Christian Porn Again - the bible way!

Is all porn completely vile? Well, it depends on the viewer. The ability to look at the uncovered genitals and mammary glands of a woman is considered by some to be abnormal and/or sinful. But the idea of publicly sharing such imagery was promoted by the Bible's Solomon who believed it was something to behold and be shared under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is.

As far as erotic literacy goes, it's a fairly racy book. I came across a guy online somewhere who is slowly illustrating the whole bible verse by verse. Well, I'd be very curious as to how he draws the Song of Solomon with all its romantic metaphors.

The Song of Songs (aka, the "Song of Solomon") is like nothing else in the Bible. It's an eight chapter poem, narrated by two lovers. She's dark, young, and foxy. He's strong, sexy, and seductive (and he may even be Solomon, the purported author of the song). No doubt some Bible scholars claim that the song is just an allegory, and that the lusty images and panting verses are really enthusiastic prayers. But it sounds like sexy fun bible time. The song is a duet, with the lovers alternating passages. She starts, and begins with a bang: "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine." Now that's an opening line.

Song of Songs 8:10 - Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full? And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied."
 
Song of Songs 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies."

Song of Songs 1:13 "My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts."

The dirtiest verse in the bible! :

Ezekiel 23:20 Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt (20)and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions. KJV- 20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.


Song of Songs 3:4 "Scarcely had I passed them when I found the one my heart loves. I held him and would not let him go till I had brought him to my mother's house, to the room of the one who conceived me."
 
So in other words, she was not married to him, and when she found him, she took him back to her bed room to have illegal sex with him? If she were married to him, she wouldn't take him to her "mother's house". She would take him to their house.

Song of Songs 5:4 "I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: 'Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.'

I have taken off my robe (i.e., she showed her rude bits to him), must I put it on again? I have washed my feet, must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him."

Christian erotica?

By the way, Jesus freaks, thy tongue is firmly in my cheeks.

13 comments:

Brolly said...

Good moth, Just a quick comment. I looked at this from a different view point in Song of Solomon, that the author (God) was giving an illustration of the unique relationship that a bride and groom have for one another, not in sharing it with others, and was likening this to his church. In other words the holy sanction of two humans being together as one body, portraying their love to one another. Of course this is almost completely annihilated in todays society.

On Edge said...

I wouldn't call it confronting. More like "junk interpretation", easily rebutted if one wishes to listen to the other side. (Of course I'm not going to try to do it, since as we both know there's heaps written by experts. Call me gutless if you like. ) I've come across stuff like it before. As far as I'm concerned it's like saying that the bible says Paul did drugs because it says he got stoned.

Sure there are some explicit references in the bible, particularly SS, to sexuality. But ... c'mon ... tell the truth ... do you really believe all your conclusions, or are you just stirring the possum?

Shiny happy person said...

Porn is yuck. Its disgusting. It's wrong. Think on what is pure, holy, noble and right. Amen.I definitely don't support any of that junk. I don't think it's normal. I think it's wrong - and men and women ahould operate self-control in this area.Stiff bickies if you don't agree with the Bible.- Jesus would not look at -or condone looking at porn- It is sin.

Hey Motho.... That picture is yuck and immodest. I for one- don't like to see that junk at all.

Song of solomon is not about a woman wanting to do it with her brother.

Yes I know there is kinda sick stories in the Bible- It doesn't mean that God condones that behaviour though.

All your indecent comments about women's private parts- and other things are too much. You are reading that stuff into the text.

To him who is pure- all things are pure......

As for your example from Esther- get some context...!! God was not responsible for encouraging that behaviour at all.

David did get punished for his sin with Bathsheba- their son was killed. God forgave him- because he repented.

Homosexuality is never encouraged anywhere in the Bible- it is an abomination.

Amen

MothandRust said...

I love that picture. It's beautiful in its immodesty. Of course much is taken out of context, that's half the fun, but you're going to have to fill that book up with liquid paper if you don't want it to look like Solomon was talking about private parts in these verses. I'm sure you see my tongue firmly in cheek... or perhaps hanging out - pmsl. I don't even believe the bible is the literal word of god. But you do and the song of songs must count. But okay, I'll keep biting. I'm sorry if the picture of swinging boobs offends you. Sorry about that... but I'm not going to hold back on a post or blog because it might offend someone... to a degree. If further discussion will offend I'd suggest you not continue reading on.

Even though she may not be his biological sister, but calling her a "sister" in a pornographic and sick situation as shown in details below is not proper, and may suggest that the sick pervert would fantasize about his biological sister if he had one. Song of Songs 4:9 "You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace." Fantasizing about his sister? at least he shows in this verse that he would!.

Song 5:4 -I have taken off my robe must I put it on again? ... My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him."

How else would you interpret that. I'm sorry, a dirty mind is one thing, but in the context of the song this is certainly some disrobing and latch opening groping going on...

The imagery devices used in the text of Song of Soloman are pornographic.

Very soft porn, but porn nonetheless.

MothandRust said...

"David did get punished for his sin with Bathsheba- their son was killed. God forgave him- because he repented."

Whoa Whoa... god killed his son then forgave him?

Nice. loving and forgiving that old god.

Wootyful said...

