I have been discussing the current threads on porn with my H.

As I have stated, I have come from the position that I believe porn is wrong (sin) because I interpret the words of Jesus when He clearly says: "If a man looks upon another woman with lust, he is committing adultery with her in his heart", as an illustration of pornography.

I have always personally hated it when people say something is wrong, or sin, without giving me the reasons or Biblical basis. It's never been enough for me to have some one quote a couple scriptures at me and call it good. If it is wrong, I want to know why.

I need to "see" it, and get the concept. Someone challenged me that the Bible was "silent" on pornography and I decided to meet the challenge and find it in more detail then the one scripture
I usually quote.

I want to thank this person for the challenge because it gave me cause to search a little deeper.

God is the ultimate parent. I trust that He has a good reason for His commandments. I feel that all of God's commands have some sort of
beneficial reason to his creation. I do not see God as this big killjoy up in heaven with the proverbial big stick to whomp us every time
someone in his creation God forbid, has fun .. or the big "O". <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

My stance as a Christian was that porn was somehow taking away from the marriage.(or future marriage) I described it as something that took away the affections of one or both the spouses.

My contribution to this discussion is a mini word study that my dear hubby did on the word "porn". He was looking for a scriptural basis (Bible
facts, if you will).

Here is the word study that he came up with ... (all references to the Zondervan Bible Dictionary)

*I do apologize for having to use the "whore" word. I really don't like to use that word, but sorry, it's the literal translation.*

Pornography: the study of porn

Porne: translated from Greek to English means “whore”.

Whore: a woman who habitually commits fornication and adultery, especially for money.

Adultery and idolatry are virtually interchangeable in meaning: both mean that affections have been transferred from one person to another. In the case of adultery, it is the spouse that is deserted, and in the case of idolatry, God is deserted.

The Old Testament, in reference to Israel and Judah, refers to their idolatry as unfaithfulness and adultery. See Jeremiah 3: 8,9; Ezekiel 23:37,45; Ezekiel 16:38; Hosea 4:13,14. And there are many others.


The connection is this:


A/ fornication is SIN in the Bible (unmarried sex)


B/ adultery is SIN in the Bible

C/ idolatry is SIN in the Bible


Those three sins are at the heart of pornography.


From the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: “WHORE (Heb.”zanah”, Gr. “porne”) a woman who habitually commits adultery or fornication, especially for hire; a prostitute, harlot. It is noteworthy that in a very large portion of cases, the word is used for idolatry. The two words “adultery” and “idolatry” can be identically defined as “taking the love which belongs to one and giving it to another”.”

*Disclaimer*: the word “woman” can be replaced with “man”. Many Old Testament temple prostitutes in the Canaanite idolatries were men.

DZZZ

<small>[ November 21, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Diamonzzz ]</small>

DZZZ ---

Isn't anything that becomes more important that GOD - Idolatry? And if SEX is THE primary concern in the marriage, rather than the mutual relationship with God - I believe SEX itself can become idolatry.

It is my personal belief that this is one of the primary issues on the board right now. Sex has become more important than it should be - even outside a *Christian* Context. I believe it has become a #1 Priority - which is far more than just a #1 Emotional Need. When we put it in a priority context - we are removing it from the context of 'emotional' and making it an idol unto ourselves.

Just my opinion - but I thought it worthy of sharing.

Jan

Exactly Jan... I totally agree!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Wild at Heart" by John Etheridge has a lot to say on this topic...

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

DZZZ

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Thanks Dzzz --- I didn't think I was too far off <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Sometimes I wonder if I missed a point along the way - but on this topic I feel very strongly that I'm ON TARGET!

I just wish we could get through to others how important it is to have good solid priorities and then the EN's fall into their proper place.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Jan

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=001690#000002

Jan go here...... I posted this same thing on the Prayer request board and was asked a question about masturbation ...

Both my H and I have put our thoughts on it here and I really need others to enter the mix because it's really a topic that many Christians differ on.

I don't know if there IS a thus and so on this topic.

If you would be so kind to read it and if you have anything to say, it would be much appreciated.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

DZZZ

Posted THERE.

Dzzz...I have a small issue with the definition of pornography as it relates to the Greek.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Pornography: the study of porn
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Porne--harlot, whore.

Graph--to write.

So, pornography is writing about whores? LOL.

Anyway, Pornology would be "study of whores" or I think so. LOGOS=the word, and is the root for logic. Pornography is the "printing of" whores.

