The Bible and Risqué Films

Matthew 5:28 is aimed at lust, yes?

So is looking at a genre, specifically, with lightly dressed actresses lusting?

Is producing, distributing or displaying this genre encouraging lusting?

Is this the proper line of reasoning?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Matthew 5:28 is aimed at lust, yes?

So is looking at a genre, specifically, with lightly dressed actresses lusting?

Is producing, distributing or displaying this genre encouraging lusting?

Is this the proper line of reasoning?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think this would be the proper line of reasoning.
 
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?


I checked out definitions on several of the online dictionaries. Most tend to define risqué this way:

daringly close to indelicacy or impropriety; off-color: a risqué story.

As the definition is so very close to what the KJV on the Bible states in Matthew, it seems to me that the correct answer can go either way. It all depends on the person and how they interpret what goes over the line and what does not.

Bottom line, why is the individual watching the film? Do they view it as a comedy piece flirting on the edge of impropriety? If so, then no I don't think the Bible passage would apply.

If, however, the person watching the film is getting sexual urges (Mmmm. Urges.) then the Bible passage would apply.

That is my answer as I see it from the biblical perspective.

From my personal perspective, (and Thomas is going to shoot me for this!), thoughts are not sinful. You can lust after some starlet, or that cutey waitress at a local restaurant. Thoughts are not actions. It is taking the action that creates an immoral act.

Improper thoughts are not sinful. Improper actions are sinful.
 

This all reminds me of Jimmy Carter's1976 Playboy interview when he was running for President, where he admits:

I have committed adultery in my heart many times.​

Jimmy Carter knows his Bible and is referencing Matthew 5:28. But people still rolled their eyes.

In law enforcement there is a wide line - wide as the Mississippi - between thinking something and actually doing it:

If you do the deed, you are a criminal and a menace to society.
If all you do is think the thought, you are a perfectly normal citizen.​

This is a truism law enforcement people around me live by.
I'm with Gordian Knot, here.
It's a good rule of thumb.

Matthew 5:28 . . . is Matthew speaking for himself.
No way Jesus could be that far out of touch with human psychology!

Jane.

 

Who was it who said . . . ?

I don't know any better feeling
waking in the morning and
feeling lust for someone who welcomes it.​

When I pull off my clothes in the bedroom . . .
If the guy I am with does not objectify me,
he is not going to get it up . . . nor get it off.
It's that simple!

Without "objectification" there would be neither pleasure nor babies.
Only romantics delude themselves into believing it can be otherwise.

Decent men know when to turn off "affection" for their partner and turn on "objectification."
Then know when to turn off "objectification" and turn back on "affection."
It is lesson immature men learn quickly, or their future love-life will consist solely of pornography.

Jane.

 

Speaking of which . . .
The only thing wrong with pornography is that most of it is really really bad art.
There is a large percentage of males on this planet who biologically have more testosterone coursing through their bloodstream than they know what to do with. This planet would see a lot more males going barbarian - "raping and pillaging" - if porn was not available as a safety-valve.

I personally have no problem with sexually-explicit material in the art I view.
The 1970s feminist self-deception is that pornography is men "exploiting" women.
But in the last two or three years, there has been a flood of brutally honest, unsentimental films by women filmmakers about female teenage sexuality:
--Young and Wild (Marialy Rivas, 2012, Chile),
--Hemel (Sacha Polak, 2012, Netherlands),
--Clip (Maja Milos, 2012 Croatia),
--Turn Me On Dammit (Jannicke Systad Jacobsen, 2011, Norway),
amongst the better ones.
The women portrayed in these films are objectifying themselves (and others), but the end-effect is not the least bit "exploitive" of these women. The effect is actually liberating (but not exactly in a "happy ending" kind of way). And each film contains at least one very (NC-17) sexually-explicit scene - in some cases, dozens of them. And all are very necessary to the plot and/or the characterization of the protagonist.

These films are at the cutting-edge of world cinema, right now. And these are films by and about women. Call them "pornographic," if you like. But you are rendering this word meaningless - because, with it, you are attacking women. You are attacking truth.

Also some high-brow male directors have turned a cold eye upon this subject of teenage female lust:
--Francois Ozon's Young and Beautiful (2013, France).
And perhaps the most searching and intelligent movie (about any subject) produced in the 21st century so far,
--Lars von Trier's magnificent 2-volume 4-hour opus Nymphomaniac (2014, Denmark).

Get with it, guys!
I don't think you realize how anti-women and how prudish most of you sound.

Jane.

 
I'm with you all the way through, Jane, but I still think Thomas statement stands: by posting under Abrahamic we should stick to the perspective of the Bible. You can discuss it from the modern perspective of the Bible, throwing in psychology into the mix, but your second and third post leaves Matthew entirely I think.

