Posted by Darrell
It must be the coffee.
It’s all “art” anyway, right?
only if filmed in faux renaissance style
But that’s because God is only concerned with what’s on the inside.
Kissing is bad but killing is okay.
See this standard doesn’t bother me. Watching excessive violence is highly unlikely to lead to sin, but watching graphic sexuality/nudity will lead to lust – which according to the Book of James leads to sin. (It can also be argued that lust itself is a sin)
I don’t think you can prove either of these claims.
Either what people watch influences them, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the whole advertising industry is a gigantic waste of money.
I don’t know of any evidence that exposure to sex or nudity affects people’s behavior, but exposure to violence does not.
You don’t think there is any evidence that sex/nudity affects people’s behaviour?!
Congratulations on missing the point. Read again. We should not have to explain it.
I think King David would agree with you Nathan. Just think how his life would have changed had he looked only ONCE at Bathsheba and then walked away.
You mean the same King David that God didn’t want building His temple because he was a “man of blood” (violence)?
Unfortunately for King David, “Every Man’s Battle” hadn’t been published yet and so he wasn’t armed with the “bounce the eyes” technique.
I guess it depends on what one considers “sin.” Studies have linked consistent exposure to violence to an increased acceptance of it. I’m not ok with the idea of my kids thinking it’s ok to pop another kid in the mouth because he saw it on tv. That’s sin, imo.
Seems to me certain ancient societies made violent entertainment the norm, and they were hardly held up as paragons of virtue …
Europeans think it is weird that we get all weirded out by nudity, which they consider natural, and we don’t blink our eye at violence.
It used to be when I was in high school we took
showers. The first time is akward, but you got used to it. Now they don’t take showers, if you see another guy naked, you’re gay. It’s fun trying to get kids on mission trips to showers.
Strangely Warmed, do you also like to tickle young boys and see if you can get them all into a nude “ticklefest” and then see how many get erections and then “accidentally” touch each other? Hey, I’m all for sexual liberation and all that and am just as much against the pro-life, pro-family crowd as the rest of you……but really? Can you keep your fantasies a little bit more private next time?
WTH? Is this a joke?
I completely disagree, Nathan. You can’t say that one is worse than the other. Seeing violence has often been much more damaging for me then seeing nudity or sex. I think too often men see nudity as more “sinful” because they may be more sensitive to it. Many women I know are much more susceptible to being harmed by violence. A man never fears getting raped, but a woman always does, so she may be more susceptible to fear caused by viewing violence. I realize I am making huge stereotypes here, but I never understood why “The Passion of the Christ” was automatically inoffensive in its violence merely because of the subject matter.
“The Passion of the Christ” was a snuff film overlaid with a Christian veneer.
Wow…whether or not you’re completely kidding, that’s a weird comment…I must have missed the sexual gratification part…
I never said it was a good snuff film.
Violent movies give me nightmares.
I was about to say that nudity in films doesn’t affect my behavior, but after thinking about it for a couple of minutes, I must qualify that with the fact that most movies only really show the women nude and maybe a male backside so that just doesn’t affect me. But, if there was total frontal male nudity in the movies I watched… yeah, it might effect me… . As far as violence in movies, does it make me want to be violent? No. Do I get desensitised to watching horrible things done in movies? Yes, but only in movies, not in real life.
Someday I hope to understand why so many people consider nudity to be worse than violence in entertainment.
I don’t have anything funny to say about this , it just bewilders me.
You and me both, BG.
For fundies, violence is probably ok because the people involved aren’t *gasp* enjoying it.
sorta like this:
I love Adam’s stuff. I agree with the article you posted.
“At least make every single handgun owner go through some sort of training. We make people take a test to drive a car! But buy a Colt .45? You just need to be a certain age and never committed a felony. God bless America, pass the ammo!”
I keep my weapons for defense of my LIFE not my stuff. And what if that robber wants to rape and kill my children? If you invade my home, I’m not going to stop and say “hey, are you here only for my stuff, or to rape my daughters?!” I’m sure there more lives saved from guns than taken from an accidental shooting. Adam has no proven statistics about guns to back up what he believes.
