With so many topics, we can find statical analysis to advance our viewpoint. Yet, often, such statistics can be deceiving. For example:
80% of people who have come to faith in Christ, did so through a friendship. - Now, reading this, one would assume, well, it must therefore be more effective to preach the gospel via "Friendship Evangelism". However, the problem with that assumption, is you are assuming all forms of evangelism are "equally administered". But, if 90% of the time, people only do friendship evangelism, we can not make such a conclusion. It could in actuality be the least effective form of evangelism (we do not know based on this statistic alone). YET, most people who read this type of statistic will automatically conclude, friendship evangelism is the most effective.
There easily could be a more effective mode of evangelism. I would argue that Jesus' mode was the most effective, seeing he played the most pivotal role in converting people to Christianity. Further, no one can argue he was not most effective, as he is the seed that began it all. He did so with a combination of methods. Generally a seeking the lost, friendly, helping the poor method. Giving help and aid to those who really wanted it and needed it most and accepting those that society had rejected.
So, my point is, statistics can be very misleading at times. And I believe that a multitude of statistics on PornographyHarms.com are misleading.
For Example, note this article here from there website:
Therapeutic issues with internet addicted clients (Research)
The article essentially states that those who have virtual relationships (phone, chat, internet, etc) do not have a proper social framework in their life, hence they turn to these virtual type relationships. However, the error in her logic is to assume that a person can not have a decent or legitimate relationship via virtual means, such as a phone, internet, video call, chat, etc. Yet, today, such a viewpoint would be laughed at, considering virtually every person has virtual relationships on a daily basis with business colleagues and also wives (if long distance or traveling), friends (who live in another location) and so on. She wrote this article back in probably 1998 (based on her citations).. So, all this shows is an error in assumption regarding the credibility of virtual relationships.
Another Example, this article here:
Cyber-Disorders: The mental Health Concern for the New Millennium (Research)
It discusses the new phenomenon of internet addiction. First, have you noticed that within the last 20 or so years, we have went from actions being classified as right and wrong to actions being classified as "disorders". We have every type of problem under the sun now defined as a "disorder". What does disorder mean? It implies something is not in order. In order to what? Perhaps certain people's assumptions or theories on what is orderly. So, again, we come back to someone telling you something is right or wrong and if it is wrong by perception of those judging (certain societal group of people), it is labeled a disorder. But, if something is deemed as good or healthy, and you participate in the activity daily, even perhaps non-stop, it is not deemed an addiction. For example, working 10 hours a day. This is not deemed an addiction, unless it violates rights of someone within your family structure. And if someone ate food to his hearts content and had to have coffee everyday in the morning, we would deem this also as acceptable and healthy. But, if someone partakes in pornography, even on a daily basis, we deem this as a "disorder" as it is not accepted by a certain group of peers within society.
So, when the internet first came on the scene. It was shocking to many researchers. People are becoming addicted. Now, fast forward 10 years to today. Ask yourself, if it was 1998, would you consider yourself addicted to your phone, internet, video contacts, etc? You definitely would. That is because, society now accepts virtual type communication, business and relationships, unlike the year 1998. Consider also, when the car was first invented, there was preachers preaching against driving over a certain speed limit. It maybe too enjoyable, or could be a sin in some way, shape or form. Today, you may laugh at such a sermon, but in those days, it was quite serious, because of the new technology.
Another great example of misunderstanding the statistics:
Effects of Cybersex Addiction on the Family: Results of a Survey (Research)
Now, this study here seems to really give you ammunition to do away with pornography altogether, if you do not realize a couple things. First, and most important, the people in this study were "cheated" on by their spouse, in that their spouse is doing it likely behind their back, which has the same type of effect as one going out and cheating with their spouse physically. However, note, the study did not consider the situation where both the husband and the wife enjoy and agree to the usage of pornography. The study actually only considered those who felt cheated on or disagreed about the usage. Second, note, that even in the cases where the person was caught, they continued to use, which shows the lack of agreement between the two who are married, which causes division and lack of intimacy and closeness in the marriage. It is not "loving your neighbor as yourself" essentially. In such a situation, the spouse using it, should quit, so as to be one with their spouse. And, if possible, at a later date, if the other spouse became agreeable to the usage of pornography, to then it could be permitted. So, it has to be something both agree upon or permit the other to use. So, again, this study assumes that all porn is evil as a result, yet, in actuality, the problem here is not porn, but rather people cheating on their spouse and/or not in agreement on such a crucial topic. Porn in this situation is a lot like money.. If one person takes money from the other's bank account, it would be a violation, if they did not agree upon it. Or if one spouse goes and buys many things irresponsibly according to the standards of the other spouse, then one of them would be unhappy and feel cheated. So, pornography or money is an object, like a gun. A neutral object that can be used for good or harm. Of course, certain types of pornography are evil altogether, but we are not considering it here in this discussion.
If you think I am incorrect about this, consider this point. I have a girlfriend, and I told her right up front that I like pornogrpahy and use it sometimes. She, I found out, also uses it and did not have a problem with it. So, I made sure upfront, we were both in agreement. Right in the beginning of the relationship. In other words, I am not hiding anything from her and she is not hiding anything from me. As hiding something from one another can potentially be a form of division, or cheating within a relationship. And the point is, when two are together, they are to be one and honest and close to one another. So, in our relationship, pornography causes zero problems. For other couples, it maybe wiser to not permit pornography altogether.
The problem here is people like to use statistics to advance agendas. But, the problem is, if your assumptions are incorrect, your conclusions are incorrect. Looking at data and making conclusions can be a risky endeavor, particularly if you are not good with logic or have one or more incorrect assumptions.
Its not about winning the argument. It is about figuring out God's mind and knowing the truth.. And seeking it out, rather than assuming your are right and finding as much ammunition as possible to prove your point.
The point is, one can observe the disconnect between the common conservative viewpoint on sex and what happens in reality. With most sins, it is easy to avoid them, if you are a Christian. Which makes sense, as Jesus said his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Have you not noticed how your sexual desires do not fit the common conservative Christian assumption? Have you not noticed how it is a brick wall you seem to always run into? It is not your sinful nature you are fighting. Rather, you are fighting a biological design. It seems to me to fit more in the category of natural biological design, such as desire to breathe or the desire to eat food. As when you tell yourself you are not going to eat food, it is a very hard battle as well. But, you do not find yourself having a battle with stopping yourself from shooting someone with a gun, do you? Do you feel some temptation to worship the Devil? Of course not. The point being, sin is not appetizing on a large scale to the Christian, because we are more than conquerers in Christ. So, you have to weigh everything and carefully analyze it.
|