So in summary, we have three categories. 1 - Actual porn, whose sole reason for existence is to provoke lust, which you should avoid. 2 - Safe stuff where there's not even a hint of sexuality, and anyone of any age can view without lustful thoughts coming into the picture. 3 - Stuff that could be considered sexy, whether it be clothing or behaviour, that doesn't fall into #1. This (very large) category will vary from person to person. If you think it's porn and are driven to have lustful thoughts, then it is porn for you and you should avoid it, but if you don't think it's porn and it does not cause you to lust, then feel free to consume. Above all, you must allow others to make the same choice.
#3 is Personal Perspective. I will look at women of Iran in their Hijab and believe that is worse, then a nudist beach. I've never been to either but I also understand what both offer. I also agree with Shad on the double standard and intent of action. You can dress in a bathing suit, bikini and not do anything to purposefully draw attention. You can also wear a full mascot fur suit and act very provocative to cause humor. But in any case someone might find it sexual. I mean "Rules of the Internet, tropedia.fandom on wiki" honestly, some of these rules are older then the internet.
I propose a fourth category: artful erotica; while explicit, the acts in question are performed in a manner that appears romantic, simulating the passions of two people in love.
I think the youtuber TheFourthAge said it best in this video: ua-cam.com/video/jV4gptQCNGc/v-deo.html "There is a fine line between beauty and sexsuality..."
Welcome to Finnish sauna, we think that we are equal when naked. Public saunas can be communal spaces where talking about daily issues are common (although not necessarily politics or religion, those can be quite offensive, more daily life stuff). Nakedness there is natural and also makes us more equal in that situation, when we don't have the clothes which can be used to designate your "class" in society. Poorest beggar and richest industrial magnate are equal there. It's purification for body, mind, soul and societal issues, when we attend to that custom and talk together.
I remember Vee saying something like this: "Church did not ban brothels in my country, because avoiding a vice because it is unavailable is not virtue, but choosing to avoid vice that is available is"
@@kevinsullivan3448 Or any other penalty. You could argue that the person that does it just coz, is the most virtuous. Even doing it just to be eligible for heaven is more or less the same as not doing it coz its against the law.
Different people are vulnerable to different things. If you've had problems with alcohol, you can't drink a drop. If you have problems with keeping your mind pure, you can't expose yourself to suggestive stuff. I've had dealings with the demonic realm, and I'm much more "touchy" about playing with unsanctioned spirituality and the demonic realm. People need to be aware of their own weaknesses. But also, don't make your problems into other people's problems.
The problem is that neither of them are playing the game. That game is the first descendant, all the characters have different skins, some of them cover the characters from head to toe, some are full suits of armor and some are skimpy suits like that one. The game allows you to dress your Descendant however your want, full body armor or a bikini. That video was just from someone who decided to dress his character like that, but it doesn't represent the game's actual tone, direction, story and gameplay.
Coming into faith as an adult having grown up in a culture that has distanced itself from the church for a long time is hard. I really appreciate this video, reading the bible is one thing understanding it is another. Watching this deep dive helped me get perspective and an understanding of how to bring it to my daily life. Also just want to thank you for starting me on this journey towards god. I remember clearly you "coming out" as a devout Christian and my initial negative reaction, I loved the channel how could this person that I connected so well to be a "horrible bigot" (yeah I have come a long way since then). My love for the channel overcame that initial reaction and I came to realize that maybe faith was not so bad after all. It has been quite a while since then and my decision to finally embrace God is less than a year old. Thank God for you Shad, you have probably saved me.
Love to see it! Some good teachers on the Bible are Anthony Rogers and Mike Winger (especially re: appreciating it as a whole narrative which can be appreciated as having running themes/etc), if you are ever looking for that sort of thing
You can't force morality by regulation or legislation, that only creates hate and rebellion. People should be taught good morals and conduct but you can't force it.
The people who try to force morality by legislation are people who only ever interface with privately employed individuals who're sufficiently well paid to jump at the sound of their employer's voice. Those same employers literally cannot comprehend the notion that their decrees by legislation aren't responded to the same way by average individuals in their absence. It simply doesn't track with their experiences.
You can outlaw evil exploitation by banning pornography. Doesn't make people's morals better, does make society as a whole more moral to ban something that exploits drugged up women repeating past trauma on camera.
Thank you, Shad, for the insightful take on this topic. It’s always refreshing to see a fellow member of the church on here, proclaiming what we believe in and the standards we hold. Keep up the great work!
I went to school with a LOT of Mormons, so I am well versed in arguments about much of Mormon doctrine. With that said as a Protestant Christian, I think your overall arguments and defining what is sin and specifically what it is with respect to nudity and sexuality are spot on and completely grounded in the Bible. I'm also in full agreement of what our role as Christians is within society; not to be censors, not to establish some sort of theocratic control over the population, but to be voices and an influence and example to others. It's ultimately up to them to do what is right, not for anyone to force them to right up to the point they hurt other people. Because if being righteous or good were forced, then it wouldn't have any meaning.
Yeah the way the Word of God defines it... is based more on behavior than being scantily clad. Lewd behavior should be punished as well, but... a lot of people have decided that being technically wearing clothes is all they care about and not the behavior.
I don't think Melonie ever called for censorship but some Christians certainly do. Melonie was just stating her opinion that the clip in question was too lewd and went too far.
"You shall know my people for they will have no part of this world." If you don't like it, don't do it, but as a Christian it is not up to you to judge for others and protest to Caesar for censorship. She _is_ welcome to share her opinion, as per the rights her Caesar has granted her to do.
@@innocentbystander3317 wrong, we are compelled to argue for truth and what is right regardless what degenerate demon caesar is, protestant interpretation of do not judge is why we are ruled by kid diddlers now
I disagree with Mormonism as a Protestant. However, Shad's take on nudity in art is my take as well, and I agree 100% on the distinction between nudity and immodesty/porn.
@KNIGHTSWATCH I'm sure we agree on 90%, but as G.K. Chesterton said, "an inch is everything when balanced on a knifes edge". Thank you for the good take though, and Merry Christmas!
@@KNIGHTSWATCHThere are many wonderful things in Mormonism that we can agree about, especially with regard to culture. Unfortunately, what ultimately prevents Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox from having a strong communion with Mormons is Mormonism's rejection of the Trinity. It's a pretty big deal from our perspective.
I agree as well.... And I think the youtuber TheFourthAge said it best in this video: ua-cam.com/video/jV4gptQCNGc/v-deo.html "There is a fine line between beauty and sexsuality..."
@@americanbard1721 It comes to open hand issues and closed hand issue imo. As a Protestant I disagree with both Mormonism and Catholicism on a lot. But the vast majority of our differences are open hand issues. I disagree with Shad’s take there and I don’t believe it’s the Godly take, but it isn’t a take that removes him from God. I do believe that there are some teachings of the Mormon church that are closed handed issues, like being able to achieve godhood, but a lot of morons don’t believe that. Similar thing with Catholics and Mary, some extreme Catholics actually worship Mary but most don’t. And there are similar problems in the Protestant community that are closed handed issues that we shouldn’t support. Because every church is lead by flawed men, there will be flawed teachings somewhere down the line. The important part is to recognize what they are not to demonize everyone who learns under the flawed teachers.
Part of being a mature adult is getting along with people you don't necessarily agree with on everything. I don't agree with your "version" of Christianity, but I agree with a lot of what you say in this video. Putting the responsibility onto each and every person to control themselves is such a forgotten concept in this day and age and you have my respect for advocating that. Regarding nudity, just look at a film or tv-series involving the Holocaust, depicting naked jews basically being herded into the gas chambers. If someone finds that sexually arousing, then I don't know what to say of that person... As the saying about "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder", the same can be said about sin. Sin lies in the thoughts of the viewer.
While I am not religious and don't have much interest in biblical discussion, I very much appreciate you being direct and upfront about you not only being christian but that your discussion points will be based around religious interpretation rather than just personal views.
There was a segment that Lotus Eaters did several months back about an app that ADDED clothing to THOTs, they used a harsher British term. The app was applied to women who went out to paint the town red. The consensus was that these women were more attractive with more cloths from the perspective of a man looking for a wife. However, women were outraged that they were being covered up. The point I'm trying to make is we should have fantasy and reality separate. It is okay to have games showing fantasies. Whether that be scantily clad women, hulking spacemen, playing as a cat, or a man in a pot with a hammer. In games we can play out those fantasies with little repercussion on real life. Having high moral standards IRL and low moral standards in a game is okay. HOWEVER, it should be on an individual level. Some are okay with sex, violence and the profane on their screens and some aren't. Banning it for everyone is lunacy.
Sadly it looks like these new generation and some of the old that can’t separate fiction and nonfiction or have the common sense to don’t like it don’t consume it
Exactly my thoughts as well, you might have someone raging over scantily clad women on a videogame, but perfectly fine with graphics depictions of gore and violence. Then someone will jump on this person like "How dare you to like murder??" I'm tired of people not seperating fiction with reality.
I think the youtuber TheFourthAge said it best in this video: ua-cam.com/video/CVpEuupdgmA/v-deo.html "There is a fine line between beauty and sexsuality..."
Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross and was buried then rose on the third day and was seen in Jesus Christ name we pray Christ is king! amen✝️👑 For God so loved the world he gave his one and only son to die on the cross for us so that whoever shall believe in him and puts there faith in him shall not perish but have eternal life John 3:16
Censorship isn't inherently bad. Some things deserve to be censored. CP for example. We control what our children watch, and what they partake in, not because we're tyrants, but because we love them. If we have the same love for our neighbors, our people, we'd act in the same way. Porn is used to weaken and control people. Why would you ever want your neighbor to be controlled by evil people or be inundated by temptation? The failings of total free speech, and current libertarian philosophy, is that it completely avoids the collective aspects of a nation and people, arguing that all human groups are merely comprised of individuals with zero collective ties, interests, goals, and commonality, that we must eschew collective action, or love for our fellow man, for a never ending pursuit of "freedom", leading to ever new control mechanisms being released on the public, a downward spiral of hedonism right into hell, which is precisely what is happening with Western civilization. People are demanding more and more comforts, more bread and circuses, and demanding them under the guise that they're "rights", or under the umbrella term "freedom". It's painfully obvious what their true motivations are, attempting to justify their personal failings, so they don't feel guilty about it, and/or wanting easier access to their dopamine hits, and in turn subjecting their neighbors to greater and greater levels of temptation. If they truly loved their neighbor, they wouldn't be doing this.
@@thebenc1537 "There is no movement." Gamers said the thing about the Feminists in the past and were laugh at the things they're trying to do to ruin gaming. Now the people the gamers used to laugh at are the running majority in the Western industry. Nah, it's best to put the foot down for the good and just stop it here. They're free to express their opinion and their beliefs, but I'm not going to humor such idea or opinion in regards to gaming. I've been there before, and seen it myself.
It is interesting to see that a Bible nerd and member of a church which is considered to be a sect in my part of the world (which is also the most atheistic country in the Europe and probably the most atheistic country ever) has more liberal, rational and overall friendly theological views than our local Christians (as I said, the most atheistic country). Thanks for sharing it :)
"wow this liberal is more liberal than Christians" And you think that's a point in his favor. Jesus didn't come to unite and tell sweet little lies to everyone, he came to separate the wheat from the chaff. You sure you know which you are?
The thing im afraid of is that woke crap will be replaced by religious dogma. Im an atheist, but i dont hate religion like some atheist do. I dont mind religious themes and whatnot. But i just dont want to be lectured by either side.
You will be lectured no matter what and it has nothing to do with religion. People with authority will abuse it for their own purposes, there is no shortage atheist right wingers who behave no differently than the woke. They just have different excuses. Most people simply are not worth knowing.
AGREED! I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't avoid non-Catholic entertainment or protestant Christianity or anything else. My faith is to love God and seek Him, not to avoid or fight anything. King David sang and danced for The Lord and if he did it naked I wouldn't care. Sexuality is part of being human, you maintain the leadership position in your own heart and don't let it take the wheel away from you. I whistle at my wife when she's changing clothes to remind her that she's beautiful and I want to mix my body with hers at every opportunity. God gave me to her and her to me. THANK YOU, JESUS!
Shad, if you made a channel dedicated to biblical content, and it's practical application for Christians in the modern day, I would literally watch every video twice. I really really appreciate your take on this subject and your expertise in the Bible.
Ditto. I grew up in the same church as Shad. I went away for a while but ended up coming back. I realized I don't understand the scriptures as well as I'd like.
thank you for being the reaosnable person in the room. tell you what, i cant really do a lot of the mormons rules but when i lived in utah, many of my mormon neighbors were some of the most reasonable and good neighbors ive ever had. there were a few that were hardcore bible thumpers but ive seen that in one form or another everywhere ive lived. mormons seem to be very big on nuance and i really appreciate that.
Tbf, I've been thinking that maybe there was something right about what they were saying back then. At least with regards to Hollywood and the Oligarchs.
Nah the “satanic panic” was the media’s way of dismissing real concerns about some things that were going on at the time. It was essentially a psy op used to bury a story that would have exposed some very heinous and disgusting stuff.
it never settles ?i go all the time and ppls who are in a golden middle are always being fucked by either one ? ... as i see things ? ppls if not corrupted or sick , know naturally what is right and wrong ... i have now the audacity to claim that i am very grounded in a reality that other would adhere , there wouldn't be much issues ? all my life i have been attacked and endagered by ppls go too far in their ideoligy that is just too extreme ... too make it simple ? ppls who are in the habit make other agree thems or else are the only and real problem ? no matter their creed or reason ? live and let live in a reasonable frame is where its at ... simple as that ... i not have much issue what ever some one believe as long we can agree to disagre ? no ?
As an artist, the human body is an excellent piece of art to be admired. I remember in art school, we would have naked models, and other students would say to me that it must be hard to focus on the assignment. I would often tell them that the human is beautiful and that I find nothing lustful about it.
