Lil Red Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 That is true, but because of original sin, men are tempted to lust by nudity. This is a biological fact. :unsure: women are also tempted to lust by nudity. i mean, if David Beckham paraded around in front of me naked, I'll have to answer for lusting after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim111 Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Nudity is not inherently obscene. Original sin has increased our passions and makes us sinfully desire things that are normally good. I think where i see a contradiction is why art is OK naked, but it is sinful for women to go in public naked. Edited May 1, 2013 by jim111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) Original sin makes has increased our passions and makes us desire sin, for things that are normally good. I think where i see a contradiction is why art is OK naked, but it is sinful for women to go in public naked. Nobody argued women should walk around naked. We are going in circles. We talked quite a bit about prudence and proper context. Edited May 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim111 Posted May 1, 2013 Author Share Posted May 1, 2013 Nobody argued women should walk around naked. We are going in circles. what i am asking you to explain is how it causes less scandal for a woman to be painted naked, then for a person to be naked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 what i am asking you to explain is how it causes less scandal for a woman to be painted naked, then for a person to be naked. See my edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Original sin has increased our passions and makes us sinfully desire things that are normally good. I think where i see a contradiction is why art is OK naked, but it is sinful for women to go in public naked. This has already been proposed to you mainly by the repeated statement that art is inherently different from personal nudity. You refuse to even acknowledge or address this point. EmilyAnne has already said it. Nihil and I have said much the same, in that art and personal nudity are not the same. Can you prove they are the same? If they are not the same, then they can be different, and it still falls to you to prove WHY you think that is the case. You keep asserting but never explaining. It's getting annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 It's getting past annoying. fxd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim111 Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 People buy magazines "playboy" for pleaure. After Trent they specifically coverd all naked pictues in churches because it was an occasion of sin. We established this long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 i sincerely hope you are trolling, and do not actually believe that. if you do, methinks you need a sound spiritual director, and to step away from teh interwebz for like, ever. I think you are a little obsessed with nudity, modesty, and the like. If this is not the case perhaps you should try making threads about other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 People buy magazines "playboy" for pleaure. After Trent they specifically coverd all naked pictues in churches because it was an occasion of sin. We established this long ago. Playboy is a non-sequitur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim111 Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Playboy is a non-sequitur. what about the effects after trent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Playboy is a non-sequitur. Stop eating my props. I'mma start calling you pac-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 what about the effects after trent They are uncovered now, are they not? :idontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim111 Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 They are uncovered now, are they not? :idontknow: By a pope who clearly does not understand how scandal works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggyie Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 By a pope who clearly does not understand how scandal works. You mean Pope Julius who had nudes painted all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now