I'm not trying to put down the only feminist voice here, you should rage on in other sections. I remember posting a thread on prostitution a while back, you might have some input on that?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I'm with you all the way through, Jane, but I still think Thomas statement stands: by posting under Abrahamic we should stick to the perspective of the Bible. You can discuss it from the modern perspective of the Bible, throwing in psychology into the mix, but your second and third post leaves Matthew entirely I think.

I'm not trying to put down the only feminist voice here, you should rage on in other sections. I remember posting a thread on prostitution a while back, you might have some input on that?
Click to expand...

Thanks COT, well put. A lot of good thoughts out there, but let's try to keep the train on the tracks. Remember folks, we're talking about a specific type of film and how it relates to a specific Biblical passage.
 

Hi Namaste Jesus.

I am a little bit curious as the importance you place upon "risqué" touches in popular media.
And upon why - if you are involved in this business - you just don't apply your own conscience,
i.e. why is it so necessary to quote scripture? And why Jesus instead of Moses? (Or instead of Buddha? or instead of Confucius? or instead of the Reader's Digest Guide to a Healthy Mind?)

In quoting this tidbit in isolation from the long sermon it is part of, you have removed Matthew 5:28 from its context.
(Turned Matthew 5:28 into a "good conduct" maxim. A social proverb - an aphorism - something which no longer contains within it the give-and-take of living speech. Turning what Jesus is saying on this hillside into something it is not, into a dead thing. Into no longer an internal process but now an external product, a rule written in stone.)
Put the quote back into its context, okay? . . .
How did Matthew have Jesus, in this hillside sermon, set up his comment?

You have heard that it was said (to the ancients) {in Exodus 20:14, etc.}, "You shall not commit adultery."
But I tell you . . .
--Matthew 5:27-28.​

Jesus is saying - at least by Matthew's account - that simply following the strictures of the Law (or council of wise ancient sayings) is not enough. You must look into your heart and follow your conscience.
("If your right hand offends thee . . . ")

Seems to me, Jesus is imploring . . .
"Don't follow old Scriptural rules written down centuries ago. Look, instead into yourself. (Listen to God.) Follow not the dictates of old books but of your own individual conscience."

Make sense?

Jane.

 

Jesus' words are a living legacy.
Not a dead one.

Jesus is still talking to us - personally - from upon that hillside.

 
Jane-Q said:

Jesus' words are a living legacy.
Not a dead one.

Jesus is still talking to us - personally - from upon that hillside.
Click to expand...


We have absolutely no idea if what Jesus is quoted as saying were actually said by him, or created by his followers at a much later date.
 
Jane-Q said:

Hi Namaste Jesus.

I am a little bit curious as the importance you place upon "risqué" touches in popular media.
And upon why - if you are involved in this business - you just don't apply your own conscience,
i.e. why is it so necessary to quote scripture? And why Jesus instead of Moses? (Or instead of Buddha? or instead of Confucius? or instead of the Reader's Digest Guide to a Healthy Mind?)
Click to expand...


Hi Jane, most of your questions were answered in the OP. You may want to review my first two posts. Anyway, as I stated, a while back I did some post production work for a friend who made films along these lines. That company is no longer in business do to illness, but recently that work fell into question by someone using Mathew 5:28 to denounce them.

I personally have no qualms about these films morally or otherwise. To me they were just bawdy humor having nothing to do with anyone's spiritual beliefs. I just posed the question to get the viewpoints of others. I only used Mathew 5:28, because that was the specific quote used by said individual to denounce this specific film genre. Hence the reason for placing this thread in the "Abrahamic Religions" catagory.
 

Hi Quirkybird.

We have absolutely no idea if what Jesus is quoted as saying were actually said by him, or created by his followers at a much later date.​

Quite true.

But if the Matthew quote in question was part of the speculated Q-document, then the likelihood that Jesus actually said it . . . greatly increases.

Is the Matthew 5:27-28 quote found also in Luke?
If so, then it would likely have been in this Q-document.
But Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount jumps from the Beatitudes to the "forgive your enemy" segment, skipping all the "You have heard that it was said . . . But I say . . . " rhetorical bits of Matthew which are so lively.

So yeah, there is a good chance that Matthew made all that stuff up.
That . . . the concerns expressed have more to do with his community's theological agenda than with Jesus per se.
(Matthew's community is likely Aramaic speaking, consisting mostly of Jewish Christians, founded by one of the twelve disciples - or someone who actually knew Jesus - and a community who distrusts the self-proclaimed apostle Paul and the Gentile-dominated communities Paul founded. Like the Pharisees, Matthew wants new rules to guarantee righteousness of one's behavior. But he sees the Pharisees as choosing frivolous new rules, the wrong new rules. And he wants to believe that Jesus would also have proposed psychologically more searching forms of piety. As expressed in this Matthew 5 material, not found in Luke.)
But it is damn effective rhetoric, isn't it?
I'd really like to think that Jesus dialogued this way with his audience.

