people you have faith in and trust, to deny the other part.
But hey, the Catholic church has a tremendous history of accepting whatever abuse from priests while using some deeply rooted desires of their followers to accept that abuse.
That being said, the "priest" in the story is just a simple and abusive cult leader.
That’s the way they wrote it. In reality, having an accountability partner is not new and it’s likely this guy signed on for it. Think of it like an AA sponsor - however poorly implemented here.
If it was Jeff Bezos assigning an employee a "pee accountability partner", would you also say "this is what this guy signed on for" by working for him?
Yes, no one is forced to work for Jeff Bezos
Gracepoint is a church targeting college students. He almost certainly signed up to this institution voluntarily: it's not something he was born into or will be shunned by his family for rejecting.
So it's fair to say he chose this church, and the accountability partner is something that comes along with that. Of course, there are other instances of coercive behaviour by religious groups where this is not true.
I think if one takes Christianity seriously then they would recognize that sinning takes place in the mind, and that putting a chastity belt on your phone doesn't really change anything, not going down wrong paths is supposed to be a choice, not the product of community phone surveillance. God knows if you want to look at porn.
I don't think there is a non-bogus version of this especially if you are a Christian. An 'accountability partner' sounds like something Scientology or the CCP assigns to you but not a Christian
So if you're looking for the genuinely Christian solution: Have a relaxed attitude towards modern vices, you don't need to partake in them, just close the browser window. Little bit more faith in Christ, maybe switch the denomination, and less of whatever this is
"Brit says she was asked to install the app by her parents after she was caught looking at pornography and that her mother and her pastor were both her designated accountability partners. “I remember I had to sit down and have a conversation with him [her pastor] after I Wikipedia’d an article about atheism,” she says. “I was a kid, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some kind of right to read what I want to read.””
Sin is a heart issue.
There are only two choices on the shelf: Pleasing God, or pleasing self.
Are you suggesting that God is completely opposed to everything we value?
There are so many different versions of Christianity that it would be extremely likely to receive contradictory answers to your question.
I am most curious about the ones who worship Evil God (the one who literally hates everything that humans consider good).
Sithrak, perhaps
Why do you think God refers to himself as a jealous God? What do you think God is jealous of? The only thing that can be denied or taken from him - love from beings with (ostensible) free will.
In fact, I am certain every inclination of the human heart is evil from birth.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:3&...
That doesn't appear to check out biblicaly, or from any logical perspective I can think of.
I mean...
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Genesis 6:5
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:3
What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water! Job 15:14
The first two references use phrasing of "had become" or "have all turned aside" - you cannot become something without first being something else, or turn aside from something without having originally been facing it.
The third reference is stating that no one is capable of perfection, and that no one can earn their way back to God - but impurity only requires that someone not be perfect, not that they have no good.
To be clear, my argument is not that humanity is 100% good because clearly that's not the case. My argument is simply that there is natural good in humanity as well, and most people have more of it as children than after it's beaten out of them as adults.
That is just my reading of course, and I am no expert.
>How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.)
The bottom line is that you have to create a strong break that prevents inattentive browsing or "doom scrolling." I think the lowest impact version of that would look like something where you write out exactly what you're opening your browser for (and then stick to that.) A more severe implementation would be getting rid of your smart phone and only having browsing on a PC in a common space.
Alternatively, you might get mileage out of a system that broke you out of bad patterns early rather than trying to keep you out initially. For example, an AHK script that throws a pop up every 10/20/30 minutes to ask what you're working on.
There's more complexity than just "unwelcome path", and you would have to choose your method to match your particular problem.
The way I try to stick to Christian ideals while browsing the internet, is there are certain sites I just don't visit that contain those things. Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, some Discord servers, etc. If you want to take religion seriously, you have to know what triggers sinful behaviors for yourself, nobody else will know so you have to know yourself in that regard, and avoid those places.
