The Bible and Risqué Films

[Jane-Q]

Or . . . to put it another way . . .

When God made us . . .
He gave us "improper thoughts" (sinning in our heart) for a good reason:

In order to reactively repress these thoughts . . . ?
(As a test of faith?)​

Or . . .

In order to proactively sublimate these thoughts . . . ?
(Into something innovative and/or productive?)​

Which would be your guess?

Jane.

 

[Jane-Q]

Hi A Cup Of Tea.

I'm sorry.
I am having trouble understanding why looking at Matthew 5:28 from an historical perspective is off-topic, from a theological perspective is off-topic, from an anthropological and neuropsychological perspective is off-topic.
I am having trouble understanding why Thomas's statements about the risqué being an "objectification" of another person are adjudged by you as on-topic and my attempts to refute the "objectification" angle or to give the risqué its due respect as being off-topic.
I am particularly having trouble understanding why my questioning of this touted - this so-called - moral connection between "sin" and "psychology" (i.e. sinning in one's heart) is also considered off-topic.

Should I have just have stated that the person who objected to Namaste Jesus' movie is wearing Fundamentalist blinders and left it at that?

What I am missing here, A Cup of Tea? What is my Big Sin?
How should I reorient my perspective?
Seriously . . . How?

Jane.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I don't see the connection at all, but if you do I shall hardly moderate you.
You are allowed to object before you get upset.

 

[Thomas]

Except that Matthew is not quoting Jesus . . . Matthew is quoting Matthew.

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)

Why? On what basis do we assume the author of Q is authentic and reliable?

On what basis, other than a hypothesis, do we assume Q even existed?

And if it did, and was in circulation enough to inform two gospels written in two distinct times and places, how did it disappear, how is it never mentioned in any list or any scripture?

Q works if we assume neither Matthew nor Luke had access to the gospel of the other. But, if we assume, which is far from unlikely, that Luke had access to Matthew as well as Mark, then Q becomes redundant as a hypothesis

There's simply too much against Q to assume its authenticity without question, and your reliance on Q, and dismissal of Matthew, based on a somewhat partisan reading of the text, by the way, doesn't say much for your own hypothesis.

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.)

Er ... Mark 6:50, 6:52, 7:6, 7.21 (more of that later), 8:17, 10:5, 16:14, Luke 1:51, 4:18, 6:45, 8:12, 12:45, 24:25, John 12:40, 13:2 ... and Paul bangs on about it endlessly.

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

Nonsense.
"For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders" Mark 7:21.

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45 ... and Paul bangs on about it endlessly. So does 1 John 2.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I knew you would say that!

I think we all saw that one coming. Thomas is not wrong though. There is some sort of intent behind every film made. A film makers intentions are subjective however and dependent on viewer perception.

Take that trailer Thomas posted for "Automated Fantasies" for instance. In it there is a scene where a man holds out a jar of peanut butter and asks his automated servant girl to take the top off. Rather than removing the jars lid, she removes her own top instead.

Upon seeing this, one individual might say, "Did you see the expression on that poor guy's face when she took her top off? That was so funny!"

While another individual might say, "That girl was shown on camera in a state of undress! Why that's pure smut!"

You see, just by putting the emphasis on different aspects of the same scene, two different conclusions may be drawn. It's all a matter of perception and where ones focus lies. The film maker has no control over this regardless of any prior intent.

Just as the manufacturer of a steak knife has no control over how his product is ultimately used. The mere fact that it could be used to kill someone rather than cut meat, does not make the manufacturer liable. That burden lie with the individual wielding the knife.

 

[Thomas]

Morality (to me) is not a (one size fits all) code of Laws.

Don't be silly. Humanity is one. Unless you're saying you're so special, the common humanities don't apply to you.

But is a unique interpersonal transaction.

Within the whole.

It is, of course, both.

 

[Thomas]

I think we all saw that one coming. Thomas is not wrong though. There is some sort of intent behind every film made. A film makers intentions are subjective however and dependent on viewer perception.