Owning a gun is a Constitutional Right and owning a car isn’t. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
I don’t want the government having more control than they already do. Next, they’d make up reasons why people would fail to pass the training like say religious beliefs.
“Owning a gun is a Constitutional Right and owning a car isn’t. Comparing the two is ridiculous.”
How many cars were there in the 1780′s anyway? Talking about cars and constitutional rights in this context is ridiculous.
I have an emotionally negative response (I sound like a freaking therapist) when people boast about their gun ownership, and how they’d like to blow people away, especially during sermons (the boasting, not the shooting). I live in Saginaw, one of the most violent cities in the States (check the FBI listing), and I go into every area I want to, with my son, not only to invite people to church, but to see friends. I have never had a problem in this city, although people occasionally get stabbed/shot/killed not too far from where we live. I leave the Y at 10 pm in the dark in the wintertime. I challenge kids at the gas station that blast their music that I do not care to hear. Usually you just get a sheepish look. I don’t know the statistics for break ins connected to violence, but outside of family feuds and gang connection, I have never heard of this thing around here.
It’s still a Constitutional Right in 2012. Both Democrats and Republicans have voted to keep it that way for over 200 years.
I don’t see an amendment denying us the 2nd amendment. It’s still there up in DC. Or have you magically gotten rid of it in your liberal head.
Just admit it. You’re anti gun period. You would remove all guns.
You can’t prove any of Adam’s claims with facts and research and neither can he.
Not only is gun owning a Constitutional right, it’s a State’s right and that it’s protected in the 10th amendment right of state’s to make their own laws separate from the federal government
In my state of VA, I have to right to own a gun, carry one openly, and carry one concealed.
A .22 saved my husband and I from a Pitbull attack. This dog had been terrorizing the neighborhood for years. It was so bad, we couldn’t even take walk for fear we’d be attacked.
JoeR = Gun owner/CWP Holder
Who are you calling anti-gun?
My apologies. You came across as anti 2nd amendment with your comment about Constitutional Rights and the 1780s. What did you mean by that?
Personally I don’t see anything in Joe’s comment that would imply he is anti-2nd amendment. He’s just stating the facts.
Having a car is a luxury. Having a gun (though with potential to be misused) can be part of self-defense and personal safety.
I DO think taking a class in order to own a gun is a good idea, not that it’d particularly prevent much. People still drive drunk and go over the speed limit even after they take the class.
Read the article and that’s what I based my original comment on.
Comparing car laws and wanting to change the gun laws doesn’t jive. One is a luxury like you said, and one is a God-given right in the Bill of Rights. Giving the government the power to decide WHO gets a gun based on training is dangerous to our freedoms.
Adams trust in the Government is naive. Our country is hanging by a thread as it is.
Most people train with their weapons and teach their children how to shoot by target practicing and hunting.
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty teeth.
I’m honored by the mention, friends. Thanks for linking to my blog post. Amazing how 3 years later it is still generating healthy discussion.
As a Christ follower I do not believe Jesus gives us permission to own a hand gun with the intent of killing an intruder. I think that’s a form of premeditation. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%203:15&version=NIV
I know it’s popular to say so in Christian circles, but I believe that Jesus is the author of life and is my protector.
In reference to 1 John 3:15, I think I could kill someone without hating them. I don’t consider all killing to be murder, definitely not self-defense.
As a Christian, I’d be reluctant to shoot an intruder over a TV, but if someone entered my home knowing I was there (lights on, cars in the drive, etc.), they are demonstrating an extreme aggressiveness toward me. I could see choosing to grab a gun in that instance, not to defend my property, but because by entering an occupied home, the criminal is showing his utter disregard for my life and perhaps his intent of committing violence toward me and my children.
I believe that life is precious and from God and I understand why that causes some Christians to eschew violent self-defense, but I also believe that it is my God-given duty to protect my children to the absolute utmost.
(I, however, do not actually own a gun.)
So you’re calling ME evil and unsaved b/c I would protect my family and yet you’re giving the criminal a pass on his behavior. Just come on in and harm my family.
