The Bible and Risqué Films

Thomas, yes detachment is part of most religious paths. Ascesis no. Ascesis is so much more than detachment.

Ascesis definition:
the practice of severe self-discipline, typically for religious reasons.

Ascesis is not a component of most people's view of their religious faith. Either that or just about everyone is failing miserably at it. I'm not seeing much severe self-discipline out in the world.

p.s. For the record, I never got what was funny about Benny Hill. Monty Python, now they were a stitch!
 
Gordian Knot said:
Thomas, yes detachment is part of most religious paths. Ascesis no. Ascesis is so much more than detachment.
Click to expand...
Hmm ... that could be grounds for a discussion ... not to argue, but Eckhart held detachment to me the prince of virtues, and through detachment ascesis ceases to be a 'burden' or necessarily 'severe'.

Ascesis means 'training'. It covers a whole gamut of exercises from the austere to the mild, but I agree in the West it's falling into disfavour (and detachment moreso), but then that's the egocentricity of the West for you. The Orthodox faiths are much tougher than the Roman Catholic in that regard.

Gordian Knot said:
I'm not seeing much severe self-discipline out in the world.
Click to expand...
Well that's the last thing those running the show in the west want people to exercise! It's counter-consumerism, which is bad news for the politico-eco structures as they stand at the moment.

Gordian Knot said:
p.s. For the record, I never got what was funny about Benny Hill. Monty Python, now they were a stitch!
Click to expand...
Sadly, I'm a bit of a comedy slut, and will watch anything that purports to be funny, but yes, Python just knocked everything into touch.

Spike Milligan was 'the guvnor' for me.
 
Oh yes! "Chef" is one of my favorites. They use to air it on PBS around here. Lenny Henry is the best. Rowan Atkins is another of my favs. Our PBS affiliate is currently airing "Black Adder" I enjoy that too, but not as much as his, "Mr. Bean"
 
'Kay, since I'm kinda responsible for getting this train off the track - from the OP:

Matthew 5:28 as found in the KJV of the Bible: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Do you think this passage applies to risqué films?

Seems to me that ol' Matt is being pretty clear here. No matter in what medium be it risque films or a woman in a grocery store, if one is having lustful thoughts Matt believes it is adultery. So the point isn't the intent of the woman, or the film, it is the intent in the guy's head.

Which also means that if one is looking at risque films as comedy and nothing more, it should not be considered adultery.

It is all in the intent of the observer.
 
Gordian Knot said:
'Kay, since I'm kinda responsible for getting this train off the track - from the OP:

Matthew 5:28 as found in the KJV of the Bible: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Do you think this passage applies to risqué films?

Seems to me that ol' Matt is being pretty clear here. No matter in what medium be it risque films or a woman in a grocery store, if one is having lustful thoughts Matt believes it is adultery. So the point isn't the intent of the woman, or the film, it is the intent in the guy's head.

Which also means that if one is looking at risque films as comedy and nothing more, it should not be considered adultery.

It is all in the intent of the observer.
Click to expand...
I am 110% in agreement. Well said and thank you!
 
There are other Christian interpretations of Matthew that I have found on the internet. Sorry I don't have the sources handy. I know: not always the most reliable source but the authors sounded reasonably well informed to me.

One said to interpret the word "look" as "leer." So I would think that means that it's not adultery to be aroused by a woman who is not your wife. It's just being normal. However, if you stare at her or shout out catcalls, it fits Matthew's definition of adultery.

Another interpretation is based on intent. If you're aroused and intend to do something about it, it's adultery. Otherwise you get a pass. I'm not sure how it's seen if you intend but don't follow through.

I'll try to find the sources if anyone is interested in discussing.
 
Marcialou said:
I'm not sure how it's seen if you intend but don't follow through.
Click to expand...
Of course physical assault is by far the worse, but to regard another as the object of a concupiscent fantasy is no less an offence against the dignity of that person.

