Why is inappropriate contentography wrong?

[redstang281]

Can you look at inappropriate contentography without wanting to take the woman to bed?

Well I don't look at inappropriate contentography, but I think if someone does then they don't necessarily want to go any further than just the excitement they get from viewing it.

 

[redstang281]

It is my own finding. I may find scriptural support some time, though we do immediately question why this should be necessary.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 shows that St. Paul acknowledges self-control is required for an unmarried lifestyle

Right, self control from sleeping with temple prostitutes who worship false gods, sleeping with other peoples wives, and committing incest, that's all the sexual sins discussed in this chapter that we need to control ourselves from. But having sexual fantasies or desiring single women who were believers were not things mentioned.

.. this brings to mind for me Job 31:1.

Verse 9 in Job 31 is talking about married women so probably it parallels the woman mentioned in verse 1 and she is also married.

9 “If my heart has been enticed by a woman,
or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door,.....

 

[redstang281]

So, is child inappropriate contentography okay, then, they are not someones wife?

That would be child abuse and Christians shouldn't enjoy seeing a child abused. I'm assuming you're comparing this to inappropriate contentography where the woman is a willing participant.

 

[redstang281]

Redstang281, you brought out my only real issue with EmethAlethia's post. I believe it was Godrules, but I recall that someone had addressed the passage in Corinthians about marriage being the solution to "fornication" ("inappropriate contenteia", frequently coupled with idolatry) in Corinth because the prostitutes in Corinth had connotations, if not actively employed, in service to the foreign god Aphrodite, hence the mixing Paul mentioned. Elsewhere you don't see warnings against extra-marital sex with harlots/harlots in the same way you do here, as they were not necessarily religious prostitutes. I mentioned Delilah, Gomer, earlier. Tamar might be another example, when Judah had sex with her apparently believing her to be a general harlot.

What are your thoughts on the Aphrodite-harlot fornication connection?

Yeah, I think that was the main concern not to sleep with prostitutes in Corinth because it was an act of worship to them and by you sleeping with them you were taking part in their worship and doing idolatry yourself. Samson slept with regular prostitutes but didn't loose God's spirit until he got his hair cut. Judah slept with a prostitute but was still in the line of ancestry for Christ. I don't think sleeping with a prostitute is a good thing or a healthy thing, but I'm not sure I can say it's a sin. I would never do it. I also don't think Christians should do it because it would be a reason to cause others to stumble who have weaker faith. The best thing is to just sleep with your spouse only.

 

[Serving Zion]

Admiring a woman's appearance doesn't take away any dignity. If women didn't want to be appreciated for their beauty they wouldn't spend an hour getting ready before they go anywhere.

I would like to request of you that you read Post #375 and Post #378 to see how lust, when it has grown to a mature addiction, does really impact women's experience in the world.

Also, the particular words I gave you have need to sink in, so I will repeat them:

If a girl's experience in the world is that everyone looks at her this way, she does not perceive a godly love from the world.

Why? Because to lust is to look for one's own pleasure. But to love is to look for service to that one. Love and lust are precise opposites. One is of the flesh while the other is of the spirit.

As much as I hate the media I don't blame them for the cause of lust being commonplace.

The media has made it pervade every living room, every workplace and every letterbox. It is a constant bombardment of temptation for Christian minds to entertain impure thoughts not befitting to a holy people.

Lust is commonplace simple because it's a natural thing God created for procreation. The media just picked up on the fact that it helps them sell more products/services.

Lust is one of the Seven Deadly sins. Lust is not a characteristic of a godly person, and all sin is a passion of the flesh, being at odds with the spirit.

In Post #370 the following statement was issued:

When Christians subject themselves to the passions of the flesh by consuming immorality, they grieve and quench The Holy Spirit, displacing Him with sin.

This is why such groups as ISIS resent Christians. Even peaceful activists, for example Ghandi, are right to say "I like your Christ but I don't like your Christians: Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

May I ask you, did you happen to read the last few pages of the thread before beginning your contributions to it today?

