Web ad for a church

You have great points, Rufus.

The Bible admonishes us to avoid the very appearance of evil.

The Bible also says that many will preach and prophesy in His Name, but He will say, "Sorry I never knew you."

Is this ad edifying to the Body of Christ?

Is this ad attempting to decieve some to hear the Gospel? Since when did the Gospel of Jesus Christ have to be deceptive in order for the Word to be sown?

Sex might sell in Hollywood and in Corporate America, but where in the Scripture is sex used to sell the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

The Witness of the Holy Spirit in me finds this ad very repugnant.

One might ask a couple of very simple questions to determine if this ad is edifying for anyone or not:

Who is the Father of lies, deceit, and the spirit of lust? End of point.

 

Unless we are to assume that there was no Bible until the english language came to be, then yes, in the Greek text (TR is the one I checked), the word pornea does exist.

Granted, its discretion would have to be determined by someone who knows a bit more about greek-speaking culture than I.

Sex (however it is to be phrased) can and should be discussed at church, as it is discussed in scripture. However, as tempting as it might be to use the discussion to draw people in, there are many other warnings we should be aware of when choosing the promotion of our church.

I think people do have questions and needs in this issue that are answered and met in scripture. I would not want to cause anyone to stumble in the process. I think in this particular ad, there are implications that might cause someone to stumble.

 

Good post! :thumbsup:

 

Just to clarify the meaning of porneia (the proper spelling), it always means illicit sex (fornication, prostitution, etc.) both in koine (the language of the NT) and classical Greek. It never means simply "sex." It is used in 25 verses of the Greek NT, and every single time it is condemned.

As Rufus (I believe it was) said, the Bible uses euphemisms ("to know," "to lay with") for the actual act. So, again, what in the world spiritual is there about this deceptive ad that plays on lust to get people to look at their church site?

P. S. Just to clarify some more, I just did a check on the NRSV, and the word "sex" or "sexual" occurs in it 20 times. In the times it refers directly to the act, the NRSV (as many other modern versions) has chosen to ignore the euphemisms of the Hebrew original and use words such as "sexual act"--so blunt and lacking in discretion as compared to the original and the versions that translate literally, such as our beloved KJV.

 

To me it is not the fact that the church is teaching on sex as it should be taught, but the fact that sexual situations are being used to advertise for the church.

I support True love waits, and other programs that describe, with discretion, what sex is all about.

But to advertise like this is overboard.

Then again, it may be the fact that my hair is turning grey at age 37!

 

I'm tip-toeing here...but this would make a good discussion.

There are many places in the KJV in which the phrasing is not delicate (I think of the passage about the ones who "p**seth against the wall.")

In 1611 (and subsequent years), was "to know," "to lay with," and the like really delicate? Or is it delicate today compared to other euphemisms?

Maybe in 1611, "to know" was very straightforward.

I'm just thinking of other areas of scripture (Song of Solomon, some passages in Proverbs, Ezekiel, and others), in which sinful acts are very bluntly discussed. I'm not so sure sex was discussed in a roundabout way...I just think that by modern comparisons, it might look delicately put.

 

Well, I would agree with you if "to know" and "to lay with" were not idioms, both of which were often used in a normal way not meaning the sex act. An idiom in most cases is for the purpose of saying something differently for emphasis, or less bluntly, or to say something cleverly. However, there are idioms that are the only way to say something in a particular language, so without a lot more study of the papyri, etc., I can't say I'm right 100%.

Having said that, in every language there are crude ways to say things (as in Japanese, which I learned to my embarrassment many years ago ), and I am confident that the originals of the Bible and the phraseology of the KJV do not use those crude words. As my Japanese linguist (helping me with our TR-based Japanese NT) insists when I use a word that is too colloquial, "We should use good literary words, since it is the Bible." (This is not to say we are using Classical Japanese, but modern literary Japanese.)

As for the "indelicate" phraseology of the KJV, the charge is usually made by those who have not read Shakespeare and other early 17th century literature. If you want indelicate speech, read Shakespeare! The man had a foul mouth! The KJV does not use indelicate speech for its time.

 

I understand that pornea is a negative reference, but I don't think it was necessarily discreet...but, much like the euphamisims of 1611, I'm not real sure as to their usage at the time.

As for positive euphamisms, there are some interesting metaphors in Song of Solomon.

Either way, the real problem with the ad is not so much discretion, but IMHO, the fact that a lof of what is plays on is sin. In that case, discretion was called for.

 

Well not discreet, any more than preaching against adultery is today. My point was that it was not a "bad word" or crude word in the culture of the day. No one would look at Paul askance for using it in the 1st century culture, unlike how dignified Americans look at the word used recently by John Piper in the pulpit (though he later apologized).

The Bible is absolutely the only place to get God's positive input on the beauty of married intimacy without the crudeness of the worldlings! :thumbs:

And, we are very much in agreement. :1_grouphug:

 

What, you guys actually had the guts to watch that thing all the way through? Knowing the way it always goes for me, someone in the library would take one look at my screen and think, "Good grief, what kind of a pervert is she?"

I agree--touchy issues like that need to be adressed in a pure manner, and yes, folks need to realize that "it's" a special gift from God for married couples, but great Scott! do they have to be so graphic?

As was mentioned earlier, "Abstain from all appearance of evil"--and that's good ol' King James, too, by the way. 'Nuff said there.

DRF

 

TX = Lame, FL=Crappy

Looks like someone else is doing this...

Sex Billboard Directs Attention to Fla. Church

More details here --> Link

Local news video here --> Link