Otherwise, excellent.

I'm a little <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="images/icons/blush.gif" /> because I used to work for Zondervan in the bookstore.

Petals

And oops. This too. I'm not picking on you, really. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="images/icons/blush.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Wild at Heart" by John Etheridge </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Eldredge. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="images/icons/blush.gif" />

Shutting up.

Petals

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It is too bad that some are intent on spoiling the fun of others.

Quipper
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If I said to my H, "You are not a man. There is nothing you can do to satisfy me. I'd rather get my initial satisfaction from reading about millionaires and sportsmen and seeing them greasy with money or sweat, then get my beat off on you.

You're such a prude for not letting me read about rich bachelors and compare them to you, or letting me watch the neighbor mow the lawn.

I heard older men make better lovers because they appreciate younger women, generally have more money, and are more laid back about life. They are more sensitive. Why can't you be like that? That's a real man."

I would be roasted crispy.

It's too bad that others are so insensitive to others weaknesses and even seek to hurt them there. I do not immasculate my H, and I hope he will never defeminize me.

Petals

<small>[ November 22, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Zuzus_Petals ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> and an early step in the process of adultery, is looking with lust </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No Quipper it is not an EARLY step, it is what Jesus clearly said: "If a man looks upon a woman with lust he has already committed adultery with her in his heart", Matt. 5:32 THE point at which adultery takes place.

That's the severity of it.

Here is my understanding of why the Lord made such a bold statement. He was trying to show us where adultery starts. It clearly has its start in the mind.

Many Pharisees and Sadducees in those days were big on looking good and acting good and went to great lengths to appear "holy" and righteous but their hearts and minds were far from being concerned with pleasing God. They were only interested in doing the minimum it took to win favor with man, they didn't care diddly if they pleased God.

Jesus called them on their heart attitudes time and time again.

We are NO different today. "We" continually stomp on God's commandants looking for loopholes and ways to justify our bad behaviors. And we ALL do it. There is not one on this site that can claim he or she has never sinned.

But to continue and to even advocate it is a totally different thing.

It is one thing to not have an opinion about porn in a scriptural way, simply because one has not thought about it in those terms. It is quite another that someone would take a scripture that Christ said and try to distort it to accommodate their behaviors and try to teach others to do the same.

DZZZ

PETALS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Porne--harlot, whore.

Graph--to write.

So, pornography is writing about whores? LOL. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, you are absolutely right - I wrote that piece, btw. I didn't want to word it quite that way, but yes, you are right.
You are also right about the spelling of the author's name from "Wild at Heart".........
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
OHIT

PETALS
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I would be roasted crispy. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You mean like McCain Crispy Fries? Or Chicken?

OHIT

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

<small>[ November 22, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: OkHonI'llTry ]</small>

Dear DZZZ, (Reader Advisory: Contains explicit ideas)

We differ on two key points about Mathew 5:28. The meaning of "intent to commit adultery," to me, means an intent to penetrate. To you, it means both an intent to penetrate, and oggling. Oggling is looking with intense interest and fascination, but not with an intent to penetrate. A sculptor may well intend for his rendition of a nude figure, or partially nude figure, to be so seductively beautiful, that people will stop and stare at the statue with intense interst, or oggle.

You seem to feel that "to look at a particular woman with an intent to commit adultery" includes looking at pictures and drawings of women. I do not find that wider translation of the word GUNE, "woman" to include pictures or drawings or images or statues of women.

Biblical scholars agree the Bible is silent on pornography.

Clergy of churches need to keep their jobs with the congregation, and fill the church coffers. Some clergy are looking for promotions within the church. Many clergy blur the lines between what is actually in the Bible, and what is a religious principle of their congregations or their denomination. Many clergy do not encourage paritioners to read or study the Bible.

Certainly you are free to extend the concepts in the Bible to your personal religious principles. I ask that you be clear in your advice to people seeking ideas on the MB board; that you not overstate a principle as a Biblical principle, when it is actually a religious principle. Do you feel that Jesus was intending to apply the Mosaic Law penalty of stoning to death, to individuals who looked at a particular woman with lust?

Quipper
Husband of 28 years, raised 2 challenging kids, still struggling

Clergy of churches need to keep their jobs with the congregation, and fill the church coffers. Some clergy are looking for promotions within the church.

I think this is a BAAAAD case of "the pot calling the kettle black." I think Quipper has ulterior motives.

