Porn, the Bible Belt and the Sabbath

[olger]

Did you know that pornography addiction is considered Biblical grounds for divorce in most conservative denominations, including the Adventist Church?

You won't find this idea in the Bible, Cath. We will find that God hates divorce, and He loves changing lives through repentance and His holy spirit.

oG

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Maybe, but marriage is forever in God's eyes. Yes, if there is abuse then separation is need, but in God's mind marriage is forever. I didn't use the believe this, however it is the clear teaching of NT. [/quote']

Thank you Rob. This new invention of scripture is just a perversion. God does not give this excuse to anyone. Marriage is forever .... in the eyes of God.

Amen.

[Cosmin M.]

well at least the baby is in heaven now... with Jesus Christ...

Not quite....

[olger]

If only all those Christians who struggle with porn (or maybe don't struggle?) would recognise it as evidence that we're all sinners in need of a saviour who have no right to judge others.

Pornia is judged (condemned) by the Word of God already. "Let the wicked man forsake his way" (Isa 55:7).

ever og

[Key Guy]

Quote:

He thought it would be cool to go to a place where the women don't wear tops. He said that it soon came to him that it was no big deal. It became just a normal every day thing.

Funny thing: My mother and I just had a similar very short conversation over the holidays. In KW, although not topless, MANY women wear extremely low cut tops... lots of cleavage to be found here year-round. At first, it was hard not to look. It's become less of a big deal over the past 3+ years.

Here was my question to Mom: If guys can run around shirtless, with man-boobs bigger than some women and it's not a problem, why must women remain covered? Certainly I understand modesty in covering the family jewels and the gonadal areas. No problem. But are women to cover their chests just because they have the ability to nurse their young (the basic visible difference between the genders above the waist)?

Mother dismissed the question out of hand. She thought that was a question not worth discussing.

I know the stock answer is that it's a turn-on to guys to see a woman's bare chest. I guess I also wonder if a guys bare chest is a turn-on to women, yet it's permitted in our society.

Then there's the 'nursing in public' issue...

[olger]

So then, you're saying if a man is habitually unfaithful to his wife, having one affair or one night stand after another, never apologizes, but rather flaunts it in her face and tells her it's her fault because she's supposedly not good enough, she should just live with it?

I wouldn't.

That man has a enemy-induced stronghold. He needs to repent of his moral failures (yes failures) and the wife must resolve her bitterness in order for them to rebuild their marriage into one that is useful to God. I have seen this kind of victory & freedom happen (Steve Gallagher for one).

og out

[olger]

Regarding couples who use pornography, if I were a gambler, I'd be willing to bet everything I have that in almost every case, it was the husband who initiated its use. Women are NOT sexually aroused by visual images. I have read, enough to believe it is probably the norm, women writing in to advice columnists as how - her husband wants her to view porn with him, and she feels very uncomfortable, but he is being very persistent, and she feels she really has no choice if she wants to keep the peace in her home. It makes her feel dirty and violated, and she can hardly live with herself any more, but she doesn't dare say anything to him because she knows how it will go over, and does she really have to do this, to be a submissive wife like he says, etc., etc.

Women (and girls) feel personally violated at viewing pornography, unless they have been persistently desensitized. Which is something Hollywood and other media in our society are doing their very utmost to accomplish.

Amen, Gram. All very true.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

God didn't praise David while he was committing adultery. David spent days repenting in sackcloth and ashes. Several of his sons died because of his sin. And there was definitely a death penalty for adultery, check Leviticus.

David being a man after God's own heart was the result of his trust in God, in spite of the mistakes he made. Many other people committed adultery and did not do so well because they did not repent for their sins.

It's not like they were in a totally barbaric society with no concept of right or wrong.

God never referred to David as a "man after my own heart" after his sin with Bathsheba. Let the record show this.

og out

[Cosmin M.]

I guess I also wonder if a guys bare chest is a turn-on to women, yet it's permitted in our society.

Then there's the 'nursing in public' issue...

Hahahahahha.. It is probably a turn on for women when they see guys that are muscular. Also... girls have no worries even if they are turned on... guys do!

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I saw a statistic once that said most porno videos sold are purchased by couples - not singles. It isn't the dirty old man watching them in his basement. It is husband and wife trying to "spice up" their marriage. It (couples buying porn) came up in conversation once with a carpenter I worked with and he said told me that it was about time he and his wife updated their porn collection. I was in a Hispanic church once when the preacher specifically dealt with the sinfulness of couples watching porn together. Some men have become so numb they have to watch porn to get turned on. [/quote']

I read something not too long ago that said more and more women are buying porn. Don't know if they're mostly single or not.

