- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,175
- 9,960
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Do you think that using inappropriate contentography is equal to cheating?
- Thread starter Deidre32
- Start date
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You should come to the marriage site, for there are self proclaimed swingers who believe they aren't hurting anyone.
Even if they don't believe in God, they are in fact, hurting themselves, imo. I think that society has lowered the standard of how we live, we have allowed ourselves to accept sub par behaviors as ''okay.'' It's sad.
Upvote
0
DZoolander
Persnickety Member
- Apr 24, 2007
- 7,279
- 2,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I tend to agree - but for the purposes of defining "cheating" - I think that "cheating" and "right or wrong in God's eyes" need to be treated as separate things.You should come to the marriage site, for there are self proclaimed swingers who believe they aren't hurting anyone.
Cheating is breaking the understood rules within a relationship. While not quite the same thing - let's say we're having a race. We agree that in this race walking is ok, skipping is ok, but running is not ok. You skip your leg of the race, then out of sight I run mine. Within the context of that race, I've cheated because I broke the agreed upon rule.
But there's nothing wrong with "running". God doesn't look down and go "Wow, he ran, now there's a sin if I ever saw one." Maybe He might look down and frown upon your dishonesty - but the running itself isn't an issue.
So the rightness or wrongness of an action is separate and apart from "cheating" (not behaving in accordance with what's agreed upon/expected within whatever relationship it may be). Same goes true with this. While I think it's immoral to be a swinger - you're not CHEATING on your partner when you do it if that's what's been agreed to. They know what you're doing - they're cool with it - it's not outside the bounds of their expectations.
How God feels about it is another issue entirely.
Like I said - I totally understand the DESIRE to try and lump things like inappropriate content into the cheating category. People feel very strongly about it - and the more negative labels they can attach to it the better it makes them feel. But, for the sake of clarity, I think it's a mistake to do so.
Because like I said in the earlier post - then you're kind of removing the individual expectations from the equation altogether and making it about cheating God instead of cheating your partner. And what if your partner has insecurities that aren't covered by the Bible? I saw you liked my post about how hugging could be construed as cheating in a relationship if a partner felt it was. That's not Biblical. Nowhere does God say that. That would be a condition set by the individual within the relationship.
And if cheating isn't set by THEM - what's to prevent the spouse/partner from saying "It's God's will that matters, not yours."? I mean - that's the territory you've now entered into in order to try and chuck the inappropriate content stuff into the "Cheating" basket.
That's why I'm happy to say "cheating" is on an individual level - determined by the participants - because it allows for the "no hugger" person to assert their position strongly. It also in no way diminishes the ability for us to also say "Swinging is wrong" either.
Upvote
0
Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
I should've been clearer on my last post. It's not that I don't understand what you mean...I just don't think you get to define the emotional/mental aspects of other people's experiences. It seems odd that you think you can.
Thanks for sharing.
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You explained that really well.I tend to agree - but for the purposes of defining "cheating" - I think that "cheating" and "right or wrong in God's eyes" need to be treated as separate things.
Cheating is breaking the understood rules within a relationship. While not quite the same thing - let's say we're having a race. We agree that in this race walking is ok, skipping is ok, but running is not ok. You skip your leg of the race, then out of sight I run mine. Within the context of that race, I've cheated because I broke the agreed upon rule.
But there's nothing wrong with "running". God doesn't look down and go "Wow, he ran, now there's a sin if I ever saw one." Maybe He might look down and frown upon your dishonesty - but the running itself isn't an issue.
So the rightness or wrongness of an action is separate and apart from "cheating" (not behaving in accordance with what's agreed upon/expected within whatever relationship it may be). Same goes true with this. While I think it's immoral to be a swinger - you're not CHEATING on your partner when you do it if that's what's been agreed to. They know what you're doing - they're cool with it - it's not outside the bounds of their expectations.
How God feels about it is another issue entirely.
Like I said - I totally understand the DESIRE to try and lump things like inappropriate content into the cheating category. People feel very strongly about it - and the more negative labels they can attach to it the better it makes them feel. But, for the sake of clarity, I think it's a mistake to do so.
Because like I said in the earlier post - then you're kind of removing the individual expectations from the equation altogether and making it about cheating God instead of cheating your partner. And what if your partner has insecurities that aren't covered by the Bible? I saw you liked my post about how hugging could be construed as cheating in a relationship if a partner felt it was. That's not Biblical. Nowhere does God say that. That would be a condition set by the individual within the relationship.
