Could inappropriate content be considered as adultery?

[RDKirk]

Who or what are people obeying when they watch professional or collegiate sports? Who or what governed their decision?

Exactly that, too.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I normally don't listen to Piper. But since the Greek teacher Bill Mounce, who I like, been saying good things about Piper, I have become more open to him. I might have been too judgemental because of something he has said that got me upset in the past.

I like some things Piper mentions, that was comforting to me. But you know I believe saved people can lose salvation, so that part I can't say I was in agreement with.

Thanks for sharing!

Yeah he's a reformed teacher, but he's not bad. I don't always agree with himself, probably few pastors I can say I do... lol. There's always a little something here or there I may dislike so I have learned to listen to all, and take away what is good and beneficial.

But that teaching for me really hit home... it's a good one even if your not in the reformed tradition.

 

[Sabertooth]

I suppose gay inappropriate content is not a type of adultery since it does not cause one to be unfaithful to a future spouse.

It is still being sexually unfaithful.
(Even if it wasn't, it is absurd to consider that to be a good alternative to adultery.)

 

[Sabertooth]

If we then watch inappropriate content every week are we not slaves to sin? So then we would not inherit the kingdom? I don't know if that's true, just asking the question.

At minimum, it will adversely effect your relationship with your spouse (if you have one) or your dating life (if you don't). It competes for a part of your heart & mind that should exclusively belong to them.

 

[Blade]

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?

Well be it a real person or made up.. its not someone we are married to and made or not they have no choice in what we are thinking huh. Just put Jesus in it.. right next to all of it. Meaning if we get stuck just put Jesus in the middle of it. This is what I believe praise GOD glory to Jesus

 

[bbbbbbb]

The sad fact of life today is that there are many who will never have the opportunity to be married, for a variety of reasons. The silver lining to that dark cloud, however, is that they will not need to worry about committing adultery.

 

[zoidar]

The sad fact of life today is that there are many who will never have the opportunity to be married, for a variety of reasons. The silver lining to that dark cloud, however, is that they will not need to worry about committing adultery.

... still, they could worry about commiting fornication.

 

[bbbbbbb]

... still, they could worry about commiting fornication.

Of course. The reality is that the vast majority of people are monosexual.

 

[Sabertooth]

The silver lining to that dark cloud, however, is that they will not need to worry about committing adultery.

All sex (excluding solo masturbation) apart from Edenic marriage is adultery.
Do you honestly believe (apart from repentance) that God will give you a pass on fornication, gay or straight, because you "never married...!?"

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality,

let each man have his own wife, and
let each woman have her own husband.​

3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows:

It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.​

For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 NKJV

 

[RDKirk]

Of course. The reality is that the vast majority of people are monosexual.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Otherwise, it makes no sense to refer to it in the context of this thread.

 

[Sabertooth]

It probably should be "idiosexual," if that word exists.

 

[bbbbbbb]

All sex (excluding solo masturbation) apart from Edenic marriage is adultery.
Do you honestly believe (apart from repentance) that God will give you a pass on fornication, gay or straight, because you "weren't married...!?"

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality,

let each man have his own wife, and
let each woman have her own husband.​

3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows:

It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.​

For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 NKJV

Hardly. There is probably not a mature adult who has not had a sexual thought or fantasy and, therefore, is under God's just condemnation. While we are on that topic, God's judgement will be meted out to all who engage in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That just about covers the entire human experience.

 

[RDKirk]

Hardly. There is probably not a mature adult who has not had a sexual thought or fantasy and, therefore, is under God's just condemnation. While we are on that topic, God's judgement will be meted out to all who engage in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That just about covers the entire human experience.

What the previous verse says is:

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.

The question is: Do you love the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life?

Now, let's look back at something Jesus said:

If you love me, keep my commands.

And Jesus also said:

No one can serve two masters.

So we get back to what I said earlier from Paul:

Your master is the one you obey.

If you love the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, you will obey them.

If you obey them, then they are your master.

If they are your master, then Christ is not.

 

[RDKirk]

Hardly. There is probably not a mature adult who has not had a sexual thought or fantasy and, therefore, is under God's just condemnation. While we are on that topic, God's judgement will be meted out to all who engage in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That just about covers the entire human experience.