I know I should be writing essays but this is much more interesting than the use of figurative language in the poetry of Robert Browning

I think there's a distinction to be made here between pornography vs erotica vs gratuitous nudity.
I consider 'porn' to be the exploitative, artless variety and this stuff is nasty & damaging. Gratuitous nudity is the meaningless kind, sure some people might enjoy looking at it but really there's no other point to it (& personally I think the redhead swinging her fadoobadas falls into this category!) But true 'erotica' can be artistic, empowering, and a celebration of the beauty of the human form.

Then again it's like anything that can be classed as a temptation... if person A can have a few glasses of wine without any problems, but person B is an alcoholic who drinks to excess then goes home and beats his wife, where does the problem lie - is it alcohol itself that's bad or is it down to the physiology or self-control of the person using it? [this is a rhetorical question by the way so nobody needs to lecture me on the evils or otherwise of alcohol - I'm just using it as an example of how it's not always possible to define things in black & white despite what fundamentalists would have you believe].

As for whether what's in the Bible is porn, I don't particularly have a view on that myself. I agree that particularly in a modern context some of the stuff written in there is pretty explicit, but IMO whether you see it as porn, erotica, allegory, inspiration or fairytale really does depend on how you want to interpret it.

All these sorts of issues are always going to be contentious and clouded by shades of grey depending on the POV of the individual. Someone who believes what the Bible says about modesty will probably have an issue with any sort of nudity; someone who doesn't believe in the Bible will see nothing wrong with it. Who is right? We could spend an eternity arguing the ins and outs of this [pardon the pun] but ultimately it's an open forum and we all have the choice as to whether we want to look at or read about this sort of thing, or go and do something else instead (like, say, the essays I'm supposed to be writing)

Eek said...

Ditto to Wootyful's comment.

And as for the Moth's obsession with porn.. well... I'll shush about that cept to say that a dirty mind sees what it wants to see.

Combine a dirty mind, some bible knowledge and an anti-christian attitude... and you get this post. :P

James said...

I know there's a guy online somewhere who is slowly illustrating the whole bible verse by verse. I can't wait until he gets to the Song of Solomon.

Yeah they'll probably have a "revelation" to get rid of that book.

James said...

As for your example from Esther- get some context...!! God was not responsible for encouraging that behaviour at all.

Wait now just a minute. How is God not responsible if the Bible is true word for word like many Christians testify to??

You do believe the Bible to be the word of God don't you? After all you did say this:

Stiff bickies if you don't agree with the Bible This insinuates that you DO believe every word in the Bible to be inspired by "God."

For example you didn't say, "Stiff bickies if you don't agree with the parts of the Bible that are inspired by "God??"

And if you DO believe that some of the Bible isn't inspired by "God" and shouldn't be believed then how can you say the Bible is the word of God when some of it is "bad??" Why would "God" allow "bad" books or verses to stay in the cannon and soil his perfect knowledge and words??

What parts are inspired and which ones are not?? How do we know if said book is inspired?? What if we all disagree on which book(s) to not believe or pull out of the bible?? It has happened before in Christian history.

The 1st Nicean Council was basically a board meeting of a powerful brotherhood of Christians who decided they needed uniformity of beliefs since Jesus was a bit vague. Jesus and "God" seemed to be vague as the need for a council in the first place!!

We all know that the council surely got heated and yelling was involved. Is that anyway to decide how Jesus's church should be run??

Why believe the arguments of mortal men over what to believe?? Why didn't Jesus show up to solve the dilemma?? He kinda failed didn't he?? If he could come to save the world, be crucified, be resurrected and ascend into heaven then why couldn't and didn't he show up at the Council of Nicea??

Don't you think deciding how the future of his religion be run was just as important as his teachings themselves??

Why would he want to risk his true words being changed, destroyed or twisted when without his teachings he would have just been any other spiritual teacher around in those days??

And if he DID magically give a few, likely uneducated men the authority to decide what was what in the Council of Nicea--why was their a need for a 2nd council?!!! Don't you think guys who were ordained by Jesus with the authority to decide for him would get it right the first time??

"Christianity: The Sequel." This time--it's for REAL.

snakey said...

Well! talking about "fadoobadas" - **looking down at my own**...why should I be 'shamed'..because of how some twerp defines my naked body. Who cares what the bible says.

Is it that the female body causes...too many 'stiff bickies'...? hehehe...

this thread is too funny!

Anonymous said...

Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Denny said...

I have written a blog post for all interested. It is entitled, “Christianity and Pornagraphy, Masturbation, Oral Sex, Anal Sex, Adultery, Fornication, Homosexuality and Sensuality. What Do the Scriptures Have to Say About These Things?” Just type this or 777denny into any search engine to find it.

Did you know the Great Whore, the Vatican (this is NOT to offend Catholics, but is rather about telling the truth. I grew up Catholic — I plan on making a blog post soon about ‘Mystery Babylon’), has misinterpreted the word “fornication” for about 1,700 years? Did you know that until about 50 years ago Vatican teaching taught that sexual intercourse between MARRIED persons was considered fornication? Did you know that if the scriptures are silent on an issue, then it is up to the person or husband to decide whether it is right or wrong? Did you know that if you judge someone for doing something that is not prohibited by scripture that you are sinning?

Find out about all this and more so you can make an informed decision about the subjects in the title of the blog post.

Thanks for listening, 777denny