You’re calling evil good and good evil.
I don’t think Adam called you or anyone else evil. If you saw the word evil in his comments or blog post, you might want to check your prescription.
Follow the link and read it.
Calling someone like me who believes in self defense hateful, a murderer and unsaved is exactly what he meant.
I stand by my comment.
SFL: Cherry picking Scripture, applying it wrongly and ignoring the rest of the Bible.
David was a man of war.
Stating his position on gun control does not automatically mean he believes a thief should be able to freely rob your home or hurt your kids, unless he says so.
On a side note, people keep baseball bats and golf clubs and knives freely in their homes, all of which can be used to hurt people, so I don’t see why a gun is any different.
Americans can’t help but conflate their constitution with the Bible (a repulsive form of religious nationalism). Have at it, but the rest of christendom outside of the US doesn’t believe that it’s a god given right to carry a fire arm. The American obession with weapons isn’t exactly a great testimony to the rest of the world. Violence is just as bad nudity in my book.
You go ahead and stay in your Godforsaken Socialist/Marxist Camel Riding Cave Dwelling Hellhole. I wouldn’t want you hear anyway. Leave freedom to those of us who don’t need the nanny government running our lives. In short, government IS your God.
I mean just look at how peaceful Europe and the rest of the world is without their gun rights… and once again it is the gun’s fault.
Makes me wonder if they would have had guns in the first century how Luke 22:35-39 might have read?
Nowhere in Scripture does it say we are to give into evil, or just allow evil persons to have carte blanche control over society. And as much as I adhere to the Sovereignty of God in all things, it did not keep me from training and getting my CCW permit. So I guess that I’m one of those Bible carryin’, gun totin’ ignorant, redneck American hillbillys.
“So I guess that I’m one of those Bible carryin’, gun totin’ ignorant, redneck American hillbillys.”
I’m proud to say that my kiddos are living south of the Mason-Dixon line!
Adam, I don’t find your reasoning convincing, and I think you have failed to account for the fact that God has ordained violence as the means for keeping evil at bay in this world. But, you did get one thing right – owning a firearm is premeditated. If you break into my home for any reason, I will do my damnedest to kill you. nothing personal, I’d just rather be safe than dead.
Why did Jesus tell his diciples to take swords with them when he sent them off that one time? I don’t have time to look up the reference. Was it to hunt rabbit with? I would shoot someone who broke into my home if I had a gun.
Exodus 22.2 (NKJV) “If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”
I John 3.15 has nothing to do with this situation.
And I thought the word “brother” would be interpreted as a believer in IJohn 3:15? What do you think?
I believe that is correct. That verse – in context – is referring to the fact that love for the brethren will be characteristic of the believer’s life. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject here discussed – IMHO.
He said Jesus would protect him. I don’t see any action he would take to protect his family.
I think context counts for a lot more than simply “violence” or “nudity.” Are we talking about people who are naked and having sex, or are we talking about nude or semi-nude Trobriander islanders in a documentary? I don’t mind in the least my kids seeing the latter, but I might be squeamish about them — at this age — seeing the former. I’m the same about violence. A historical documentary can help them learn valuable lessons, violence notwithstanding, but gratuitous violence a’la Reservoir Dogs? Absolutely no thanks.
pp – I believe I have read here on SFL that some people brought up fundy would have the National Geographic magazines “edited”. Someone would use a magic marker to draw clothes on the naked native pictures.
So yes to your point, context is huge. But to a fundy a naked native making bread = a 7 person orgy.
My parents were this brand of fundy. My mom even ruined a copy of In the Night Kitchen by drawing undies on the little boy so we wouldn’t be scarred for life by seeing him naked.
At any rate, my personal opinion is that there is nothing innately wrong with nudity. My kids are pretty blase about nudity. Now, I don’t particularly want them watching sex scenes on tv or in movies, but they are all very young. I also don’t want them watching anything violent, either. But, as they get older, I would rather them see a sex scene that is based on love and mutual respect than Reservoir Dogs (that movie is sick; I don’t care what anyone says). I would also rather them watch a historical documentary with violence than a movie with gratuitous sex.
