- Jul 25, 2005
- 10,509
- 7,068
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Agreed....but condemning heterosexuality isn't the solution.
Upvote
0
Agreed....but condemning heterosexuality isn't the solution.
Now, you are just accusing God...Having sexual thoughts or fantasies is so endemic to the human psyche that God has every good reason to condemn each and every human.
That is a good point and one which I attempted to make, albeit in a different way, in my previous post. inappropriate contentography has been recorded in virtually all cultures in all areas of the earth for millennia. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Song of Songs is erotic, if not inappropriate contentographic. It assuredly is graphic in its sexuality. Having sexual thoughts or fantasies is so endemic to the human psyche that God has every good reason to condemn each and every human.
Now, you are just accusing God...
"So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;Then God blessed them, and God said to them,
male and female He created them.
'Be fruitful and multiply;
fill the earth and subdue it;...' " Genesis 1:27-28 NKJV
I'm inclined to take a practical view: any action, word, thought, read, view that is a pre-cursor to a sinful act as defined by the Law of Moses (when it comes to the area of 'sexual morality') I would avoid; as that is the angle of approach Jesus uses in Matthew 5:27-28.
If I'm looking with desire at my neighbour's wife that is a precursor to actual adultery, or even murder (e.g. David - Bathsheba), so even the precursor is sinful. If a man notices the beauty of an attractive single woman who he might be able marry (which is not sinful), than that precursor also is not sinful IMHO.
The intriguing bit is that in Song of Songs the couple is erotically fantasizing about each other BEFORE their actual wedding (but possibly they were betrothed already); so can we take from that that that is not sinful perse? Maybe ...
You equated sexual attraction to sexual sin.I fail to understand your reasoning. The fact that God finds all of humanity sin-filled is no reflection on God.
That is likening the act of eating your own foodHaving sexual thoughts or fantasies is so endemic to the human psyche that God has every good reason to condemn each and every human.
You equated sexual attraction to sexual sin.
That is likening the act of eating your own food
to eating somebody else's food.
The issue isn't about your God-given appetite.
It is about where you would go to satisfy it.
Since "inappropriate content" means [virtual] prostitution, I think it is clearly a case ofTherefore, inappropriate content is not inherently sinful in your estimation.
That is a good point and one which I attempted to make, albeit in a different way, in my previous post. inappropriate contentography has been recorded in virtually all cultures in all areas of the earth for millennia. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Song of Songs is erotic, if not inappropriate contentographic. It assuredly is graphic in its sexuality. Having sexual thoughts or fantasies is so endemic to the human psyche that God has every good reason to condemn each and every human.
Maybe people will disagree here, but I see a huge difference from fantasizing in the head than watching movies or looking at picturers. Movies and pictures involves an industry of adultery, fornication, sinfulness and sometimes criminality. By looking we support and actually enjoy sinful behaviour of others. If we think a bit further, inappropriate content is like inviting prostitutes home and look at them having sex. In a sense that is what we do, we just have our camera at their place instead. Not saying that it's easy for many people to resist inappropriate content, but it's still an awful sin. Masturbation and fantasizing I believe is a different category, that has to be discussed separatly.
I have started to think that inappropriate content might be that serious. If we think it's wrong, yet don't take it for the seriousness as it is, we may not do our best to avoid it. Thoughts?
I think it can be considered adultery if a person is married. If they’re not married then I would say it could be considered as sexual immorality.
a small percentage of females seem to be as affected by inappropriate content, but we do battle other addictions, such as gluttony, vanity and gossip. I’ve know men who have been virtually consumed by it. I had a personal struggle with it. The internet made it an even bigger problem than before...Just Thank The Lord you’re not Male.I think it is absolutely... As Jesus said even looking at another with lust in your heart is adultery.
However, I dont get the draw of inappropriate content myself. It's nothing that even interests me as a human being, and I don't, can't in fact, understand anyone's struggle with it as a serious temptation so while I can call it sin all day long I don't understand why any Christian might be drawn to it in the first place. It confuses me truly.
One of the difficulties we face in our culture is that we naturally define inappropriate content as visual stimulation. In fact, it entails far more than the visual aspect. There are multitudes of inappropriate contentographic forms of literature which do not have a single illustration. Some is soft inappropriate content such as the pulp romances and other can be quite hard core - completely without illustrations. The Song of Solomon is somewhere in between IMO.
My question is whether or not we wish to limit inappropriate content to the visual aspect only. Even then there are multitudes of forms of soft inappropriate content. Hollywood has been churning it out for over a century now. Rudolf Valentino is a lovely example of acceptable soft inappropriate content in which women fantasized about having a romantic relationship with him or someone of his caliber.
At what point do you define inappropriate content?
The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core inappropriate contentography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]
The expression became one of the best-known phrases in the history of the Supreme Court.[4] Though "I know it when I see it" is widely cited as Stewart's test for "obscenity", he never used the word "obscenity" himself in his short concurrence. He only stated that he knows what fits the "shorthand description" of "hard-core inappropriate contentography" when he sees it.
a small percentage of females seem to be as affected by inappropriate content, but we do battle other addictions, such as gluttony, vanity and gossip. I’ve know men who have been virtually consumed by it. I had a personal struggle with it. The internet made it an even bigger problem than before...Just Thank The Lord you’re not Male.
Billy graham said ‘inappropriate content rots the soul’ —
Movie ‘thanks for sharing’
Written inappropriate contentography has always been considered inappropriate contentography, such as James Joyce's "Ulysses."
That is but one example.
At what point do you define inappropriate content? Is it the hardcore magazines and other media, or does it include softcore things such as I discussed in my previous post?