Why is inappropriate contentography wrong?

Haha, well patience is a virtue.

I am up for exchanging emails, you're going to have to private message me first through this because I guess I don't have enough post "likes" to activate the "Start a Conversation" feature for me yet.

Ave Maria said:

inappropriate contentography is wrong because it objectifies the men and women in inappropriate contentography. It turns them into mere objects to be used for a person's sexual pleasure.

Click to expand...

Serving Zion has been saying this too. But I don't know anywhere in the Bible that actually says this. I believe it's just church rhetoric coming from anti-sex theology. Ironically, in the old testament women were actually seen as objects that were bought and sold.

I believe someone's physical qualities can be appreciated without considering that their only asset. For example we can watch the Olympics and see a fantastic athlete and admire them for that. It doesn't mean we are objectifying them or assuming that's their only quality.

Ave Maria said:

It is also wrong because it usually leads to masturbation which is, in and of itself, sinful.

Click to expand...

There's no where in the Bible that says masturbating is wrong either. I know catholic theology does, but that's not biblical.

redstang281 said:

This is not a red herring. I'm not attempted to distract from the original topic, I'm drawing a comparison. I'm sure you didn't miss my point, I'm guessing you are trying to be misleading in your reply here so you can avoiding addressing my real point.

Click to expand...

In order to draw a comparison, you need to specifically name another entity by which we can compare.

You said inappropriate content is bad because it doesn't help you become more consecrated with God. My point is many things are also not not helping you become more consecrated to God but no one considers them bad, so why should inappropriate content be bad for the fact that it also is not consecrating to God.

Click to expand...

Yeah? Like what "many things"? Again, you're being vague.

Torino said:

2PhiloVoid,

I agree we can't give ourselves moral allowance on the basis of the struggle. This is why I said I am not trying to justify it (in that reply I made). Instead, I was responding to your question with one way it is conceivable that inappropriate content could be helpful in one's walking uprightly in life (assuming it's a permissible activity, which I believe it to be. If you believe otherwise, of course my example isn't going to be acceptable to you because our starting points are at odds.)

"and on the other hand, that the Bible's contents don't really give us moral contexts that actually do permit it." - Well, this is basically what the thread's topic is, and where the disagreement lies.

Click to expand...

No, it's not really conceivable that men had to wait until the 20th century before MASS levels of commercial inappropriate content could be made so................they wouldn't have to take up their crosses daily any longer.

redstang281 said:

Couldn't this also be seen as a good thing? For a single guy or married guy with a refusing wife isn't it better to look at inappropriate content instead of have sex with random women?

Sex is unnatural? I don't understand this. Sexual desire is a normal, healthy, and natural thing God built into us.

Not necessarily, maybe some men in rare cases but I think a large amount of men use inappropriate content because their wife says no to their advances a lot.

Well for most men every couple days they are going to desire to have a release. After the release they are satisfied but yes it's temporary. The same way food only satisfies you until you get hungry again. So I guess food is bad too.

I'm not sure what this one means exactly...

That depends, some couples watch inappropriate content together and it's fine. Some women get upset if their husband watches inappropriate content, and if that's the case then he should stop but she should also agree to be available to him whenever he needs her. Some women get upset about men watching inappropriate content just because they have been taught to get upset about it.

Not all of it is the same, some is very mild and realistic. Not everyone goes for the extreme stuff. Some of it could even be considered educational material that husbands and wives could learn new things to try that both of them enjoy.

I agree with this point to a certain degree. It depends on the circumstances that it's made under and not all of it is the same.

Lots of things are addictive. Being addictive itself doesn't make it wrong or a sin, it just means you should be careful. I'd say the same thing for inappropriate content that you should be careful. Do we have any Christian groups that are against coffee?

There's also tons of it for free. But because something is expensive doesn't make it a sin.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion which is all it is. I tend to file those in the round filing cabinet. You might not have noticed that my findings were based on RESEARCH, not my opinion. Wehn you are paid to research issues, you are not given the right to your opinion.

redstang281 said:

Is it ok for me to read Song of Solomon? It's erotic material in the Bible. If someone made a movie of it then it would be a inappropriate contento.

There's much in the Bible that's very graphic, descriptions of war, bloody and gruesome things, vulgar sexual things like Ezekiel 23:20 uttered by God.

Maybe we are the ones who are too sensitive about these subjects instead of God.

Click to expand...

And maybe you are trying to justify your use of inappropriate content?

redstang281 said:

Is it ok for me to read Song of Solomon? It's erotic material in the Bible. If someone made a movie of it then it would be a inappropriate contento.

There's much in the Bible that's very graphic, descriptions of war, bloody and gruesome things, vulgar sexual things like Ezekiel 23:20 uttered by God.