I suppose this is an area where everyone draws their own lines based on their personal comfort levels and values.
“I would also rather them watch a historical documentary with violence than a movie with gratuitous sex.”
I’m the same way. Have you seen the movie “Adams?” I let my kids watch this movie and there are three parts that I fast forwarded. It’s an HBO miniseries about John Adams based on David McCoulloug’s book “John Adams.” I’ve read his book “1776″ and it was good. He’s a well researched historian.
The movie was filmed right here in VA.
My mom wielded a mean Sharpie on the National Geographic. Usually if you held the page to the light… lol. And she CUT whole stories out of hard-bound Reader’s Digest books that she didn’t want me to read. My dad was an artist; he drew undies on little butts in one of my books that looked like they were part of the drawing. I thought that was kind of cute.
it’s cute how the games in the collection in BJU’s social parlor, like Apples to Apples and Taboo, are Sharpie-edited, to spare young, impressionable minds from the evil influence of words like “butt,” “French kiss” and “stupid.”
Yeah, well, isn’t BJU the place that thinks that holding hands is fornication?
They did the same thing at Hephzibah House. I thought HH and their extreme “IFB” was isolated. The more stories I’ve read here at SFL, I’m changing my mind about that.
So Snugglepot and Cuddlepie is evil to fundies? lol…
when it comes to movies, I have the same philosphy -
violence doesn’t bother me. I don’t think we will actually go out after watching, say Terminator, and start shooting people. That mental barrier is high, plus we’d get caught anyways, and the consequences are not good. On the other hand, raising boys, it’s easy to go down that road, it’s legal, “everybody is doing it”….but I’m nowhere near the level of censorship that I used to apply in our home while living in lala fundy land.
My take: when people are exposing their bodies in a movie, it is really their body being exposed. The violence and injuries in movies are all faked, CGI, etc. And we know that. It makes a difference. I don’t doubt that viewing lots of violence desensitizes a person to it. Watching violence has never tempted me to sin, but watching nakedness, and (simulated) sex certainly has caused me problems with keeping my thoughts pure and holy.
That’s a pretty good point, actually.
I think I’d agree with that philosophy.
Not to say I enjoy overly violent movies or those with profanity in every other sentence. It has surprised me how often that a movie I saw while in [secular] college and enjoyed, I watch later and can’t believe how much profanity is in it. I was pretty oblivious then to bad language – living in dorms of a secular university will have that effect. But when I’m not around it in everyday life, it’s much more noticeable and bothers me far more.
There is a significant factor in your post. To me the context includes the reality level. Not as in “photo real” but more along the lines of the overall feel of a movie. The violence in a superhero movie is not that same as that in Reservoir Dogs, Seven, etc.
You could probably measure it somewhat based on how disturbing it is, since the less “real” the scenario feels, the less disturbing the violent content is. This applies to video games as well, I have much less problem with realistic depictions of war, then games that involve the perpetration of crime. There is a significant difference IMO
I dunno . . . one thing that I find really creepy is that so many of my friends seem to be able to watch violent stuff without flinching. For example, my hubby and I and some friends were watching Ironman the other night, and I kept visibly squirming and wincing as I saw physical suffering portrayed onscreen. Everyone else seemed perfectly calm-they didn’t even pause in munching their M&Ms. Somehow it bothered me just a little that they were all so placid about the whole thing. When the sex scene came on, everyone looked mildly uncomfortable (everyone in the group is Christian and somewhat ex-fundy)–but death and dismemberment didn’t bother them. And, after all, the movie’s sex was no more real than the violence! I don’t blame my friends and my husband-it just seems like most of us have learned to think this way.
…Iron Man had a sex scene?
it was only about 20 seconds . . . Tony and the blonde reporter got busy in bed less than halfway through the movie.
Which was integral to establishing his character and not at all gratuitous…so I’d argue.
