Is pornography driving men crazy?

CNN ^ | 6/30/11 | Naomi Wolf

[Persevero]

“Are you saying that a young man who turns his head with lust at a young girl, who then regains his composure and asks the young girl for a date is guilty of adultery? Do you think Jesus meant that? “

No, I hardly think that being attracted to someone is a sin.

To sit and indulge in serious sexual thoughts in an intense manner is, I think, when focused on a particular person. That is what the purpose of porn is so that’s why I think it is a sin to utilize it.

[Christian Engineer Mass]

Again, I want to stress that I see your good intentions, Persevero.

But don’t you see that you are interpreting the Bible to fit what you think it should mean - ie. your personal morality, with all its flaws, with all its biases that the world has injected into it, has become the judge of what the Bible means?

I’ve shown that the usual interpretation is absurd, and you’ve agreed that there is no way that Jesus meant to condemn a young man who momentarily has lust for a young girl, with adultery. So you’ve personally added the stipluation “serious and intense”.

Your honesty has rightly led you to add “I think”, because of course no such distinction is made in the Bible.

So instead of such inventions, is it not much more reasonable to assume the literal interpretation, but that since adultery was the subject, the natural implication is that one or both of the participants are married?

I’m not talking about porn - which doubtless is spiritually and mentally unhealthy. I’m talking specifically about that statement by Jesus, which I have thought considerably about.

[gogeo]

Oh, sweet...if I want to understand what’s wrong with men, I’ll ask Naomi Wolf.

[Persevero]

“I’ve shown that the usual interpretation is absurd, and you’ve agreed that there is no way that Jesus meant to condemn a young man who momentarily has lust for a young girl, with adultery.”

I don’t think I’m putting my own personal desire into the text. I’d be happier, no doubt, without the majority of men in the world being actually guilty of adultery by looking at a woman to lust after her.

So I may turn the tables and say, how do you interpret it?

What does it mean when Jesus tells us not to look at a woman to lust after her, or we have committed adultery already in our hearts?

It means something! The plain meaning of the text to me is, if your purpose in looking at a woman is to basically have sex with her in your head, you are committing adultery even if there is no physical act involved.

So you can’t look at a woman with the purpose of having sex with her in your head. And if you find yourself inadvertently do so, look away.

[Christian Engineer Mass]

I’ve said many times how I interpret it.

I think there are two main ways people can misinterpret scripture, either by inferring license, or by inferring legalism.

Inside all of us there is an Adam or Eve who wants to hide their nakedness so the Lord does not see. And that comes from Satan. Walking with the Lord is not all one way. It’s not all rules and strictness. Much rules and strictness and worry actually comes from Satan.

I think I’ve logically made the point as clear as I can make it. You agreed that the usual interpretation was absurd, and so then the text required some extra ideas of “extremely” to make it fit that interpretation. Adultery is adultery, and involves breaking a marriage covenant. It’s an extremely serious thing, because it ruins lives for many generations. The English language is insufficient, only having one word for woman, where the greek had more subtle implications.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

???...did you look at all of the numbers? Especially rape...all way up.

These are Department of Justice numbers. What numbers are you talking about?

[Morpheus2009]

Pornography has become more explicit over the years. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, for example, Playboy magazine didn’t show full frontal nudity. Now they do and have for years.

I agree, I could even say worse within the frame of the 70s and 80s as well.

The main issue I see with porn is someone giving themselves a fake, or a virtual stimulus, and having the problem of not remembering the virtual stimulus in the wrong way and context. But then again, this would be someone who has some need to do this frequently or for a great time period throughout the day. Again, the brain does wierd things regarding what is real and what is not.

[TheDingoAteMyBaby]

Hustler Magazine published a cartoon called “Chester the Molester” for several years, and the cartoonist served prison time for molesting his own daughter. That screams far more volumes about pornography than any abstract theories which can’t easily be proven.