Could inappropriate content be considered as adultery?

ReluctantTheologian said:

Using the term 'inappropriate content' obviously sets off some alarms for you - forget that term I'd say. My statement still would be that indeed Song of Songs qualifies as erotically explicit literature (about Solomon with his n-th future wife or concubine); and ... here's the the connection to Titus: I still think that explicit eroticism for a couple is indeed pure and not sinful.

Click to expand...

It certainly does set of alarms. It is objectifying, using and lusting over another human being to gratify ones own sexual desires. It's repulsive. It's sexual immorality and adultery if one is married.

Take that idea to the next step: if a couple records and re-watches their own love-making: would that be impure or sinful? I don't think so; personally I don't think it's wise in this day and age, but nevertheless not impure.

Click to expand...

Yuck. Also very foolish.

Ah, that verse is a theological enigma, you realise that? What writings would Paul refer to here you think? The current set of OT books? The books that were included in the LXX in those days? His own letter he was writing there? Any letter that was circulating among believers in those days?

Click to expand...

I believe we are to be pure in thought and not ascribe sexual feelings to all and sundry. If a person is unmarried they should be celibate. If their mind is constantly in the gutter that would be near impossible to do.
Most men think it's perfectly fine to ogle women and cat call, well its not, we are not objects to fuel male lust.
Then you get sickos with perverted sexual attractions operating on the principle that anything the object of their lust does is somehow done with intent to create lust in them.
It goes one step at a time, descending into even more evil with pedophiles and rapists at rock bottom.

coffee4u said:

It certainly does set of alarms. It is objectifying, using and lusting over another human being to gratify ones own sexual desires. It's repulsive. It's sexual immorality and adultery if one is married.

Click to expand...

Don't worry; the context is a betrothed or about to be married couple in Song on Songs; strongly physically desiring your own husband/wife is not called immorality or sin by any law in the OT.
...

coffee4u said:

I believe we are to be pure in thought and not ascribe sexual feelings to all and sundry. If a person is unmarried they should be celibate. If their mind is constantly in the gutter that would be near impossible to do.
Most men think it's perfectly fine to ogle women and cat call, well its not, we are not objects to fuel male lust.
Then you get sickos with perverted sexual attractions operating on the principle that anything the object of their lust does is somehow done with intent to create lust in them.
It goes one step at a time, descending into even more evil with pedophiles and rapists at rock bottom.

Click to expand...

Fully agree to that; staying sexually pure is very important. But writing about the erotic desires/adventures of a betrothed/married) couple clearly still is pure by the standards of Song of Songs.

ReluctantTheologian said:

Personally speaking, having studied the Song of Songs metaphors, indeed it doesn't leave room for confusion or doubt, so that's why I don't hesitate to classify Song of Songs as erotic, yet pure, literature.

Click to expand...

The tangent was about what the word "explicit" means. If you have studied the metaphors, it doesn't leave room for doubt in your mind because you have studied the metaphors.

By definition, a metaphor is not explicit.

I have not disputed that SoS is erotic. I disputed that it is explicit.

RDKirk said:

The tangent was about what the word "explicit" means. If you have studied the metaphors, it doesn't leave room for doubt in your mind because you have studied the metaphors.

By definition, a metaphor is not explicit.

I have not disputed that SoS is erotic. I disputed that it is explicit.

Click to expand...

All good: we can agree that SoS contains clear metaphors to very specific erotic descriptions and activities; how about that

ReluctantTheologian said:

All good: we can agree that SoS contains clear metaphors to very specific erotic descriptions and activities; how about that

Click to expand...

I wouldn't even call the metaphors "clear." They are extremely culture-centric. They are also different in basic characteristic from metaphor creation as we know it in our Western culture, being based on emotional equivalents rather than physical equivalents.

@RDKirk: true, but any text exegesis requires cultural knowledge for the author/audience/society in order to understand its meaning for the writer and its audience, so without that we can't even interpret ANY text. Without those (or info on literary styles, etc.), no text is 'clear'.

For me it's not relevant whether the metaphors are (un)clear for readers without that knowledge, but it's relevant that they are clear for the ones who do possess that - and hence, they were clear for its original audience; the Israelites from the days of Solomon.

ReluctantTheologian said:

@RDKirk: true, but any text exegesis requires cultural knowledge for the author/audience/society in order to understand its meaning for the writer and its audience, so without that we can't even interpret ANY text. Without those (or info on literary styles, etc.), no text is 'clear'.