 

[Galatea]

Well I don't look at inappropriate contentography, but I think if someone does then they don't necessarily want to go any further than just the excitement they get from viewing it.

I don't know as I have never watched it, nor care to, but I should think the excitement is pretending to be in the man in the scenario with the woman on screen. If the man were watching it and pretending it is his wife onscreen, why on Earth not just be with his wife?

 

[redstang281]

I don't know as I have never watched it, nor care to, but I should think the excitement is pretending to be in the man in the scenario with the woman on screen. If the man were watching it and pretending it is his wife onscreen, why on Earth not just be with his wife?

Men are stimulated visually so they don't need to necessarily imagine all the detail surrounding a scenario, they just need to see the act. Women are a little different they need to have all the details, it's more about the whole experience rather than just the sex act. That's why women read erotic novels to excite themselves and men just watch the videos. Rarely have I heard any Christians complain about women reading fifty shades of grey though. As to why some men may watch inappropriate content, could be single men or could be men whose wives reject them. There's a lot of christian men living in sexless marriages (some women too).

 

[Galatea]

Men are stimulated visually so they don't need to necessarily imagine all the detail surrounding a scenario, they just need to see the act. Women are a little different they need to have all the details, it's more about the whole experience rather than just the sex act. That's why women read erotic novels to excite themselves and men just watch the videos. Rarely have I heard any Christians complain about women reading fifty shades of grey though. As to why some men may watch inappropriate content, could be single men or could be men whose wives reject them. There's a lot of christian men living in sexless marriages (some women too).

I don't think reading Fifty Shades of Gray is good. It does not fall under the whatsoever things are pure and have any virtue.

 

[Torino]

Galatea, I know you said you're not going to change your mind so I'm not going to try, but I am curious. I ask this occasionally to people whenever there is some controversial topic, and I get some interesting replies, so I'd really like to hear your reply to this one:

If you found out that what people like myself and Redstang281 and others are saying was indeed the truth of what is being taught in the Bible/Christianity on this topic and those we've discussed here, what would you do? Would you abandon the faith? Or would you submit to the doctrine and continue serving the Christian God?

Serving Zion, I'm interesting in hearing your answer as well if you'd like to respond.

 

[Galatea]

Galatea, I know you said you're not going to change your mind so I'm not going to try, but I am curious. I ask this occasionally to people whenever there is some controversial topic, and I get some interesting replies, so I'd really like to hear your reply to this one:

If you found out that what people like myself and Redstang281 and others are saying was indeed the truth of what is being taught in the Bible/Christianity on this topic and those we've discussed here, what would you do? Would you abandon the faith? Or would you submit to the doctrine and continue serving the Christian God?

Serving Zion, I'm interesting in hearing your answer as well if you'd like to respond.

Of course I would not abandon my faith. I am saved, and can not be unsaved, even if I found out that God was actually commanding women to have four sister wives.

But I won't find that out.

 

[Torino]

Thanks for your reply. You'd be surprised at what people say sometimes.

 

[Galatea]

Thanks for your reply. You'd be surprised at what people say sometimes.

I am sorry people would abandon their faith.

 

[Serving Zion]

Galatea, I know you said you're not going to change your mind so I'm not going to try, but I am curious. I ask this occasionally to people whenever there is some controversial topic, and I get some interesting replies, so I'd really like to hear your reply to this one:

If you found out that what people like myself and Redstang281 and others are saying was indeed the truth of what is being taught in the Bible/Christianity on this topic and those we've discussed here, what would you do? Would you abandon the faith? Or would you submit to the doctrine and continue serving the Christian God?

Serving Zion, I'm interesting in hearing your answer as well if you'd like to respond.

Hello Torino,

In answer to this question, the first sentence of Post #370 ought to be sufficient:

I am not going to grant any concession to immorality. I speak in the name of Jesus Christ, The Holy One of God, and I have personally obtained His approval for saying every word I have said in this thread.

