when she dances she goes and goes

GRAHH. MUST SMASH IDOT SPOILERS.

I've been using Livejournal a lot lately. One of the things that's been going around is people asking others to refrain from spoilers for Half-Blood Prince.

The amount of 'tards ignoring this is astounding. For example, one guy had an icon, which was purportedly a spoiler. He said that he didn't know it was a spoiler. Got it? Good. Then some guy posted, stating that it was indeed, a spoiler.

If you are the one confirming that something which may be a spoiler, you are a spoiler. And everytime you spoil, domo-kun eats a kitten.

Also, pandas cry.


Do you want crying pandas on your conscience? DO YOU?

Even worse, another idiot had a picture of major character "R—", the one who died, with the poorly Paint-added caption of, I quote "*iz ded*". As his default icon. On a public journal.

It's gotten so bad that when I went to the Wikipedia page for Fawkes the phoenix, and there was a spoiler at the bottom, I literally went "Meh."

Jeez, some people aren't even going to see the book for several months. I won't see it for another few weeks, probably. Is it too much to ask you to use some courtesy and common sense?

Incidentally, WP's spoiler system is stupid. The Fawkes page distinctly said that there were spoilers about HBP. At the top of the page. Instead of ahead of the one line with the actual spoiler. This means that the page is effectively rendered useless. And what good is the spoiler warning if it renders the page useless?

Incidentally, I did a parody of the whole thing. Contains no actual spoilersas far as I know. I especially like the look on Blue's face in panel 4.

//beer through the nose on an inside joke


please beware of snakes

My sister called this morning from France. Where she is.

My father handed me the cordless, and I took it sleepily. This was one of the rare days where I was up before noon. Around 8, to be exact. As my sister informed me, her roommate thought I was cute.

Inner Jonnathan: Squee!
Outer Jonathan (sleepily): That's nice.

Then I listened in for another ten minutes while she talket to my mother. According to Mum, one of the girls there broke down and begged to be sent home. Some one is either emotionally dependant upon their family, has a controlling family, or both.

Still: random underage girl who I've never met thinks I'm cute! It gives me hope that I won't die alone and unloved.
//they come in all shapes and sizes


another landscape, is my mandate

As you can see, I finished the redesign. I have about a half dozen other unfinished designs just sitting around on my flash disk, desktop, and my fathr's laptop, which I'm working on. It'd like to finish them and put them up, but it'll be a while, if ever. Some of the designs have flaws that I want to keep. Like that "powered by blogger" <DIV> up there; it was supposed to be flush with the header, but it came out that way when testing it on Blogger. I kept it 'cause it looks good, and I can easily stick a banner in that gap if needs be. I really need to finish my redesign of OCP. Scratch that: I need to start my redesign of OCP.

Ordered the 6x8 Graphire3, and Flight comics VOLs. 1 & 2. Or, at least, my brother was supposed to. I certainly transferred the money. But my Amazon account is still showing the items in a saved cart. Grr. He was probably distracted by the bombings. And college. And stuff.

Obi-Wan and Mace Windu playing electric guitar. Yoda on the drums. Stormtroopers doing Rock Concert Movement No. 2. Click here. [IE5+, WM9+ required]

//I’m highly animated even though I’m decomposing


no one to tell us no

You know those people who post a thread on a forum, apparently to ask for an intelligent debate, and then ignore all evidence indicating that they are wrong?

A thread was started on dA about whether there could be Christian porn.

Yes, I said Christian Porn.

Read more...
*Laurion wanted to know whether Christian Smut could be made. She was promptly flamed by both Christians,Atheists, and secularists. There were, of course, the handful of people saying that her critics shouldn't be using such offensive language. There are always people who are more concerned with the presentation than with the message.

First post:

Okay, so a friend and I we're talking about the huge impact of Christianity in our consumer culture. You know ...how we have Christian music, Christian novels, Christian television and cable shows, and even Christian video-games. So she mentioned ~Christian erotica~, and I said, "No WAAAYY!". But sure enough, I did a Google search just now, and turned up like over 700 sites with the keywords "Christian erotica". And guess what? The key words "Christian porn" turned up over 9,000 sites!