These days outside of hackernews and Discord I don't use much social media any more. Social media leads to people being constantly angry and judgemental, as well as leading to other ungodly attitudes, and I find that I am a much worse person when I use those sites. There is no one path to keeping yourself from going down dark roads...it's as personal as the individual using the computer. As the Bible says in Philippians 2:12, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Find what works for you as a Christian, and use it.
>If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus
I get where you're coming from, and as long as no one is compelling the "victim" I think they should be free to make their own mistakes.
That said, it's very well proven that you cannot change your sexual orientation and anyone claiming you can is a fraudster whether they dress as a priest or medical professional or an "accountability partner" or anything else. That very much is a bogus belief.
There are numerous cases of changes to "sexual orientation".
We can argue the validity of people's claims to have changed their orientation back and forth, but the science is in:
>Some of the largest studies report little to no reported change in sexual orientation, and reports of success are unpersuasive due to serious methodological limitations and sometimes major flaws in study designs.
>Evidence of harm associated with conversion therapy outweighs reports of some benefits, such as social support and a sense of belonging. In addition, the reported benefits are common to most forms of talking therapy or support groups and could be provided by other, more affirmative, approaches that mitigate risks of harm.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conversion-therap...
Oct 2021.
Your bias and the bias of the study you cited are painfully obvious and assume a particular point of view as valid while rejecting others. The whole concept of the study is framed in a utilitarian value system. If you had a thousand similar studies you wouldn't proven anything to someone who does not hold to an empirical and utilitarian worldview because the questions that the study is asking are ultimately philosophical, epistemological, and moral. As such these questions transcend the usefulness of observational science. The study is worded in such a way as to sound very thorough but if you look at Appendix 2 you can see that even by empirical standards the evidence they have chosen to consider is slanted to a particular subset of the available data, let alone the anecdotal evidence which surrounds the researchers on all sides.
In other words all you've truly pointed out with this post is that the various members of the UK government have policy goals and that they are willing to use science as a cudgel to achieve their policy goals.
Would you mind providing citations of some of these cases?
I would mind. I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation".
It is trivial to search for examples. There have been entire organizations of individuals claiming successful change of their sexual lifestyle. The problem is that you have a whole host of individuals and organizations who are opposed to the very concept of being able to change due to their assumptions and presuppositions about God and sin. This leads them to attempt to smear or discredit any movement or attitude that opposes their own.
In my opinion, the onus of proof is on the communities, organizations, and individuals pushing the "born this way" rhetoric. In the 1990s and into the 2000s we were told there was a "gay gene" or that the right combination of hormones in utero was the culprit. It is now 2022 and no such 'smoking gun' has been found, yet there are still persons claiming they are no longer homosexual through the power of God.This is despite the media vitriol against such claims and the illegalization of even benign therapy. The naturalistic position claims the scientists just need more time and eventually they will find that people are born along some sexual spectrum instead of the traditional biblical position that sexuality and even attraction is behavioral.
Sorry to not give you what you are asking for directly, but I'm not interested in debating the validity of specific incidents over HN. You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.
> and the illegalization of even benign therapy.
Conversion therapy is not benign. Your phrasing here leads me to suspect that the personal connections you refer to are people who learned that it is easier to lie to those they know, and sometimes even themselves, than to take other options.
I hope for their sake that I am wrong.
Not all conversion therapy is benign. If you are talking about using shock therapy then we are in agreement. That's not really what I'm talking about. Counseling could be an example of benign therapy - depending on the context.
And yes, you are wrong.
> Counseling could be an example of benign therapy
Even counseling based conversion therapy is not benign. It would get your license revoked as a therapist in most places (in the US, not familiar with other places) well before it was illegal. The problem with counseling based conversion therapy is it relies on guilt and manipulation of the person involved.
> And yes, you are wrong.
I'm afraid that you are one of the people they would be lying to in this case, and thus I cannot take your word on this. To be clear, this is not an indictment of you, just based on what I have seen of similar situations in my life.