It's a question of cause and effect.
 
Marcialou said:
There are other Christian interpretations of Matthew that I have found on the internet. Sorry I don't have the sources handy. I know: not always the most reliable source but the authors sounded reasonably well informed to me.

One said to interpret the word "look" as "leer." So I would think that means that it's not adultery to be aroused by a woman who is not your wife. It's just being normal. However, if you stare at her or shout out catcalls, it fits Matthew's definition of adultery.

Another interpretation is based on intent. If you're aroused and intend to do something about it, it's adultery. Otherwise you get a pass. I'm not sure how it's seen if you intend but don't follow through.

I'll try to find the sources if anyone is interested in discussing.
Click to expand...

The intent of many Biblical passages has indeed been lost in translation, but I'd say yours is very reasonable and rational assessment.
 

Up until the 19th century, one of the primary (if not the primary) uses for spice in the preparation and cooking of food, was to mask the taste or odor of food which was just beginning to rot, i.e. just starting to go bad.

In the present day, most people enjoy spice in their food.
Should we condemn the spicing of food today just because once upon a time . . . spice had been used to disguise (borderline) unhealthy food?

Should we condemn the risqué in this day and age - utilized as something to spice-up a healthy sex-life - just because use of the risqué as an esthetic and/or comedic technique may have masked borderline sexism (unhealthy sexual attitudes) during an earlier era?

This would be like outlawing nuance in language.
Demanding that all speech and all writing be semantically literal entirely . . .
Just because language is a social/public discourse. Which should not corrupt or try to exploit people by introduction of secondary/secretive meanings.
Everything "politically correct." No psychological meanings. No hidden suggestions.

Even if you could enforce this kind of literalism (in mass-media or language - nothing risqué, nothing nuanced), this is communism/totalitarianism . . . not Christianity. (Not Jesus.)
This is George Orwell's 1984.

Jane.

 
Marcialou said "Another interpretation is based on intent. If you're aroused and intend to do something about it, it's adultery. Otherwise you get a pass. I'm not sure how it's seen if you intend but don't follow through."

Agreed. I commented on thought versus action somewhere earlier in this thread, I believe. My personal opinion is that, on the whole thoughts are not immoral. Actions are immoral. So if a married person was having lustful thoughts about that babe two carts away at the grocery store, I do not believe there is anything wrong with that.

If the person acted on those thoughts though, that would be wrong. It is my strong belief that it is the action that is immoral, not the thought.

But, again, that is my personal belief. It is most certainly not what Matthew was saying. According to Matthew the thought is as immoral as the act.

But there is another But. As Thomas rightly points out it can be an issue of cause and effect. Thoughts can become malicious when taken to an extreme. Thoughts are energy and thoughts do move out away from the body in waves of energy. Casual thoughts have no harm, and thus my opinion that thoughts themselves are not immoral as I stated above.

Thoughts that become fixated and focused can be damaging to another person. This though is an entirely separate subject from what we are talking about in this thread.
 
Jane-Q said "Should we condemn the risqué in this day and age - utilized as something to spice-up a healthy sex-life..."

No I would not condemn it in that regard. The important part of the sentence is 'a healthy sex-life'. Which brings me back to my earlier comment that I do believe it is in the intent of the observer whether a thought would be considered by Matthew as immoral or not.
 
The verse is from the Christian Scripture; undoubtedly this is a Christian matter. While I grant some opinions holding a legitimate practical application in the worldly world we live in — therefore some validity from that aspect — religious tenets are not about aiding in practicality in this imperfect world, they are about aiding one’s pursuit of spiritual purity to be received in the next perfect world. I would say exerting oneself to forgo fleshly pleasure is one of the bounden duties for a serious enlightenment seeker.

>> It is all in the intent of the observer.

True. However, I'd have to say it is utterly naive to think "everyone" watches such films only as a comedy and they won't ever contribute to encouraging lustful thoughts in "anyone". Therefore it is advisable for a Christian not to participate in such a production or to be profited from. This is my opinion as a Christian.
 

