Unlikely, since 75% of all spending decisions are made by women. But you're only making my point for me. Both were unbelievers. He was driven to repentance. She never was driven to repentance. There is not a single part of the movie that indicates any repentance on her part for her sins, even after they got back together, even after they had a second "wedding" ceremony. Everything is brought to a "happily ever after" moment, without the pre-condition of her repentance. It creates the illusion that she wasn't equally at fault. But her sins were of the same kind as his: Her planning to have an affair with a doctor while still married was the same sin as him looking at pornography. It's called lust. But it's okay for her to do it, because her subjective emotional desires weren't being met.
You're right about pornography. I've had problems there as well. But what about the emotional pornography sold to women in the form of romance novels and Lifetime Network and all that? It's a kind of pornography where women are allowed to fantasize about a man keeping her in a constant and eternal state of emotional ecstasy. It demeans men by making women believe that the entire reason a man exists is to fulfill a woman's subjective and selfish emotional desires. The church actually encourages this kind of pornography, with Christian booksellers churning out tons of Christian romance novels and movies. This is porn for women, pure and simple. Both are based in lust, but the lust expresses itself in different ways. We wink at one form while rightly condemning the other. Why?
Both were unbelievers. He was driven to repentance. She never was driven to repentance. There is not a single part of the movie that indicates any repentance on her part for her sins, even after they got back together, even after they had a second “wedding” ceremony. Everything is brought to a “happily ever after” moment, without the pre-condition of her repentance. It creates the illusion that she wasn’t equally at fault. But her sins were of the same kind as his: Her planning to have an affair with a doctor while still married was the same sin as him looking at pornography. It’s called lust. But it’s okay for her to do it, because her subjective emotional desires weren’t being met.
We are called to forgive EVEN when no one tells us THEY are sorry. I think this was a movie aimed at men to give it all to God and not expect anything in return. Jesus forgave, even as the nails went into his hands and feet, he said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they are doing”.
I think lots of people would have liked to see the wife say she was sorry and wrong. Maybe that is how much God wants us to stretch for HIM. Right now men are writing these stories and are aiming at men to do the right thing, even if women don’t. When we don’t forgive, unless we hear I’m sorry too, have we really given it all to God?
You’re right about pornography. I’ve had problems there as well. But what about the emotional pornography sold to women in the form of romance novels and Lifetime Network and all that? It’s a kind of pornography where women are allowed to fantasize about a man keeping her in a constant and eternal state of emotional ecstasy. It demeans men by making women believe that the entire reason a man exists is to fulfill a woman’s subjective and selfish emotional desires. The church actually encourages this kind of pornography, with Christian booksellers churning out tons of Christian romance novels and movies. This is porn for women, pure and simple. Both are based in lust, but the lust expresses itself in different ways. We wink at one form while rightly condemning the other. Why?
***Interesting point, one that I hadn’t thought of.