Hey, okay. It's not like Christians don't like sex, is it? And the Song of Solomon is pretty sexy stuff, considering it's in the Bible and all that. And when I baby-sat for Christian families and snooped around in the parents' bedrooms, more times than not I found some really steamy illustrated sex guides, and sometimes some neat toys, in the nightstand drawer or the top bureau drawer. So I have a real serious question.

What if I want to draw or photograph Christian erotica? Or even just write about Christian erotica? What limits of taste or decorum do YOU think I should follow in order to keep it Christian?

And what about Christian porn? I mean, I really don't want to do THAT, at least not yet. But WHY can't we reach out to the world through Christian Porn, just like Christian Rock has reached a whole generation of seeking teens? How can we make a clear and faithful distinction between Christian porn and secular porn? I mean, really, this seems like a great opportunity to share Christian values about love, family and sexuality with people who may not be saved! And why let the heathen pornographers have all that money when they're just spending it on worldy things and liberal political causes? Not like that's my main concern or anything, though, you know.

Any ideas?
The main purpose of porn is to titilate. One of semitism's most important principles concerns lust without love. There are other details, but others more articulate than I have shown that porn and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

First reply:

~lovelorn
so wait.. you snooped in these peoples drawers?



*laurion
Well of course. It's not like my parents actually taught me that stuff.



~lovelorn
Where the [censored] do you get off!?!?!?!
It doesn't matter if your parents taught you about sex or you missed the day of class were they had sex ed, you still have no right to snoop in anyones personables, esp. people who are entrusting you to care for their children. It is none of your d___ business what is in anyones bedroom except your own. You should be watching the child not the dads porn.


*Laurion
Couldn't care less about Dad's porn. Mum's was the fun stuff. I really don't wanna talk about the toys any more either ... but I will say that sharing is a basic precept of Christianity. ;)


And so is respect for that which belongs to others.


~lovelorn
still THE POINT IS YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN THOSE PEOPLES DRAWERS LIKE A SNOOPING LITTLE BRAT


*Laurion
Like I already confessed that sin like 10 messages ago, ya know. Can you forgive me already? I forgive you for accusing me ... well, it's not like it's a false accusation or anything I s'pose, so you're not sinning I guess. But wait a minute yur judging me aren't you? K. I forgive you for judging me. I wanna talk about CHRISTIAN PORN not snooping??? Please?


Yes, she did it. She used the whole passive-aggressive, "I forgive you for something you have a right to do." tack. Ussually used for "judging" or "accusing". It almost sounds like an apology. I like how she just gets more smug as LL gets more irritated. It's like she takes accusations as confirmation of her rightness.

~lovelorn
:shaking head icon:


=bloknayrb
i think the best word to express what i think youre feeling is "oy"


=yokom
She's not [censored]ing judging you. She's pointing out that you were going through others stuff, and that it was wrong and unethical.

No more, no less. :roll:


*Laurion
Like I thought so too after ALL those people jumped like down my throat about it shhesh it's not like they ever baby-sat huh! But I thought I sinned. Now I just remembered Acts 4:32!! YAAAYYYY!!!!! I'm NOT a sinner anymore! We we're sharing those neat toys in common, just like the apostles and the NT church!!! :hugsmyself:


So, I looked it up.

Acts 4: 32
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.


Not relevant, is it? She also uses an ad homenim, by saying that since the people accusing her are also sinners, their accusations are groundless. Um, no. That means you're both sinners. Whoopsie.

~strawberryp0cky
Acts 4:32 is regarding the Holy Spirit, and says: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul..."

So far, you don't sound like one of the "multitude of them that believed" so you are excluded from having "all things common."


*Laurion
What? I have to pass your church's Dogma Quiz now before I'm a Christian!!?? I don't think so! :roll: My Christianity is between me and Jesus, so don't go judging on me no more please. That song don't go "They shall know we are Christians cuz we're busybodies." It goes "They shall know we are Christians by our LOVE." :rolleyes icon:

What does violating the privacy of others have to do with love?
~StrawberryP0cky
My Christianity is between me and Jesus, so don't go judging on me no more please.
You are forgetting a little thing called "fellowship." We are to encourage and help fellow Christians become better Christians. When you mention things like this, you should expect and even hope to be Biblically judged by other Christians. Asking people not to judge you is asking them to ignore the Bible. It says that we are to judge other Christians. You're thinking that it's a negative, derogatory thing that people are pointing out your flaws, but in fact it's what we are instructed to do. We are to judge each other in that we are to help each other. I'm not supposed to sit here and wag my finger at you, I'm supposed to say "What you are doing is wrong and here is why and I can pray with you on this matter if you'd like." You say "they will know us by our love" to insinuate that I am being unloving by telling you what's in God's Word to answer your question. If God is love, and God tells us to judge each other, then I am loving you through judging you. I am not condemning you, I am telling you what it says in the Bible. If I posted something like "I am Christian and would like to draw orgies with Christian participants," I hope and pray that people would judge me for that. In our society, they say that judging is bad, and yet we could not function properly if we judged nothing. You judge food to see if it is good. You judge utensils to see if they are clean. You judge actions to see if they are lawful. You judge situations to see if they are safe. Judging is not a bad thing, and Biblical judging amongst Christians is supposed to happen. It says so right in the Bible.

They will know us by our love, but they will also know us by our actions. By acting this way, you are not telling the world you are Christian. By asking about Christian porn and erotica, and then becoming defensive when people tell you that it's unbiblical, how is that acting Christian? And, for that matter, why are you asking about this subject here and not turning to the Bible for the answer? It's all over the place, in the Old and New Testaments.

You started this topic asking for suggestions. You never asked if it was Biblical, or if God had anything to say against it. You just assumed that it was a good, godly thing to do and asked for help executing it. This is why you are on the defensive. You have already told yourself that it is okay without ever consulting the Bible, and when people are telling you it's unbiblical, you are getting defensive because you assume we're calling you a bad Christian and a bad person. We all make mistakes, just because you forgot to consult the Bible before asking how to do something doesn't make you a bad Christian or a bad person.


~strawberryP0cky
Just to let you know, people have consistantly misused that "judge not" passage. You are just another one of those people. The passage goes "Judge not, lest ye be judged," which means that if I am guilty of the same thing you are, then I cannot judge you. If we're both alcoholics, for example, I shouldn't be telling you not to drink. But if I am not an alcoholic and tell you not to drink, you cannot say "You're judging me, you're not supposed to because you're a Christian!"



*Laurion
which means that if I am guilty of the same thing you are, then I cannot judge you.
That's not true. If you're guilty of even the teeeniest weeeniest little sin, you should not go judging on other people. That's what Jesus meant, and that's why they didn't throw rocks at that hooker when he was doodling in the dirt. God is the judge; you are not, i am not, and even your pastor is not.

On a side note, I think it's rather gross that you look through your mom's porn and toys.
Why? It's not like she hasn't snooped around in my room and found mine toys ya know! Sheeshs! :roll:

the only point you're proving is that you shouldn't be hired as a babysitter
Well my customers love me and think I'm a great sitter!


~strawberryP0cky
That's not true. If you're guilty of even the teeeniest weeeniest little sin, you should not go judging on other people.
"Do not take the speck of sawdust out of your brother's eye and ignore the plank in your own." The sawdust and plank are the same thing: wood. One person has more of it (plank) than the other (sawdust), but they are both with wood in their eye. This means that you should not try to pick at someone's sin if you both are suffering from the same sin. Tell me, how are we as Christians supposed to fellowship and help each other grow in the Lord if we are not to say anything about the bad we are doing?

and that's why they didn't throw rocks at that hooker when he was doodling in the dirt.
That's a different passage, and He said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I am not casting stones at you, I am not trying to kill you, I am not even trying to condemn you. I am giving you Biblical truth. It is not the same thing. As Christians, we are supposed to help each other not sin, not just look the other way when it happens. What would you tell a murderer who professed to be Christian? Would you not say anything? What about a Christian who is on drugs? Would you let her wallow in her sin and die?

You might not wear my shoes, but that don't mean they don't fit me you know!
So, you're saying to each his own? That's not Biblical, either.

Why? It's not like she hasn't snooped around in my room and found mine toys ya know! Sheeshs!
Haha :D


*Laurion
"Do not take the speck of sawdust out of your brother's eye and ignore the plank in your own." The sawdust and plank are the same thing: wood. One person has more of it (plank) than the other (sawdust), but they are both with wood in their eye.
Oh c'mon. That sounds like you took that line from a Monty Python movie. I may not be as smart as some peeples who are talking down on me but I learned this real good big word called "casuistry" so go look it up and I think you'll know what I mean about what you're saying here.