I don't know what to think. I don't regret being a Christian, but it often feels like it has brought me a lot more turmoil than it has peace, especially in this area. Thank you for being a grownup about it though, Shad. Feels like everybody else is trying to win a food fight.
couple of points 1: Melanie did call for censorship, Called the thing bad in one twit and did proceed to call for a total ban on that bad thing. The tactic is to keep them separated so it can be denied. How ever any one that have been paying attention during the last 20 years should see were this is going. The ones that have been paying attention since the 80s are asking if this is your firs rodeo. Witch is what I was told by someone that live during the 50s and witnessed how Elvis was censored because of the "sinful pelvis movements". Follow by her comment that I should always remember that "Dancing is a vertical representation of an horizontal act". by that logic ban dancing I guess. 2: You will not find a a call against pornography in the bible, Nudity was of common place during the early ages. You can trace the moral indignation against nudity to the Pope that ordered the mutilation of the old Roman statues. I do not remember his name or exact year but Metratron should be able to give you all the details. (video Idea) 3: What it is the nature of lust or what it is. In its most basic form is an unhealthy desire for someone or something .Frame as only sexual is a disservice. You can lust money, ATTENTION, power, the next door neighbor. It feeds obsession which feed vices. (remember an alcoholic is not someone that drinks every day is someone that when start drinking can not stop). 4: Regarding the image ... No it is not. I feel sorry for people that see that way . I understand that people would want it to be but is dementedly not,. If I even go by the ridiculous rigor of the US law as a basis, even then it is not... I see that and go meh... The only sin that I see is the one that is already residing in the hart of the complainer.
Hey Shad, I'm also a Christian, and I have the same conclusion as you do, though I am of a different Christian denomination. We vary on our individual scales of desired modesty I think, but we reached the same conclusion in terms of how to approach the situation. Something I want to point out is that an element of evil is force compliance. Similar to how you pointed out how slaves should be treated as brothers instead of property, we should never FORCE anyone to obey us, but like you said, we should encourage and educate to others why they should. If you look around, you can see this element of evil all around us, even back a few years when a specific sickness was making its rounds, people were being "forced" to take a new medical treatment, sometimes against their desires. Christians should NEVER use a Devil's tool (Forced Compliance) to make others follow our Christian doctrine. Christ never did it, and Jesus refused to use force and power even on the cross about to die. The mark of the beast and the seal of God, note how for the Seal of God, it is only on the forehead, where one can reason and logically make their decision. But the Mark of the Beast is both on the forehead or on the right hand, so it is either a conscious decision or a forced compliance.
I prefer to look at the objective result of the actions. The consumption is significantly less bad than the making of it, and the making of it being bad is what primarily makes the consumption of it so bad. Therefore, if you're consuming a product that didn't hurt anyone in the process, it can be unhealthy but it's not that bad. If it involves real people? Consent aside, the act forever humiliates and wounds the brothers, the fathers, the mothers even. A man has to live with the fact hanging over his head that almost certainly, some of his coworkers, his boss, his friends even, are watching his daughter be defiled for their own amusement. He can never escape that he will never be the same again. This is cruel. It hurts the participants, I don't even need to go deep into why we can just look at the objectively very short lifespan of actresses. We can look at the objective fact that no matter how much we police this stuff, a lot of it wasn't consensually made, a lot of them weren't even of legal age. I forget the number but the hub was forced to purge most of their material a while back. So I don't really care if we can get 99.9% to meet 'acceptable standardss, because the practice all so people can have something to watch while they touch themselves will objectively result in either grape, the participation of minors, or both. That is unacceptable. But hey, seems like a lot of people think that one in one thousand is an acceptable 'casualty' if it means they get to keep their prawn. A worthy sacrifice it seems. Its banning will objectively reduce the number of people affected, and the frequency that which this happens, therefore I'm going to need to hear a good reason why allowing it is worth that cost.
Well... I'm an atheist. Some might even say I'm an anti-theist. I am, however, also a fan of your channel and have been subbed to Shadiversity for quite a long time now. I really enjoy a lot of your content and hope you continue to do well in this space. With that out of the way, I'm also anti-woke and against censorship or compelled speech of any kind. Tho I may have many objections to the religious aspect and a slant toward suggesting there's such a thing as thought crime (sinful thoughts), I do think your view on censorship as far as this particular subject goes is fair, and I really appreciate your take on it. At the end of the day, despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with much of christianity and religion in general, I think you're a good guy and it would probably even be fun to hang out with you, Tyranth, and the crew. If I'm ever in Australia, maybe I'll try to look you up, and I promise I wouldn't go militant atheist on you, lol. I was a butcher for 30 years so I have an appreciation for good, strong, sharpened steel and have always loved knives and swords.
Also an atheist. But I do generally like the moral framework of christianity just not the historical / “scientific” (IE - God made everything & he & the devil are the good cop / bad cop for the planet).
It depends what is being banned and why. Banning things to make them good people obviously doesn't work. Prawn made using real people have objectively real life harms. It's evil in fact but I'm not going to go deep into that argument. For example, fentanyl if it were my decision is an illegal substance. Not because I'm trying to make you a good person and hope you make it to the gates of Heaven one day, but because I'm choosing to use force to make sure there isn't another dead body for us to have to deal with. So if it were up to me, paying someone's daughter to humiliate their father with their defilement for his friends and colleagues to watch should be illegal. It's not right, it's not fair, it happening benefits nobody. Pleasure is not a good enough justification for that kind of cruelty. And he has to allow it to happen, because if he doesn't, men with badges and guns will be at his door to remind him he has to put up with it or else. Police who of course, can then go and watch the defilement of the father's daughter if they so please. I would not want to be in that man's shoes.
No pornography in non-porn games. If a game has ass and tits on display as fan service, then rate it T/16+ If it has sexual acts or nudity for no reason, then rate it M/18+ It shouldn't be that complicated, unless someone wants to outright ban it for some reason...
That plus people need to vote with their wallet, not by activist route of appealing to morals and telling people what should and shouldn't be in games. Problem with injection of DEI into games is not that there can't be games like this. Problem is that vast majority doesn't want it thus they don't buy it and it flops, but I still want games for that minority to exist, just maybe adjust budget realistically for size of your potential audience. Similar story with fan service. Make some games with it, make some games without it... and let people pick which one they want to buy. It's fine to say what you don't like in games, it's fine to talk what statistically people don't want in games and maybe it is even fine to point out what you think morally correct stance is, but in case of the last one you should fully expect that some might respond with "fuck you".
@@sevjij people have no no morals so that doesnt work, u need people in power to force this kinda censorship becase its never going away and will only get worse and then people will wonder why society is so messed up LOL
@@iBolski they wont be and never will be, people need to raise there own kids away from the school systems but they wont so everything needs to be forced by a leader with morals and that wont happen any time soon and society will continue to crumble
My brother approached me with a proposal for this topic. We are bith practicing roman catholic for context. He suggested that the psalm of psalms is rather spicy and so there is some level of exceptance of sexuality in any form of media. Obviously we don't want porn. But we don't want all women to wear turtle necks.
I think there's a difference: I can't imagine anyone reading Song of Solomon and objectifying women as a result. But there's been interesting studies done looking at the brain activity of young men and showing that they do look at women in bikinis as objects first. If I'm a game developer, I'm going to want to avoid including content with a high likelihood of leading the vast majority of my audience into sin
Fellow Latter-day Saint. Thanks for your thoughts at the beginning! I think you’re mostly right. I think for the majority of people though it’s just best to avoid nudity in media.
I feel this is a great breakdown that many Christians need to hear. The difficulty of the human experience as one discovers maturity and learns control over themselves.
As a pagan, I appreciate this nuanced approach, its very insightful. And to add another example of this sort of thing, we have swimming pools and beaches where people are effectively wearing underwear, yet it is not inherently sexual. Though i will say, American Christians specifically can rake the purity spiral exceedingly too far, to the point where there are places and people who consider a woman breastfeeding her baby to be indecent and even lustful, to give an example. I believe its this sort of mindset that caused this debate in the first place.
Just a bunch of brain rot going on around here. They're the ones with the dirty thoughts, but they blame everyone else for their own distorted perspectives and interpretations.
I enjoy a bit of eye candy, but understand that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. However, to say that gaming should not have that available when that’s the very thing that gets my wallet opening up is a bit too far. We’ve had pushing and banning and censorship from companies like sweet baby inc. already, and it looks like we might be getting it now on the other side.
Not only that, but the constant push for removing all the eye candy is the primary reason that its so popular now. Making something taboo doesn't make it undesireable, in fact it makes it more rare and sought after. many teenagers are hormonal but can control themselves, yet the people who are most interested in these things are that way BECAUSE they can't indulge in it, making it harder to control. This is why most people cool off a bit once they actually get into a proper relationship (or until marriage at least). The market for games is trending towards eye candy do to the lack of it, had all eye candy not been taken away from the entire medium, then people would have been mostly bored with it and things would be more modest, and the things that weren't modest wouldn't be so arousing because their isn't a "danger" element to it that makes it more exciting because its acceptable. I think allowing some level of it will make people autocorrect towards a more neutral position, rather than an extreme.
The "other side" has no power and hasn't since the turn of the 20th Century. Ironically it was because of the Reed Smoot hearings, a Mormon who was challenged to sit in the Senate, that might have turned the tide for a less Protestant leaning government.
Great video, thought-provoking, it even may have cleared up some things for me. For those who seek drama, I watch Melonie too, and I think you would mostly agree, the differences are quite minuscule if there are any. It's just the nature of social media, that it doesn't encourage or give room to actual nuanced discussions. That being said, if you ever did a discussion with her or anybody on similar things, I would definitely watch. As for the topic itself, I have read some actual medieval stories (originals, not only translations or adaptations) from the likes of Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach etc. who were undoubtedly very seriously Christian knights/ authors, and in their works they are often times a lot more descriptive when it comes to human beauty than many may expect. Also, you mentioned renaissance artists, they were still deeply faithful people too.
I think you have a very solid view. As an agnostic i appreciate the thoughtfulness where some others would have no care about others choices. I do have curiosity about your thoughts on the loneliness epipdemic and how that affects most people. Yet that is a question for another time. Good video
There's a very simple solution if you don't want to see things like that in a game: **DON'T PLAY THE BLOODY GAME** Also, that's only one game, First Descendant. They're trying to poison the well by applying that to all games in an effort to make gamers look bad, as always. Black Myth Wukong, Marvel Rivals, Hogwarts Legacy are all popular and successful without having that in them. People need to grow up.
22:45 - the character can do the dance regardless of the outfit / skin that the player has equipped. Male characters can also do a dance. The video in question is just cherry picking.
The problem I see with Melonie and this other guy is that I'm pretty sure the games they are looking at when they say these things are a very small percentage of actual games that have come out. They may be games that people are focusing on right now, but I'd wager that if you looked at all the games released in 2024 the majority of them do not contain scantily clad characters.
There is a good example in the case of some of E.A Munier's paintings. They depict cherubs with very little clothing in some cases, but are clearly not made for enticing the viewer into lustful behaviour. But there are some people who describe it as such (pr0n), and I am sure there are some people who use it as such - and in both cases, they are the twisted ones. To me, they are just well-executed works of art showcasing a high level of skill; something I could appreciate seeing in a museum or art exhibit (in contrast with almost all 'modern art').
Depends on what you mean. The Bible is incredibly clear on issues of modesty and such. But censorship of any kind is not the answer either because as with all top down approaches, it just makes people frustrated as opposed to actually changing them. While my moral views are closer to Dread and Melonie, I think both of them let the situation frustrate them (Twitter is NEVER a good place for ANY kind of debate, period) and I think things got out of hand. All of this can be settled with one on one conversations, but no one on either side is having them right now.
@@AndrewFrancisIlyrian While porn is certainly not good, as I said, censorship never works and all attempts to ban things has unintended consequences. Prohibition, for example, led to the rise of organized crime because they made huge profits overturning alcohol into a black market. And on the more social side, there is the "forbidden fruit" factor. Making something illegal just makes it more enticing for people to have. It ultimately also turns people against Christians because people as a whole don't like being told what to do from a top-down perspective. Ultimately, the answer has always been person-to-person communication and conversion. It has historically been the only way a society as a whole has changed. Bottom up methods always by evidence work out better then top down methods.
@@AndrewFrancisIlyrian No, not really. You can believe something without imposing it on others. The failing of authoritarians is their inability to understand this basic concept.
It is definitely a choice, but we should always proclaim that things should be better. We started losing society when we started to say, "I shouldn't promote my beliefs on society." No, we should. We just can't be mean about it, and we shouldn't be surprised if the world doesn't agree. We have a right to call out things just as much as anyone else. Social media makes it easy to share our opinions, but it also makes it easy for people to get upset. Everyone has different convictions. I don't believe Mormons are a correct belief, but Shad does. I still love his channel. I pray that we all go to God and seek His will every day.
Better is subjective. Some of us just cannot bring ourselves to moral outrage over a piece of escapist media. Don't be surprised when we roll our eyes at you for wasting your time.
Homosexuality is also a choice, and the Bible gives us a very specific punishment for such a choice, worded in such a way as to leave no room for misinterpretations, in Leviticus 20:13. I think this is the litmus test for a Christian. This view is seen as so extreme today as to be directly adjacent to Mean Mister Mustache who baked six million turkeys with just a few dozen ovens in only six years. Do you accept the words of God when he calls for an abominable act to lead to the proper punishment due? If yes, we can go from there to the rest of the Bible, and show how modern popular "Christianity" has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.
As an Atheist, i completely agree with Shad on every single point. You should develop personal standards and maturity to handle content that might be considered inapprotiate. However, on the topic of admiring human beauty, i would go a step further than Shad, and claim that even erotic intent can be aknowledged and respected in certain instances. I've read stories that were enhanced by their inclusion of pornographic content, and i've seen beautiful art and animation that is undeniably pornographic, but that's not all that it is. A piece of media should not be defined purely by it's most controversial or provocative component.