Certainly you are free to extend the concepts in the Bible to your personal religious principles.

So are you or are you NOT a Christian? That is the question.

You still haven't answered my questions about cars and monopolies and computers.

Certainly you are free to include or exclude anything from a definition. A woman is a woman whether in a photo or in life. Someone already gave the definition of lus.

Here it is again:

1 : obsolete : a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS

So, do you gain pleasure or delight from pornography? Do wishes occur to you while ogling? Do you burn with unbridled desire during its use? (You've already admitted this by saying that your climaxes are more intense.) Does it meet an intense longing or craving? Does it draw out your enthusiasm or eagerness? It's obvious to me it does, or you would not defend it with such passion.


And as the transitive verb:

: to have an intense desire or need : CRAVE; specifically : to have a sexual urge

Hmm...that sounds a LOT like what pornography does. It provides women for men's lust. Sounds like a consumable product. Huh. Must be why they sell new copies over and over. Ms. January. Ms. Feb. A new flavor of the day, week or month. Wretched throw aways.

Oh, I see nothing in there pertaining to "penetration."

I ask that you be clear in your advice to people seeking ideas on the MB board; that you not overstate a principle as a Biblical principle, when it is actually a religious principle.

The Biblical principle is not to look at a woman to lust after her. Pornography allows you to lust after another woman, revving your engine, and then turning it on your wife. It's not the same as lusting after your wife to revve your engine and making love to her. If this was true, you would not need porn.

Do you feel that Jesus was intending to apply the Mosaic Law penalty of stoning to death, to individuals who looked at a particular woman with lust?

Quipper

Some would contend that Jesus didn't issue that law. I happen to believe that He was present from the creation of the world.

Why don't you be clear and provide a reference, since I'm sure few of us have memorized the entire Bible.

You know, if you have said no you're not a Christian. I have to wonder why you are quoting scripture and challenging and trying to divide the Word. All I can think of is that you are a subversive.

Is it your goal to undermine the Bible, with particular aim at the verses on sexuality? Or is it your aim to undermine the boundaries that many have put up to protect themselves, their marriages and their children?

You do not know how to argue properly though, or you would answer the questions asked of you. You skirt issues, you try to get us to chase red herrings. You reply only to certain people. Why is that?

Petals

Dear Petals, (Reader Caution: Contains explicit ideas.)

The issue I am addressing is the assertion that the Bible cautions about pronography. Certainly the Bible cautions about adultery.

I believe that it is an extension of the Biblical principles to create a religious principle to caution against pornography.

Protecting children from pornography is largely a matter of local and state laws and local government and good ethical sense.

There are many versions of Chritianity. Why is it important for you to categorize me? One version of Christianity I am somewhat familiar with, says, that if it is not in the Bible, it is not Christian. Most other Christian faiths mix in religious principles as if they were Biblical. I find that false and offensive.

Jesus was accused of speaking against the Mosaic Law, because he preached forgiveness. A lady was brought before Jesus, with witnesses providing evidence of her guilt of adultery. When asked if the woman should be stoned to death, as required by Mosaic Law of the old Testament, Leviticus, as I recall, Jesus replied, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus released the ladywith the admonition, "Go, and Sin no more." Jesus was frequently questioned about upholding the Mosaic law, becasue the teachings of forgiveness by Jesus were in apparent divergence from The Old Testament.

Blessings,

Quipper
Husband of 28 years, raised 2 chalenging kids, still struggling

He didn't tell the woman to continue as she had been - he told her to "Go and SIN no more"....

He just didn't condone stoning here.

You are mixing up principles here that are basic truths and calling them something ELSE. Quipper, if you don't want to be catagorized, and refuted - then post the truth.

Your posting style still stinks.

You manipulate even the bible to say what you want it to --- it doesn't work that way.

Jan

The issue I am addressing is the assertion that the Bible cautions about pronography.

Correction, the Bible cautions against lust (craving, intense desire, etc and NOT your definition "intent to penetrate" which is something else) and idolatry. The Bible says, "I will be ruled by nothing."

I believe that it is an extension of the Biblical principles to create a religious principle to caution against pornography.

I believe this is a diversionary tactic to sweet-talk yourself into a believer's or even God's favor.

Protecting children from pornography is largely a matter of local and state laws and local government and good ethical sense.

Not to mention moral.

There are many versions of Chritianity. Why is it important for you to categorize me?