If you would like to claim the same authority, then we will owe it to Jesus Christ that we work through our differences in Private Message before presenting them into the thread. Else, I would advise you likewise consult Him for equal authority to speak in His name.

 

[Torino]

You haven't proven it's immorality though. Redstang281 rebutted some points you made, and rather than responding in kind, you just repeated what you said earlier.

Also, I would even say that your reply here isn't Biblical either. This is a message forum, and you sound like you're trying to strong arm dissenters of your words by claiming higher authority than fellow Christians here to win. That isn't the method taught in scripture, nor is it one that is going to be convincing to probably many here.

 

[Serving Zion]

You haven't proven it's immorality though. Redstang281 rebutted some points you made, and rather than responding in kind, you just repeated what you said earlier.

Also, I would even say that your reply here isn't Biblical either. This is a message forum, and you sound like you're trying to strong arm dissenters of your words by claiming higher authority than fellow Christians here to win. That isn't the method taught in scripture, nor is it one that is going to be convincing to probably many here.

I offer you Romans 14:4 and Matthew 12:36.

 

[redstang281]

I would like to request of you that you read Post #375 and Post #378 to see how lust, when it has grown to a mature addiction, does really impact women's experience in the world.

Not every single person has the same reaction as the extreme cases. There's no short list of things people get addicted to in life and it becomes a problem. Golf, coffee, beer, sports, all these things can jeopardize people's lives or families if they become their focus and they neglect more import aspects of their life. Simply to say that something has the potential for harm doesn't mean that it itself is a bad thing. Everything in moderation.

Also, the particular words I gave you have need to sink in, so I will repeat them:

Believe me, I've been active in church and conservative Christianity for decades, I'm well aware of the standard christian anti-sex theology. I would dare to say that my position in this topic may be foreign to you though, to which you might need to pay careful attention to let it sink in.

If a girl's experience in the world is that everyone looks at her this way, she does not perceive a godly love from the world.

Why? Because to lust is to look for one's own pleasure. But to love is to look for service to that one. Love and lust are precise opposites. One is of the flesh while the other is of the spirit.

Lust just means to have a strong desire for something. Lust has been mistakenly thought of it terms of sexuality by the church. The word itself has no sexual connotation. There's other kinds of lust. 1 Timothy 3 talks about desiring the office of a bishop and the word for desire is the same greek word for lust in Matthew 5:28. So it's a selfish and bad thing to desire to be a bishop? Of course not, and it's also not selfish and bad to desire a woman.

God is the one who designed them to be beautiful for us. God is the one who designed them to give us pleasure. To see and appreciate a beautiful woman that God made honors God. The stars in the sky display God's handiwork and we are told those are an example of him for us. Man kind is actually the best of all his creation. What's ungodly about appreciation a woman's beauty then, that makes no sense. To look at a woman and tell her she is beautiful honors God and also her for being an example of a beautiful creation he made.

I don't think you should assume all lust will lead to selfish gratification. A man could see a beautiful woman walking down the street and he could decide to talk to get and get to know her and then find out she is a believer and then marry her. It could be very beautiful and positive experience for both of them. In a marriage both people get things out of it. I don't think it's wrong to give and take in a marriage. No one gets married with only the intent to just serve the other person and get nothing out of it. Otherwise you're better off staying single and having more time to serve God.

The media has made it pervade every living room, every workplace and every letterbox. It is a constant bombardment of temptation for Christian minds to entertain impure thoughts not befitting to a holy people.

Lust is one of the Seven Deadly sins. Lust is not a characteristic of a godly person, and all sin is a passion of the flesh, being at odds with the spirit.

See my response to lust above. I'm not catholic by the way, and I don't honor the authority of the Pope or anything like that. I'm interested in what the Bible really says and what the truth is not what man says. During Jesus time there were the Pharisees who added tons of laws to the Bible and Jesus fought them for it. Nowadays we still have those people in both protestant and catholic churches.