An atheist agrees with an alleged Christian on morals. This doesn't give the alleged Christian any pause whatsoever. Hilarious how fallen this world is. Fucking clown world.
40:32 I believe you're right but I will state that there does seem to be a whole lot of unnecessary nudity and sexualized content in media especially movies and TV these days and I don't think it's prudish to say that considering I'm with you if it advances the story or has something to do with the story it makes sense but 99% of the gratuitous sex scenes and things of that nature in media today do not advance the story forward at all if anything it takes away from the story.
Ultimately when you don't like content like that you simply vote with your wallet there still plenty of content that doesn't have that stuff in it. The religious right really shouldn't try to be as controlling as the religiously woke left.
I appreciate your beliefs very much. I am LDS as well, and I found confusion on this topic in my home ward, which added to much of my troubles as an adult now. I wish I could have heard your view then, for I think I would have been spared many years of sorrow. Yet my path is my path, and I stronger for it. I would appreciate hearing more of your teachings on biblical understanding, not just because of this but because I love your channel and listening to you speak. Thanks for all you do Shad!
I think another point to consider is the word “lust” is not strictly sexual, but is equally related to **want.** A married man, such as myself, looking at other women and causing me to **want** for them over my wife is adultery of the heart. Same with her and other men, but we can both see nudity and even sex scenes in films without **wanting** that other our partner. But as Shad said, it also requires self-discipline and maturity, with every person being at different stages in their lives.
Shad, my man. Thank you so very much for this more balanced take, at the very least. I have a video coming out and... yeah, it'll probably get me some hate, as I'm not a fan of censorship.
It's not just her giving an opinion that was controversial. She insults and degrades her audience with whatever cringe new zoomer insults she learned today instead of presenting a coherent argument and comes off as pretentious and annoying in the process. She took 3 seconds of video from a game she never played and used it to justify talking down to everyone like a 2024 Tipper Gore.
There is no difference from these outfits than what you would see at a beach, it's just that this is animated and all the the characters male and female is animated as peak physical form. Sexy characters male and female in video games is not pron.
That has always been the case. Noone likes objectively ugly characters and gender-nonsense. It destroys stories and characters... and immersion. I saw a scene from that new dragon age game(can't even be arsed to recall the title)... it felt not quite like a dark fantasy game when they were talking about missgendering all of a sudden. It was laughable to see crap like that in a game. Thank God I don't play AAA games anymore... these things have become garbage thanks to DEI policies and the marxist propaganda push on gamers.
Genuinely interesting. And to a degree addresses one of my main complaints to those tweets in question, is that they are in nature unconstructive and uninformative, which makes it look like good ol virtue signaling. Couple remarks. The girl in that video is Luna and she's a DJ type of hero, like i.e. Lucio in OW, bard archetype in RPG terms. So what is there, is a woman who are far from being "almost naked" and she dances to her tune. The camera angle etc. is all on player. If those types of moves can be considered "cornographic" or "stripper dances" my question is, is it possible for a woman to dance in a none cornographic manner at all? Because i'am pretty sure hips swaying is just natural way a woman would do a little dance to herself, when listening to something. It seems so disingenuous. I like Melonie and DR, but no, with this one not only i'am not with them, i'am very strongly against.
Wisest take I've heard on this; pretty much everything else has involved someone blowing one or more gaskets, no matter their stance on the matter. Imagine that, nuance and expecting adults to practice self control.
Appreciate your forthrightness in presenting your beliefs. Would love to see you debate someone who disagrees to some extent (presenting contrasting opinions and evidence).
Bwhahahahaha!!! @2:37 "Yeah we are Mormon, and we might be considered fringe, but we are actually just right - here is how . . . but enough about that, let's get back to the topic at hand."
Very well said. I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. It is both about the intent of the content and how each individual views and reacts to the content. I would add something further to your comments about modesty. I think Chastity and Modesty are two sides of the same coin. Just like it is our responsibility to control our passions and not look upon a woman (or man) with intent to lust after them, I think the other side of that coin is that we should publicly dress in such a way as to not encourage lustful thoughts in others. I agree with your thoughts on s3xual a55ault that the victim is not to blame because of the way they were dressed. There is absolutely no one to blame for violent acts of crime other than the perpetrator themselves, and they should be condemned and prosecuted harshly. However, I wouldn't to go down a dark alley at night with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets. I would not be doing anything wrong, and I am not to blame if I get mugged and robbed in that alley, but the way I presented myself was inviting trouble in the same way that dressing immodestly invites lustful eyes and can provoke reprehensible behavior.
My mission president said it the best " If you don't look once, you're not a man. If you look twice, you're not a missionary." I have held that to be true in my heart
As a Christian, there is NO reason to be against nudity. Jesus literally said to "pluck out" your own eye if you see a woman and are filled with lust There isn't a SINGLE time God or Christ says being naked is a sin. When you take the totality of the context of the scripture, nudity isn't a sin. As for what is or isn't sexual, that's entirely based by each person. Some people get sexually turned on by feet. Some breasts. Some hair. Art is art is art. When some see is "porn" others see as just visually appealing art. Unless the creator outright and directly say "THIS IS PORN", you cannot impart your beliefs or will on a work of art in regards to trying get others to view it the same as you.
I commented on one of Vee's post stating that as a member myself, I have a live and let live approach for other people. Doesn't mean I agree with their action but I respect their agency. Also, I oppose censorship because it often leads to censorship of very normal or even good things down the line, which is where we are now. The de-feminization of women or localizing games to be very different from their original intent, censorship of male and female and other normal things that are completely harmless, Like Sonic Generations, Amy being censored to not be obsessed with Sonic. I'm for free expression and people choosing what they think is good. Not to mention that if we start prohibiting certain modes of thought or expression that can actually lead to oppression where some people are not allowed to behave as they believe.
The overly conservative stance on porn has always been so blantenly contradictory to me because it's like "we hate fourth wave feminism and how it's made the idea of dating and marriage an overall rigged system but we also hate the thing that serves as a cure for men who don't want to participate in said rigged system"
Thanks Shad, good talk! As a Catholic I would recommend St. John Paul II's writings on the Theology of the Body. Also, I can't remember which artwork it was, but there was a piece in the Vatican I believe that depicted many nude people in a scene at the resurrections. A lot of the figures were covered up at a certain time, but JPII uncovered them again. He was given a lot of flack about it, people saying it was showing off porn in the Vatican, but it was a teaching moment for him to preach on the beauty in the human form that God created.
10:40 Shad asks "show me anywhere in the Bible where it says any image intending to trigger sexual arousal is bad". Here are some Biblical verses about the sin of lust. I'll use the ASV translation because it's a bit easier to read than the Dhouay-Rheims translation. Matthew 5:27-28 "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." 1 John 2:15-17 "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." Galatians 5:16-17 "But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would." Colossians 3:5 "Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry;" 2 Timothy 2:22 "But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." 1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." Proverbs 6:25 "Lust not after her beauty in thy heart; Neither let her take thee with her eyelids." 1 Peter 2:11 "Beloved, I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" James 1:14-15 "but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death." 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God;" Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Romans 13:14 "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." 1 Corinthians 6:13 "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:" Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Romans 8:6 "For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace:" Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s." Romans 7:7 (look into what this verse means) "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:" Exodus 20:14 (Jesus expands "adultery" to mean lusting after someone that is not their spouse) "Thou shalt not commit adultery." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Ephesians 4:22 "that ye put away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit;" Mark 7:20-23 "And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man." Romans 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof:" Numbers 15:39 "and it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Jehovah, and do them; and that ye follow not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to play the harlot;" Ephesians 5:3 "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints;" Romans 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:" --------- There are a lot more passages, but this should be enough to get the point across. Lust is absolutely sinful and antithetical to proper Christian behavior. The 2nd commandment Jesus gave to us, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", means that we should not drive our neighbors, the people we love, into temptation. A certain level of responsibility rests on each individual to not sin, to lust, but a certain responsibility also rests upon our neighbors (also community, nation, and people) to not inundate our neighbors with temptation and sin. Most Western Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the failures of individualism, egalitarianism, and libertarianism that they worship at That alter rather than what God commands us, and what Jesus taught us. It is wrong to push a never ending parade of scantily clad women in front of men, driving them to lust, pushing them into sin. Just as porn is used to control people, so is lust.
You’re kind of proving Shad’s point. Those passages are talking about attitude. The first one sums it up perfectly: “…looketh on a woman _to lust after her…”_ That’s intent. Looking at a person as a sexual tool for your gratification. And you can do that when they’re fully clothed. If someone is deliberately dressing to provoke a sexual reaction outside the marriage covenant, then yes, it’s a sin. And if someone is looking on someone they aren’t married to and mentally stripping them of their modest clothing, that’s a sin. But both of those are deliberate choices. The clothes or lack thereof aren’t the real problem, but what’s in the heart is. Do I think people should dress modestly in general? Yes. But the only person who can control _my_ thoughts, _my_ heart, is _me_. Thinking otherwise leads to the “of course I sexed her, she was dressed as wh*r*, she clearly wanted it” mentality. If lust is controlling you it’s because you allow it to.
@@eirrenia I replied to your comment previously, but UA-cam censored my comment. I'll try to reply again. Simply put, if you love your neighbors (and people), as we are commanded to do by Christ, we wouldn't subject them to a deluge of temptations from every direction of society. To love someone, is to protect them, and to engender a healthy society for them such that they can remain healthy and not be tempted into sin. Love isn't just a word. It's an action, and best displayed in action. Why would any rational person, who knows the nature of men, so thoroughly sabotage men by drowning them in lustful temptations? That is not the act of love. It's the opposite. It's what you do to your enemies. It's inherently satanic. Shad is ignoring the fact that environmental factors absolutely play a role in how we're shaped. Are our actions our own? Yes, but that mentality ignores the communal/collective health of a group/family/society/nation, that we also hold responsibility for our neighbors, and our responsibility, as a member of whatever group we're in, to maintain the health of that group. Similar to how a father and mother maintain the health of the family, for the betterment of their spouse and children (because they love them), we should also maintain the health of society, for the betterment of our neighbors (because we love them), and for the exact same reasons.
@@eamonnholland5343 While I agree with you in principle, we also have to consider that offense is often in the eye of the beholder. As Shad pointed out, what is mere art or even casual wear to some is pornography to others, because they react differently. If you try to set standards solely based on the weakest/most sensitive individuals, society quickly becomes oppressive and needlessly judgmental. Our current society has tipped _too far_ in the direction of free sexual expression, I won’t argue with you there. But a puritanical mindset has its own issues. An example: there is an anime called _My Neighbor Totoro._ In it is a scene where the father is taking a bath in a traditional barrel-tub with his two young daughters. The scene is entirely innocent in the original cultural context. No sexual under or overtones at all. It was just a family getting clean. Yet when the film hit general notice by the American public there were those outraged by the scene because they read into it things that simply weren’t there. Both a sexually deviant mind and a puritanical mind sees implications _that did not exist_ in the work. That is not the fault of the film creators, and the film should not be clipped to cater to those incapable of seeing innocence. If you start down that road more and more innocent things become taboo simply because they _might_ offend, and you end up with cancel culture. A cultural preference for modesty is good, but not when moral responsibility for ones thought/actions becomes located outside the individual; _which can easily happen when the guiding ethos is “people must be protected from temptation”_ as if we are not each responsible for ourselves. It does no good to say “but no reasonable person is going to object to this.” Because every society has a large enough percentage of UNreasonable people who are quite happy to force unreasonable standards down others’ throats given half a chance; because they themselves are incapable of seeing nuance and/or have trained their minds to see offense in anything. I am not happy with a lot of the female depictions in video game and there are games I will never touch for that reason. But that’s how it should work - the individual finding where their personal boundaries are, and policing their own life instead of trying to police everyone around them, or demanding society enforce a single one-size fits few standard. It’s the inherent responsibility that comes with free will. That said, I agree there must be a balance between the individual and societal needs. I just recognize that “balance” means existing in a tension because people are just different. (This discussion also highly ironic considering I’m currently pushing back against another poster who seems to think that just stating the reasons why one objects to intentionally over-sexualized content is “imposing your beliefs on others and attempting to shame them.”)
@@eirrenia "While I agree with you in principle, we also have to consider that offense is often in the eye of the beholder. As Shad pointed out, what is mere art or even casual wear to some is pornography to others, because they react differently." This is why people are allowed to exert their will upon society, to control what is accepted and what isn't. Nations are meant to be homogeneous, not this diversified hellworld that the West has been turned into. Before the intentional diversification of the West, most people agreed on things, what was appropriate, and what wasn't. "If you try to set standards solely based on the weakest/most sensitive individuals, society quickly becomes oppressive and needlessly judgmental. Our current society has tipped too far in the direction of free sexual expression, I won’t argue with you there. But a puritanical mindset has its own issues." That's your opinion. You're free to form your own communities with your own standards. Almost all people like me that are arguing for the removal of lust traps aren't arguing for full on head to toe covering for women. We're arguing for the removal of intentionally designed art, media, entertainment, clothing, and behavior that drives men to lust. You can tell if things are designed to be destructive to the people by the intention behind the creator. Furthermore, the puritanical mindset is world's apart better than what we currently have. Why is that? Because currently, the net results of everything in the West is producing a birth rate below 2.1, meaning our populations are dying out. One of the core reasons why is that men are trapped into lascivious behavior and consumption of such content, due to the widespread availability of such content, and the acceptance of such behavior by society. It reduces their drive to pursue women, reduces marriage rates, reduces the number of children we have, etc. Logically, a puritanical mindset is vastly better than this, because it maintains the civilization that pursues it, and keeps the birth rates above replacement levels. However, as stated above, I'm not arguing that we must race to the other end of the spectrum, just judging each upon its own merits. Similarly, I'm actually okay with nudity in art, so long as the art is designed to increase the beauty of the world, that the creator didn't design it to manipulate men's desires. For example, Greek and Roman statues, or certain paintings. You'll probably ask: how can you tell the intention of the creator of a work? They'll almost always tell you, and once you learn to spot the distinct differences between "good" art (beautiful, constructive, teaches lessons, etc.) and "bad" art (destructive, demoralizing, normalizes evil, teach lies, deconstructs truth/goodness, etc.), the intent is quite easy to discern. An example of this is brutalist architecture. The Soviets specifically made all their buildings concrete blocks, intentionally designed to be ugly and demoralizing to the public. This was used to weaken people's social/communal/collective bonds, surrounding them with ugliness, which reduces people's want to help each other, to improve themselves and their community, to fight back against those that are hurting themselves or their neighbors. Brutalist architecture was a control mechanism used against the Russian people. Weirdly, modern architects love brutalist architecture, which is why so many modern buildings and skyscrapers are so ugly, completely devoid of beauty, elegance, or admiration. It's all concrete, glass, and weird shapes. Modern architects will tell you this. It's by design, even though many normie architects don't realize what they're doing. They were just trained to make these ugly buildings through school (another institution that's been captured and controlled). In contrast, beautiful buildings (or beautiful art in general) builds the collective wealth of a community, nation, and people. It brings people together in common admiration for the beauty surrounding them, increases people's drive to help their neighbors, and to protect them from outside threats and subversive inside threats, and drives people to improve and add to the beauty surrounding them. Art isn't subjective, because beauty isn't subjective. There are clear delineations between beauty and ugliness, and the average person, whether they can accurately put it to words why, can tell the difference. The ancient Greeks had it right. Beauty is intrinsically tied to truth and goodness. Our enemies know this as well, which is why they're intentionally making everything ugly and bad, because they're liars as well.