Actually, there is only ONE way. I want you to categorize yourself. "Choose you this day, whom you will serve." "A house divided against itself cannot stand." "No one can serve two masters."

Answer my other questions, please.

Petals

Dear Zuzus Petals,

I am looking for your ideas, and information. If you wish to extend suportive comments to me that would be nice. But I don't seek your favor. I do not seek to influence whatever opinion you wish to form of me personally. I try to stick to the issues, and be as suportive and respectful as I can be of other posters who have divergent views from mine.

Blessings

Quipper
Husband of 28 years, raised 2 challenging kids, still struggling

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Quipper:
<strong> Dear Petals, (Reader Caution: Contains explicit ideas.)

The issue I am addressing is the assertion that the Bible cautions about pronography. Certainly the Bible cautions about adultery.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Many times we read in scripture the term stumbling block, and I think what we have her is a stumbling block. If we allow Quipper the point that pornography does not affect him or his wife, (and who are we to judge that statement) that still does not affect how Christians are taught to behave. Basically we are taught not to be stumbling blocks to others.

So while something may be ok for us to engage in without negative consequences, our brothers and sisters in Christ may not be able to partake.

We see this in terms of food in 1 Corinthians 8:8-10

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think I can safely say that pornography, like food, does not bring us near to God.

There are other places where the term stumbling block is used in the New Testament

2 Corinthians 6:2-4 or perhaps Matthew 16:22-24 as well as a few in the Old Testament especially in Ezekiel 14:1-9


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>

I believe that it is an extension of the Biblical principles to create a religious principle to caution against pornography.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is it? Or is it just convenient to argue this for you point of view? I think the Bible is pretty clear about what we are to do if something may cause our brother to stumble, we are to NOT exercise that freedom.

I encourage everyone here to read Romans chapter 14 at the very least. It is an interesting read. Because, I could use it to "condemn" everyone here, those who are for and against pornography.

It's a tough position for me to reconcile but I think what it is saying is that if you are truly in God's will and God has told you that looking at pornography is ok for you, then it is not the job of the church to judge you.

However, note that all will give an accounting to God, so if you are one who says it's OK, but God hasn't stamped ok on your copy of that magazine, it really wasn't ok.

I cannot judge your relationship with God and what he is saying is ok for you to do. However, I'm pretty certain that God has mentioned to me on more than one occassion, that pornography is not ok for me.

I shouldn't condemn someone who uses it, much like someone who uses it should not condemn me or call me narrow minded for not using it.

That ultimately is something you have to reconcile with God.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>

Protecting children from pornography is largely a matter of local and state laws and local government and good ethical sense.

There are many versions of Chritianity. Why is it important for you to categorize me? One version of Christianity I am somewhat familiar with, says, that if it is not in the Bible, it is not Christian. Most other Christian faiths mix in religious principles as if they were Biblical. I find that false and offensive.

Jesus was accused of speaking against the Mosaic Law, because he preached forgiveness. A lady was brought before Jesus, with witnesses providing evidence of her guilt of adultery. When asked if the woman should be stoned to death, as required by Mosaic Law of the old Testament, Leviticus, as I recall, Jesus replied, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus released the ladywith the admonition, "Go, and Sin no more." Jesus was frequently questioned about upholding the Mosaic law, becasue the teachings of forgiveness by Jesus were in apparent divergence from The Old Testament.

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually, I don't think Jesus was teaching against the law of Moses. To use your style of argument, did he say don't stone the woman. No, infact he called for them to stone her, but only if they were without sin.

They were trying to trap Jesus in this situation, and Jesus held to the letter of the law, but provided an answer that convicted each of them, let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

So I don't think it is fair to say that Jesus was doing away with the old law and the old covenanent. It's not said by Jesus, but Romans chapter 3 does discuss the law and clearly states that they are NOT relased from Jewish law. See Romans 3:31, but we know that Jesus is the sacrifice for sin, just as under Old Testament law, there were blood sacrifices of a perfect, unblemished lamb, the crucifixion of Jesus was this very sacrifice. This is why he is often called the lamb of God. Because he served as a sacrifice for man's sins in accordance with Jewish Laws and traditions.

No, we are not released from the law, nor does Jesus say we are released from the law. It is just that the sacrifice has already been made.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>

Blessings,

Quipper
Husband of 28 years, raised 2 chalenging kids, still struggling </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">-jC