Hi Marcialou.

There are other Christian interpretations of Matthew that I have found on the internet.​

Actually, I think Matthew meant what he meant. It's crystal clear.
Except that Matthew is not quoting Jesus . . . Matthew is quoting Matthew.

A little theological history, here:

Under the old patriarchal Jewish Monotheism of Leviticus . . .
If you don't do the deed, you haven't committed the sin.
We are talking social (i.e. material) facts, here. Not psychological (i.e. immaterial) figments.

Jesus is severely against the Pharisaic practice of inventing New Laws to follow.
To him, the old ones are good enough. Particularly two (Holiness and Mercy, i.e. "to love God" & "to love one's neighbor").
Matthew (like Jesus) likewise opposes these Pharisaic "cleanliness" Laws. But Matthew, with his additions to the Sermon on the Mount, is implicitly doing the same thing as the Pharisees - adding New Laws. Psychological ones.

So I am dubious about the pertinence of Matthew's psychologizing of ancient Scriptural mandates.
It does not mesh well with the general thrust of Jesus' ministry.

Part and parcel with the morality of Christianity (or of any religion) is:
1. temptation to do ill . . .
but . . .
2. resisting this temptation.
"Get behind me, Satan."

Jesus . . . was in the wilderness 40 days and was tempted . . .
--Mark 1:12-13.​

Jesus is thrice-tempted in the desert by Satan - according to Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 (same anecdote, probably from the Q-document, thus pretty likely from Jesus own lips):

Temptation 1: Turn stone into bread.
Temptation 2: Authority over all the kingdoms of the world.
Temptation 3: (weightlessness - walk on air - ) Angels hold him aloft.​

But here it becomes pretty obvious:
By Matthew's own (e.g. Sermon on the Mount) psychological accounting, Jesus 3-times in the desert "sinned in his heart." (Been "tempted.")
The point being:
Not that Jesus has never had "bad thoughts."
Rather, that Jesus resisted the temptation to act upon them.

This is Old School religious morality. This is Leviticus.

Jesus (in my view) never talks about "sinning in one's heart."
That's Matthew. Him alone.

Not Mark or Luke.
Not John or Paul. (Not George or Ringo.)

Matthew alone, in the First Century.
(However there are many Christian theologians and mystics long after him - like Augustine and Eckhart - who would take Matthew's cue and "go psychological.")

Can the "risqué" be accurately described as . . . an act of "sinning" (in one's heart)?
Matthew . . . "Yes."
Jesus . . . "No."

Marcialou (& Namaste Jesus), that's my reading of this matter.

Jane.

 

Hi Gordian Knot.

But there is another But. As Thomas rightly points out it can be an issue of cause and effect. Thoughts can become malicious when taken to an extreme.
Thoughts are energy and thoughts do move out away from the body in waves of energy . . .

Thoughts that become fixated and focused can be damaging to another person.​

This is a genuinely serious consideration.
I see this problem a lot in my line of work.

But this is also why I see modern morality as interpersonal (the conduct of . . . one person to one other person).
Morality (to me) is not a (one size fits all) code of Laws. But is a unique interpersonal transaction.

(This is also how I read Jesus.
Not as a giver of "new" laws. But as someone who is cuing each of us to a new way of interacting.)

Yet, Gordian Knot, something else occurs to me:

"Improper" thoughts are also a trigger for the imagination.
(Perhaps the main trigger.)
And I am not sure that any of us (for the sake of "clean thoughts") would like to live in a world . . . entirely denuded of imagination.

Jane.

 
Very well balanced at #75 GK, cred to you.

Jane, you seem intent to not discuss this from Matthew. You make good points, and you point out why you don't trust Matthew on this. But this thread is still dedicated to the perspective of Matthew 5:28.

It's obvious this topic is very important to you, why don't you make new one that allows you to free-form all your darlings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top