As a fellow LDS, I applaud you and back you 100% on this video. I wish more could see and understand the crucial distinction between pornographic and general nudity/immodesty. I do not understand why so many Christians conflate immodest to be on par with pornography.... Says more about their own willpower and mental state than it does about actual doctrine.
Late to the party, but Shad's take on the line between Pron and Art is on point. The problem is Melanie isnt confused about where the line is. She is actually attacking the male sex drive. It's where the woke left and prude right are the same. All forms of sexuality can be defended/or ignored in these people's minds to some degree, unless it's a straight man admiring a beautiful woman. Western culture has decided THAT is what is evil now. The right hides behind "not being a good Christian" and the left hides behind "misogyny and patriarchy"
I actually don't think Melanie is a good Christian. She delves into zealotry, condemns people, and never approaches conversation with the intent of respecting and listening to the other point of view, actively turning people away from God because of how fanatical they perceive her, and by association, all Christians.
Shad you are one of the Religious people that i can fully accept and respect for their values. If their is one thing that i would ever pray for at the moment its that you and and your family will be save and sound. \[T]7
There are many things I disagree with theologically in the Mormon faith as a protestant, but I’m glad to see the stance at least taken that sex isn’t evil and is actually a good thing in its proper context. The Roman Catholic church often does swing in the other way where it seems like their opposition to any form of contraception and sex only for the purpose of procreation almost brings sexuality to a point of being sinful. Song of Solomon is one of the better proponents as well for healthy sexuality in a Christian relationship. It’s a love story that does describe the human form in a beautiful way.
Would love to hear more stuff about Mormonism from your eyes, as I feel that you have built up a credibility in my eyes for me to sit down and hear your beliefs directly. Currently, I take major issue about the rejection of the trinity and the baptism of the dead. However I am not above my mind being changed or at the very least challenged in those beliefs. The way I see it, I either get closer to God by hearing different sides of theology or I get closer to God by having to back up why I believe what I believe. A win-win in my eyes.
I liked what you said here. In regards to Melonie Mac, my personal issue with what she is doing is just shock value for clicks and engagement. She is no dummy. She is doing it for profit, not to teach or be an example. She is wholly belligerent and as with several youtubers I have seen lately putting herself on some kind pedestal as this left wing ideology crumbles, very prideful, not humble. Christ died for our sins so that we may have a personal walk with him without having to go through priests and oracles. Every individuals walk with Christ is personal and full of personal choices, it is not up to her or anybody else to tell an individual how to have their own personal walk with Christ, nor her to judge if their walk and tell them how they should walk.
As a protestant, I would definitely disagree with you on some scriptural things, though I am of the mind that, despite having incorrect interpretations of the Bible, there is nothing that is keeping a Mormon from being saved. It may, however be a more difficult road fraught with more sin as a result. That being said, I agree for the most part on your interpretation of scripture on this particular aspect...aside from one thing. The Bible clearly condemns causing another to stumble. So unnecessary sexuality, with the knowledge that it will be a temptation for others, I believe, is sinful. There is obviously a line that has to be drawn at a certain point, as there is someone out there that would perv out on just seeing a woman's eyes or slightest hint of skin. However, understanding that a teenage Shad, for instance, would have difficulty with any sort of nudity should afford you the clarity of understanding that any sort of purposeful nudity could cause another to stumble. That problem exists regardless of the artist's motivation. The question, to me, is more about the degree of carelessness, ignorance or purposefulness of the sexualization. At what point are we accountable for causing someone else's sin? I tend to think it's at the point that we know another's sin is likely, but the Bible seems murky on the particulars.
You raise a great point. I think it honestly depends. I don't think we should restrict our behavior if we're justified and not committing sin for fear that some people might misunderstand our actions, misuse what we make, or that they can't control themselves. Yet if we do know of a person's weakness we should be mindful of them when we can, and not throw more temptation in front of them. But that doesn't mean we can't continue our actions when they are not in front of that person. If the person seeks it out anyway, they would have done it with another thing even if you hadn't made it.
@@KNIGHTSWATCH I think the acid test is: can this thing be consumed by someone under age? Alternatively, if Jesus was helping me make this art, would he choose the same thing I would? It's hard to argue Game of Thrones or the dancing thong from X would pass that test, but Wheel of Time...that's tough. On one hand, it's done in good taste (at least as far as I'm aware having not read the books), on the other hand I dunno if Jesus would have found it necessary for much of the nudity. He was amazing at subverting expectations and making a seemingly limited situation into one with better options. The TV show was different. I don't actually remember any nudity in that. However, it had other problems and I'd say from the evidence we have, Jesus wasn't keen on identity politics...
@@Whanevs If I remember, the first relationship was 'technically' over before he started the second, so at the least he was monogamous. I also don't remember him sleeping with Egwene (could be wrong though). However he wasn't married to Selene, if I recall...so there is that. Frankly, I couldn't care less one way or the other, but I was specifically referring to the nudity in my previous post. Like I said, there are other problems with it for sure, it just wasn't memorable enough for me to care.
Did you mean to say Condone, or did you mean Condemn? Condoning is like saying its fine, rather than condemning it. Also I think the context about causing another to stumble was regarding their faith, right? So it may not neccessarily refer to sin, as it would be (like you said) very hard to control others to prevent it.
@KNIGHTSWATCH Simple thought from the Bible that illuminates your point: Did Jesus's mother (or others) sin because they looked upon Him hanging on the cross naked? You know the answer.
The enemy knows each of our triggers - if you struggle with lust, a woman's bare behind will absolutely cause someone to stumble. Guarding your eyes is critical. The Lord hears the prayers of His people - ask for wisdom and protection.
Im a Christian and i actually agree with a lot of what Shad is saying. I do think there is something to be said about modesty when you're a man or woman who's married (more so a woman). Usually when a woman dresses scantily she is putting out her best physical attributes, signifying to men that she is available and say what you want but all humans to their core are designed to procreate. So men look at women as potential partners to procreate with, and women do the same with men. Physical attributes have always been at the core of finding a mate because men will want a woman who physically looks like she can bear children well, and women want a man that will protect her and their children (a man that is strong, athletic, intelligent, etc). So when a woman is married and dresses scantily that is NOT ok, because she is then signaling to all men that she is available when she's really not. I have no problem with women dressing the way they want, but if you're married maybe practice some modesty. You don't have to completely cover up but just don't dress like you're available.
Yes, anything can be taken too far & as soon as you put your own personal ideology or worldview above other people's free will to choose for themselves you've gone too far, regardless of which side you're on
@MangoTheLegend yup, wouldn't take much they could include alternate costumes as well for people that want a more conservative option. It's when people demand something's censored or removed completely to conform to their standards that it's an issue
20:30 I'd say a better example is of Daenerys (hope I spelled that right), emerging from the fire with her dragons. Sure she was naked... But that entire scene was meant to depict a rebirth or transformation, not unlike a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It was significant to display a change in character. She becomes the Mother of Dragons. It also has practical purposes too. Showing that not even her clothes could survive the fire, yet she comes out unscathed and uninjured, hammers home the point that unlike her "brother" whose skin couldn't handle molten gold.. Daenerys is a true Targaryen whose skin cannot burn. In a sense it was really a trial by fire. Could they have hid more of her behind smoke.. sure? But at the same time seeing her entire body (or most of it) completely unscathed as baby dragons climb up and onto her has much more impact. You really get why everyone around her drops to their knees in awe.
I recall you once said on FNT that you not only banned pr*n in your house, but would ban it in your community if you could. And that's where I thought "woah, ok, that's just super radical, Shad's Mormonism might be showing". In this video you express much more reasonable views, so maybe I misremember something, or maybe it was not so well formulated by yourself back then as here. Personally, I fully support rights of Christians (and Muslims and other congregations) to exercise their religious practices and have all rights they need for that - as long as they don't interfere with my right to live and SIN (in their understanding, which, again, differs from one religion to another - and even between various Christian movements - remember Adamites?) as much as I want for myself. Both religiousness and "sinfulness" should be a personal choice, not forced by some authority through bans, censorship and penalties. Also, I remember an article about researcher who stumbled upon a box of marble p*nises in a closed part of the British Museum. Because in the past centuries curators were chopping them off of classic statues and replacing them with fig leaves in order to satisfy Christian morals. Somehow, even today, a suggestion to return them to the rightful place was not met enthusiastically. And yeah, some regard Rodin's works as pr*n, too... Oh well.
Nobody likes people nekkid near children or giving kids inappropriate images. One is pride parades, the other is games that have NSFW content. Belive it or not, some things people like aren't good for them, and they should be ignored when arguing for it.
While I don't agree with censoring anything, I was disappointed with "our side" for being so knee-jerk, snowflakey and panicky. I'm not religious, but I also don't want overall gaming to evolve in such a way. Not to mention that most providers of fanservice strengthen ESG initiatives on the west and communist China. People are financing the knives that will go on their backs but are too blinded by digital tiddy to see it.
In my experience, Anglo-Saxon Christianity is when people lecture you about the beauty of creation and then try to coerce you into pretending that Michelangelo _David_ isn't art.
So in summary, we have three categories. 1 - Actual porn, whose sole reason for existence is to provoke lust, which you should avoid. 2 - Safe stuff where there's not even a hint of sexuality, and anyone of any age can view without lustful thoughts coming into the picture. 3 - Stuff that could be considered sexy, whether it be clothing or behaviour, that doesn't fall into #1. This (very large) category will vary from person to person. If you think it's porn and are driven to have lustful thoughts, then it is porn for you and you should avoid it, but if you don't think it's porn and it does not cause you to lust, then feel free to consume. Above all, you must allow others to make the same choice.
Great summery!
#3 is Personal Perspective. I will look at women of Iran in their Hijab and believe that is worse, then a nudist beach. I've never been to either but I also understand what both offer. I also agree with Shad on the double standard and intent of action. You can dress in a bathing suit, bikini and not do anything to purposefully draw attention. You can also wear a full mascot fur suit and act very provocative to cause humor. But in any case someone might find it sexual. I mean "Rules of the Internet, tropedia.fandom on wiki" honestly, some of these rules are older then the internet.
In my case, I don't think it's porn, but it still causes me to lust, but I feel free to consume. Guess I'm a sinner, lol
I propose a fourth category: artful erotica; while explicit, the acts in question are performed in a manner that appears romantic, simulating the passions of two people in love.
Sounds about right. :)
Not all nudity is porn and not all porn is nudity.
Correct.
we are all naked under our clothes
I think the youtuber TheFourthAge said it best in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/jV4gptQCNGc/v-deo.html
"There is a fine line between beauty and sexsuality..."
If the purpose of porn is to drive people toward sexual immorality, then scantily clad women, which drive men to lust, achieves the same thing.
Welcome to Finnish sauna, we think that we are equal when naked. Public saunas can be communal spaces where talking about daily issues are common (although not necessarily politics or religion, those can be quite offensive, more daily life stuff). Nakedness there is natural and also makes us more equal in that situation, when we don't have the clothes which can be used to designate your "class" in society. Poorest beggar and richest industrial magnate are equal there. It's purification for body, mind, soul and societal issues, when we attend to that custom and talk together.
I remember Vee saying something like this: "Church did not ban brothels in my country, because avoiding a vice because it is unavailable is not virtue, but choosing to avoid vice that is available is"
Well said. Not committing a sin from fear of the law is not the same as not committing a sin when there is no earthly penalty.
@@kevinsullivan3448 Or any other penalty. You could argue that the person that does it just coz, is the most virtuous. Even doing it just to be eligible for heaven is more or less the same as not doing it coz its against the law.
You don't need to be virtuous, you just need to not indulge in vice.
@@Alpha1918 thats the point. Not indulging in a ready available vice is, in itself, virtuous.
@@icarusjumped2719 That just won't happen. 9/10 people will indulge in an available vice, which is a problem. Better to remove the vice.
Different people are vulnerable to different things. If you've had problems with alcohol, you can't drink a drop. If you have problems with keeping your mind pure, you can't expose yourself to suggestive stuff. I've had dealings with the demonic realm, and I'm much more "touchy" about playing with unsanctioned spirituality and the demonic realm. People need to be aware of their own weaknesses. But also, don't make your problems into other people's problems.
Well said.
Aye. Moderation.
'the demonic realm' - just treat your mental illness.