Christianity is about loving people and especially sinners and being nice and loving to them and not judging them.
Apparently: Love=Not judging.

Jesus like ate with the IRS agents and the pimps and the hookers and the peeple with really nasty pimples and sores on their skin and when he got around to judging people after dinner he always started by judging the Pharisees and the Saducees who were standing around outside wanting to judge him and those sinners he was eating with. That's why he said judge not lest ye be judged.
The original statement concerned hypocrisy. It didn't justify anything.

how are we as Christians supposed to fellowship
Yeah but fellowship don't mean backbiting and judgin on each other though.
Why does love mean no judging?

As Christians, we are supposed to help each other not sin, not just look the other way when it happens.
I know and respect that and that's why Im trying to help you see that Porn doesn't have to be a sin when it's Christian Porn.
Except for the part where it's fundamentally impossible.


You might not wear my shoes, but that don't mean they don't fit me you know!
So, you're saying to each his own? That's not Biblical, either.

No I'm saying that especially if you wanna judge on peeple you have to learn to be really empathetic or they're gonna just turn you off and stop listening.
Empathic=/=not judging.

I can't go on: here. What's amusing is that she has admitted that she sinned, yet she's still defending her actions.

And another sub thread:
=paperstars
thats nasty...you used some other womans sex toys? eww... i mean when was the last time she like really cleaned those..not to mention you could get like aids or stds or something nasty.....you are gross.

*Laurion
Eeeewww. I hadnt thought of that. Do you think i should like, you know, tell her that I forgot to clean them after I used them too?

Thank goodness the part of my brain responsible for involuntarily generating images can be blocked.
=paperstars
you are disgusting little whore..you should go turn yourself in to some mental institution.

*Laurion
There you go again. Sex is a gift from God and I fer one am gonna enjoy that gift every chance I get! And so I'm psycho 'cuz I forgot to wash an effing dildo?? Well, and that plugy thingy too, I guess. And that cool thing with rubber feather tips all over it that went round and round but that one didn't get too dirty tho. Any way what was I saying oh yeah so SUE me!!

And it goes on. I also thought this one was hilarious.
~nedotter
Mwahahaha! :)

People are so up tight.

I mean...even if you did hump a door knob, I think that's hallarious. It's a good story. Haha.

And so what if someone goes through someone elses crap, what they don't know won't hurt them.

World hunger is a bigger outrage then messing around with someone else's sex toys. Besides the fact, that wasn't even what the post was about.

I rest my case.

Oh yeah, and Jesus is against judging and I could list all the passages it says that but I just don't care enough.

Have a great day! ;)
My thread on the subject.

~u63r
"And what about Christian porn? I mean, I really don't want to do THAT, at least not yet. But WHY can't we reach out to the world through Christian Porn, just like Christian Rock has reached a whole generation of seeking teens?"
The difference being that there is nothing inheriently wrong with rock music, according to Christianity. But according tro Christianity, there is something inherently wrong with smut.

"How can we make a clear and faithful distinction between Christian porn and secular porn? I mean, really, this seems like a great opportunity to share Christian values about love, family and sexuality with people who may not be saved!" Except that the Christian values on love, family, and sex are in opposition to that expressed in porn.


*Laurion
But according tro Christianity, there is something inherently wrong with smut.
What about the Song of Solomon? By strict definitions, it is smut, in that it contains erotic and fairly explicit depictions of sexual lust, sexual foreplay and sexual intercourse.

Except that the Christian values on love, family, and sex are in opposition to that expressed in porn.
Exactly. Secular porn despises family values. That's why I wonder if Christian porn might not be a benefit to society? The question revolves around whether there is anything intrinsically evil about a graphic depiction of sexual activity, in literature or film?

I never said that. I never made any distinction between secular porn and hypothetical Christian porn. My point, in fact, was that it's impossible to have Christian Porn. The question isn't about whether it's evil: It's about whether it's possible to make Christian Porn.

~u63r
What about the Song of Solomon? By strict definitions, it is smut, in that it contains erotic and fairly explicit depictions of sexual lust, sexual foreplay and sexual intercourse.
I fail to see how anyone could get their rocks off from 'breasts like roe deer'.