In Post #370 the following statement was issued:

When Christians subject themselves to the passions of the flesh by consuming immorality, they grieve and quench The Holy Spirit, displacing Him with sin.

Right but we have to define immorality based on what the Bible actually says not what the Pope says or any other man.

 

[Serving Zion]

See my response to lust above. I'm not catholic by the way, and I don't honor the authority of the Pope or anything like that. I'm interested in what the Bible really says and what the truth is not what man says. During Jesus time there were the Pharisees who added tons of laws to the Bible and Jesus fought them for it. Nowadays we still have those people in both protestant and catholic churches.

Right but we have to define immorality based on what the Bible actually says not what the Pope says or any other man.

May I ask why you have introduced The Pope to this discussion here?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I think that was the main concern not to sleep with prostitutes in Corinth because it was an act of worship to them and by you sleeping with them you were taking part in their worship and doing idolatry yourself. Samson slept with regular prostitutes but didn't loose God's spirit until he got his hair cut. Judah slept with a prostitute but was still in the line of ancestry for Christ. I don't think sleeping with a prostitute is a good thing or a healthy thing, but I'm not sure I can say it's a sin. I would never do it. I also don't think Christians should do it because it would be a reason to cause others to stumble who have weaker faith. The best thing is to just sleep with your spouse only.

...no, it's a sin. And if we look at Samson, it was when he slept with his first prostitute that a marker was set in his life for a down-hill slide. Of course, one or two moral mistakes doesn't just yank the Holy Spirit away from a godly person, but sometimes, as in Samson's case, those one or two moral mistakes sets a precedent for further deviation from God's Will, ending in spiritual defeat--which is also what we see happen to Samson. Then, when he's at his lowest, we see him reach out to God...

So, let's not misconstrue our hermeneutical treatment of the Bible just so we can give ourselves sexual loop-holes ... Jesus and His Apostles didn't teach us what they taught just so we could wrangle it to fit our 21st century social proclivities.

2PhiloVoid

 

[EmethAlethia]

… To your point above I had the thought that maybe the devil wants sex to be thought of as sinful because completely abstaining from sex is incredibly difficult for the majority of people. That way the devil can cause us to sin more!

2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. 13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

So why bring that passage on the end times up? Well, because if you notice the first word in verse 13 you will see that Paul applied the same standard to the Thessalonians that he was writing to, and determined that when that same standard in 2 Th 2:10-12 was applied to them, they actually passed that test.

If you want to understand why people can so vehemently believe everything under the sun to be absolute, unquestionable “fact”, you need look no further. If you love your beliefs more than truth you will find everything you need to believe whatever it is you want to believe, and you will find what you need to prove all opposing beliefs false. Everybody gets what they want.

God says that if we keep on continuously seeking, as a habit and way of life, we will find. We are commanded to keep on proving all things over and over again, as a habit and way of life and hold fast to what is good/true. Most people just prove their beliefs true and all opposing beliefs false and hold fast to their beliefs. That’s a different process though. (See also Romans 10:1-3.) Gathering what we can use to hold fast to our beliefs, and gathering what we can use to prove all opposing beliefs false, and then interpreting everything in the light of our beliefs and our “selected” data works for Atheists, Agnostics, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses … and every single person on the planet. “IF” they love what they believe more than truth.

Satan just wants everyone to believe that they have the infallible, unquestionably true beliefs. Then they close their eyes and ears to anything else that might pertain to that topic. They stop seeking which means they are no longer guaranteed to find, and then they start responding like those in Mat. 7:6. Understand that God commands that we are to stop sharing when they do respond that way. Considering 2 Thes 2:10-13, you can understand why. God is giving them what they want, in response to their unwillingness to receive a love of the truth.