The problem is that neither of them are playing the game. That game is the first descendant, all the characters have different skins, some of them cover the characters from head to toe, some are full suits of armor and some are skimpy suits like that one. The game allows you to dress your Descendant however your want, full body armor or a bikini. That video was just from someone who decided to dress his character like that, but it doesn't represent the game's actual tone, direction, story and gameplay.
Is it a good game storywise
Coming into faith as an adult having grown up in a culture that has distanced itself from the church for a long time is hard. I really appreciate this video, reading the bible is one thing understanding it is another. Watching this deep dive helped me get perspective and an understanding of how to bring it to my daily life.
Also just want to thank you for starting me on this journey towards god. I remember clearly you "coming out" as a devout Christian and my initial negative reaction, I loved the channel how could this person that I connected so well to be a "horrible bigot" (yeah I have come a long way since then). My love for the channel overcame that initial reaction and I came to realize that maybe faith was not so bad after all. It has been quite a while since then and my decision to finally embrace God is less than a year old.
Thank God for you Shad, you have probably saved me.
Love to see it! Some good teachers on the Bible are Anthony Rogers and Mike Winger (especially re: appreciating it as a whole narrative which can be appreciated as having running themes/etc), if you are ever looking for that sort of thing
That's so incredible to hear thank you so much for sharing it. Wishing you the best on your journey my friend.
You can't force morality by regulation or legislation, that only creates hate and rebellion. People should be taught good morals and conduct but you can't force it.
The people who try to force morality by legislation are people who only ever interface with privately employed individuals who're sufficiently well paid to jump at the sound of their employer's voice.
Those same employers literally cannot comprehend the notion that their decrees by legislation aren't responded to the same way by average individuals in their absence. It simply doesn't track with their experiences.
You can outlaw evil exploitation by banning pornography. Doesn't make people's morals better, does make society as a whole more moral to ban something that exploits drugged up women repeating past trauma on camera.
@@thehubbabubba667
Just like the unbroken success story that is prohibition!
...Wait.
(Spoiler? Betty Page.)
@@thehubbabubba667
Just like the unbroken success story that is prohibition!
...Wait.
Yes you can. Literally all laws are forcing morality
I'd rather every game be a korean mmo than every game be woke.
both are equally bad in different ways, but atleast one is pleasing to look at.
Fun fact: Both can exist, provided they make their own and stop appropriating gooner-culture. We promise we wont appropriate woke-culture.pdf
I want games to be actually good. We're not the same.
@@hoangdung7494 pleasing o look at is subjective, some people like to look at murder, i gues that makes it ok then by ur logic?
@@viethonore well yeah? Why do you think people watch gory and violent movies?
Thank you, Shad, for the insightful take on this topic. It’s always refreshing to see a fellow member of the church on here, proclaiming what we believe in and the standards we hold. Keep up the great work!
I went to school with a LOT of Mormons, so I am well versed in arguments about much of Mormon doctrine. With that said as a Protestant Christian, I think your overall arguments and defining what is sin and specifically what it is with respect to nudity and sexuality are spot on and completely grounded in the Bible. I'm also in full agreement of what our role as Christians is within society; not to be censors, not to establish some sort of theocratic control over the population, but to be voices and an influence and example to others. It's ultimately up to them to do what is right, not for anyone to force them to right up to the point they hurt other people. Because if being righteous or good were forced, then it wouldn't have any meaning.
Yeah the way the Word of God defines it... is based more on behavior than being scantily clad. Lewd behavior should be punished as well, but... a lot of people have decided that being technically wearing clothes is all they care about and not the behavior.
Censorship is bad.
If you don't like something, don't consume it.
Don't demand it to be censored.
isn't Melonie protestant?
I don't think Melonie ever called for censorship but some Christians certainly do. Melonie was just stating her opinion that the clip in question was too lewd and went too far.
"You shall know my people for they will have no part of this world."
If you don't like it, don't do it, but as a Christian it is not up to you to judge for others and protest to Caesar for censorship. She _is_ welcome to share her opinion, as per the rights her Caesar has granted her to do.
no censorship is a tool, u cant veen tell anyone why something is bad or good, u ill just appeal to some subjective standard anyways
@@innocentbystander3317 wrong, we are compelled to argue for truth and what is right regardless what degenerate demon caesar is, protestant interpretation of do not judge is why we are ruled by kid diddlers now
i kinda liked melonie but now idk her take was pretty bad
I disagree with Mormonism as a Protestant. However, Shad's take on nudity in art is my take as well, and I agree 100% on the distinction between nudity and immodesty/porn.
You might find that you agree with us Mormons far more than you think, kind of like we're on to something. . .
@KNIGHTSWATCH I'm sure we agree on 90%, but as G.K. Chesterton said, "an inch is everything when balanced on a knifes edge". Thank you for the good take though, and Merry Christmas!
@@KNIGHTSWATCHThere are many wonderful things in Mormonism that we can agree about, especially with regard to culture. Unfortunately, what ultimately prevents Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox from having a strong communion with Mormons is Mormonism's rejection of the Trinity. It's a pretty big deal from our perspective.
I agree as well....
And I think the youtuber TheFourthAge said it best in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/jV4gptQCNGc/v-deo.html
"There is a fine line between beauty and sexsuality..."
@@americanbard1721
It comes to open hand issues and closed hand issue imo. As a Protestant I disagree with both Mormonism and Catholicism on a lot. But the vast majority of our differences are open hand issues. I disagree with Shad’s take there and I don’t believe it’s the Godly take, but it isn’t a take that removes him from God.
I do believe that there are some teachings of the Mormon church that are closed handed issues, like being able to achieve godhood, but a lot of morons don’t believe that. Similar thing with Catholics and Mary, some extreme Catholics actually worship Mary but most don’t. And there are similar problems in the Protestant community that are closed handed issues that we shouldn’t support. Because every church is lead by flawed men, there will be flawed teachings somewhere down the line. The important part is to recognize what they are not to demonize everyone who learns under the flawed teachers.
Part of being a mature adult is getting along with people you don't necessarily agree with on everything. I don't agree with your "version" of Christianity, but I agree with a lot of what you say in this video. Putting the responsibility onto each and every person to control themselves is such a forgotten concept in this day and age and you have my respect for advocating that.
Regarding nudity, just look at a film or tv-series involving the Holocaust, depicting naked jews basically being herded into the gas chambers. If someone finds that sexually arousing, then I don't know what to say of that person... As the saying about "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder", the same can be said about sin. Sin lies in the thoughts of the viewer.
While I am not religious and don't have much interest in biblical discussion, I very much appreciate you being direct and upfront about you not only being christian but that your discussion points will be based around religious interpretation rather than just personal views.
There was a segment that Lotus Eaters did several months back about an app that ADDED clothing to THOTs, they used a harsher British term. The app was applied to women who went out to paint the town red.
The consensus was that these women were more attractive with more cloths from the perspective of a man looking for a wife. However, women were outraged that they were being covered up.
The point I'm trying to make is we should have fantasy and reality separate. It is okay to have games showing fantasies. Whether that be scantily clad women, hulking spacemen, playing as a cat, or a man in a pot with a hammer. In games we can play out those fantasies with little repercussion on real life. Having high moral standards IRL and low moral standards in a game is okay.
HOWEVER, it should be on an individual level. Some are okay with sex, violence and the profane on their screens and some aren't. Banning it for everyone is lunacy.
Sadly it looks like these new generation and some of the old that can’t separate fiction and nonfiction or have the common sense to don’t like it don’t consume it
Exactly my thoughts as well, you might have someone raging over scantily clad women on a videogame, but perfectly fine with graphics depictions of gore and violence. Then someone will jump on this person like "How dare you to like murder??"
I'm tired of people not seperating fiction with reality.
Its a video game character n1664, it ain't that deep.
I think the youtuber TheFourthAge said it best in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/CVpEuupdgmA/v-deo.html
"There is a fine line between beauty and sexsuality..."
Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross and was buried then rose on the third day and was seen in Jesus Christ name we pray Christ is king! amen✝️👑 For God so loved the world he gave his one and only son to die on the cross for us so that whoever shall believe in him and puts there faith in him shall not perish but have eternal life John 3:16
The goal of this movement shouldn't be 'Christians need to like the "porn"' it's 'Stop the dumbasses from censoring stuff'.
Censorship isn't inherently bad. Some things deserve to be censored. CP for example. We control what our children watch, and what they partake in, not because we're tyrants, but because we love them. If we have the same love for our neighbors, our people, we'd act in the same way. Porn is used to weaken and control people. Why would you ever want your neighbor to be controlled by evil people or be inundated by temptation?
The failings of total free speech, and current libertarian philosophy, is that it completely avoids the collective aspects of a nation and people, arguing that all human groups are merely comprised of individuals with zero collective ties, interests, goals, and commonality, that we must eschew collective action, or love for our fellow man, for a never ending pursuit of "freedom", leading to ever new control mechanisms being released on the public, a downward spiral of hedonism right into hell, which is precisely what is happening with Western civilization.
People are demanding more and more comforts, more bread and circuses, and demanding them under the guise that they're "rights", or under the umbrella term "freedom". It's painfully obvious what their true motivations are, attempting to justify their personal failings, so they don't feel guilty about it, and/or wanting easier access to their dopamine hits, and in turn subjecting their neighbors to greater and greater levels of temptation. If they truly loved their neighbor, they wouldn't be doing this.
I concur. Gatekeeping against any and all extremes is the only way to stop the gaming industry from imploding any further.
There is no movement. What are you talking about?
And yeah, we have to stop women from being naked in public.
Only you get to censor?
@@thebenc1537 "There is no movement." Gamers said the thing about the Feminists in the past and were laugh at the things they're trying to do to ruin gaming. Now the people the gamers used to laugh at are the running majority in the Western industry. Nah, it's best to put the foot down for the good and just stop it here. They're free to express their opinion and their beliefs, but I'm not going to humor such idea or opinion in regards to gaming. I've been there before, and seen it myself.
It is interesting to see that a Bible nerd and member of a church which is considered to be a sect in my part of the world (which is also the most atheistic country in the Europe and probably the most atheistic country ever) has more liberal, rational and overall friendly theological views than our local Christians (as I said, the most atheistic country).
Thanks for sharing it :)
"wow this liberal is more liberal than Christians"
And you think that's a point in his favor. Jesus didn't come to unite and tell sweet little lies to everyone, he came to separate the wheat from the chaff. You sure you know which you are?
@@BoozyBeggar Not gonna argue with you (even it is tempting). Not sure which one am I but I believe that I do what I can to be the good one.
@@BoozyBeggar
You dare to tempt Fate, human?
The thing im afraid of is that woke crap will be replaced by religious dogma. Im an atheist, but i dont hate religion like some atheist do. I dont mind religious themes and whatnot. But i just dont want to be lectured by either side.
You will be lectured no matter what and it has nothing to do with religion. People with authority will abuse it for their own purposes, there is no shortage atheist right wingers who behave no differently than the woke. They just have different excuses. Most people simply are not worth knowing.
AGREED! I'm a Roman Catholic and I don't avoid non-Catholic entertainment or protestant Christianity or anything else. My faith is to love God and seek Him, not to avoid or fight anything. King David sang and danced for The Lord and if he did it naked I wouldn't care. Sexuality is part of being human, you maintain the leadership position in your own heart and don't let it take the wheel away from you. I whistle at my wife when she's changing clothes to remind her that she's beautiful and I want to mix my body with hers at every opportunity. God gave me to her and her to me. THANK YOU, JESUS!
Its already getting there
Btw
*most atheists*
Shad, if you made a channel dedicated to biblical content, and it's practical application for Christians in the modern day, I would literally watch every video twice. I really really appreciate your take on this subject and your expertise in the Bible.
Ditto. I grew up in the same church as Shad. I went away for a while but ended up coming back. I realized I don't understand the scriptures as well as I'd like.
Seconded. I'm the Sunday School President in my Ward and I would love to see how Shad would teach different topics.
As someone who has recently come back to the Christian faith, I too would love a channel like this run by Shad.
thank you for being the reaosnable person in the room.
tell you what, i cant really do a lot of the mormons rules but when i lived in utah, many of my mormon neighbors were some of the most reasonable and good neighbors ive ever had. there were a few that were hardcore bible thumpers but ive seen that in one form or another everywhere ive lived. mormons seem to be very big on nuance and i really appreciate that.
Yeah. It was called the Satanic Panic back in the 80's.
Tbf, I've been thinking that maybe there was something right about what they were saying back then. At least with regards to Hollywood and the Oligarchs.
This one! Too true!
Nah the “satanic panic” was the media’s way of dismissing real concerns about some things that were going on at the time. It was essentially a psy op used to bury a story that would have exposed some very heinous and disgusting stuff.
@@TechnoMinarchistyeah they were acrually more or less right
Yeah, that was entirely right and justified.
The pendulum swings many times before it settles.
it never settles ?i go all the time and ppls who are in a golden middle are always being fucked by either one ? ...
as i see things ? ppls if not corrupted or sick , know naturally what is right and wrong ... i have now the audacity to claim that i am very grounded in a reality that other would adhere , there wouldn't be much issues ?
all my life i have been attacked and endagered by ppls go too far in their ideoligy that is just too extreme ...
too make it simple ? ppls who are in the habit make other agree thems or else are the only and real problem ? no matter their creed or reason ?
live and let live in a reasonable frame is where its at ... simple as that ...
i not have much issue what ever some one believe as long we can agree to disagre ? no ?
@@theFirstDemonLilith No system has infinite energy within it. They always settle eventually. IE: collapse.
@@theFirstDemonLilith No system has infinite energy within it. They always settle eventually.
@@TechnoMinarchist Name one nation where the politics have "settled"
@@gmjaken Rome. It ended.
As an artist, the human body is an excellent piece of art to be admired. I remember in art school, we would have naked models, and other students would say to me that it must be hard to focus on the assignment. I would often tell them that the human is beautiful and that I find nothing lustful about it.
Your elders quorum is super lucky. A great video, you really helped me better verbalize my own thoughts. Thank you for the video Shad!
