[Split From Thread In Harlequin] Song of Solomon, etc.

[Marvin D.]

um...no...the Bible is very rarely graphic, and even then, it's not really that bad. Ya, there's plenty of violence and wars, but it's practically never vividly described.

I agree. The worst is. .when that dude in Judges chopped up his daughter into twelve pieces It's not really. .violent.

I mean, have either of you read Song of Solomon?

Song of Solomons is graphic and violent?

[The Top Crusader]

Regardless googley eyes remain to not be sexual content for any age so I demand the debate to continue!

[TigerintheShadows]

um...no...the Bible is very rarely graphic, and even then, it's not really that bad. Ya, there's plenty of violence and wars, but it's practically never vividly described.

I agree. The worst is. .when that dude in Judges chopped up his daughter into twelve pieces It's not really. .violent.

I mean, have either of you read Song of Solomon?

Song of Solomons is graphic and violent?

It's fairly graphically sexual on its own, and then you take the "what they're actually saying/what deeper meaning this has" interpretations made by Bible scholars and it's even worse.

[jelly]

um...no...the Bible is very rarely graphic, and even then, it's not really that bad. Ya, there's plenty of violence and wars, but it's practically never vividly described.

I agree. The worst is. .when that dude in Judges chopped up his daughter into twelve pieces It's not really. .violent.

I mean, have either of you read Song of Solomon?

Song of Solomons is graphic and violent?

It's fairly graphically sexual on its own, and then you take the "what they're actually saying/what deeper meaning this has" interpretations made by Bible scholars and it's even worse.

What on earth do you mean by 'worse'?

[The Top Crusader]

Worse=better!

Although in all honesty I often wonder how SoS has remained as part of holy scripture after many councils and things like Enoch get thrown out.

[ric]

I have read Song of Solomon, and I would hesitate to call it graphic in any way...

edit: Okay, perhaps graphic works, but it's certainly NOT erotic.

[TigerintheShadows]

um...no...the Bible is very rarely graphic, and even then, it's not really that bad. Ya, there's plenty of violence and wars, but it's practically never vividly described.

I agree. The worst is. .when that dude in Judges chopped up his daughter into twelve pieces It's not really. .violent.

I mean, have either of you read Song of Solomon?

Song of Solomons is graphic and violent?

It's fairly graphically sexual on its own, and then you take the "what they're actually saying/what deeper meaning this has" interpretations made by Bible scholars and it's even worse.

What on earth do you mean by 'worse'?

You know how sometimes when you take the full meaning behind something and you really think about it and it seems even more awesome/evil/serious/whatever? It's that kind of thing, at least for me.

[jelly]

I have read Song of Solomon, and I would hesitate to call it graphic in any way...

edit: Okay, perhaps graphic works, but it's certainly NOT erotic.

Dude, it's totally erotic. How is it anything else? For this reason the church has been so unsure about how to approach it for the longest time. The problem there, of course, is the absurd notion that sexual expression is sinful and ungodly. Song of Solomon reminds us that sexual expression, in the correct context, is beautiful and should be exercised freely. Instead, the church has always pushed for an allegorical approach between God and the church, as a way of reconciling its place in the official Biblical cannon for themselves.

The beautiful thing about SoS is that it is purely a work of art, and as such, it can be approached in almost any fashion and still speak to the heart of the reader. The original intention of the text is unknown, so we're free to interpret it pretty much however we wish (within reason).

[ric]

Erotic means arrousing sexual desire. SoS is not intended to arouse sexual desire. It's descriptive of the beauty of sexuality, yes, but not erotic. In fact, it even says "do not awaken love until you are ready" or some such thing.

Song of Solomon reminds us that sexual expression, in the correct context, is beautiful and should be exercised freely.

Yes, and erotica is not the correct context.

[jelly]

Erotic means arrousing sexual desire. SoS is not intended to arouse sexual desire.

dude..

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
for your love is more delightful than wine.
Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
your name is like perfume poured out.
No wonder the young women love you!
Take me away with you—let us hurry!
Let the king bring me into his chambers.

While the king was at his table,
my perfume spread its fragrance.
My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh
resting between my breasts.
My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms
from the vineyards of En Gedi.

This, my friend, is ancient erotica at its finest. 'Arousing sexual desire' is probably a line directly from the book itself. Why try to defend it? There's nothing wrong with some good ol' biblical erotica.

Song of Solomon reminds us that sexual expression, in the correct context, is beautiful and should be exercised freely.

Yes, and erotica is not the correct context.

Sure it is. Who are you to say what the correct context is?

[TigerintheShadows]

It's a romance between a man and his wife. From the wedding night onward, a couple will experience erotica. It's a fact of life, and I think that it's a good thing that the Bible has such a book. I pretty much agree with everything Jelly has said on this subject.