That's not what film makers think. They might be hostage to viewer perception, but a film maker has his own intention none the less.

Take that trailer Thomas posted for "Automated Fantasies" for instance. In it there is a scene where a man holds out a jar of peanut butter and asks his automated servant girl to take the top off. Rather than removing the jars lid, she removes her own top instead.

Upon seeing this, one individual might say, "Did you see the expression on that poor guy's face when she took her top off? That was so funny!"

While another individual might say, "That girl was shown on camera in a state of undress! Why that's pure smut!"

Whereas I would say, the joke was there in the first two seconds ... why extended shots, cuts, a repetition (removal of the skirt) ... why didn't she see the joke, but was reduced to tears?

In short, more time, effort and tape was spent on the strip than on the joke.

You see, just by putting the emphasis on different aspects of the same scene, two different conclusions may be drawn. It's all a matter of perception and where ones focus lies. The film maker has no control over this regardless of any prior intent.

Wrong. The joke works without you needing to see the girl in a state of undress. Or you could have shot her from the back. She simply has to start, and the man react, and there's the joke. So the joke is quickly over ... and we get a lingering shot of the girl ... if it's a joke, why is she crying?

So where's the joke in a man putting on x-ray specs and looking at a woman in her underwear?

And are you the filmmaker?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Thomas, your assessment is completely unfounded. You have no idea what film makers think and you have not seen the entire film in question. What you posted was only the trailer. It contains brief clips from the actual film that are mashed together completely out of context. The main joke in the film, tying everything together, doesn't even occur until the very end.

The crying segment is completely unrelated to the actress taking off her top. As is the skirt removal scene. Each of these were separate gags altogether. The long detailed close-up shots are meant to mimic the male actors reaction to what the model was doing. The trailer does not show this as trailers are not meant to be full screenings of the actual film. They are only intended as marketing tools.

You may not get the comedy behind every concept in every film. Not everyone does, but that doesn't make it wrong. The x-ray glasses bit you mention is a good example. That's something not everyone thinks is funny, but to others, it's hilarious.

It just so happens that I am a film maker. Now retired. I'm also a self-taught graphic artist, post production specialist and animator. As I've said, I did all of the post production work on all of the films in question. I even shot the male actors part in "Automated Fantasies". It's interesting to note, aside from a couple 10 second establishing shots, the actor and actress in that film were never in the same room at the same time. There parts were filmed separately on different days and edited together in post.

In case you were wondering, the driving force behind these films is a good friend of mine from Australia. We've collaborated on a number of projects over the years.

 

[DeiGratia]

One of my posts from yesterday hasn't appeared for some reason, so I'll try again.


Jane-Q, I'm not sure if I follow your food-spice analogy ...

a few questions if I may ...

I reckon the topic of this thread is "how to interpret the verse".
And your opinion is "ignore it altogether" because Matthew took the liberty of adding the verse and it's not an authentic teaching of Jesus anyway?

Then, do you not object to it, if a woman was hired to take her clothes off in front of men to show herself in her underwear at a Christian's bachelor party to spice up the groom's night with his bride?

If you do object to this, but not to a film like the one in this thread, where do you draw the line?

 

[Gordian Knot]

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.

I can imagine. Most people's thoughts are far too unfocused and directionless to be of much real damage to another. But the extreme focus, particularly of a single emotion, directed specifically at another can have enormous consequences.

Most people have no real comprehension of just how damaging mere thought can be to others. Especially when it is emotionally driven, and often individuals have no conscious idea what they are doing.

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.

I would agree with you here. To a point I would agree with Thomas' thoughts on this as well. There are, in my view of life, overarching moralities that are more or less universal.

Within that set though, there is a much larger subset of interpersonal moralities that are unique to each person, couple, group, etc. Conduct which would be perfectly fine for one group or couple, might be heresy for a different group or couple. As long as we are talking about the private interactions between individuals, the rules are rather elastic.