I don't know what to think. I don't regret being a Christian, but it often feels like it has brought me a lot more turmoil than it has peace, especially in this area. Thank you for being a grownup about it though, Shad. Feels like everybody else is trying to win a food fight.
couple of points
1: Melanie did call for censorship, Called the thing bad in one twit and did proceed to call for a total ban on that bad thing. The tactic is to keep them separated so it can be denied. How ever any one that have been paying attention during the last 20 years should see were this is going. The ones that have been paying attention since the 80s are asking if this is your firs rodeo. Witch is what I was told by someone that live during the 50s and witnessed how Elvis was censored because of the "sinful pelvis movements". Follow by her comment that I should always remember that "Dancing is a vertical representation of an horizontal act". by that logic ban dancing I guess.
2: You will not find a a call against pornography in the bible, Nudity was of common place during the early ages. You can trace the moral indignation against nudity to the Pope that ordered the mutilation of the old Roman statues. I do not remember his name or exact year but Metratron should be able to give you all the details. (video Idea)
3: What it is the nature of lust or what it is. In its most basic form is an unhealthy desire for someone or something .Frame as only sexual is a disservice. You can lust money, ATTENTION, power, the next door neighbor. It feeds obsession which feed vices. (remember an alcoholic is not someone that drinks every day is someone that when start drinking can not stop).
4: Regarding the image ... No it is not. I feel sorry for people that see that way . I understand that people would want it to be but is dementedly not,. If I even go by the ridiculous rigor of the US law as a basis, even then it is not... I see that and go meh... The only sin that I see is the one that is already residing in the hart of the complainer.
Most sins are similar to this concept. Being ruch isnt evil, worshipping money or greed is.
Hey Shad, I'm also a Christian, and I have the same conclusion as you do, though I am of a different Christian denomination. We vary on our individual scales of desired modesty I think, but we reached the same conclusion in terms of how to approach the situation.
Something I want to point out is that an element of evil is force compliance. Similar to how you pointed out how slaves should be treated as brothers instead of property, we should never FORCE anyone to obey us, but like you said, we should encourage and educate to others why they should.
If you look around, you can see this element of evil all around us, even back a few years when a specific sickness was making its rounds, people were being "forced" to take a new medical treatment, sometimes against their desires.
Christians should NEVER use a Devil's tool (Forced Compliance) to make others follow our Christian doctrine. Christ never did it, and Jesus refused to use force and power even on the cross about to die.
The mark of the beast and the seal of God, note how for the Seal of God, it is only on the forehead, where one can reason and logically make their decision. But the Mark of the Beast is both on the forehead or on the right hand, so it is either a conscious decision or a forced compliance.
I prefer to look at the objective result of the actions. The consumption is significantly less bad than the making of it, and the making of it being bad is what primarily makes the consumption of it so bad. Therefore, if you're consuming a product that didn't hurt anyone in the process, it can be unhealthy but it's not that bad. If it involves real people? Consent aside, the act forever humiliates and wounds the brothers, the fathers, the mothers even. A man has to live with the fact hanging over his head that almost certainly, some of his coworkers, his boss, his friends even, are watching his daughter be defiled for their own amusement. He can never escape that he will never be the same again. This is cruel. It hurts the participants, I don't even need to go deep into why we can just look at the objectively very short lifespan of actresses. We can look at the objective fact that no matter how much we police this stuff, a lot of it wasn't consensually made, a lot of them weren't even of legal age. I forget the number but the hub was forced to purge most of their material a while back. So I don't really care if we can get 99.9% to meet 'acceptable standardss, because the practice all so people can have something to watch while they touch themselves will objectively result in either grape, the participation of minors, or both. That is unacceptable. But hey, seems like a lot of people think that one in one thousand is an acceptable 'casualty' if it means they get to keep their prawn. A worthy sacrifice it seems. Its banning will objectively reduce the number of people affected, and the frequency that which this happens, therefore I'm going to need to hear a good reason why allowing it is worth that cost.
Well... I'm an atheist. Some might even say I'm an anti-theist. I am, however, also a fan of your channel and have been subbed to Shadiversity for quite a long time now. I really enjoy a lot of your content and hope you continue to do well in this space. With that out of the way, I'm also anti-woke and against censorship or compelled speech of any kind. Tho I may have many objections to the religious aspect and a slant toward suggesting there's such a thing as thought crime (sinful thoughts), I do think your view on censorship as far as this particular subject goes is fair, and I really appreciate your take on it.
At the end of the day, despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with much of christianity and religion in general, I think you're a good guy and it would probably even be fun to hang out with you, Tyranth, and the crew. If I'm ever in Australia, maybe I'll try to look you up, and I promise I wouldn't go militant atheist on you, lol. I was a butcher for 30 years so I have an appreciation for good, strong, sharpened steel and have always loved knives and swords.
Also an atheist. But I do generally like the moral framework of christianity just not the historical / “scientific” (IE - God made everything & he & the devil are the good cop / bad cop for the planet).
It depends what is being banned and why. Banning things to make them good people obviously doesn't work. Prawn made using real people have objectively real life harms. It's evil in fact but I'm not going to go deep into that argument. For example, fentanyl if it were my decision is an illegal substance. Not because I'm trying to make you a good person and hope you make it to the gates of Heaven one day, but because I'm choosing to use force to make sure there isn't another dead body for us to have to deal with. So if it were up to me, paying someone's daughter to humiliate their father with their defilement for his friends and colleagues to watch should be illegal. It's not right, it's not fair, it happening benefits nobody. Pleasure is not a good enough justification for that kind of cruelty. And he has to allow it to happen, because if he doesn't, men with badges and guns will be at his door to remind him he has to put up with it or else. Police who of course, can then go and watch the defilement of the father's daughter if they so please. I would not want to be in that man's shoes.
No pornography in non-porn games.
If a game has ass and tits on display as fan service, then rate it T/16+
If it has sexual acts or nudity for no reason, then rate it M/18+
It shouldn't be that complicated, unless someone wants to outright ban it for some reason...
Plus, parents need to be involved in what their kids are playing, watching, listening to and enforce it. It all comes down to parenting.
That plus people need to vote with their wallet, not by activist route of appealing to morals and telling people what should and shouldn't be in games.
Problem with injection of DEI into games is not that there can't be games like this. Problem is that vast majority doesn't want it thus they don't buy it and it flops, but I still want games for that minority to exist, just maybe adjust budget realistically for size of your potential audience.
Similar story with fan service. Make some games with it, make some games without it... and let people pick which one they want to buy.
It's fine to say what you don't like in games, it's fine to talk what statistically people don't want in games and maybe it is even fine to point out what you think morally correct stance is, but in case of the last one you should fully expect that some might respond with "fuck you".
@@sevjij people have no no morals so that doesnt work, u need people in power to force this kinda censorship becase its never going away and will only get worse and then people will wonder why society is so messed up LOL
disagree, modesty needs to be promoted and forced because people have no morals anymore
@@iBolski they wont be and never will be, people need to raise there own kids away from the school systems but they wont so everything needs to be forced by a leader with morals and that wont happen any time soon and society will continue to crumble
My brother approached me with a proposal for this topic. We are bith practicing roman catholic for context. He suggested that the psalm of psalms is rather spicy and so there is some level of exceptance of sexuality in any form of media. Obviously we don't want porn. But we don't want all women to wear turtle necks.
'looks up Songs of Solomon'
If christians not sexy, why propagate? ^_^
I think there's a difference: I can't imagine anyone reading Song of Solomon and objectifying women as a result. But there's been interesting studies done looking at the brain activity of young men and showing that they do look at women in bikinis as objects first. If I'm a game developer, I'm going to want to avoid including content with a high likelihood of leading the vast majority of my audience into sin
How about we just keep women from showing their naked butts?
Fellow Latter-day Saint. Thanks for your thoughts at the beginning! I think you’re mostly right. I think for the majority of people though it’s just best to avoid nudity in media.
I feel this is a great breakdown that many Christians need to hear. The difficulty of the human experience as one discovers maturity and learns control over themselves.
As a pagan, I appreciate this nuanced approach, its very insightful. And to add another example of this sort of thing, we have swimming pools and beaches where people are effectively wearing underwear, yet it is not inherently sexual.
Though i will say, American Christians specifically can rake the purity spiral exceedingly too far, to the point where there are places and people who consider a woman breastfeeding her baby to be indecent and even lustful, to give an example. I believe its this sort of mindset that caused this debate in the first place.
Just a bunch of brain rot going on around here. They're the ones with the dirty thoughts, but they blame everyone else for their own distorted perspectives and interpretations.
I enjoy a bit of eye candy, but understand that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. However, to say that gaming should not have that available when that’s the very thing that gets my wallet opening up is a bit too far. We’ve had pushing and banning and censorship from companies like sweet baby inc. already, and it looks like we might be getting it now on the other side.
people enjoy murder, i guess that makes it ok by ur logic then right? if i enjoy it then its ok? LOL typical subjectivism as usual
Not only that, but the constant push for removing all the eye candy is the primary reason that its so popular now. Making something taboo doesn't make it undesireable, in fact it makes it more rare and sought after. many teenagers are hormonal but can control themselves, yet the people who are most interested in these things are that way BECAUSE they can't indulge in it, making it harder to control. This is why most people cool off a bit once they actually get into a proper relationship (or until marriage at least). The market for games is trending towards eye candy do to the lack of it, had all eye candy not been taken away from the entire medium, then people would have been mostly bored with it and things would be more modest, and the things that weren't modest wouldn't be so arousing because their isn't a "danger" element to it that makes it more exciting because its acceptable. I think allowing some level of it will make people autocorrect towards a more neutral position, rather than an extreme.
The "other side" has no power and hasn't since the turn of the 20th Century. Ironically it was because of the Reed Smoot hearings, a Mormon who was challenged to sit in the Senate, that might have turned the tide for a less Protestant leaning government.
The pendulum is ever swinging.
Great video, thought-provoking, it even may have cleared up some things for me.
For those who seek drama, I watch Melonie too, and I think you would mostly agree, the differences are quite minuscule if there are any. It's just the nature of social media, that it doesn't encourage or give room to actual nuanced discussions. That being said, if you ever did a discussion with her or anybody on similar things, I would definitely watch.
As for the topic itself, I have read some actual medieval stories (originals, not only translations or adaptations) from the likes of Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach etc. who were undoubtedly very seriously Christian knights/ authors, and in their works they are often times a lot more descriptive when it comes to human beauty than many may expect. Also, you mentioned renaissance artists, they were still deeply faithful people too.
I think you have a very solid view. As an agnostic i appreciate the thoughtfulness where some others would have no care about others choices. I do have curiosity about your thoughts on the loneliness epipdemic and how that affects most people. Yet that is a question for another time. Good video
There's a very simple solution if you don't want to see things like that in a game: **DON'T PLAY THE BLOODY GAME**
Also, that's only one game, First Descendant. They're trying to poison the well by applying that to all games in an effort to make gamers look bad, as always. Black Myth Wukong, Marvel Rivals, Hogwarts Legacy are all popular and successful without having that in them. People need to grow up.
What started all this was a girl in a leotard, dancing to music because that is her skill as a DJ. It's pretty dumb to get super tyrannical about it
22:45 - the character can do the dance regardless of the outfit / skin that the player has equipped. Male characters can also do a dance.
The video in question is just cherry picking.
The problem I see with Melonie and this other guy is that I'm pretty sure the games they are looking at when they say these things are a very small percentage of actual games that have come out. They may be games that people are focusing on right now, but I'd wager that if you looked at all the games released in 2024 the majority of them do not contain scantily clad characters.
There is a good example in the case of some of E.A Munier's paintings. They depict cherubs with very little clothing in some cases, but are clearly not made for enticing the viewer into lustful behaviour. But there are some people who describe it as such (pr0n), and I am sure there are some people who use it as such - and in both cases, they are the twisted ones. To me, they are just well-executed works of art showcasing a high level of skill; something I could appreciate seeing in a museum or art exhibit (in contrast with almost all 'modern art').
Depends on what you mean. The Bible is incredibly clear on issues of modesty and such. But censorship of any kind is not the answer either because as with all top down approaches, it just makes people frustrated as opposed to actually changing them. While my moral views are closer to Dread and Melonie, I think both of them let the situation frustrate them (Twitter is NEVER a good place for ANY kind of debate, period) and I think things got out of hand. All of this can be settled with one on one conversations, but no one on either side is having them right now.
If you believe in modesty, you should be all for censorship of porn.
Dread and Melanie are calling for people that disagree with them to be banned now
@@AndrewFrancisIlyrian While porn is certainly not good, as I said, censorship never works and all attempts to ban things has unintended consequences. Prohibition, for example, led to the rise of organized crime because they made huge profits overturning alcohol into a black market. And on the more social side, there is the "forbidden fruit" factor. Making something illegal just makes it more enticing for people to have. It ultimately also turns people against Christians because people as a whole don't like being told what to do from a top-down perspective.
Ultimately, the answer has always been person-to-person communication and conversion. It has historically been the only way a society as a whole has changed. Bottom up methods always by evidence work out better then top down methods.
@@AndrewFrancisIlyrian No, not really. You can believe something without imposing it on others. The failing of authoritarians is their inability to understand this basic concept.
@@AndrewFrancisIlyriansounds like you think everyone should wear bed sheets to hide their form lest they be immodest by showing anything
My fellow brother in faith i knew I liked you for some reason
Also, you nailed this perfectly, Shad.
It is definitely a choice, but we should always proclaim that things should be better. We started losing society when we started to say, "I shouldn't promote my beliefs on society." No, we should. We just can't be mean about it, and we shouldn't be surprised if the world doesn't agree. We have a right to call out things just as much as anyone else. Social media makes it easy to share our opinions, but it also makes it easy for people to get upset. Everyone has different convictions. I don't believe Mormons are a correct belief, but Shad does. I still love his channel. I pray that we all go to God and seek His will every day.