It's 20% versus 80% for men Carol. The "liberated" female may feel justified in buying porn, and be fatally wrong. Experiments in morality are getting people killed. How much of pornograhy is acceptable? Zero.

There is something else people should know. Many people who produce "pornia" are involved in the occult. They pray over their "product" and ask the enemy to ENSLAVE anyone who looks upon it. He is happy to oblige. Over 65% of men who have pornography issues to resolve have an "enemy" attached to their heart in this area because of the above. Serious stuff, guys. Lives are being destroyed at an alarming rate. How much of pornograhy is acceptable? Zero.

If someone wishes to resolve their past (or present) in this area, freedom is available. There is hope.

og

[Woody]

Quote:

He thought it would be cool to go to a place where the women don't wear tops. He said that it soon came to him that it was no big deal. It became just a normal every day thing.

Funny thing: My mother and I just had a similar very short conversation over the holidays. In KW, although not topless, MANY women wear extremely low cut tops... lots of cleavage to be found here year-round. At first, it was hard not to look. It's become less of a big deal over the past 3+ years.

Here was my question to Mom: If guys can run around shirtless, with man-boobs bigger than some women and it's not a problem, why must women remain covered? Certainly I understand modesty in covering the family jewels and the gonadal areas. No problem. But are women to cover their chests just because they have the ability to nurse their young (the basic visible difference between the genders above the waist)?

Mother dismissed the question out of hand. She thought that was a question not worth discussing.

I know the stock answer is that it's a turn-on to guys to see a woman's bare chest. I guess I also wonder if a guys bare chest is a turn-on to women, yet it's permitted in our society.

Then there's the 'nursing in public' issue...

Interesting Guy. You know ... God made us nude. That has to count for something.

[Outta Here]

God made man with a countenance of light. It was not until man sinned that nakedness was revealed.

[melvin mccarty]

God made man with a countenance of light. It was not until man sinned that nakedness was revealed.

Scripture reference please......mel

[Dr. Shane]

The problem with pornography isn't so much the nudity as it is the revealing of the forbidden. That is why the Supreme Court has struggled with defining what pornography is. What porn is in one culture is not in another. That said, hard-core porn is what shows people actually engaging sexual acts. I think most everyone agrees that hard-core porn is porn. "Light" porn is showing or describing people in non-sexual acts with the purpose of being sexually provocative. Light porn doesn't even have to involve nudity. A poster of a girl dressed in a tight shirt with tight jeans that shows all her curves is a form of "light" porn.

Contrast this to medical textbooks and documentaries that show people completely nude. These would not be considered pornography by most people because they are not intended to be erotic.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Aubrey

God made man with a countenance of light. It was not until man sinned that nakedness was revealed.

Scripture reference please......mel

I would like to see that scripture also mel.

[Outta Here]

Originally Posted By: melvin mccarty

Scripture reference please......mel

I would like to see that scripture also mel.

Me too! I've looked and looked for this, but can't find it. Must be one of those things I learned in Sabbath school that I just never questioned.

Interesting study though--trying to find scriptural support. If you do a word study on naked and nakedness, you could learn a lot! Seems to me that the sin isn't in the nakedness itself, but rather in the sin that accompanies our lives. We (all of us) need Jesus to cover up our sinfulness. Any covering less than Jesus simply will not suffice.

In a way, anyone walking around without the covering of Jesus might as well be starring in his or her own pornography--desensitising everyone else in the process.

Sorry to have been so misleading.

[carolaa]

It seems like the Puritan background really brings on a lot of guilt. The more a person focuses on the sin, the more they feel guilty about it. I don't think that's healthy. Focus on Jesus. When you fail, acknowledge it, grieve it, and go back to focusing on Jesus. No need to beat yourself up over it. Move on. Maybe that's what the Europeans do, I don't know. In general, I just don't see them with mountains of guilt like so many here have.

[aldona]

Originally Posted By: melvin mccarty

Scripture reference please......mel

I would like to see that scripture also mel.

I remember a scripture...something about the man and his wife being "naked and not ashamed."

Too confronting for Mrs White and other Adventist pioneers living at a time when even pianos had their legs covered...hence elaborate stories about "robes of light" and other imaginary "coverings."

If you take the Bible at face value as it reads, nakedness was not evil or sinful (and hence did not have to be covered) until sin entered the world.

aldona

[GoLions]

It seems like the Puritan background really brings on a lot of guilt. The more a person focuses on the sin, the more they feel guilty about it. I don't think that's healthy. Focus on Jesus. When you fail, acknowledge it, grieve it, and go back to focusing on Jesus. No need to beat yourself up over it. Move on. Maybe that's what the Europeans do, I don't know. In general, I just don't see them with mountains of guilt like so many here have.