Maybe we are the ones who are too sensitive about these subjects instead of God.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense.
The Rape of Solomon's Song, Part 1

But the language Scripture employs when dealing with the physical relationship between husband and wife is always careful—often plain, sometimes poetic, usually delicate, frequently muted by euphemisms, and never fully explicit. There is no hint of sophomoric lewdness in the Bible, even when the prophet's clear purpose is to shock (such as when Ezekiel 23:20 likens Israel's apostasy to an act of gross fornication motivated by the lust of inappropriate behavior with animals). When an act of adultery is part of the narrative (such as David's sin with Bathsheba), it is never described in way that would gratify a lascivious imagination or arouse lustful thoughts.

The message of Scripture regarding sex is simple and consistent throughout: total physical intimacy within marriage is pure and ought to be enjoyed (Hebrews 13:4); but remove the marriage covenant from the equation and all sexual activity (including that which occurs only in the imagination) is nothing but fornication, a serious sin that is especially defiling and shameful—so much so that merely talking about it inappropriately is a disgrace (Ephesians 5:12).

Above all, Scripture never stoops to the lurid level of contemporary sex education. The Bible has no counterpart to the Hindu Kama Sutra (an ancient Sanskrit sex manual supposedly transmitted by Hindu deities.) Nothing in Scripture gives any vivid how-to instructions regarding the physical relationship within marriage.

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

...all that shows is that the 'inappropriate content mentality' has become mainstream--now the consumers, with their gadgets in hand, can be the producers, too. Oh, what a wonderful age we live in! Next, we'll be canonizing Hugh Hefner as a saint ...

Click to expand...

Yes, we would have to call him Saint Hugh of inappropriate contentography. I think he would love that.

Episaw said:

Yes, we would have to call him Saint Hugh of inappropriate contentography. I think he would love that.

Click to expand...

Is it just me or is this thread becoming full of clownery?

ronandcarol said:

God created the Garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve communing with Him daily, completely naked. There was no shame or inappropriate content as we know it today. BUT, as soon as they sinned they quickly found something to cover up their nakedness. You can rationalize that any way you like.
ronandcarol

Click to expand...

A very good point, if I may say so.

2PhiloVoid said:

In order to draw a comparison, you need to specifically name another entity by which we can compare.

Yeah? Like what "many things"? Again, you're being vague.

Click to expand...

I was not being vague. I was expecting you would look back on the post. I listed several examples, going to the beach, bike riding, playing golf. If the reason inappropriate content is bad is because it isn't helping to consecrate you towards God then those things are also bad and should be avoided since they don't either. My point is that I expect all Christians have hobbies that aren't helping you consecrate towards God, so saying that's a reason not to look at inappropriate content is not valid.

redstang281 said:

I was not being vague. I was expecting you would look back on the post. I listed several examples, going to the beach, bike riding, playing golf. If the reason inappropriate content is bad is because it isn't helping to consecrate you towards God then those things are also bad and should be avoided since they don't either. My point is that I expect all Christians have hobbies that aren't helping you consecrate towards God, so saying that's a reason not to look at inappropriate content is not valid.

Click to expand...

Those things aren't displeasing to God.

redstang281 said:

You brought up the seven deadly sins which usually that is associated with Catholicism.

Click to expand...

Episaw said:

Having been employed in the past as a researcher for a Christian ministry that addressed cultural issues, one of which was inappropriate contentography, I guess one can say the most rational explanation of what is wrong with inappropriate contentography is the following...

One. It is a substitute for the real thing.

Two. It idolizes the opposite sex in an unnatural way or in the case of homosexuality, the same sex.

Three. it encourages men to not be faithful to their wives.

Four. It never satisfies the person involved.

Five. It distorts the truth in relationships.

Six. It causes the breakdown of marriages.

Seven. It creates unreasonable expectations by the person viewing the inappropriate contentography which rarely can be fulfilled.

Eight. By accessing it you may be contributing to the destruction of the woman's lives who are used in inappropriate contentography.

Nine. Like gambling, it can become addictive.

Ten. It can cost you a lot of money which in some cases you don't have.

Click to expand...

What do you mean unnatural idolization?

Episaw said:

Thank you for your opinion which is all it is. I tend to file those in the round filing cabinet.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear you don't like to consider what other people have to say who disagree with you. Hopefully you are always right then.

Episaw said:

You might not have noticed that my findings were based on RESEARCH, not my opinion. When you are paid to research issues, you are not given the right to your opinion.

Click to expand...

People can research things and come to the wrong conclusion. Research is just collecting the data, how and why the data is what it is can be subject to interpretation.