It is, as a matter of fact, what I consider to be the true meaning of that old adage "Do unto others".

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.

Now that is an interesting suggestion. Guess it depends on how we are using the term improper. After all improper thoughts between consenting adults wouldn't in fact be improper would they?

 

[Frrostedman]

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?

Now I'm not talking about pornography here of any kind. By risqué I mean silly little stories like those the late Benny Hill was involved in where some poor hapless lass winds up on display in just her undies. Again, I'm only talking about films with no nudity, no sex or intimate contact whatsoever.

Hi NJ.

It's not the material in the op that is bad per se. The verse say that what should be judged is whether or not the viewer is watching in a lustful way. One person can watch the material and think, "What beautiful women those are." Another can watch it and get all worked up and excited, thinking lustful thoughts. It's the latter situation that the verse has in mind.

 

[Thomas]

OK ...

Take a look at this link from the Ricky Gervais series Extras. A scene between RG's character — an extra on a film set trying to break into the big-time, and Patrick Stewart, playing himself.

My reaction to this dialogue is the same as Ricky's to Patrick Stewart's plot ideas.

 

[Frrostedman]

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 Jan. Gee, I just replied to Marcia. So I guess the my next reply will be to Cindy?

Anyway. Among other things, I walked away from your argument above, understanding that you believe and embrace some parts of the bible, and reject, even loathe other parts.

Pretty powerful stuff. But let me say this in response to your charge that Jesus actually wouldn't have any problem with a man looking at a married woman in an overt, sexual, lustful way. You contradicted yourself. First, you argued that Jesus was content with the existing Old Testament Laws. But then, in your argument I just laid out, you claim that Jesus would not have any problem with a man coveting his neighbor's wife. That is in complete opposition to the Jesus we read about in the rest of the New Testament.

Also: Your strange interpretation of Jesus' temptation of "weightlessness" is dubious at best. Jesus was simply challenged to jump off the temple roof, to prove Himself Son of God. Simply put, it was Satan saying, "Prove you are Son of God, because I don't believe you. And if you don't prove yourself, then obviously you are scared and don't even believe." It had nothing to do with Jesus being tempted by "weightlessness." Zero.

And finally, the big one: Your linking of Jesus' saying we shall not covet (lust after) our neighbor's wife, actually condemns Jesus Himself because the bible says He was tempted; This isn't just dubious. It is the blatant use of equivocation to spin the context of the word "tempted." The bible says Jesus was tempted. The correct context of the word is as a description of the action Satan was taking, or attempting. Satan was attempting to tempt Jesus into perpetrating a certain action. You falsely argued that essentially Satan was successful, and Jesus entered into a state of temptation. You argued that Jesus failed to avoid or fight off temptation. The bible never intended to claim such a thing. Such a claim would be in direct opposition to everything else the bible said about Christ.

My first impression is you obviously have some beef with Matthew and Augustine, 2 absolute Titans in the hierarchy of New Testament Theology; you have some very radical views that are 180° in the opposite direction of established, common sense biblical views; and you are tempted )) to equivocate key words of biblical verses to give your radical views a shred of plausibility.

Still, what concerns me most is the unmistakable scent of New Age philosophy, with the believing and embracing some biblical verses, and rejecting others.

 

[Frrostedman]

When my post in reply to Jane-Q passes the moderation test, which maybe it won't, I have a lot of editing to do. The argument was a little sloppy, plus I got Jane's name wrong. I would love to edit it, but, it's not getting posted. I might leave before it posts.. hence this disclaimer. I need a chance to clean it up.

 

[Marcialou]

Can you clean it up and repost it? I had to do it once.

 

[Frrostedman]

I'll have to recap it from memory. The biggest point of several that I made is, Jane's argument that Jesus wouldn't disapprove of "sins of the heart" fails on 2 counts.

Jane uses Matt 5:27-29 as an example of Matthew basically making up what Jesus said, because Jesus would never say it. She believes that Jesus would not have said it is wrong to look at another women lustfully with adultery in mind. The reason is, because Jesus Himself was "tempted in the desert" and if someone is condemned for being "tempted" (which is the same as looking at a woman lustfully with adultery in mind), then Jesus is also condemned, because He was "tempted in the desert."