Eh, probably preaching to the choir.
and when I say “creepy,” I’m referring to the conditioning that all of us have received from violent movies, TV, video games, and the like; again, I don’t blame the people who are desensitized so much as I blame the entertainment industry for profiting off the bloodlust and schadenfreude inherent in human nature.
One interesting contradiction I’ve noticed: many anti-violence fundies are happy to waive the standard for movies like Lord of the Rings, which, in their minds, is an allegory of redemption. Funny how that works.
There is definitely a double standard there. I’ve lost count of the number of times friends of mine will watch any graphically violent movie, but if they hear of even a whiff of a single split second scene of nudity, they won’t watch something, even if that film artistically blows anything else out of the water.
If that is there man made standard before God, so be it. Mine is watch whatever and be discerning about it while watching. People seem to get this idea that discernment is only something that happens before something else…
My father was this way. He would watch Westerns or war films on TV where men were gunned down regularly, but let one “damn” or “hell” slip out, and he immediately changed the channel.
My pastor says this: I can handle violence. I know its not real. I can handle swearing. But I don’t think that any man has any business looking at a woman other than his wife with no clothes on. Images like that are powerful, just witness the number of men addicted to porn. I tend to agree, although not all unclothed women in movies is porn. The Movie AMISTAD. One of the best movies ever made about slavery and yet there are dozens of naked bodies in it.
Well said Bob.
One of our former pastors was once asked to come and candidate for an assistant position at a church and when the pastor admitted to having seen “Schindler’s List” this man refused to take the position. He didn’t want to serve under a man who would watch a movie with nudity in it. He didn’t seem to understand that not all nudity is the same. That movie does have one sex scene as I recall but that wasn’t what he objected to, it was ANY nudity at all. There was nudity in which the Jews were forced to remove all their clothing before going to the gas ovens, this is NOT the same thing but to him it was!
So it was nudity he objected to, not the Holocaust per se, and not the countless scenes in that movie showing people being shot in the head in graphic close-ups.
Good thing he has his priorities straight.
Exactly and this ticked me off. I wanted to go to him and explain the difference between the nudity in a movie with gratuitous sex (which I don’t want to see either) and what was in this movie, nudity meant to humiliate people you intended to kill because you felt they weren’t worthy of life. But to him it was all the same. It wouldn’t have done any good.
Wow. So he didn’t even pray about taking the position.
I have small children still and I don’t let them watch either. I’ve let my oldest watch some films that are rated with PG-14.
My husband and I will watch some violent films but not nudity b/c we’re both uncomfortable with it. I watched Black Hawk Down and it’s violent but it’s also a true story.
The MPAA movie ratings are worthless. The original Planet of the Apes (1968) featured, violence, nudity, and adult language yet only got a G rating.
The last few years they’ve at least tried to explain (in very small print) under the ratings their justification for the ratings.
I do look at the small print and if it says nudity, I forgo it. There are times we’ll shut something off if we feel like it.
My hubby and I let our kids watch a movie by themselves without us screening it, and they all agreed to turn it off b/c they felt uncomfortable about it. I was proud of them for learning to decide something like that without me around. I want them to grow up and think for themselves.
My kids aren’t quite old enough for watching movies unattended yet (imo), but this is the kind of thing that’s important to teach (again, imo). Following one’s gut instinct can take you a long way. So many kids follow the crowd and watch or do things that everyone else is doing or watching because everyone else is, even though they are personally uncomfortable with the subject matter (I know I did on an occasion or two), that having the strength to just NOT do it and know it’s ok to not do it is a pretty powerful thing.
OK, let’s take this to another level. Can fundys create art? Is innovation and artistry inherently a part of fundamentalism or Christianity to a greater degree? I’m starting to wonder if it isn’t.
Can fundys portray a womanizer through means other than just words? A murderer through means other than violence?
Can good art do either?
as far as gratuitousness (is that a word)?, IMHO, the violence in Ironman was far more gratuitous than the sex.