For context - I am an LGTBQ+ member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who has spoken and worked with lot's of cishet and lgbt people from my church and others. If you want to discuss more directly, my email is open, though I'm not always able to respond quickly. I also get a lot of spam at that address, so if you email please let me know here as well.
Edit: If you would prefer to discuss here so that the discussion stays public, I am also open to that. I know people who prefer either way.
Happy to talk with you outside of HN. I used to be LDS and so was my wife. I'll send you an email.
Sent you an email.
Just checked - I don't appear to have received the email.
It's possible the spam filter ate it, though I didn't find it in my Junk folder. You can send it to evan@ the same domain if it turns out that that is the case.
Also - this is an open invitation. Anyone who wishes to discuss this from any perspective (or honestly anything interesting) is welcome to send me a message.
“Counseling” you mention, being a way to brainwash the “patient” into hating themselves more efficiently, is also harmful.
> And yes, you are wrong.
Could you elaborate on this? How can you be certain that your personal acquaintances have not simply convinced themselves of something that is contradictory to their lived experience? It seems to me that social pressures could be very impactful to that end.
Your language conveys certainty, which is why I ask about that.
Sorry, but I will not elaborate.
> I can tell you that I have personal connections to persons who have abandoned their so called "sexual orientation"
What are you trying to suggest by the use of "so-called" and scare quotes around "sexual orientation"? It's pretty well established that sexual orientation can be fluid in some individuals, and I don't doubt there are people who spend many years enjoying heterosexual relationships only to determine at a later point they prefer same sex relationships. The reverse may well also happen from time to time. Not really sure what point you're trying to make at all.
> You might have good luck discussing the issue with a competent Christian theologian or pastor.
My experience with people of faith has always been to be told that I must have faith in order to understand it. Is there a path to understanding that doesn't involve circular logic?
All appeals to an ultimate authority are circular by nature. Its the philosophical equivalent of bedrock.
That being said, you can understand Christianity and the Christian philosophy/worldview perfectly well without faith. You need faith in the capacity and work of the true and living God, the Lord Jesus, the Messiah in order to be saved from sin.
Intellectual understanding of the claims of Christianity and belief in its claims are totally separate.
This is one of the reasons you should speak to those who are competent teachers. You might try and ask Dr. James White if you have specific questions. I'm happy to continue the conversation here but the format is 'limiting' to say the least.
I see; unfortunately, that's a disappointing answer. Maybe it's also worth pointing this out:
> Intellectual understanding of the claims of Christianity and belief in its claims are totally separate.
I don't think I've ever seen a clear separation of these things. At any rate, if I choose not to believe in the claims then I will be unwelcome by the congregation. In practice, these things seem to go hand-in-hand most commonly.
Also, I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply thoughtfully! I do believe you've been very honest and approaching the conversation in good faith (I have difficulty reading this without it coming off as snide, so please just take it at face value).
(I'm sorry if it is frustrating but I am personally not interested in continuing this conversation privately.)
> I don't think I've ever seen a clear separation of these things.
That's really too bad. Maybe I'll write an article or something.
> Also, I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply thoughtfully! I do believe you've been very honest and approaching the conversation in good faith (I have difficulty reading this without it coming off as snide, so please just take it at face value).
[×] Taken at face value. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss these things, and I wish you the best on this wild ride through life. I pray that God will bless you with the opportunity to know Him.
We thought that access to better technology would make people more free, but there are many ways it can make us less free instead. First through differential control of technology; whoever has control of some new tech will be able to use it to disempower others. Second is through robbing us of agency; technology can make it too easy for us to do things we don't want to do, causing us to do them against our will. At some point we will need to confront these issues.
The "Covenant Eyes" app is fortunately unavailable at the Google Play store right now, but the Exodus Privacy analysis[0] doesn't show permissions far off from other, more benign apps. It's unsettling that this common set of permissions is enough to monitor your activity, who knows what, say WhatsApp does with all the permission it asks[1]?
0. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.covenan...
1. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.whatsap...
