"What I actually find interesting is that when people are trying to minimize what they themselves call a male sin, they usually try to claim that other sins that they term as female sins, are just as bad."
And the same is true, and has been demonstrated many times, in reverse (certainly both ways), right?
Oh wow. The irony is too much.
To respond to "some people try to minimize by pointing to other people's sins" with "other people do that too" is too much irony.
Is it on purpose?
I don't personally have any problem with people pointing out sin by either gender, I'm not saying it's wrong, even though it can seem like a broken record. If it's OK for one it's OK for the other. That is the point I tried to make. Did I seem to defend men's use of inappropriate content somehow or minimize it as sin?
Why is it that some people are so focused on getting others to understand the point they are trying to make that they spend little to no time trying to understand the points others are trying to make?
Your post to which I responded was doing exactly the thing that Romans was talking about: responding to "this is wrong" with "but other people do wrong too".
It's passing the buck, shifting the blame.
So where was the buck in the first place and where or with whom had the blame been originally placed? Wherever it was, would this excuse the sin or accountability of whoever put it there?
When your response to "some people try to shift blame and shouldn't" is MORE blame shifting, then you've MISSED THE POINT.
Romans, I had/have no intention of minimizing or maximizing sin by anyone or either gender (did I seem to be doing that?). I've never seen the point I made about women's fantasizing brought out, although it may have been. But I've seen the men's use of inappropriate content thing ground to powder, did I do anyone dirt in making the point that I did? Did I gossip?
"What I actually find interesting is that when people are trying to minimize what they themselves call a male sin, they usually try to claim that other sins that they term as female sins, are just as bad."
And the same is true, and has been demonstrated many times, in reverse (certainly both ways), right?
Going with the idea that SoS is arousing(even though I don't believe it is) for a second here consider this. If I'm reading you correctly the reason this isn't a problem is because it's a description of the physical aspect of Godly love between husband and wife. It's a description of good Godly sex.Yes......I don't want there to be a problem with reading explicit sex scenes in the context of real love, because that's what SOS is. As I have said several times.....other than that, I don't read romantic fiction or erotic fiction, so I have little knowledge as to what the content is. I know enough to make a distinction between genuine love and lust (sex minus genuine love), though.
You are correct.....that's the dividing line I draw in my mind. When it's in the context of a genuine loving relationship, I don't feel it's a distortion. It's important to me to keep the aspects of love genuine in my mind.Going with the idea that SoS is arousing(even though I don't believe it is) for a second here consider this. If I'm reading you correctly the reason this isn't a problem is because it's a description of the physical aspect of Godly love between husband and wife. It's a description of good Godly sex.
Ok so, how often are the explicit scenes in modern "romantic" fiction taking place in such a context? In the context of a loving or Godly marriage? I'd feel pretty safe in saying it's rather rare at best.
You are correct.....that's the dividing line I draw in my mind. When it's in the context of a genuine loving relationship, I don't feel it's a distortion. It's important to me to keep the aspects of love genuine in my mind.
This is from SOS....if this were about a couple that's dating.....personally, I don't have an issue with it (some may, as they don't believe in kissing prior to marriage). The thing is......it's not so much ABOUT the physical.....it's communicating the love and honor (and the physical is an outward expression of that). I can't answer you on "how often" because, as I have said before, I don't read too much fiction at all.
Then, I wouldn't categorize them as "romance"......I would toss those in the pile with "erotic". I believe those books could contribute to a distorted perception of love. We have to be alert to what our minds are set on. What we set our minds on is what shapes our perceptions....and that's foundational (IMO). I do believe there're progressions though....but, it all begins with that foundation.In every scene from a modern so called "romance" novel that I've ever seen, it's entirely about the physical for it's own sake.Or it's about forbidden sex between people who aren't married. Hence my statement that there's little difference between erotic fiction and modern romantic fiction.
Depends on how you define love. Some people think love is what happened in the Summer of 68. Some people think using women as a sex toy is love.All love is Godly. God is love. Love is from God.
I would take this even further and say that love as spoken of the the Bible is more often talking about the decision or an action than it is about the feeling, which is in reality a response to the action of love.Depends on how you define love. Some people think love is what happened in the Summer of 68. Some people think using women as a sex toy is love.
Some people say "I just love Julia Roberts". Meaning some degree of idolatry.
Love, the emotion, is not necessarily of God. Love, the decision to sacrifice for others, is Godly.
That's the thing, though......lot's of people use the term "love" for love's cheap counterfeits. It would be "sin" to be "off the mark" of God's perfect love.....but, iniquity to be acting in a perverse and cruel way towards another person and call that "love".Depends on how you define love. Some people think love is what happened in the Summer of 68. Some people think using women as a sex toy is love.
Some people say "I just love Julia Roberts". Meaning some degree of idolatry.
Love, the emotion, is not necessarily of God. Love, the decision to sacrifice for others, is Godly.
IMO the feeling, the emotion that we somewhat mistakenly call love is, in some respects, one of those cheap counterfits. It's not inherently a negative thing, but compared to the love we are commanded to, it is indeed shallow and fleeting.That's the thing, though......lot's of people use the term "love" for love's cheap counterfeits. It would be "sin" to be "off the mark" of God's perfect love.....but, iniquity to be acting in a perverse and cruel way towards another person and call that "love".
I guess that's our entire key to our journey.....to figure out what that love is, since it's the key to inheriting eternal life.Turning to the disciples, He said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, 24 for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.”
25 And a [l] lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? [m]How does it read to you?” 27 And he answered, “ You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”~Luke 10
The Nook free Friday book is a perfect example of romance (i.e. that romance is not erotica) - "A Time to Love" by Barbara Cameron - Kirk's mom. I won't be getting it. Even though it's free. Romance is yucky stuff.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?