Could inappropriate content be considered as adultery?

[98cwitr]

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?

For a married man, I think it is a sin to be repented of. The gratification of the flesh apart from your wife, in a sexual manner, is a sin against her and God. For an unmarried man, I do believe it is still a sin of the flesh to be repented of. In either case, to bring it under the banner and definition of adultery, and thus make it justifiable for divorce may be valid, as Christ said the whoever even looked at another woman lustfully has committed adultery with her in his heart. If we take Christ seriously here, I have to vote yes.

 

[zoidar]

I'm thankful for the responses and all you who have voted. It shows that I'm right that it's a serious thing and not something to take lightly.

 

[98cwitr]

I'm thankful for the responses and all you who have voted. It shows that I'm right that it's a serious thing and not something to take lightly.

God made our brains a certain way...look up "your brain on inappropriate content" documentary on youtube (also the book by Gary Wilson). Boiled down, you're simply having sex with your computer.

 

[zoidar]

God made our brains a certain way...look up "your brain on inappropriate content" documentary on youtube.

Thanks, I'll do that!

 

[Will Joseph]

Matthew 5:28

inappropriate content is adultery.

An issue with any form of inappropriate content is that it aims to make profit from promoting sexual behavior. And this aim for profit is usually because sexual behavior is usually dangerous and harmful, especially with STIs or social conflict. It's rare to find any form of inappropriate content that isn't being sold, offered without advertisements, or not aiming to make some profit. But the consequences of inappropriate content, like STIs and social conflict, usually always outweigh any profit; and thus inappropriate content usually becomes a perpetual loss and obsession. The inappropriate content producers seeks to make his consumers obsessed with inappropriate content, in an attempt to recover from the perpetual loss.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Matthew 5:28

inappropriate content is adultery.

An issue with any form of inappropriate content is that it aims to make profit from promoting sexual behavior. And this aim for profit is usually because sexual behavior is usually dangerous and harmful, especially with STIs or social conflict. It's rare to find any form of inappropriate content that isn't being sold, offered without advertisements, or not aiming to make some profit. But the consequences of inappropriate content, like STIs and social conflict, usually always outweigh any profit; and thus inappropriate content usually becomes a perpetual loss and obsession. The inappropriate content producers seeks to make his consumers obsessed with inappropriate content, in an attempt to recover from the perpetual loss.

One can easily find all the inappropriate content one wishes to see on the internet for absolutely free. Although the lucrative inappropriate content industry is hardly a non-profit entity, there are plenty of venues which are financially free. The same is true with any entertainment. One can find free music, movies, television etc. with the only cost being that of having an electronic device, connection to the internet, and electric bill payments.

If profit was the only aspect that makes inappropriate content adultery, then one could level the same charge against any form of entertainment. inappropriate content is closely related to adultery for the simple reason that Jesus equated the mental state to sin. He did not include profit motivation by the provider. When David sinned by gazing on Bathsheba nobody profited.

 

[TheWhat?]

In light of recent news regarding Playboy magazine, I think I'll just leave this here.

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.

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.



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.

I'm going to be frank about this because there aren't enough people really talking about this.



This honestly is the teaching that probably did some of the most harm in my life. We have to be very clear by what we mean by "sinful lust." Yes there is a "lust" that is sin, but there are multiple sources to draw from. From my childhood, I followed the teaching of the Decalogue on this, and that was fine. I had a clear heart-felt distinction of when it was actually wrong for me to have too much desire for certain women. And that was fine, for the most part, among christians.

But then the internet happened. Gay rights happened. inappropriate content exploded. Abuse scandals erupted. #MeToo happened. And christians became very, very angry. Suddenly, somehow, it practically became "unlawful" in the hearts and minds of lots of pastors, authors, and in general opinion to be a heterosexual male. I do think some pre-existing schools of thought found that to be a favorable environment and flourished, but it's beside the point.

So eventually, I caved to the fear and the pressure. But considering the sex drive sans castration to be a sin in and of itself doesn't solve problems, it creates them. The libido in my experience, being disconnected from my former spirituality, which worked, was transformed into something like a chicken with its head cut off -- wild, uncontrollable and undirected. That of course only adds fuel to the fire. You can't talk to people about it, they'll accuse you of sin, and add to your problems.

Regardless, it wasn't until a particular woman entered into my life when I had somewhat managed a kind of psychological castration, that I had to confess in prayer that I had heterosexual feelings for this single and attractive woman.

I think that made God angry actually, but in a good way. I was given a sudden powerful dose, supernaturally from my perspective, of divine love, lifting me out of my darkened state, and showing me that love is very much like a man of war, fighting for his wife (that's straight from scripture btw).

I feel for anyone caught in this scenario. I know how difficult the odds are that are stacked against you.

Bear in mind, Playboy magazine made headlines a few years back when it changed its content to exclude nudity. As that applies to my points, when we shame people for inappropriate content use we can shame them for heterosexuality, and I think the result that Playboy is putting on display speaks for itself.

It is a longstanding traditional belief that God created heterosexuality. If you read scripture carefully, you should note that it does not shame us for it. That, however, is not enough for people who would prefer to flip out and go crazy.

inappropriate content is a serious crisis that former generations never faced to the degree we have. We need people with real god-given wisdom to solve this problem. Unfortunately I don't think those people would be accepted by the irate, insane ones, so, sadly, this might be the time to simply abandon a sinking ship.

I say this with an unavoidable awareness that being right can be both a gift and a curse.

 

[RDKirk]

I say this with an unavoidable awareness that being right can be both a gift and a curse.