> While these apps claim to have helped many people overcome pornography addictions, experts who study sexual health are skeptical that the apps have a lasting positive effect. “I’ve never seen anyone who’s been on one of these apps feel better about themselves in the long term,” says Nicole Praus, a scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies the effects of pornography on the brain and the spread of disinformation on sexual health. “These people just end up feeling like there’s something wrong with them when the reality is that there likely isn’t.”
> "“It’s really not about pornography,” says Brit, a former user of Accountable2You who asked to only be identified by her first name, due to privacy concerns. “It’s about making you conform to what your pastor wants.”
> "In the quest to curb behavior churches deem immoral..."
Full transparency: Christian male here. The article seems to be addressing multiple topics - on the surface, the concerns around information leaking with "Covenant Eyes" and other programs. But also (based on this quote) an undercurrent: is pornography consumption actually unhealthy?
This adds confusion to a very clear topic.
Pornography comes from "porneia," a Greek word. In ancient Greek "porneia" was understood in the culture as "to buy." A porne or prostitute was often a slave, and often abused. Writings of Horace and Herodas show the cultural attitude of porneia was about treating people as things - to buy, to use, to abuse. In other words, very much accepted culturally. Based on this historical evidence, I conclude that, had WIRED existed in ancient Greece, an expert who studies "the spread of disinformation of sexual health" would have likely said the same thing about porneia consumers as they apparently do now: "there likely isn't something wrong with the owner." Imbibe in some porneia? Don't feel bad, there's nothing wrong with you.
A counterpoint is the letter to Galatians, which despite their failings I'm sure people in the churches mentioned in the article would know of. That letter, starting with the foundations of how God views people and the freedom Christ purchased, draws the conclusion that people should treat other people as people, not things. In fact, this is one of the points of the 19th verse, which says porneia (lit from Greek) is something Christians should realize isn't fitting for Christians. It is, in fact, unhealthy. If my Pastor wants me to "conform" to this (ref second and third quotes above), sign me up!
You may disagree that the letter to Galatians has authority or relevance to you personally, but it's impossible to disagree with the letter's outlook towards people - people as people, not things. In fact, that letter's outlook was radical, based on the cultural norms of that time.
If we don't disagree with the undercurrent espoused in this article - that porneia consumption is actually okay - then what foundation is left for saying it's wrong to treat people as things?
Slippery slope fallacy. (You mentioned something about murder in another comment --- same story.)
The reprehensible exploitation of sex workers does not make sex work inherently bad. I have friends who do sex work on the side. They sell their own porn. They explicitly want to be sexualized and, yes, objectified, and they'll tell you as much. Are they being exploited, and by whom?
> The reprehensible exploitation of sex workers does not make sex work inherently bad.
Yes, let's avoid slippery slopes, please make things clear. What defines "bad" or "good" here? How much money porneia makes for those profiteering from it? How much pleasure the consumers get? What the health expert of the day prescribes? All I can gather so far is that you have better reasons to say porneia production isn't bad because your friends willingly do it.
I'm glad you mentioned the producers of porneia, because my comment was focused on the consumers, and I keep forgetting about the harm that comes to people who profit from the industry.
> What defines "bad" or "good" here?
Bad = morally wrong, or "not okay" as you said. Specifically, you seem to be making the claim that all porn, even non-exploitative porn, is morally wrong in principle, the same way murder and rape are morally wrong (although less so.) This is what I'm challenging.
> and I keep forgetting about the harm that comes to people who profit from the industry.
What harm is that? (In order to sidestep obviously wrong things like human trafficking, let's use the example of the friends I mentioned who record themselves having consensual sex and disseminate the video.)
The friends are consensual, and they are simply inviting people to watch. It all sounds so welcoming, natural, wholesome, harmless.
Of course it seems that way. Any person worth their salt in the industry would be ashamed to admit it depended solely on being addictive, and missed out on the opportunities created by also saying it's basically harmless. A really good spin would be to say instead of being harmless, why, it's actually good for you!