So, to answer your question, all Satan has to do to win is get everyone believing that they already have infallible, unquestionable beliefs on any topic, and keep them from practicing principles that will eventually get people to the truth, and that will expose erroneous beliefs at the same time. Doesn’t matter the topic. The issue is the mindset, and anyone from any belief group on the planet, with any of the beliefs on the planet can fall into that category, just as someone who loves truth can be in any belief group on the planet with any beliefs on the planet. The thing is, those that love truth, and dedicate their lives to figuring it out aren’t going to stay in those incorrect beliefs forever… if you keep on continuously seeking and never stop, you will find. Those who have found stop seeking and disqualify themselves.

Good for you by the way. You are seeking. Don’t stop. Even if you end up agreeing with me, that might only make us both wrong. LOL I’m still open to altering all of my beliefs, in the light of the fullness of the truth on the issue at hand, with all of it rightly divided. In 10 years I may disagree with me and need to put out a reprint. That’s why the noble minded examine the scriptures diligently daily to see if what is said is so.

Are you sure that fornication in the Bible includes premarital sex? The reason I ask is I don't see anywhere in the Bible that specifically says that. …

One of the ways we can see if a person is looking for truth or not, and it seems you are, is that they are not willing to hold to the definitions people want to give to words, terms, concepts … in scripture, but they are willing to do everything in their power to get the meaning that these things really had in scripture. Some of the principles of doing this are:

1. Finding every single place where the same word/root word is used in all of scripture and holding to the ONE meaning that fits everywhere the same word / root word is used. Yes, there are a few exceptions like our English word “vessel”, which can mean blood vessel, sailing vessel or a vessel of wine or oil, but those are rare, and the context proves exactly which meaning is applied everywhere. So … applying this, a careful search of all of the Greek scriptures of inappropriate contentea / fornication / Strong’s Numbers G4202, G4203, G4204, G4205 in both the New Testament and the Septuagint will reveal some key passages.
   
   
2. Assuming that God, God’s Word, and God’s people, are 100% consistent (Except where God corrects them), is one of the keys to getting to truth. Any belief that “requires” a view that makes any, or all of those inconsistent relegates all of the bible to complete worthlessness. If God, God’s word, and those following Him are not reliable and trustworthy, and God is not consistent in His reproof when He claims to be (See Hebrews you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your own blood in your striving against sin …) then there is no reason to even bother looking at scripture for anything.
   
   
3. Anyway, there are many more, but those are the 2 biggies when looking for the meaning of things.

So what falls out when we look at everything?

Joh 8:39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham. 40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. 41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."

The Pharisees understanding is that Jesus was born of fornication, i.e. sex before marriage to between Joseph and Mary. There really is no way to come to a different conclusion… even if you are engaged, if you have sex before the wedding ceremony, you have committed fornication. This fits perfectly with :

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of fornication, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

And no, Mary didn’t get pregnant because she looked at an immoral painting or mural. That’s another rule of getting to the truth, by the way. Don’t pick meanings that make the writers, speakers … in scripture idiots, morons, inconsistent, repetitivly redundant, over and over again, duplicating themselves … To assume that the Pharisees were claiming that Jesus was born from Mary watching a inappropriate contentographic anything falls in that category.

Here in Exodus 22 no one gets stoned for having premarital sex they just have to pay the dowry and marry the girl.

And no divorce for any reason. (Keep in mind that the penalty for adultery was stoning so divorce really didn’t apply. That said, if the other spouse loved them, and didn’t want to make a public example of them, (And get them stoned to death) they could seek to divorce them quietly. That’s what Joseph did. Interestingly, while betrothal didn’t allow for physical intimacy between the betrothed until after the marriage ceremony, if the woman was found with child and the betrothed husband claimed it wasn’t his, it was adultery, not fornication, and the penalty was stoning…)

… We Christians tell people not to live together before marriage right?

10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Well, treading lightly is not my way either. LOL And yes, the laws of the land and the culture we are in are quite different. Still … the Law is Holy, Righteous, Just …

Understand that taking care of someone from your own household before marriage, and taking sexual liberties with her are different things. Nothing happened for a full month, other than leaving her alone to grieve. She could have been sold as a slave. Thus the part about not selling her for money. If you didn’t seriously love her, and want her for a wife, going this route and giving up that right makes no sense, and neither does the waiting for a month.