Episaw said:

And maybe you are trying to justify your use of inappropriate content?

Click to expand...

I actually don't use inappropriate content, which I stated earlier in this thread. You might use it for all I know as from statistics I've read a high percentage of Christian men look at it even though they think it's wrong. I heard one of the guys from the Hillsong church was caught using inappropriate content. My interest in this subject is I don't want to judge people for things that are not sin. I also don't want to lay burdens on people that are not necessary.

Superhero Sam said:

Those things aren't displeasing to God.

Click to expand...

Right, but I see no reason Biblically to say that looking at a picture of a naked lady assuming it was taken not under abusive circumstances is displeasing to God.

I know it's hard to think of that because we've all been told our whole christian lives that's not the case. I get that. But if you can think outside the box and just think about what does the Bible actually say, not your Pastor, not your theology but what the Bible actually says..

Aren't you the one supporting homosexuality in another thread we were conversing on? I think I was arguing that it displeased God and you were arguing it didn't. Seems kind of funny we are on the flip side now. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but pretty sure that was you.

Serving Zion said:

I confess, that I do naturally have a biased view, because I see a world groaning under the burden of sin and it tempts me to speak against it.

Click to expand...

I do too, and bad theology which is what I want to get to the bottom of.

Serving Zion said:

Are you able to give an example of a holy and noble reason that someone would do this?

Click to expand...

A holy and noble reason someone would look at a picture of a naked lady.. Wouldn't a neutral reason suffice? I mean do I need a holy and noble reason to eat captain crunch cereal? We should encourage our brothers to do things that are holy and noble as much as possible but shouldn't judge them for doing things that are neutral.

Serving Zion said:

When you became Christian, you must have understood that you are called to be a light in the world (Matthew 5:14).

When worldly people see you and the badge that says "I am Christian", do you not expect that they perceive you to represent Jesus Christ, as an opportunity to judge the reality of The Gospel as it applies to them? When you speak to make assertions in that capacity, you are speaking assertively in His name. When you do so without His explicit permission, you are doing so presumptuously (eg, Jeremiah 23:21-22).

I would like to share with you 1 Peter 4:11, because that pierced me too, this morning.

Click to expand...

I don't completely follow what you're getting at here, so not sure how to respond. I'm not a prophet, I am a Christian but still a fallible man. I'm speaking the words of the Bible to the best of my understanding. I'd be surprised if there's one Christian living today who is completely right in every view they have in the Bible. I'm open to correction from the Bible but not necessarily theology or church rhetoric unless it holds up to scriptural support heavily.

Serving Zion said:

Fair enough. If you would like to press on with me in my repentance, I will make better effort and maybe we will overcome this. Would you kindly not think of me in stereotypes though? TY

Click to expand...

Alright, well I don't mean to stereotype but just seemed to me you were hitting me with a lot of theology but not scriptural support so that was the conclusion I came to.

Serving Zion said:

You have heard my reasons for maintaining a different view.

I only seek your honest, unbiased opinion, whether this behaviour that you describe "having sexual thoughts, fantasies or viewing nudity and watching sexual videos" is the sort of behaviour that you imagine Jesus Christ will have participated in? What about any of His 12 disciples?

Click to expand...

Jesus wouldn't have had that because I believe he had the gift of celibacy. Some people have that. Possibly some of the disciples had it, I don't know. But I don't have a problem considering some of them could have had sexual fantasies. But even if they did that would be a moot point as they were men capable of sin so it wouldn't prove my case that sexual fantasies aren't sin.

Serving Zion said:

This view is in the bible, in fact, but I am prevented from publishing this due to the wisdom in Matthew 25:9, Proverbs 11:13, Matthew 13:11, Matthew 11:25 and 1 Thessalonians 5:2.

I am not to deny you a cup of water in His name though, so I will suggest you very solemnly consider Matthew 5:28 and Romans 1:28 as being the lawlessness at work in Matthew 24:12, creating the society described in Luke 21:23 and this is what I am describing - our world this day is such that Romans 1:27-28 (Isaiah 4:1) - why? It is because women do not perceive that men actually love them. Whenever they see men looking at them, they know the man is mentally masturbating. Actually, there is more of a connection in the soul from their female companions, and when they open that door, they find more satisfaction there.

Click to expand...

There's an assault on men. The feminist movement has created this by demonizing masculinity. They want women to look at men as dirty pigs so they convince women to be offended if a man checks them out.

Have a look here :
Why does the Church have such a negative view of male sexuality?

Serving Zion said:

I have never been married, thus you might be best to inquire the POV of your own wife.