[The Top Crusader]

This topic is becoming weird, split it again, I say!

[ric]

It's a romance between a man and his wife. From the wedding night onward, a couple will experience erotica. It's a fact of life, and I think that it's a good thing that the Bible has such a book. I pretty much agree with everything Jelly has said on this subject.

...erotica is not an experience or feeling.... Erotica is literature or art dealing with sexual love, in which case, SoS is erotica. But, erotica generally has the "sexual arousal of the reader/viewer" as it's main purpose. SoS certainly does not have the sexual arousal of the reader as it's main purpose.
If one feels aroused by it, frankly, one is not mature enough to be reading it. However, it has an air about it that is not lascivious or lewd. It is merely beautiful.

Song of Solomon reminds us that sexual expression, in the correct context, is beautiful and should be exercised freely.

Yes, and erotica is not the correct context.

Sure it is. Who are you to say what the correct context is?

I am an ordinary person with a rudimentary understanding of the basics of aesthetics. If you're referring to the "beautiful erotica" which merely deals with sexual love, than I would say you are correct, but if you are referring to the erotica which "arouses sexual desire in the reader," than I would say that is absolutely not the correct context. (This is not just some idea I contrived from my ultra-conservative homeschooled ignorant brain. This is established aesthetics.)

I'd love to continue this argument about the basics of aesthetics with you all, but it's not appropriate for this topic or this forum in general.

[jelly]

Erotica is literature or art dealing with sexual love, in which case, SoS is erotica.

..'nuff said.

The problem you're addressing is our culture's mindset in regards to 'erotica', or in contrast, the average Christian's response to it. Sexual expression is intended to be a beautiful thing (SoS illustrates this explicitly), but society has twisted and objectified it, and in response, the church has struggled throughout the centuries with going the opposite extreme and condemning sexual expression entirely.

I'd love to continue this argument about the basics of aesthetics with you all, but it's not appropriate for this topic or this forum in general.

I must have forgotten that we're not allowed to analyze biblical text on a Christian forum.

[TigerintheShadows]

I'd love to continue this argument about the basics of aesthetics with you all, but it's not appropriate for this topic or this forum in general.

I must have forgotten that we're not allowed to analyze biblical text on a Christian forum.

I think he was referring to the nature of the conversation, because there are younger users here and the constant usage of terms like "erotica" and "sexual expression" are not necessarily to be thrown about when kids could see them. I'm not exactly the biggest Moral Guardian ever...but it's worth mentioning.

[Knight Fisher]

I'd love to continue this argument about the basics of aesthetics with you all, but it's not appropriate for this topic or this forum in general.

I must have forgotten that we're not allowed to analyze biblical text on a Christian forum.

I think he was referring to the nature of the conversation, because there are younger users here and the constant usage of terms like "erotica" and "sexual expression" are not necessarily to be thrown about when kids could see them. I'm not exactly the biggest Moral Guardian ever...but it's worth mentioning.

Then they really shouldn't be on here in the first place.

[jelly]

I'd love to continue this argument about the basics of aesthetics with you all, but it's not appropriate for this topic or this forum in general.

I must have forgotten that we're not allowed to analyze biblical text on a Christian forum.

I think he was referring to the nature of the conversation, because there are younger users here and the constant usage of terms like "erotica" and "sexual expression" are not necessarily to be thrown about when kids could see them. I'm not exactly the biggest Moral Guardian ever...but it's worth mentioning.

Then they really shouldn't be on here in the first place.

Word.

[American Eagle]

This is a family-friendly forum. Kids should be on here. Explicit discussion should not.

At least, not on the main forums...

[jelly]

Sex in the Bible is great, though. It's the perfect context for getting introduced to it.

[ric]

Erotica is literature or art dealing with sexual love, in which case, SoS is erotica.

..'nuff said.

The problem you're addressing is our culture's mindset in regards to 'erotica', or in contrast, the average Christian's response to it. Sexual expression is intended to be a beautiful thing (SoS illustrates this explicitly), but society has twisted and objectified it, and in response, the church has struggled throughout the centuries with going the opposite extreme and condemning sexual expression entirely.

No, this is not just the culture's mindset. The term 'erotica,' in most cases has the implication of arousing sexual desire. It even says so in the dictionary. It meant that 70 years ago. I get what you're saying, and I agree with it, but just don't use the term 'erotica,' because anyone, even a scholar, who hears that is probably not going to think "beautiful sexual expression."

I'd love to continue this argument about the basics of aesthetics with you all, but it's not appropriate for this topic or this forum in general.

I must have forgotten that we're not allowed to analyze biblical text on a Christian forum.

I meant Finneman's Market, not the whole ToO.