"It is always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." Robert A. Heinlein

 

[The Liturgist]

"It is always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." Robert A. Heinlein

I agree with your posts, but it amuses me to see someone quote Robert A. Heinlein in an argument on Christian sexual morality, given his authorship of such perverse works as Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough For Love, etc. Actually Heinlein developed an obsession with sexual deviancy that resulted in a dramatic deterioration of the quality of his work, to the extent that noted Canadian SF critic John Clute wrote in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which he co-edited with the late British critic Peter Norman) “The Father of Science Fiction had abandoned his children.”

 

[RDKirk]

I agree with your posts, but it amuses me to see someone quote Robert A. Heinlein in an argument on Christian sexual morality, given his authorship of such perverse works as Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough For Love, etc. Actually Heinlein developed an obsession with sexual deviancy that resulted in a dramatic deterioration of the quality of his work, to the extent that noted Canadian SF critic John Clute wrote in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which he co-edited with the late British critic Peter Norman) “The Father of Science Fiction had abandoned his children.”

I attribute that to the severe stroke he suffered in the mid 60s that left him unable to write for some time. His writing changed dramatically after that.

But he leave behind some good quotes. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

 

[The Liturgist]

I attribute that to the severe stroke he suffered in the mid 60s that left him unable to write for some time. His writing changed dramatically after that.

But he leave behind some good quotes. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.

Actually, it was a blocked carotid artery which impacted him in 1977-1980. That said, Heinlein was a great science fiction author.

 

[Learning & Growing]

In light of recent news regarding Playboy magazine, I think I'll just leave this here.







Bear in mind, Playboy magazine made headlines a few years back when it changed its content to exclude nudity. As that applies to my points, when we shame people for inappropriate content use we can shame them for heterosexuality, and I think the result that Playboy is putting on display speaks for itself.

It is a longstanding traditional belief that God created heterosexuality. If you read scripture carefully, you should note that it does not shame us for it. That, however, is not enough for people who would prefer to flip out and go crazy.

inappropriate content is a serious crisis that former generations never faced to the degree we have. We need people with real god-given wisdom to solve this problem. Unfortunately I don't think those people would be accepted by the irate, insane ones, so, sadly, this might be the time to simply abandon a sinking ship.

I say this with an unavoidable awareness that being right can be both a gift and a curse.

You nailed it... (also, guys uhm uhm aren't the only ones that use inappropriate content sometimes).

 

[Tionbai]

Here's a good interview between a Christian apologist and an ex inappropriate content-star. He explains what it's like in the inappropriate content industry. It should give some perspective to how damaging it is.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

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?

is there really any question on this

 

[bbbbbbb]

is there really any question on this

Actually, yes. It is the same question that Jesus addressed concerning adultery. By definition, adultery is the committing of sexual intercourse between two people of whom at least one is married. There is no concept of anything other than the physical act. However, Jesus expanded the definition immensely by redefining it in terms of the mental process which precedes the physical act. Thus, any married person who is mentally attracted to another person of the opposite gender who is not their spouse is guilty of the physical act of adultery.

The U. S. Supreme Court has grappled with the definition of inappropriate contentography for decades. One hundred years ago when women wore floor-length dresses, if she showed even so much as her ankle that was considered to be inappropriate contentographic. I seriously doubt that you would consider that to be inappropriate contentographic.

 

[Psalm 27]

Somebody once said to me, 'how would one know that the person(s) they were lusting over in person or online, weren't married?

I thought, good point!

 

[Learning & Growing]

Somebody once said to me, 'how would one know that the person(s) they were lusting over in person or online, weren't married?

I thought, good point!

I feel bad about chuckling at this. I just hate that we get into splitting hairs and spending so much time on things that in my opinion seem a bit trivial when compared to the real issues of the heart. I mean I have a son (without betraying his privacy) who is at this age where masturbation and inappropriate content is like a daily "battle." I just don't want us to get so caught up in the technicalities that we don't dive deeper into the heart. My son loves God so much and it hurts me that he feels so burdened by his "sin." It breaks a mother's heart like only a mom can feel. Anyway, enough said. Sorry to ramble on about this...

 

[Psalm 27]

I feel bad about chuckling at this. I just hate that we get into splitting hairs and spending so much time on things that in my opinion seem a bit trivial when compared to the real issues of the heart. I mean I have a son (without betraying his privacy) who is at this age where masturbation and inappropriate content is like a daily "battle." I just don't want us to get so caught up in the technicalities that we don't dive deeper into the heart. My son loves God so much and it hurts me that he feels so burdened by his "sin." It breaks a mother's heart like only a mom can feel. Anyway, enough said. Sorry to ramble on about this...

Leaving a child with Internet and no parental controls is irresponsible

 

[bbbbbbb]

Leaving a child with Internet and no parental controls is irresponsible

There does come a point in every child's life when he or she reaches adulthood and normally leaves the nest. Traditionally, they would enter marriage and begin family life. in fact, in some cultures marriage occurs shortly after puberty, thus eliminating any serious interest in extramarital sex. We, however, live in a very prudish society where marriage is not encouraged until the 20's and intercourse is viewed as a recreational activity with childbearing being inconsequential, at best, or undesirable, at worst.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Actually, yes. It is the same question that Jesus addressed concerning adultery. By definition, adultery is the committing of sexual intercourse between two people of whom at least one is married. There is no concept of anything other than the physical act. However, Jesus expanded the definition immensely by redefining it in terms of the mental process which precedes the physical act. Thus, any married person who is mentally attracted to another person of the opposite gender who is not their spouse is guilty of the physical act of adultery.

This view on Jesus' words does not take into account that he is speaking to a society in which the Law of Moses allowed polygamy; and adultery was understood broadly to refer to a married having intercourse with someone not her husband. If a woman is not married, intercourse can never be called adultery - regardless of the status of the man. It's important we realise that, otherwise we introduce a lot of confusion.