I think the fact that fundies can’t — or aren’t very good at– creating art is part of the reason why they’re afraid of it. The reason why fundies and art don’t mix is that art, by definition, requires new, independent ways of thinking, fresh perspectives on things, challenging the received viewpoint and asserting your own. Not a department in which fundies are terribly accomplished. I’m working on a master’s in English, so I pay a lot of attention to people’s views on literature. Have you ever discussed literature with a fundie? Particularly one of the PCC variety? It’s guaranteed to make your head spin. Their official statement is “Literature is the record of man’s response to God.” Period. End of discussion.
I don’t think I have a problem with nudity, per se. My kids have all seen nakedness, and we keep a fairly open-door policy at our house. My oldest (five) has a reasonable grasp on how babies are made because he asked and we told. My children have all been there for the (home)births of their younger siblings, so they’ve seen where babies one from. We want them to understand sex, what it’s all about, what it’s for, when it’s appropriate, etc. It’s an experiment, I guess; we figure if they’re raised with it not being a mystery, maybe they won’t be experimenting with it when they’re 13, 15, 19, unmarried….etc.
I do my best to avoid nudity in films because I don’t like looking at naked people. This has nothing to do with my religion or being a prude. I felt the same when I was an agnostic. I just think people look better clothed than naked. It does not incite lust or disgust. Its just…irritating.
However if something shows up on the screen I don’t go ballistic.
My brother the Vietnam war vet cannot watch war movies. I don’t know if that means anything or not…he just can’t do it.
I can watch violence as long as its not one on one violence. I can watch a city being blown up but I CANNOT watch a person being tortured, a woman being abused or anything like that. Just cannot do it. Even though I know its not real…It hurts inside. That’s what I look away from and change the channel over…not a naked person. The naked person just annoys me.
I can’t watch movies/shows about children getting hurt or raped either.
I have tried watching Law & Order: SVU, but I just can’t do it. It’s too disturbing.
I really enjoyed Criminal Minds when it first started, but now find that I can’t watch it. The show started out focusing on the science behind profiling, then seemed to move to focusing on the twistedness of the activities of people they’re chasing.
Same here. Can’t do that show either. I watch movies/shows for the entertainment or to zone out. It’s something I do to relax.
Yeah. I tried that show too and I couldn’t do that one either. I never watched it when it first came out but I know that CSI LV got to be sadistic. I too, enjoyed the science aspect of these shows. I’m amazed at how they can solves crimes the way they do.
But violence in a marriage is OK as long as the wife is working on being all that she can be.
I think you can understand why fundies think violent movies are ok, while nudity isn’t if you listen to the average Sunday diatribe. Angry people gravitate to violence. We hear about preachers rattling on about wanting to stone this group, round up the next group, and hit children of another. In real life, they can’t get away with that any more. Violent movies both feed the desire for violence, and vicariously satisfy it at the same time.
Fundamentalism isn’t an emotionally intimate environment. It only finds a person’s fears and weaknesses to control them. Lust and nudity are generally presented in scenes involving some level of emotional intimacy. I would venture that it’s the emotional intimacy that causes fundies to bristle, and the nudity is just the easiest target.
If God wanted folks to go around naked…they’d be born that way!
ever hear the one about the fundies who walked out of the band/orchestra concert? Too much sax and violins!
. . .
Ooohhhh, your sense of humor is even worse than mine!
These must be the same Fundies who banned the movie Ivanhoe for too much Saxon violence.
This joke is funnier when said with a Lawrence Welk accent.
Makes me wonder… if God had only given Adam a pair of gloves and Eve a pair of ear muffs would we now think that it was pornographic for a guy to stick his finger in a girl’s ear?
I guess I am just warped, jaded, and definitely bound for hell. As an EMS professional, I see these two things on a daily basis. Neither makes me flinch. But I have learned to separate seeing a naked drunk person from it being in a sexual context. It’s a person. With no clothes on. The violence doesn’t make me flinch. My adrenaline kicks in and I realize I know have to utilize my knowledge to help save this person’s life. Having said that, I am not without heart, by any means. The knowledge that people in this world are so cruel to inflict harm on another person is very sobering. The reason that girl on my cot is naked is because her boyfriend took liberties where he had none, is sickening. I guess violence and nudity on the screen is not much of an issue for me. I see the real deal. I honestly believe it is personal conviction for each individual. My daughters watch things and we discuss it if there are questions. We have done our best to instill strong moral values. They know what is appropriate and will turn something off it is not. Also, I pre-view a lot of movies before I let them watch or will watch with them and turn it off if it becomes necessary.