Jesus' words are a living legacy.​

Quirkybird, when I said this, I wasn't actually talking about the semantic content of Jesus' (or Matthew's) words.
I was talking existentially, not literally:
--not what Jesus said,
--but how he talks with people.
Syntax, not semantics. How he addresses his audience.

In the previous post (#29) I call it:

the give-and-take of living speech​

I think persons remembered how Jesus interacted with them.
And something of this lived on, after Jesus' death. It got passed on.

And it is this that is valuable about Jesus and his preaching.
(Not the value of his words as a series of "aphorisms."
But the way in which his use of language connected with each person.)

This is the legacy I am talking about.

Jane.

 

Hi Namaste Jesus.

most of your questions were answered in the OP.​

Bad memory. Sorry.

Mathew 5:28 . . . was the specific quote used by said individual to denounce this specific film genre.​

Sounds like a misuse (if not a downright abuse) of Scripture, on this person's part.
Maybe you should call them on it!

(Quote my post, if you like. My time penning it won't be entirely wasted, then.)

Jane.

{By the way . . . risqué films are like flirtations. (e.g. Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint conversing in the dining car on the train to Chicago in North By Northwest.) There is something literal happening and something figurative, both at the same time. Some folk just cannot handle that. Too much information, too scary. A dull life is easier on the nervous system. But the mini-chaos of flirtation is what makes life interesting. IMHO.}

 
Jane-Q said:

Hi Quirkybird.
We have absolutely no idea if what Jesus is quoted as saying were actually said by him, or created by his followers at a much later date.​
Quite true.

But if the Matthew quote in question was part of the speculated Q-document, then the likelihood that Jesus actually said it . . . greatly increases.

Is the Matthew 5:27-28 quote found also in Luke?
If so, then it would likely have been in this Q-document.
But Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount jumps from the Beatitudes to the "forgive your enemy" segment, skipping all the "You have heard that it was said . . . But I say . . . " rhetorical bits of Matthew which are so lively.

So yeah, there is a good chance that Matthew made all that stuff up.
That . . . the concerns expressed have more to do with his community's theological agenda than with Jesus per se.
(Matthew's community is likely Aramaic speaking, consisting mostly of Jewish Christians, founded by one of the twelve disciples - or someone who actually knew Jesus - and a community who distrusts the self-proclaimed apostle Paul and the Gentile-dominated communities Paul founded. Like the Pharisees, Matthew wants new rules to guarantee righteousness of one's behavior. But he sees the Pharisees as choosing frivolous new rules, the wrong new rules. And he wants to believe that Jesus would also have proposed psychologically more searching forms of piety. As expressed in this Matthew 5 material, not found in Luke.)
But it is damn effective rhetoric, isn't it?
I'd really like to think that Jesus dialogued this way with his audience.
Jesus' words are a living legacy.​
Quirkybird, when I said this, I wasn't actually talking about the semantic content of Jesus' (or Matthew's) words.
I was talking existentially, not literally:
--not what Jesus said,
--but how he talks with people.
Syntax, not semantics. How he addresses his audience.

In the previous post (#29) I call it:
the give-and-take of living speech​
I think persons remembered how Jesus interacted with them.
And something of this lived on, after Jesus' death. It got passed on.

And it is this that is valuable about Jesus and his preaching.
(Not the value of his words as a series of "aphorisms."
But the way in which his use of language connected with each person.)

This is the legacy I am talking about.

Jane.
Click to expand...


Whatever the legacy of Jesus actually was, the perceived one certainly didn't do me any favours as a child!:eek:
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I'm with you all the way through, Jane, but I still think Thomas statement stands: by posting under Abrahamic we should stick to the perspective of the Bible. You can discuss it from the modern perspective of the Bible, throwing in psychology into the mix, but your second and third post leaves Matthew entirely I think.
Click to expand...

There's more than one perspective of the Bible. What about the perspective of the Song of Songs?

And not everyone who follows one of the 3 Abrahamic religions feels a need to follow everything in Matthew.
 
LincolnSpector said:
There's more than one perspective of the Bible. What about the perspective of the Song of Songs?

And not everyone who follows one of the 3 Abrahamic religions feels a need to follow everything in Matthew.
Click to expand...

What's your point? We have stated over and over in this thread that Namaste Jesus was questioned using Matthew. We can discuss this whole thing from any number of perspectives, but this thread was dedicated to Risqué and

"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
 
Jane-Q said:
The 1970s feminist self-deception is that pornography is men "exploiting" women.
Click to expand...

NJ,

I feel compelled to clear up this misconception, so please excuse the momentary hijack ...

The term "men exploiting women" through pornography by 70's feminists like myself was to promote the ratification of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) for better pay, job security & advancement, education, protection from sexual discrimination & child care ...
At the time, there were no laws in place to protect women from sexual abuse or domestic violence nor were there women's shelters or counseling ...
It was not about sex ...
The ERA bill has yet to be passed ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top