And if cheating isn't set by THEM - what's to prevent the spouse/partner from saying "It's God's will that matters, not yours."? I mean - that's the territory you've now entered into in order to try and chuck the inappropriate content stuff into the "Cheating" basket.
That's why I'm happy to say "cheating" is on an individual level - determined by the participants - because it allows for the "no hugger" person to assert their position strongly. It also in no way diminishes the ability for us to also say "Swinging is wrong" either.
I feel the same to an extent, it is an individual thing, if we are talking how we personally view something. I have always viewed ''swinging'' or ''open marriages'' as not cheating, because both parties know about it. But, it still seems hurtful to one another in my eyes, because it degrades the marriage, any way you look at it. Swingers will say it makes their marriages better, but seems like people who want their cake and want to eat it too. Like they want the benefits of marriage, without the responsibilities. But, everyone has to come to terms with things on their own.
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
i'll say that while I understand the Biblical description of lust, I think that wanting your spouse sexually, being turned on by them, while that could be considered lustful, it is a natural feeling. It is a human feeling. Sometimes, I feel that sex is viewed as a bad thing always, when it comes to talking about lust from a Biblical sense.
Upvote
0
DZoolander
Persnickety Member
- Apr 24, 2007
- 7,279
- 2,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Yeah, I agree. I mean, I can't see how swinging would be beneficial to anyone's relationship over the long haul.
I can't help but think that when they say "it's beneficial to our relationship" what they actually mean is "I've grown tired of this person, and being allowed to carry on with other people allows me to delay decisions I might feel compelled to make if forced to be monogamous."
I can't help but think that when they say "it's beneficial to our relationship" what they actually mean is "I've grown tired of this person, and being allowed to carry on with other people allows me to delay decisions I might feel compelled to make if forced to be monogamous."
Upvote
0
DZoolander
Persnickety Member
- Apr 24, 2007
- 7,279
- 2,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Personally, I think the Church is focused too much on sex issues, often to the detriment of other more consequential things. Can you think of any issue that really gets Evangelicals motivated that isn't in some way or other tied to a sexual issue? I really have a hard time with coming up with one...lol
And it fosters a lot of weird unhealthy behaviors as well - where lots of people DO inwardly feel discomfort even at things like marital desire. Not to mention all the kooky stuff like purity balls, etc.
I wonder how many people you could pack into a stadium to pledge "I promise to be a decent human being to my fellow man"? But they sure can pack 'em in to make chastity pledges.
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
lol, True ^^
I often think those ''arrangements'' start with only one person basically one step away from cheating, but they go to their spouse, and ''negotiate'' and convince and so on, and then ...they start having an open marriage. Of the people from that marriage site who have open marriages, there is usually one spouse who really initiates it, and the other seems like they went along for the ride as to not lose the marriage. It rarely ever seems like a mutual thing but rather one wants it, whether it's the wife or husband, and the other goes along with it. Ugh, no thanks!
I often think those ''arrangements'' start with only one person basically one step away from cheating, but they go to their spouse, and ''negotiate'' and convince and so on, and then ...they start having an open marriage. Of the people from that marriage site who have open marriages, there is usually one spouse who really initiates it, and the other seems like they went along for the ride as to not lose the marriage. It rarely ever seems like a mutual thing but rather one wants it, whether it's the wife or husband, and the other goes along with it. Ugh, no thanks!
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
As a side note, there is a religious section on the site, and there are some people who believe in the sacredness of vows and such, but many don't. It's just the world we live in. I don't judge people but it's not hard to see that they're heading down a path of self destruction because their whole marriage is based on sex, from a self centered perspective. Their needs, their pleasure, etc. If you live like that, no doubt your partner will let you down at some point, and you'll desire to move on. While I love our sex life, my husband and I don't view our marriage as all about sex, and ''what's in it for meeee?''
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
"Lust" in scripture is merely the natural desires of the body, not confined to sexual desire. Hunger, thirst, weariness--those are all "lusts."
The body's natural desires are not in themselves sinful. Hunger is not a sin; Jesus hungered.
It's letting your body control your decisions and actions that is sin. Jesus hungered, but He didn't let His body's hunger control His actions.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. -- James 1
Jesus never allowed the lusts of His body to "conceive" to produce their own end fruits.
Is it possible for a man to allow his sexual lust for his wife to become sin--yes, when he allows it to control his actions. It would be the same sin if he allowed his gastronomic lust for her scrumptious apple fried pies to control his actions.