Before my wife and I got married, she ended up having to leave her job and needed to move quite a distance. She didn’t have the money. She didn’t have a place to live … So, I paid for those things. For appearance sake, and for temptations sake, we were not ever alone under the same roof, and I did rent another location for her to live in until we got married. Even then … we were having the issues listed in 1 Cor. 7 as the only reasons for a Christian to seek to get married. That was one VERY LONG 3 month period. But we did not commit fornication.

Nowadays, when two people “live together”, we aren’t talking about them being in isolation from their future spouse, with them never being alone together as in the biblical example you gave.

… It's also interesting to me that the parts of this chapter about wives always being available to their husbands is often ignored by churches but then if a man looks at inappropriate contento because his wife ignores his needs he gets crucified.

1Co 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Again, the issue for needing to get married as a Christian is “Self-control” in the area of sex. If you have it, STAY SINGLE. If you don’t, get married. What happens when EITHER party does not meet every need, every fantasy, every time is that it opens the door for temptation, which is the exact reason for marriage in the first place. I agree with you. First off, what they are trying to “make” scriptures say about inappropriate contentography doesn’t jive with the consistent meaning of the words used in scripture, makes God, God’s people and His Word inconsistent … You have to change the word of God, add meaning and passages that don’t exist, distort the ones that do, and ignore the meaning God gave to those words to get there. Why is it so hard to believe that they won’t hold people to that made up standard when the Jews were all over Jesus case for healing on the Sabbath?

Another thing. While holding people to this made up standard, we have another issue. What about a man whose wife is not physically capable of satisfying the needs he got married for due to illness, injury … whatever reason? Should he try and force his wife? Should she try and force her husband? Yet the needs remain. God created us and COMMANDED, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. These are God given desires(See previous post) that are just as much a gift from God as singleness, and thus not having those desires is. (1 Cor. 7)

But the point isn’t that they are holding all the people in their congregations to this standard. The point is:

Mat 15:8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

The point is that they are changing the meaning to make it fit the beliefs, rather than changing the beliefs and the teachings to hold fast to the fullness of the truth with all of it cut right. And yes, according to Jesus, that is a symptom of a much greater problem.

Again, committing fornication (Unlawful sexual intercourse: Pre-marital sex, Adultery, Homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals …) is ALWAYS a sin. Ungodly lusts for these things that are unbridled / indulged in, are ALWAYS sin. That is different than the godly lust described in 1 Cor. 7 though (Boy that still sounds weird to me even though that’s what it says.) Here’s another passage that applies to the “actors” and “actresses” (As I have seen posted elsewhere.)

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Funny, all of the people trying to make inappropriate contentography a big issue, and they don’t even quote this passage at all. Trust me, if my goal was to try and prove my beliefs no matter what I had to make up or do with scripture, I can guarantee I’d be using that passage. Shoot, I have an opposite view and I’m the one bringing it up.

This Romans passage above is the end result of the long chain of events (Starting in Romans 1:18) where God seeks “all” men, and men “choose” to respond, in this case, instead of receiving a love of the truth, they reject it, suppress it, exchange it for a lie, choose not to even retain a knowledge of God any longer …(Sounds like 2 Thes. 2:10-13, doesn’t it?)

One of the biggies for determining meaning is CONTEXT. The most important context is the context of the conversation each verse is a part of. Next is the context of culture, what was done, what “artwork” was displayed everywhere, what were the norms for behavior, actions, practices, views … of the day. ALL of these are essential for accurately determining meaning. I say this while stating that there isn’t a passage in scripture about looking at, admiring, thinking about … pictures, drawings, … or anything else of a sexual nature in scripture. That said:

Let me state this clearly: “Most Often” the deeds being portrayed in what is now called inappropriate contentography are acts of fornication, and ALL fornication is sin. Period! The artwork of Jesus day depicted fornication. The Romans were not shy. They were not squeamish. They were proud of their erotic art.