Better is subjective. Some of us just cannot bring ourselves to moral outrage over a piece of escapist media. Don't be surprised when we roll our eyes at you for wasting your time.
Homosexuality is also a choice, and the Bible gives us a very specific punishment for such a choice, worded in such a way as to leave no room for misinterpretations, in Leviticus 20:13. I think this is the litmus test for a Christian. This view is seen as so extreme today as to be directly adjacent to Mean Mister Mustache who baked six million turkeys with just a few dozen ovens in only six years. Do you accept the words of God when he calls for an abominable act to lead to the proper punishment due? If yes, we can go from there to the rest of the Bible, and show how modern popular "Christianity" has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.
@@An.Unsought.Thoughtdon't be surprised when Christians roll their eyes at your immortality. You aren't special.
As a pagan, I generally agree with what you've said.
I thank you for this video. It was informative and brought clarity to the situation at hand.
As an Atheist, i completely agree with Shad on every single point. You should develop personal standards and maturity to handle content that might be considered inapprotiate. However, on the topic of admiring human beauty, i would go a step further than Shad, and claim that even erotic intent can be aknowledged and respected in certain instances. I've read stories that were enhanced by their inclusion of pornographic content, and i've seen beautiful art and animation that is undeniably pornographic, but that's not all that it is. A piece of media should not be defined purely by it's most controversial or provocative component.
An atheist agrees with an alleged Christian on morals. This doesn't give the alleged Christian any pause whatsoever.
Hilarious how fallen this world is. Fucking clown world.
Oh I would love to sit in on one of your EQ lessons. That sounds awesome.
40:32 I believe you're right but I will state that there does seem to be a whole lot of unnecessary nudity and sexualized content in media especially movies and TV these days and I don't think it's prudish to say that considering I'm with you if it advances the story or has something to do with the story it makes sense but 99% of the gratuitous sex scenes and things of that nature in media today do not advance the story forward at all if anything it takes away from the story.
I agree completely.
@KNIGHTSWATCH oh cool first time getting a response from you, thanks for the reply. 😃
Ultimately when you don't like content like that you simply vote with your wallet there still plenty of content that doesn't have that stuff in it. The religious right really shouldn't try to be as controlling as the religiously woke left.
I appreciate your beliefs very much. I am LDS as well, and I found confusion on this topic in my home ward, which added to much of my troubles as an adult now. I wish I could have heard your view then, for I think I would have been spared many years of sorrow. Yet my path is my path, and I stronger for it. I would appreciate hearing more of your teachings on biblical understanding, not just because of this but because I love your channel and listening to you speak. Thanks for all you do Shad!
@@ryanthirdborn Here here!
Very well said Shad, thank you
Love you, Shad. Keep going.
I think another point to consider is the word “lust” is not strictly sexual, but is equally related to **want.** A married man, such as myself, looking at other women and causing me to **want** for them over my wife is adultery of the heart. Same with her and other men, but we can both see nudity and even sex scenes in films without **wanting** that other our partner. But as Shad said, it also requires self-discipline and maturity, with every person being at different stages in their lives.
As Humans, saints, sinners and failures..."In the eye of the Beholder". Do not tempt others. How to stir the bees' nest. Hat's off to you Shad.
Well spoken & delivered.
Shad, my man. Thank you so very much for this more balanced take, at the very least. I have a video coming out and... yeah, it'll probably get me some hate, as I'm not a fan of censorship.
I'm glad you made this video, I too kinda saw where both sides were coming from to a degree.
It's not just her giving an opinion that was controversial. She insults and degrades her audience with whatever cringe new zoomer insults she learned today instead of presenting a coherent argument and comes off as pretentious and annoying in the process. She took 3 seconds of video from a game she never played and used it to justify talking down to everyone like a 2024 Tipper Gore.
There is no difference from these outfits than what you would see at a beach, it's just that this is animated and all the the characters male and female is animated as peak physical form. Sexy characters male and female in video games is not pron.
I'm a Christian and I agree
"I'm a Christian"
So will say many upon their deaths, yet many will be replied to by Jesus with "I never knew you."
The gaming market is going to tell you what gamers want and currently the gamers want based content with attractive characters.
That has always been the case. Noone likes objectively ugly characters and gender-nonsense. It destroys stories and characters... and immersion. I saw a scene from that new dragon age game(can't even be arsed to recall the title)... it felt not quite like a dark fantasy game when they were talking about missgendering all of a sudden. It was laughable to see crap like that in a game.
Thank God I don't play AAA games anymore... these things have become garbage thanks to DEI policies and the marxist propaganda push on gamers.
My, man! Thanks for your thoughts.
Good video. I was surprised it went by so quickly.
Genuinely interesting. And to a degree addresses one of my main complaints to those tweets in question, is that they are in nature unconstructive and uninformative, which makes it look like good ol virtue signaling. Couple remarks. The girl in that video is Luna and she's a DJ type of hero, like i.e. Lucio in OW, bard archetype in RPG terms. So what is there, is a woman who are far from being "almost naked" and she dances to her tune. The camera angle etc. is all on player. If those types of moves can be considered "cornographic" or "stripper dances" my question is, is it possible for a woman to dance in a none cornographic manner at all? Because i'am pretty sure hips swaying is just natural way a woman would do a little dance to herself, when listening to something. It seems so disingenuous. I like Melonie and DR, but no, with this one not only i'am not with them, i'am very strongly against.
Wisest take I've heard on this; pretty much everything else has involved someone blowing one or more gaskets, no matter their stance on the matter.
Imagine that, nuance and expecting adults to practice self control.
Appreciate your forthrightness in presenting your beliefs.
Would love to see you debate someone who disagrees to some extent (presenting contrasting opinions and evidence).
Bwhahahahaha!!! @2:37 "Yeah we are Mormon, and we might be considered fringe, but we are actually just right - here is how . . . but enough about that, let's get back to the topic at hand."
i like ur character designs man
Very well said. I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. It is both about the intent of the content and how each individual views and reacts to the content. I would add something further to your comments about modesty.
I think Chastity and Modesty are two sides of the same coin. Just like it is our responsibility to control our passions and not look upon a woman (or man) with intent to lust after them, I think the other side of that coin is that we should publicly dress in such a way as to not encourage lustful thoughts in others. I agree with your thoughts on s3xual a55ault that the victim is not to blame because of the way they were dressed. There is absolutely no one to blame for violent acts of crime other than the perpetrator themselves, and they should be condemned and prosecuted harshly. However, I wouldn't to go down a dark alley at night with $100 bills hanging out of my pockets. I would not be doing anything wrong, and I am not to blame if I get mugged and robbed in that alley, but the way I presented myself was inviting trouble in the same way that dressing immodestly invites lustful eyes and can provoke reprehensible behavior.
Yes it is and the cuckery of the gamers is coming out. Women can be sexy, but porn is bad
My mission president said it the best " If you don't look once, you're not a man. If you look twice, you're not a missionary." I have held that to be true in my heart
As a Christian, there is NO reason to be against nudity.
Jesus literally said to "pluck out" your own eye if you see a woman and are filled with lust
There isn't a SINGLE time God or Christ says being naked is a sin. When you take the totality of the context of the scripture, nudity isn't a sin.
As for what is or isn't sexual, that's entirely based by each person. Some people get sexually turned on by feet. Some breasts. Some hair.
Art is art is art. When some see is "porn" others see as just visually appealing art.
Unless the creator outright and directly say "THIS IS PORN", you cannot impart your beliefs or will on a work of art in regards to trying get others to view it the same as you.
I commented on one of Vee's post stating that as a member myself, I have a live and let live approach for other people. Doesn't mean I agree with their action but I respect their agency.
Also, I oppose censorship because it often leads to censorship of very normal or even good things down the line, which is where we are now. The de-feminization of women or localizing games to be very different from their original intent, censorship of male and female and other normal things that are completely harmless, Like Sonic Generations, Amy being censored to not be obsessed with Sonic. I'm for free expression and people choosing what they think is good.
Not to mention that if we start prohibiting certain modes of thought or expression that can actually lead to oppression where some people are not allowed to behave as they believe.
The overly conservative stance on porn has always been so blantenly contradictory to me because it's like "we hate fourth wave feminism and how it's made the idea of dating and marriage an overall rigged system but we also hate the thing that serves as a cure for men who don't want to participate in said rigged system"
would be a blast being in your gospel doctrine class
Thanks Shad, good talk!
As a Catholic I would recommend St. John Paul II's writings on the Theology of the Body. Also, I can't remember which artwork it was, but there was a piece in the Vatican I believe that depicted many nude people in a scene at the resurrections. A lot of the figures were covered up at a certain time, but JPII uncovered them again. He was given a lot of flack about it, people saying it was showing off porn in the Vatican, but it was a teaching moment for him to preach on the beauty in the human form that God created.
10:40 Shad asks "show me anywhere in the Bible where it says any image intending to trigger sexual arousal is bad". Here are some Biblical verses about the sin of lust. I'll use the ASV translation because it's a bit easier to read than the Dhouay-Rheims translation.
Matthew 5:27-28
"Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
1 John 2:15-17
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
Galatians 5:16-17
"But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would."
Colossians 3:5
"Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry;"
2 Timothy 2:22
"But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."
1 Corinthians 6:18
"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
Proverbs 6:25
"Lust not after her beauty in thy heart; Neither let her take thee with her eyelids."
1 Peter 2:11
"Beloved, I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;"
James 1:14-15
"but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death."
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God;"
Galatians 5:19-21
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Romans 13:14
"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."
1 Corinthians 6:13
"Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:"
Hebrews 13:4
"Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."
Romans 8:6
"For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace:"
Exodus 20:17
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s."
Romans 7:7 (look into what this verse means)
"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:"
Exodus 20:14 (Jesus expands "adultery" to mean lusting after someone that is not their spouse)
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Ephesians 4:22
"that ye put away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit;"
Mark 7:20-23
"And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man."
Romans 6:12
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof:"
Numbers 15:39
"and it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Jehovah, and do them; and that ye follow not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to play the harlot;"
Ephesians 5:3
"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints;"
Romans 1:26
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:"
---------
There are a lot more passages, but this should be enough to get the point across. Lust is absolutely sinful and antithetical to proper Christian behavior. The 2nd commandment Jesus gave to us, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", means that we should not drive our neighbors, the people we love, into temptation. A certain level of responsibility rests on each individual to not sin, to lust, but a certain responsibility also rests upon our neighbors (also community, nation, and people) to not inundate our neighbors with temptation and sin. Most Western Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the failures of individualism, egalitarianism, and libertarianism that they worship at That alter rather than what God commands us, and what Jesus taught us. It is wrong to push a never ending parade of scantily clad women in front of men, driving them to lust, pushing them into sin. Just as porn is used to control people, so is lust.
You’re kind of proving Shad’s point. Those passages are talking about attitude. The first one sums it up perfectly: “…looketh on a woman _to lust after her…”_ That’s intent. Looking at a person as a sexual tool for your gratification. And you can do that when they’re fully clothed. If someone is deliberately dressing to provoke a sexual reaction outside the marriage covenant, then yes, it’s a sin. And if someone is looking on someone they aren’t married to and mentally stripping them of their modest clothing, that’s a sin. But both of those are deliberate choices. The clothes or lack thereof aren’t the real problem, but what’s in the heart is.
Do I think people should dress modestly in general? Yes. But the only person who can control _my_ thoughts, _my_ heart, is _me_. Thinking otherwise leads to the “of course I sexed her, she was dressed as wh*r*, she clearly wanted it” mentality. If lust is controlling you it’s because you allow it to.
@@eirrenia I replied to your comment previously, but UA-cam censored my comment. I'll try to reply again.
Simply put, if you love your neighbors (and people), as we are commanded to do by Christ, we wouldn't subject them to a deluge of temptations from every direction of society. To love someone, is to protect them, and to engender a healthy society for them such that they can remain healthy and not be tempted into sin. Love isn't just a word. It's an action, and best displayed in action. Why would any rational person, who knows the nature of men, so thoroughly sabotage men by drowning them in lustful temptations? That is not the act of love. It's the opposite. It's what you do to your enemies. It's inherently satanic.
Shad is ignoring the fact that environmental factors absolutely play a role in how we're shaped. Are our actions our own? Yes, but that mentality ignores the communal/collective health of a group/family/society/nation, that we also hold responsibility for our neighbors, and our responsibility, as a member of whatever group we're in, to maintain the health of that group. Similar to how a father and mother maintain the health of the family, for the betterment of their spouse and children (because they love them), we should also maintain the health of society, for the betterment of our neighbors (because we love them), and for the exact same reasons.
@@eamonnholland5343 While I agree with you in principle, we also have to consider that offense is often in the eye of the beholder. As Shad pointed out, what is mere art or even casual wear to some is pornography to others, because they react differently. If you try to set standards solely based on the weakest/most sensitive individuals, society quickly becomes oppressive and needlessly judgmental. Our current society has tipped _too far_ in the direction of free sexual expression, I won’t argue with you there. But a puritanical mindset has its own issues.
An example: there is an anime called _My Neighbor Totoro._ In it is a scene where the father is taking a bath in a traditional barrel-tub with his two young daughters. The scene is entirely innocent in the original cultural context. No sexual under or overtones at all. It was just a family getting clean. Yet when the film hit general notice by the American public there were those outraged by the scene because they read into it things that simply weren’t there. Both a sexually deviant mind and a puritanical mind sees implications _that did not exist_ in the work. That is not the fault of the film creators, and the film should not be clipped to cater to those incapable of seeing innocence. If you start down that road more and more innocent things become taboo simply because they _might_ offend, and you end up with cancel culture.
A cultural preference for modesty is good, but not when moral responsibility for ones thought/actions becomes located outside the individual; _which can easily happen when the guiding ethos is “people must be protected from temptation”_ as if we are not each responsible for ourselves. It does no good to say “but no reasonable person is going to object to this.” Because every society has a large enough percentage of UNreasonable people who are quite happy to force unreasonable standards down others’ throats given half a chance; because they themselves are incapable of seeing nuance and/or have trained their minds to see offense in anything.