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I see, so it's more of allowing it to control us, to become an obstacle to our faith?
Upvote
0
DZoolander
Persnickety Member
- Apr 24, 2007
- 7,279
- 2,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Pssshaw - no don't pay attention to that!
There's some guy out there alone in his room touching himself. That's what we need to worry about!
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2014
- 3,926
- 2,444
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Totally agree. Purity Balls are really strange, to me. But, that's another story.
I think that sexual sin is definitely obsessed about in the church, but sometimes, I wonder if a lot of sin is wrapped up in it. It's astounding how many successful men for example allowed their obsession with sex to ruin their lives, those who have been named in the #metoo movement. To the point of assaulting women, flirting with women at work...harassing women. How many politicians have had to step down because of sexual misconduct. How many marriages end because of cheating. And inappropriate content use is a huge business, so maybe this is why they focus on it?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DZoolander
Persnickety Member
- Apr 24, 2007
- 7,279
- 2,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Kids with rumbling bellies unsure when their next meal is going to come? Families driven from their homes into destitution because they were forced into bankruptcy trying to afford prescriptions/medical treatments that nobody pays any mind to anywhere else in the world? People dying left and right due to drug addictions caused by pharmaceutical malfeasance and lying in pursuit of the almighty dollar?
God's cool with all of that. He has His priorities straight. It's the self diddlers that really get His goat.
God's cool with all of that. He has His priorities straight. It's the self diddlers that really get His goat.
Upvote
0
DZoolander
Persnickety Member
- Apr 24, 2007
- 7,279
- 2,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I see where you're going with that - but the truth is - I don't really know. My thoughts on that aren't really fleshed out actually.
At first glance my reaction is kind of like...yeah...they are all sexually related. But at the same time though, I guess my thought would be "Is the sex part the important part, or is it the lack of respect for their fellow man/woman that's the issue there?"
My guess would be that most of those people probably used others in a variety of ways - sexually just being one of them. Like I doubt you'd find that they were honest and generous with most people in other areas of their lives, but were unrepentant in their use of them sexually. If I had to guess, you'd probably find that they treated people simply as a means to an end in all areas of their lives - sex just being one of those areas.
But once again, it's not something I've worked out a real point of view on yet. lol
Upvote
0
Yes. Your master is the one that you obey. You can obey God or you can obey your body...but nobody can serve two masters.
Therefore do not let sin rule in your mortal body so that you obey its desires. And do not keep yielding your body parts to sin as tools of wickedness; but yield yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your body parts as tools of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
...
Do you not know that to whatever you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to what you obey—whether to sin resulting in death, or to obedience resulting in righteousness? -- Romans 6
Upvote
0
I agree. So much of that is a matter of abusing or exercising different facets of power rather than actual sexual desire. Look at how in so many of those cases there were certainly gorgeous women who would have been more than willing...but those men preferred to use their power to force unwilling women.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
JIMINZ
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 6,600
- 2,358
- 79
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
It's more than some guy self diddling, it's about what constitutes Cheating on a spouse, to say I personally don't like it but if my wife Husband do it, I'm cool with that, it's their choice......BFS!
When that becomes ok in a marriage, the one watching the inappropriate content is effectively leaving the Marriage for greener pastures.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
In Marriage we take a VOW, to our perspective spouse, and to God, have we as Christians forgotten what a Vow is and means to God?
Num. 30:2
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
Deu. 23:21
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.
Ecc. 5:4,5
4) When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
5) Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,175
- 9,960
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
....c',mon on, now, DZ! If all the problem really was is that Johnny Jonas has a private time during which he can let off some steam since he's lonely and hasn't yet found a wife, I'd have a difficult time thinking that our society would bring about the felt need among various people to talk about all of this stuff in an online forum.
NO, I think the real problem is that the self-stimulation that Johnny Jonas initiates is done habitually while looking at March's College Flavor of the Month, Tanya Tiddlywinks, or some gal similarly pseudo-named, and so this kind of thing becomes deep seated, ongoing, and a major psychological problem for which denial seems to be the only recourse, particularly for MEN who would otherwise wish to live holy lives before their Lord and Savior.
Let's not fool ourselves here. Raunch Culture, with inappropriate content being just one of its inherent expressions, has become mainstream and has been tearing at men's minds, and at the women whom it uses for its lucrative fantasy escapades, for quite some time.
Some day, we'll all wish we had actually read the New Testament for all its worth rather than just playing interpretive hop-scotch with it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
