Talk:Religious views on pornography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Antisemitism

I noticed that certain anti-pornography activists had been making antisemitic allegations, i.e. that Jews control the pornography industry. This could maybe be added as a footnote on some of the sociological issues that surround the anti-pornography movement. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if this was to be included it should go into Anti-pornography movement not this page as it has minimal to non existent relevance to religion. EuroPride (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism and secularization of something sacred

The last paragraph about the view of "secularization of the divine" in "other religions" can apply also to, at least, the Catholic viewpoint, "it offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act," which is something sacred as described by the Catholic Catechism, so "other religions" is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.48.104 (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic view

the section on the islamic view is not entirely correct, and the last few lines are poorly written confusing the quran with possible extracts from the hadith, though no source is given for the extracts. also, the extracts that are from the quran are not directly applicable to this topic.

this section also should be written from the viewpoint of an outsider - e.g. Islamists believe ...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (small correction added, rel. to natural pairing of man and woman) 80.3.154.152 (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Objective fact

We have a name for denying that it is an objective fact that the Bible contains erotica: it is called denying the obvious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean: the Song of Songs really is erotic literature, this isn't controversial. Making love, described therein, might have a mystical meaning, but its literary genre is erotic literature (or erotic poetry, as the Wikipedia category says). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat Christo-centric

If you look at the page index, you see Christianity, then more Christianity, more Christianity, and then almost as a footnote, every other religion. This really doesn't sit right with me. 70.78.12.203 (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know what to do…be bold and improve the article! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is missing an awful lot of religions 101.162.21.232 (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are free to search reliable sources discussing the subject and add such information to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Curious about this

Hey Tgeorgescu, I agree with your point about Song of Songs. However, I am curious though about the statement in the article that "There is no direct prohibition of pornography in the Bible." Surely the numerous prohibitions on prostitution would extend to pornography as the etymology of the word "pornography" = "literature about prostitutes" and porn stars are given money/renumeration to perform sexual acts. Hence, it seems evident that porn stars are prostitutes - it is just that their form of prostitution happens to involve being filmed. Surely some scholars out there would be saying the same thing. Will try to find a scholar to cite on this. Ulrich von Metz (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Would the Bible prohibit parts of the Bible? Does not seem to make sense. But I agree there is a variety of views upon this subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Would the Bible prohibit parts of the Bible? Not necessarily prohibit, but maybe come to a fuller understanding as per Progressive revelation (Christianity) Ulrich von Metz (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

An oddity among the plateau

Guys, I had my attention directed to this article, which has a pretty weird view to pornography and Christianity. It seems a little contradictory to not just the general Christian views of pornography, but also to pornography in its own right. Does anyone know what to make of this, and would this type of thing be included in the article? --JB Adder | Talk 23:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not a reliable source and does not seem like notable opinion, i.e. there are no reliable sources discussing it. So, it is good to know that such opinions exist, but it cannot be used for Wikipedia (yet). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Judaism

Quoting the Talmud, Maimonides and Shulchan Aruch makes sense to particular Jewish communities (orthodox, reformed, progressive, etc.), who know to distinguish between valid and antiquated claims. It does not immediately make sense to a general audience, who are unable to tell if such claims have remained accepted by a large majority of religious Jews or if these are considered obsolete by them. So, it is necessary to quote WP:SECONDARY sources, written by contemporary academics, in order to verify the encyclopedic claims about what Judaism posits. E.g. even in Israel, the law does not require the burning of witches, even that's what the Law of God explicitly demands. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

E.g. by selectively quoting the Christian Bible, the Church Fathers and major medieval theologians, one could come to think that most Catholics today hold exceedingly bizarre views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean, according to WP:OR, original research performed upon WP:PRIMARY religious sources does not establish the present-day relevance of medieval thinkers. Only present-day scholars are allowed to establish if those quotes have relevance and what their relevance is for present-day religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)