Well, it's all rather argumentative at this point. Fundamentally though, the issue is that Christians acknowledge the fact that The Holy Spirit lives within us, and Romans 8, specifically Romans 8:13 explains that there is contention/struggle to gain our will, actions, mind and words, between our fleshly desires and the desires of The Holy Spirit.

It begins when we open the door to indulge in the desires of the flesh rather than the spirit, and this is largely why I have condemned the irresponsible, demonic nature of public media. It is not The Holy Spirit of God that lusts after the desires of the flesh nor tempts us to sin, but it is of The Holy Spirit of God to see the person inside and connect with the heart - serving, loving, coming to know who it is that exists as an earthly vessel.

Click to expand...

The desires of the flesh is a phrase specifically referring to things that are sins contrary to God, they obviously come only from our sinful flesh and not the spirit of God. But not everything that comes from our flesh is sinful. The phrase is said the way it is as an indication of where these things originated from to contrast that they are not from God they are from us. It's not meaning that all things coming from the flesh are sinful. Normal sexual desire that is directed towards a woman that is not unlawful for us to have is not a sin. Eating food is not a sin unless it's gluttony, or food sacrificed to idols in the presence of a weaker brother, or when you are supposed to be fasting. You see there's conditions around food just like sex. Which I'm sure you agree on that our disagreement is what those exact restrictions are.

Redstang281,

thanks for sharing that page, it was a great read.

I think it hit what is actually the underlying issue behind a lot of these topics. It's all an attempt by Satan to drive men out of the Church, and make the remainder all effeminate. Unfortunately it seems like exactly that has been going on a lot.

I know of several men that were driven out of Christianity because of these doctrines of men, doctrines of demons, and one guy that I've been talking to that left Christianity years ago has since come to understand recently that much of the anti-human and anti-male idealogy that Christendom is soaked in is garbage that God never required or taught.

It's pretty upsetting.

Alright, off I go again.

redstang281 said:

So for example, lets say a single girl sends some guy a picture of herself naked. Is it wrong/sinful of her?

Please keep in mind my earlier point in this thread that Matthew 5:28 is not about single women it's only about married women.

Also keep in mind that this woman is not being forced to do this, she enjoys it and wants the guy to enjoy seeing it too.

Click to expand...

No, she's not being forced to do so. She's just sinning herself, by lusting after the man she sending the picture to. Just as in the law here. If you are driving the car that drove away from a bank robbery, yet you never went into the building, and in the process of the robbery someone was killed. You can also be charged with murder. No one is innocent from sin.

Now to Matthew 5:28.

Context, is very important.

First Matthew 5 is the Sermon on the Mount. Christ is speaking to a crowd of people and he uses stories, true stories and parables to tell the crowd the Gospel that God wants him to spread. Because it was easy for them to understand.
Plus, during the Sermon on the Mount Christ was showing that the law didn't go away, because He came to be. He enhanced them and backed them up.
In verse 21, says this:
21. You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not kill; and whosever shall kill shall be In danger of judgment:
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Christ hits on the 6th commandment of Thou shalt not Kill. It's pretty plain and simple what He is saying. But it also shows us that not only does he see what we do.

God sees the thought-life. He weighs our motives and judges the intent of the hearts: "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer" (1 John 3:15). Right after those, he explains that if we have brother has something against us, we are to step away from our prayers, ur with our brother and then go back and make our offering of prayer. He uses a gift as the example.
He then tells us to agree with our adversaries, because if not, he could take us to court and we could be judged by the courts for a wrong doing.
Basically we should ask for forgiveness if we bring harm to someone.

Then you get to verse 27:
You have heard that it was said by the of old time, You shall not commit adultery:
28. But I say to you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Then he continues about what we should do to keep ourselves holy. He doesn't mean that we are to physically hurt ourselves. It's called a hyperbole...we use it all the time.

So verse 28 isn't about one certain woman. It's any woman. Married or not married. We are not to look upon a married woman or even a single woman and lust over her.

You also need to understand that there is the 10th commandment, Thou shalt not covet.

Coveting covers a huge area. Adultery falls under it. that's wanting that person your lusting after even though you can't have her. Lust of the eyes, falls under it. Wanting what others have. But most importantly.

God knows what's in the heart: "For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14). "But after your hardness and impenitent heart you treasure up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds" Romans 2:5,6

Mans heart is sinful. Jeremiah 17:9 affirms the condition of man's heart: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Verse 10 then warns us that God not only knows the secret things of the heart but will reward us accordingly: "I, the Lord, search the heart, I try the reigns, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

There's more:
Mark 7:20-23
20 And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man.
21. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders.
22. Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

So, we are sinful. If you have looked a woman with lust you have committed adultery in the eyes of God. Because God sees our thought life and He knows what's in the heart.