I am not happy with a lot of the female depictions in video game and there are games I will never touch for that reason. But that’s how it should work - the individual finding where their personal boundaries are, and policing their own life instead of trying to police everyone around them, or demanding society enforce a single one-size fits few standard. It’s the inherent responsibility that comes with free will.
That said, I agree there must be a balance between the individual and societal needs. I just recognize that “balance” means existing in a tension because people are just different.
(This discussion also highly ironic considering I’m currently pushing back against another poster who seems to think that just stating the reasons why one objects to intentionally over-sexualized content is “imposing your beliefs on others and attempting to shame them.”)
@@eirrenia "While I agree with you in principle, we also have to consider that offense is often in the eye of the beholder. As Shad pointed out, what is mere art or even casual wear to some is pornography to others, because they react differently."
This is why people are allowed to exert their will upon society, to control what is accepted and what isn't. Nations are meant to be homogeneous, not this diversified hellworld that the West has been turned into. Before the intentional diversification of the West, most people agreed on things, what was appropriate, and what wasn't.
"If you try to set standards solely based on the weakest/most sensitive individuals, society quickly becomes oppressive and needlessly judgmental. Our current society has tipped too far in the direction of free sexual expression, I won’t argue with you there. But a puritanical mindset has its own issues."
That's your opinion. You're free to form your own communities with your own standards. Almost all people like me that are arguing for the removal of lust traps aren't arguing for full on head to toe covering for women. We're arguing for the removal of intentionally designed art, media, entertainment, clothing, and behavior that drives men to lust. You can tell if things are designed to be destructive to the people by the intention behind the creator.
Furthermore, the puritanical mindset is world's apart better than what we currently have. Why is that? Because currently, the net results of everything in the West is producing a birth rate below 2.1, meaning our populations are dying out. One of the core reasons why is that men are trapped into lascivious behavior and consumption of such content, due to the widespread availability of such content, and the acceptance of such behavior by society. It reduces their drive to pursue women, reduces marriage rates, reduces the number of children we have, etc. Logically, a puritanical mindset is vastly better than this, because it maintains the civilization that pursues it, and keeps the birth rates above replacement levels. However, as stated above, I'm not arguing that we must race to the other end of the spectrum, just judging each upon its own merits.
Similarly, I'm actually okay with nudity in art, so long as the art is designed to increase the beauty of the world, that the creator didn't design it to manipulate men's desires. For example, Greek and Roman statues, or certain paintings.
You'll probably ask: how can you tell the intention of the creator of a work? They'll almost always tell you, and once you learn to spot the distinct differences between "good" art (beautiful, constructive, teaches lessons, etc.) and "bad" art (destructive, demoralizing, normalizes evil, teach lies, deconstructs truth/goodness, etc.), the intent is quite easy to discern. An example of this is brutalist architecture. The Soviets specifically made all their buildings concrete blocks, intentionally designed to be ugly and demoralizing to the public. This was used to weaken people's social/communal/collective bonds, surrounding them with ugliness, which reduces people's want to help each other, to improve themselves and their community, to fight back against those that are hurting themselves or their neighbors. Brutalist architecture was a control mechanism used against the Russian people. Weirdly, modern architects love brutalist architecture, which is why so many modern buildings and skyscrapers are so ugly, completely devoid of beauty, elegance, or admiration. It's all concrete, glass, and weird shapes. Modern architects will tell you this. It's by design, even though many normie architects don't realize what they're doing. They were just trained to make these ugly buildings through school (another institution that's been captured and controlled). In contrast, beautiful buildings (or beautiful art in general) builds the collective wealth of a community, nation, and people. It brings people together in common admiration for the beauty surrounding them, increases people's drive to help their neighbors, and to protect them from outside threats and subversive inside threats, and drives people to improve and add to the beauty surrounding them.
Art isn't subjective, because beauty isn't subjective. There are clear delineations between beauty and ugliness, and the average person, whether they can accurately put it to words why, can tell the difference. The ancient Greeks had it right. Beauty is intrinsically tied to truth and goodness. Our enemies know this as well, which is why they're intentionally making everything ugly and bad, because they're liars as well.
@@eirrenia I tried to respond to this comment, and UA-cam again censored it. This is exasperating.
As a fellow LDS, I applaud you and back you 100% on this video. I wish more could see and understand the crucial distinction between pornographic and general nudity/immodesty.
I do not understand why so many Christians conflate immodest to be on par with pornography.... Says more about their own willpower and mental state than it does about actual doctrine.
Amazing video! Thank you, my friend.
Late to the party, but Shad's take on the line between Pron and Art is on point. The problem is Melanie isnt confused about where the line is. She is actually attacking the male sex drive. It's where the woke left and prude right are the same. All forms of sexuality can be defended/or ignored in these people's minds to some degree, unless it's a straight man admiring a beautiful woman. Western culture has decided THAT is what is evil now. The right hides behind "not being a good Christian" and the left hides behind "misogyny and patriarchy"
I actually don't think Melanie is a good Christian. She delves into zealotry, condemns people, and never approaches conversation with the intent of respecting and listening to the other point of view, actively turning people away from God because of how fanatical they perceive her, and by association, all Christians.
@@Fxrrxt2xinteresting
Shad you are one of the Religious people that i can fully accept and respect for their values.
If their is one thing that i would ever pray for at the moment its that you and and your family will be save and sound. \[T]7
There are many things I disagree with theologically in the Mormon faith as a protestant, but I’m glad to see the stance at least taken that sex isn’t evil and is actually a good thing in its proper context. The Roman Catholic church often does swing in the other way where it seems like their opposition to any form of contraception and sex only for the purpose of procreation almost brings sexuality to a point of being sinful.
Song of Solomon is one of the better proponents as well for healthy sexuality in a Christian relationship. It’s a love story that does describe the human form in a beautiful way.
Would love to hear more stuff about Mormonism from your eyes, as I feel that you have built up a credibility in my eyes for me to sit down and hear your beliefs directly. Currently, I take major issue about the rejection of the trinity and the baptism of the dead. However I am not above my mind being changed or at the very least challenged in those beliefs. The way I see it, I either get closer to God by hearing different sides of theology or I get closer to God by having to back up why I believe what I believe. A win-win in my eyes.
I liked what you said here. In regards to Melonie Mac, my personal issue with what she is doing is just shock value for clicks and engagement. She is no dummy. She is doing it for profit, not to teach or be an example. She is wholly belligerent and as with several youtubers I have seen lately putting herself on some kind pedestal as this left wing ideology crumbles, very prideful, not humble. Christ died for our sins so that we may have a personal walk with him without having to go through priests and oracles. Every individuals walk with Christ is personal and full of personal choices, it is not up to her or anybody else to tell an individual how to have their own personal walk with Christ, nor her to judge if their walk and tell them how they should walk.
As a protestant, I would definitely disagree with you on some scriptural things, though I am of the mind that, despite having incorrect interpretations of the Bible, there is nothing that is keeping a Mormon from being saved. It may, however be a more difficult road fraught with more sin as a result.
That being said, I agree for the most part on your interpretation of scripture on this particular aspect...aside from one thing. The Bible clearly condemns causing another to stumble. So unnecessary sexuality, with the knowledge that it will be a temptation for others, I believe, is sinful. There is obviously a line that has to be drawn at a certain point, as there is someone out there that would perv out on just seeing a woman's eyes or slightest hint of skin. However, understanding that a teenage Shad, for instance, would have difficulty with any sort of nudity should afford you the clarity of understanding that any sort of purposeful nudity could cause another to stumble. That problem exists regardless of the artist's motivation. The question, to me, is more about the degree of carelessness, ignorance or purposefulness of the sexualization. At what point are we accountable for causing someone else's sin? I tend to think it's at the point that we know another's sin is likely, but the Bible seems murky on the particulars.
You raise a great point. I think it honestly depends. I don't think we should restrict our behavior if we're justified and not committing sin for fear that some people might misunderstand our actions, misuse what we make, or that they can't control themselves. Yet if we do know of a person's weakness we should be mindful of them when we can, and not throw more temptation in front of them. But that doesn't mean we can't continue our actions when they are not in front of that person. If the person seeks it out anyway, they would have done it with another thing even if you hadn't made it.
@@KNIGHTSWATCH I think the acid test is: can this thing be consumed by someone under age? Alternatively, if Jesus was helping me make this art, would he choose the same thing I would? It's hard to argue Game of Thrones or the dancing thong from X would pass that test, but Wheel of Time...that's tough. On one hand, it's done in good taste (at least as far as I'm aware having not read the books), on the other hand I dunno if Jesus would have found it necessary for much of the nudity. He was amazing at subverting expectations and making a seemingly limited situation into one with better options. The TV show was different. I don't actually remember any nudity in that. However, it had other problems and I'd say from the evidence we have, Jesus wasn't keen on identity politics...
@@idemus168so part about Rand having multiple "love interests" is all good and dandy?
@@Whanevs If I remember, the first relationship was 'technically' over before he started the second, so at the least he was monogamous. I also don't remember him sleeping with Egwene (could be wrong though). However he wasn't married to Selene, if I recall...so there is that. Frankly, I couldn't care less one way or the other, but I was specifically referring to the nudity in my previous post. Like I said, there are other problems with it for sure, it just wasn't memorable enough for me to care.
Did you mean to say Condone, or did you mean Condemn? Condoning is like saying its fine, rather than condemning it. Also I think the context about causing another to stumble was regarding their faith, right? So it may not neccessarily refer to sin, as it would be (like you said) very hard to control others to prevent it.
@KNIGHTSWATCH Simple thought from the Bible that illuminates your point: Did Jesus's mother (or others) sin because they looked upon Him hanging on the cross naked?
You know the answer.
The enemy knows each of our triggers - if you struggle with lust, a woman's bare behind will absolutely cause someone to stumble. Guarding your eyes is critical. The Lord hears the prayers of His people - ask for wisdom and protection.
Im a Christian and i actually agree with a lot of what Shad is saying.
I do think there is something to be said about modesty when you're a man or woman who's married (more so a woman).
Usually when a woman dresses scantily she is putting out her best physical attributes, signifying to men that she is available and say what you want but all humans to their core are designed to procreate. So men look at women as potential partners to procreate with, and women do the same with men. Physical attributes have always been at the core of finding a mate because men will want a woman who physically looks like she can bear children well, and women want a man that will protect her and their children (a man that is strong, athletic, intelligent, etc). So when a woman is married and dresses scantily that is NOT ok, because she is then signaling to all men that she is available when she's really not.
I have no problem with women dressing the way they want, but if you're married maybe practice some modesty. You don't have to completely cover up but just don't dress like you're available.
Yes, anything can be taken too far & as soon as you put your own personal ideology or worldview above other people's free will to choose for themselves you've gone too far, regardless of which side you're on
Seems like it would be a fairly easy mod to have it as a setting adjustment
@MangoTheLegend yup, wouldn't take much they could include alternate costumes as well for people that want a more conservative option. It's when people demand something's censored or removed completely to conform to their standards that it's an issue
💯
Slippery Slope.
Discussion on where the lines are have to happen at some point.
@@cBioFan conversations about where the line is is crossing the line.
20:30 I'd say a better example is of Daenerys (hope I spelled that right), emerging from the fire with her dragons. Sure she was naked... But that entire scene was meant to depict a rebirth or transformation, not unlike a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. It was significant to display a change in character. She becomes the Mother of Dragons. It also has practical purposes too. Showing that not even her clothes could survive the fire, yet she comes out unscathed and uninjured, hammers home the point that unlike her "brother" whose skin couldn't handle molten gold.. Daenerys is a true Targaryen whose skin cannot burn. In a sense it was really a trial by fire. Could they have hid more of her behind smoke.. sure? But at the same time seeing her entire body (or most of it) completely unscathed as baby dragons climb up and onto her has much more impact. You really get why everyone around her drops to their knees in awe.
Basically, curate your own consumption of content, don't curate content for everyone.
Simple as.
I recall you once said on FNT that you not only banned pr*n in your house, but would ban it in your community if you could. And that's where I thought "woah, ok, that's just super radical, Shad's Mormonism might be showing".
In this video you express much more reasonable views, so maybe I misremember something, or maybe it was not so well formulated by yourself back then as here. Personally, I fully support rights of Christians (and Muslims and other congregations) to exercise their religious practices and have all rights they need for that - as long as they don't interfere with my right to live and SIN (in their understanding, which, again, differs from one religion to another - and even between various Christian movements - remember Adamites?) as much as I want for myself. Both religiousness and "sinfulness" should be a personal choice, not forced by some authority through bans, censorship and penalties.
Also, I remember an article about researcher who stumbled upon a box of marble p*nises in a closed part of the British Museum. Because in the past centuries curators were chopping them off of classic statues and replacing them with fig leaves in order to satisfy Christian morals. Somehow, even today, a suggestion to return them to the rightful place was not met enthusiastically.
And yeah, some regard Rodin's works as pr*n, too... Oh well.
Nobody likes censorship, or giving credit card companies the power to say who gets to create art and who can't.
Nobody likes people nekkid near
children or giving kids inappropriate images. One is pride parades, the other is games that have NSFW content.
Belive it or not, some things people like aren't good for them, and they should be ignored when arguing for it.
Yes! This I can definitely understand and agree with you on!
Man, now I want to sit in on one of your gospel doctrine classes
Ironically, I just got a fairly explicit UA-cam ad watching this.
While I don't agree with censoring anything, I was disappointed with "our side" for being so knee-jerk, snowflakey and panicky.
I'm not religious, but I also don't want overall gaming to evolve in such a way.
Not to mention that most providers of fanservice strengthen ESG initiatives on the west and communist China.
People are financing the knives that will go on their backs but are too blinded by digital tiddy to see it.
In my experience, Anglo-Saxon Christianity is when people lecture you about the beauty of creation and then try to coerce you into pretending that Michelangelo _David_ isn't art.
Well said. Love your content.