I'd also point out that the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life correspond to the three temptations of Satan upon Jesus in the wilderness.

 

[TheWhat?]

This is an extremely difficult issue. inappropriate content is dangerous (I think this would be a good starting point), and it's dangerous in part because it's so difficult to conceptualize exactly what the sin is. I had the unfortunate luck of being introduced to it as a child, and growing up in today's culture, it has been an ongoing issue from time to time. Speaking from experience, with most sins, a simple examination of conscience, a reading of the law, etc, has been more than sufficient to work an inner, heart-felt repentance, but desire for sexual intimacy does not fall into that category nearly as easily.

I've been on all sides of the issue, to the point of unintentionally rejecting heterosexuality and suffering consequences of that as well. Let me just say, after an in depth study of the scripture on the subject, when you walk into a debate with the simple question "is heterosexuality a sin?" and proponents of abstinence cannot say "no," something is wrong with that picture.

inappropriate content is dangerous. Don't reject heterosexuality.

 

[Sabertooth]

There is probably not a mature adult who has not had a sexual thought or fantasy and, therefore, is under God's just condemnation. While we are on that topic, God's judgement will be meted out to all who engage in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. That just about covers the entire human experience.

Did you miss the memo on repentance?
We only come "under God's just condemnation" if we refuse to repent (as often as we need to); that is, if we embrace sin.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Mm, we have to define first: what is inappropriate content? Is erotically explicit literature (just words) inappropriate content?

If so, then the OT book 'Song of songs' also is inappropriate content.

Some carefulness wouldn't hurt. Reading Song of songs implies delving into the erotic adventures of King Solomon with one of his many wives. Apparently that doesn't equate adultery, but at the same time it may be unwise to read that when sexuality can't be handled properly.

But if reading Song of songs is OK; it means that reading (with words) about the lawful valid sexual activity of another couple is not sinful. Would the same hold for seeing (images or video) the lawful valid sexual activity of another couple? I'm not so sure; the viewer getting aroused and desiring one of the depicted persons probably would relate to Jesus' statement.

But what if the viewer is only aroused by seeing the couple enjoy themselves without desiring those persons? It may be unwise or risky, but wouldn't necessarily qualify as 'adultery' in the sense Jesus uses it.

 

[TheWhat?]

Did you miss the memo on repentance?
We only come "under God's just condemnation" if we refuse to repent (as often as we need to); that is, if we embrace sin.

But, the fact is that grace is required for right repentance. Anything short of that earns nothing but more misery, pride, and a host of other problems. It's not easy to avoid "abandoning the natural use" of the opposite sex and finding right repentance. Frankly it's a catch-22.

let them marry

I agree. There aren't many left who preach this and sometimes I wonder how many are willing to embrace that command. That number is dwindling, and leading people into abandoning the natural use of the opposite sex does not seem to me to be the right reaction. Did I say it's a catch-22? I've been through it. inappropriate content is dangerous but condemning heterosexuality isn't the solution.

 

[Sabertooth]

If so, then the OT book 'Song of songs' also is inappropriate content.

You might want to rethink that.
Greek "inappropriate contente" = prostitute.

Minus its public, spiritual value, Song of Solomon is Sol & Shulamith's "sex tape" for personal use.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Mm, we have to define first: what is inappropriate content? Is erotically explicit literature (just words) inappropriate content?

If so, then the OT book 'Song of songs' also is inappropriate content.

Some carefulness wouldn't hurt. Reading Song of songs implies delving into the erotic adventures of King Solomon with one of his many wives. Apparently that doesn't equate adultery, but at the same time it may be unwise to read that when sexuality can't be handled properly.

But if reading Song of songs is OK; it means that reading (with words) about the lawful valid sexual activity of another couple is not sinful. Would the same hold for seeing (images or video) the lawful valid sexual activity of another couple? I'm not so sure; the viewer getting aroused and desiring one of the depicted persons probably would relate to Jesus' statement.

But what if the viewer is only aroused by seeing the couple enjoy themselves without desiring those persons? It may be unwise or risky, but wouldn't necessarily qualify as 'adultery' in the sense Jesus uses it.

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.