The harm of inviting the (paying) world to watch as two people have consensual sex? Four, off top of my head:
1. The special bond from such intimacy is cheapened. Sex is wonderful - it doesn't just feel good, it involves another person that you have an opportunity to relate to in a unique way, and they to you. Properly used it involves dignity, selflessness, and deep relationship. I've heard others say similar things that cheapen it, like "it's just body parts touching each other." What a shame it's reduced to that.
2. The children that naturally come from this are treated as a negative aspect, instead of a blessing. What if a kid accidentally came from one of these videos, would you be able to tell him some day that your friends wanted to have him and it was totally worth it to stop the gravy train to do so once they found out? You, your friends, and I will not be around forever, but hopefully another generation will come after us - don't harm that generation by depriving them the foundation of knowing it is good that they are alive and the previous generation welcomed them.
3. What happens in the bedroom affects what happens in the house, and what happens in the house affects the culture. Stuff is connected - give me a culture that has honor in the bedrooms, because I know how well things will be going in the public sphere.
4. Lastly, there is a point that is crucial for Christians, but I think even non-Christians should be aware of it - it is harmful because instead of furthering the worship of God, it furthers a falsehood where the individual is worshiped instead. Let me speak of myself: just imagine what I would do if there were no God, and I were God for a day. It would not be a fun world for long, even for me. Can we really treat such thoughts as harmless, just inside our hearts and heads, having no bearing on each other and the world?
We have very different ideal worlds, it seems. Here are my takes on your points:
1. Very broadly speaking, trans people cannot procreate in the usual way --- our hormone treatments make us sterile. We primarily use sex and fetishism as vehicles for self-exploration and, yes, self-improvement. Our desires express fundamental parts of ourselves, and I posit that we find the same kind of soul joy that you derive from submission to what you call God in playing together --- the ecstasy of being subsumed in something larger than yourself. You have your spiritual practice; we have ours. This is not an exaggeration.
2. Again, we can't procreate. And even if my HRT didn't make me sterile, I'd have myself sterilized because I am terribly afraid of what my child would have to witness.
3. I question what "honor in the bedrooms" means. This goes back to your ideal world versus mine. With the greatest respect, this language has been used for centuries to exclude me and mine from a sphere of life that is crucial to our existence, so you'll excuse me if I don't hold it in high esteem.
4. This argument proves quite a lot --- essentially, as I read it, saying that any sensual or mental pleasure that does not come from submission to what you call God is harmful/sinful. You are welcome to believe this, but trying to live under such a burden crushed my soul. So, no thank you.
More broadly, your argument adds up to "porn is harmful because it goes against the Christian notions of family, matrimony, procreation." My people's culture --- and it is a culture all its own --- does not have those notions, not in the same form. Many of us were disowned. A good portion of us were sent to Procrustean "reparative" therapy to try to make us cis and straight --- which would destroy the person we really are. I don't have a study for you, but anecdotally I'd say 90% of the stories I've heard happened under the banner of what you call God.
It's a little easier to argue that Procrustes' table is good when you already fit on it.
The idea that good and evil are up for grabs, and that Christian faith has no say to define it is bigotry.
> The idea that good and evil are up for grabs, and that Christian faith has no say to define it is bigotry.
Good and evil are very straightforward, you don't need any book to learn it: just do as little harm as possible, and help when you can. That's it.
The other kind of good and evil, the one encoded in government laws, should not be involved with religion. Religion is notorious for being biased towards its members, it's not a trustworthy source of justice.
How do you define harm? I hope you have a straightforward answer.
There is ample evidence pointing to the harm porn has on people and families.
Could you share some of this evidence that hopefully isn't from obviously religious sources or religiously funded?
Porn addiction is a treatable mental illness in all first world countries.
So is sex addiction, food addiction, videogame addiction and many other kinds of addiction to things which are pleasant and normal yet maladaptive when overdone.
GP was asked to substantiate the harm of porn, not the harm of porn addiction.