For me it's not relevant whether the metaphors are (un)clear for readers without that knowledge, but it's relevant that they are clear for the ones who do possess that - and hence, they were clear for its original audience; the Israelites from the days of Solomon.

Click to expand...

But we have enough examples of ancient smut to know that they could have been genuinely explicit, if they wanted to be.

inappropriate content is definitely serious. As blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose said "inappropriate contentography is the iconography of the devil"

Lawrence87 said:

inappropriate content is definitely serious. As blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose said "inappropriate contentography is the iconography of the devil"

Click to expand...

Interesting. Does iconography also include verbal descriptions? For many of us, inappropriate content is not merely expressed via graphic media such as magazine illustrations, videos, movies, photographs, etc. but also expressed in written forms such as many romance novels.

bbbbbbb said:

Interesting. Does iconography also include verbal descriptions? For many of us, inappropriate content is not merely expressed via graphic media such as magazine illustrations, videos, movies, photographs, etc. but also expressed in written forms such as many romance novels.

Click to expand...

I am not an expert in the theology of icons, however I have heard it said that the words of scripture themselves are icons, as they are essentially images that represent the things they describe. So in that sense, yes, the same would apply to written material.

ReluctantTheologian said:

Don't worry; the context is a betrothed or about to be married couple in Song on Songs; strongly physically desiring your own husband/wife is not called immorality or sin by any law in the OT.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about SoS, but inappropriate contentography. The kind people Google. I highly doubt they will be getting hits on Goolge including the 'Song of Songs' under inappropriate content.

Fully agree to that; staying sexually pure is very important. But writing about the erotic desires/adventures of a betrothed/married) couple clearly still is pure by the standards of Song of Songs.

Click to expand...

I already stated it's not inappropriate content, so of course it is pure.

Lawrence87 said:

I am not an expert in the theology of icons, however I have heard it said that the words of scripture themselves are icons, as they are essentially images that represent the things they describe. So in that sense, yes, the same would apply to written material.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I agree that words can create images in the mind and therefore, are iconographic.

The Liturgist said:

Thats not accurate, though - the resurrected body is our existing body, reassembled and restored, no matter how completely it was destroyed, and glorified. Not a new body, but the body we have now.

Click to expand...

This body decays and dies, the other one doesn't so it's not the same.

Michael Collum said:

This body decays and dies, the other one doesn't so it's not the same.

Click to expand...

However, it is our decayed and dead bodies which will be resurrected from our graves (or other locations). Our resurrected bodies will not be subject to decay or death.

bbbbbbb said:

However, it is our decayed and dead bodies which will be resurrected from our graves (or other locations). Our resurrected bodies will not be subject to decay or death.

Click to expand...

Bodies that have been completely decomposed or vaporized by a nuclear bomb will likewise be resurrected.

Since God will be making us according to the new heaven and the new earth. The molecular structure or laws of physics won't even be on the same basis.

It's not the same body. It's a new body, but the parts of your inner being that became compatible with God remain the same.

Michael Collum said:

Bodies that have been completely decomposed or vaporized by a nuclear bomb will likewise be resurrected.

Since God will be making us according to the new heaven and the new earth. The molecular structure or laws of physics won't even be on the same basis.

It's not the same body. It's a new body, but the parts of your inner being that became compatible with God remain the same.

Click to expand...

We have now seriously strayed from the OP and that is the last I will post on this thread concerning the resurrection of Christians.

IF watching, reading etc. inappropriate content is adultery...

(Matt.5:27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.)

...then aren’t we all guilty?

Psalm 27 said:

IF watching, reading etc. inappropriate content is adultery...

(Matt.5:27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.)

...then aren’t we all guilty?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think we are. Perhaps it was Jesus' way of saying that we can't possible achieve the standards of God so we need His forgiveness.

Hmm said:

Yes, I think we are. Perhaps it was Jesus' way of saying that we can't possible achieve the standards of God so we need His forgiveness.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely. To quote the disciples, "Who, then, can be saved?"

Hmmm .I think inappropriate content is sin, obviously, but adultery?
Do we really believe that an online video equals deliberately meeting someone other than your spouse and having sex with that person?
One is a fantasy, the other is breaking the marriage vows. We all sin internally, unfortunately. We all get angry for example. Not excusing anything, but we don't equate that with actually murdering someone.
I think you can see the parallel.
Is all sin really equal? I have struggled with that question quite a bit. It seems that God certainly had different punishments for different sins, so there must be some degree of difference in seriousness.