Is guilt a bad thing? I am assuming that the guilt comes from violating the law of God. The guilt is the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin. If we are convicted in our hearts of sin, what do we need? We are in need of a savior. Someone who can take the guilt the penalty and make us right again. Who might be able to do that for us? There is only one, Jesus Christ, the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. How does he do this? By grace, where sin abounded all the much more grace did abound. This is not cheap grace. Look at Jesus, see him on the cross, that is what your one sin did. If your one sin was the only sin ever done, if you were the only one who ever excepted the gift of grace. Jesus would have to die for you, and he would have done it too. Because he loves you that much. So do we keep sinning, so that grace may abound? God forbid. Is guilt a bad thing? No! It leads you to Jesus. In fact you can probably rejoice, praise and thank God that you have guilt. It means that you are well on your way home. Europeans, from what I hear, do not attend church. I also hear that they are in what is called a post-Christian society. That is they have moved on from religion. This sounds to me very much like grieving the Holy Spirit. That is ignoring the guilt, ignoring the need for a savior, ignoring Jesus and thus ignoring grace.

[Woody]

Thank you Aldona for setting the record straight. And we can't fault anyone for believing those fairy tales. It is easy to do.

But, what you have said is so true.

I am not so sure about the piano legs. I assume you were just making a point. Ha Ha

(Just two ha ha's this time this is a serious subject)

[olger]

It seems like the Puritan background really brings on a lot of guilt. The more a person focuses on the sin, the more they feel guilty about it. I don't think that's healthy. Focus on Jesus. When you fail, acknowledge it, grieve it, and go back to focusing on Jesus. No need to beat yourself up over it. Move on. Maybe that's what the Europeans do, I don't know. In general, I just don't see them with mountains of guilt like so many here have.

The only way to be free from your conscience is to kill it..

og

[carolaa]

Dwelling on guilt is a bad thing.

[carolaa]

Yes, thank God we have a conscience.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

It seems like the Puritan background really brings on a lot of guilt. The more a person focuses on the sin, the more they feel guilty about it. I don't think that's healthy. Focus on Jesus. When you fail, acknowledge it, grieve it, and go back to focusing on Jesus. No need to beat yourself up over it. Move on. Maybe that's what the Europeans do, I don't know. In general, I just don't see them with mountains of guilt like so many here have.

The only way to be free from your conscience is to kill it..

og

Party Pooper ...

[GreatLakesGramma]

OK Shane, I guess it's a good thing I am not a gambler, isn't it? If what you say is true, and I know you would never make anything up just to make a point, then I guess society has gotten much, much worse than I imagined since the last time I checked. I thought I was doing pretty good at keeping up with things, but I've realized, since reading your post and thinking about it for awhile, that while I have been looking into and learning about many social, moral, and political issues all along, I have paid little to no attention to what is in the entertainment media. And this is no accident.

I haven't watched TV in almost 30 years. It's been even longer since I went to the movies, though now that there are lots of Christian movies being made, I do watch some at home, and even a few secular movies with themes I feel are worthwhile to focus on. I haven't read any women's magazines except Womans Day and Family Circle in even longer than that. And romance novels - it was reading what Sister White wrote about novels, back when I first became an Adventist, that brought me to the decision to burn almost all of my books and quit watching TV and movies. Because they're all the same in my book. Some romance novels back then were much worse than anything that would ever make it on TV at that time. TV is worse now, but I doubt the novels are. There are just more of the worse ones.

I have avoided all of these things because I know the effect they had on me, and I do not want to lead my mind back in that direction again, ever. It's bad enough that all the stuff I put in there through my earlier years is still there, and that the devil likes to pull it up and shove it into my face, sometimes at the very time when I am praying or taking other steps to draw near to God. I know just what GoLion means about what is in his mind. And I realize that I really don't WANT to know how bad society has actually become, because it would be way too depressing.

I can also see by other posts you've written, Shane, that your definition of porn is different what I had in mind when writing my posts. I was thinking only of open, graphic depiction of sexual acts of all kinds, the hard core type. That would leave out many of the things you've mentioned. But I do agree that those things are pornography too.

Everything I've said about woman and pornography was in the context of visual hard core pornography. I've read some pretty bad things in the past, but not even at my lowest would I have felt comfortable at actually seeing hard core pornographic pictures or videos. Romance novels certainly do lead in that direction, and I feel they are the equivalent to women of visual porn to men. I feel certain that those women who enjoy visual porn must have a history of reading more and more graphic romance novels, along with popular movies and TV. The media is doing everything it possibly can to degrade and desensitize everyone, and to condition us to accept worse and worse things.