Some people have taken the ideas of modesty and respect and turn it into an artificial squeamishness that renders them too prim or prudish to deal with real life. Someone has got to deal with the hurting and the maimed, the old and infirm, washing them, caring for them, and it doesn’t have to be shocking or disgusting but simply part of life (as well as being an act of compassion. After all, turning away to avoid the “contamination” of the site of a naked body may actually be selfish not “holiness”.)
The issue with violence or nudity or other objectionable content in movies is that we’re paying to be entertained by that which in real life would hopefully elicit our compassion not our reaching for the popcorn. Sometimes people can’t reconcile that.
I couldn’t agree more.
I have the utmost respect for those who work as an EMS. You work hard and make little pay.
It’s all about conditioning. Pavlov’s dog. Your conditioning to violence/nudity/sex will determine your response. That is why some Fundy men can’t walk through a Walmart without getting aroused.
Exposed ankle = She’s “easy”, if not a complete “Jezebel”.
Somebody who is aroused by walking through Walmart would make a really cheap date.
exactly . . . when the checkout magazines are repeatedly held up as the ultimate temptation by your pastor, (propped up of course by the requisite allusion to David’s “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes), they’re going to be tempting. We gravitate toward what is forbidden (much like Eve.)
I remember in the church I grew up in, we were always cautioned to keep our eyes off the billboards when driving. This was on the outskirts of Chicago, where many church members commuted every day for work. It’s awful easy to miss your exit when you’re trying your best not to sneak a lustful glance at the billboards!
Fundies are always getting triple-bypass heart surgeries. Isn’t that kinda kinky (and immodest), even if it is just doctors and such who get to see your innards? A verse about guarding your heart comes to mind.
I love James Bond movies which are abundant of both gratuitous sex and violence. I figure I got all my bases covered.
And then there are those that say a woman should never see a male gynocolgist; that indeed male gynos are perverted. Vice versa, men should never see female doctors if it might involve taking their clothes off.
If there is an option to have a female gyno, I will take that every time. No offense to men, but I do not see a reason to have a man see me that exposed unless absolutely necessary. I do question, at times though, why one would want to go into that field. Male or female! Just my two cents.
Most gyno’s who are not also OB’s didn’t go to med school hoping to become Gyno’s. They chose the specialty, because they were fulfilling a need. Same goes for proctologists or urologists.
Many OB’s or OB/GYN’s on the other hand, chose that because they wanted to work with labor and delivery. It’s more of a calling, I suppose.
Eh, seeing a doctor isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a sexy experience for either patient or doctor.
I’ve been seen by both male and female doctors at different times, and there isn’t a lot of difference. Both have cold hands.
Nudity in movies doesn’t bother me in the least, but during violent movies I’m inwardly cringing the whole time.
Of course, this is not a black and white issue. I suppose that at the heart of either nudity or violence is the dehumanization of a person. It is ludicrous to argue that the Venus de Milo is pornographic because her breasts are exposed. On the other hand, a person with clothes on can be made an object of lust, robbing them of dignity, and denying their God stamped human image. But that doesn’t just apply to nudity; people can be used in any number of ways. So nudity is an issue when we use that person for our own selfish gratification. Just like a relationship can become destructive when we only use another person for our own gain and gratification. Likewise, violence done against a person must first devalue that person; which is why, I suppose, Christ likened hate to murder. Violence should never come easy, which would perhaps be the argument against it in media: that by watching violence we are immune to the destructive and dehumanizing nature of it. At the end of the day, though, our ability to process and deal with violence, nudity, or any other sin presented in media probably rests on the maturity of our faith.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
[ Ctrl + Enter ]
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Copyright © 2009 Stuff Fundies Like • Simpl3 Theme by Human3rror
Switch to our mobile site