So let’s look closer at verse Romans 1:32. Is there anything about observing these acts being performed in society? Any admonitions to “look away”? In Romans 1:32 (2) things are going on. First, these people are DOING these things. And, “secondly”, IN ADDITION to the first part, they are “also” giving “hearty” approval to those doing these things. These are BOTH TOGETHER signs of falling into this category. Not one without the other. I say this because someone, trying to cling to the seeing inappropriate contentography is sin view, is going to say that viewing such things is giving approval to the “artists” that perform it.

There are (2) parts to this verse, not one. Having one doesn’t qualify you any more than me ignoring the first part of the passages and stating, “be baptized and you will be saved”, and leaving out the believing, repenting … accepting Jesus as Lord, Master, Ruler of your life … parts of it will result in salvation. And hearty approbation is not merely seeing it. Sorry, I can’t “make” it mean that.

That said, I can neither commit these sins, nor can I approve of them. Ever, in any circumstance. If they are on this list then committing these SINS is always sin. The issue being discussed is seeing it.

BUT LISTEN TO ME HERE! My agreement that 99% of all inappropriate contentography is seeing people sinning does not equate to there being a commandment not to see these things. There is no such commandment. This passage does not say that either.

Remember, context is essential. The Roman society, artwork … in Jesus day, and before and afterwards, was as depraved as you can make it, and it was available for viewing EVERYWHERE. Don’t believe me. LOOK! Look at the artwork in Pompeii. It was buried in 79 AD. It’s all preserved for everyone to see. And even though much of the public and semi-public art depicts EXACTLY these things, yet God, Jesus, the bible writers are all silent about “seeing” it.

I cannot “create” the view that “seeing” inappropriate contentography is a sin. Otherwise Jesus probably saw tons of it, and needed a savior. Just like today. We cannot even avoid sexuality in this society. My job is to conform my beliefs to the fullness of the truth on every topic with every piece of evidence rightly divided, and not to teach anything more or anything less than what it says.

1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written …

All this said, I could be wrong. I will not force meaning into passages to make it support my beliefs, nor ignore meaning that is there to hold to something that would make me much more popular with most modern Christians. If you have proof, in context, holding to s consistent meaning of words, making God, His people, His word 100% consistent in all they do and say and don’t do and don’t say … let me know. All my beliefs are subject to change in the light of the fullness of the truth rightly divided.

 

[EmethAlethia]

... so according to your interpretation of what fornication and adultery are, does this mean you think lusting after women who are not married is an alright kind of thing to do?

No. Being in the presence of a woman married to another living man is the first step to actual adultery. Adultery has never been committed unless first the man was in the physical presence of another man's wife, dwelling on his lust for her. This line is ALWAYS crossed first.

... And, does this mean you research the people who are in inappropriate contentographic movies before you watch them to make sure the woman is not married? ...

No. There is nothing at all about seeing, viewing, watching, or anything else, any form of Erotica, just as there is nothing about healing on the Sabbath being a sin. This is an issue that is man made and is not discussed even though sexual art was everywhere. Pompeii was destroyed in 79 AD. that was the norm for the public art of the time. Yet there is not one word about it in scripture. As a Christian I do not make up doctrines and teach them as the commandments of God. There are verses on that sort of thing. Real verses... that actually do exist.

... Would you like your wife to be looked at by men in such a situation?

Again, she is married ... to a living man. Should a man do that he is committing adultery with her in his mind if she is in the room. From the context, this is the ONLY time this passage applies. That's the meaning. Nothing more. Nothing less. To go beyond what is written to hold fast to my beliefs, and teach something not meant is again to teach as a doctrine the precepts of men.

I see no evidence, in context, holding to a consistent meaning of the words used throughout the entire Greek N.T. and Septuagint to support any view other than what I have stated.