Songs was written as a love song. Not to titilate, which is what porn's main purpose is. It was a tribute.

Exactly. Secular porn despises family values. That's why I wonder if Christian porn might not be a benefit to society? The question revolves around whether there is anything intrinsically evil about a graphic depiction of sexual activity, in literature or film?
The question revolves around whether Christianity is compatable with porn. Since the two have values in direct opposition to each other, no.

*Laurion
I fail to see how anyone could get their rocks off from 'breasts like roe deer'.
Well, that's the KJV translation, iirc. I understand that King James got his rocks off on a lot of ... ummmm ... unconventional things.

Songs was written as a love song. Not to titilate, which is what porn's main purpose is. It was a tribute.
Whatever. Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs if you prefer) is erotica by any definition. It can be titilating, or it can be deeply anagogical, depending on how you approach it.

Yes. Secular porn's main goal is to titilate (and immorally, I might add). Who says that Christian porn has to follow that pattern to the letter?

The question revolves around whether Christianity is compatable with porn. Since the two have values in direct opposition to each other, no.
Again, my music metaphor is not without use in this matter. In the 70's and 80's, rock music by and large had values that were antithetical to Christianity. Then some Christians made an effort to Christianize rock music, and that resulted in the birth of a new genre: Christian rock.

I think that if you strip away the aspects of porn that are antithetical to Christianity, you may be left wth something on which to build a new and useful genre.

That's my opinion, and while it's not fully fleshed out, it's starting to make more and more sense to me.

I slowly began to suspect that I was conversing with a nut.

~u63r
Whatever. Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs if you prefer) is erotica by any definition. It can be titilating, or it can be deeply anagogical, depending on how you approach it.
Just because something can be titilating doesn't make it porn.

If it wasn't titilatting, then it wouldn't be porn.

Again, my music metaphor is not without use in this matter. In the 70's and 80's, rock music by and large had values that were antithetical to Christianity. Then some Christians made an effort to Christianize rock music, and that resulted in the birth of a new genre: Christian rock.
Musical genres are based on style, not content. 'Christian rock' is a subdivision-based on content-within a genre. Analogy fails.

I think that if you strip away the aspects of porn that are antithetical to Christianity, you may be left wth something on which to build a new and useful genre.
If you strip away the disagreeable-to Christians-parts of porn, you're left with nothing.

*Laurion
Just because something can be titilating doesn't make it porn.
Well, that is a step away from your previous definition. Perhaps we are making some progress?
[Editor's note: Amazing how the rest of my statement went poof.]
If you strip away the disagreeable-to Christians-parts of porn, you're left with nothing.
Ah, yes. This is the soul of the matter. There are some 33,000+ different kinds of Christians. I'm sure that ~everything~ is disagreeable to at least some of them. My goal is to create a Christian erotica, to possibly include explicit erotica, that is not only ~not~ offensive to at least a significant number of Christians (since I can't please ~all~ Christians), but that is actually useful and edifying to them.

I'm sure that some Christians will object, and protest, and even claim that I am not a Christian for harboring such a goal. Perhaps other Christians will receive this project more favorably.

The bottom line is that while adultery is unChristian, [censored]ing is not. Nor is lust itself unChristian, as Paul makes quite clear in 1 Corinthians 7; the trick is to create an erotica that does not lead lust astray, but rather directs it into its proper channels. That's where I had hoped this thread would go, towards an artistic discussion of such techniques. Sadly, it has remained mired in a discussion of proof-texts and 19th-century mores.

Maybe we'll just start simple, and film the Song of Songs.
Eeeeyup. She's crazy.

~u63r
Well, that is a step away from your previous definition. Perhaps we are making some progress?
No. My previous definition was 'porn=titilation'. Then I said 'titilation does not always equal porn'.


*Laurion
Sorry. My bad for the fallacy, then. (All lawyers are liars, but not all liars are lawyers?).

Can you envision, then, any Christian writing or film that includes titillation? If so, how far down the path of titillation would you be comfortable seeing it go?
This is where I realized that I would never get any where with this girl. Not until someone invented the mystical "Clue Bat." Oh, and check out her journal entry.[NSFW] The one on the right [NSFW] won the DD. It sucks.Fittingly enough, there have been complaints about the lack of good DDs lately.


//or where to go