1. This argument fails because Jane herself says in her post that Jesus is satisfied and content with the OT Laws and doesn't want them added to. I argue that calling it a sin to look at a woman lustfully with adultery in mind is consistent with OT Law because it is nothing less than the act of Coveting which is forbidden.

2. Jane's use of "tempted" to mean the same thing in both cases is an equivocation which is not a valid debate tactic. The context of "tempted," i.e. when someone looks at another woman lustfully with adultery in mind, is the looker in that case is someone who has embraced the temptation and fallen prey to it. The looker is in the state of temptation. However, the context of "tempted," i.e. when Jesus was tempted in the desert is completely different. "Tempted" in that case is an act perpetrated by the OTHER party - Satan. Satan "tempted" Jesus - or - Satan attempted to put Jesus in a state of temptation. But obviously Satan failed in all 3 attempts. Jesus was never tempted (first person--being in the state of temptation) in the desert. Satan tried to tempt Jesus is more accurate. Satan dared Jesus, taunted Jesus. To even suggest that Jesus was weak enough to fall prey and actually become tempted is the complete opposite of what the bible teaches us about Jesus.

Jane's use of an incorrect (I say blatantly incorrect) context to support her argument is called the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Frrostedman]

I also basically asked what Jane's beef is with Matthew and Augustine. Essentially she called them both out as being dishonest. I found that both provocative and strange.

 

[Quirkybird]

We have no idea whether anything recorded about Jesus has any veracity at all.

I would love to see the look on the face of some Christians if they discovered for a fact he was married with kids, or was gay. It is recorded that he had a disciple whom he loved, presumably that disciple was male. As there is no mention of the personal life of Jesus, it is open to a lot of speculation. I hope he had a fulfilled personal life, including intimate relations with a male or female.

 

[Irene]

We have no idea whether anything recorded about Jesus has any veracity at all.

By saying this, any conversation about Christianity can be stopped. I hope this forum is a place for "InterFaith" dialogue, not the place to invalidate the belief of one another.

I would love to see the look on the face of some Christians if they discovered for a fact he was married with kids, or was gay. It is recorded that he had a disciple whom he loved, presumably that disciple was male. As there is no mention of the personal life of Jesus, it is open to a lot of speculation. I hope he had a fulfilled personal life, including intimate relations with a male or female.

May I suggest that this comment is better suited in the other thread where the topic is if Jesus was married?

I believe this thread's discussion is about looking at random women undressing as entertainment and whether that is appropriate or not in the reflection of Christian doctrine, which I must say not.

Being married and sharing intimacy with your spouse is a whole different matter.

 

[Frrostedman]

By saying this, any conversation about Christianity can be stopped.

Thank you. You get it. If someone is going to just throw out there that the bible can't be believed, then it ceases making any sense debating the character of Jesus with that person at all. Someone debating the character of a person or God they don't even believe exists is rather pointless.

If folks are going to debate the character of God or Jesus, then the starting place is, "Let's assume for the sake of discussion, that the bible is true." Otherwise, I can reject any argument against the character of God/Jesus by claiming it is based on a false premise.

I hope this forum is a place for "InterFaith" dialogue, not the place to invalidate the belief of one another.

Though in disbelief, some are said to have a faith all their own. Which would make it an interfaith dialogue.

May I suggest that this comment is better suited in the other thread where the topic is if Jesus was married?

Sometimes I wonder if the "Jesus was gay" argument is intended simply for shock value. There is certainly no logical basis for the claim. "But He loved a male apostle." So what. He professed love for us all.

I believe this thread's discussion is about looking at random women undressing as entertainment and whether that is appropriate or not in the reflection of Christian doctrine, which I must say not.

Did you get a read on Jane's argument? Take a look at it, I think it's 1 page back. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that post.