Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

[passer_by]

Please read what I post in the context of my response.

The only context in your response was a single line which seem to state something that no one has denied. What exactly am I to infer as to the context from a single line?

 

[passer_by]

I would not bother, Severus.

If there is nothing logical to be said, I think I agree with Debora’s suggestion

 

[severus68]

If someone is going nude in public BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL, then YES, that person is committing a MORAL sin by leading others to temptation.

It does not depend on the situation.

What St. Francis said was speaking about nudity in general. Nudity is ok when a husband and wife have sex for an example. But you are taking this quote out of context to try and justify public nudity. That is a logically incorrect usage of knowledge.

You obviously are just jumping in to ‘attack’ since for example you have no idea what was said about St Francis. And please enough with those caps.

 

[passer_by]

You obviously are just jumping in to ‘attack’ since for example you have no idea what was said about St Francis. And please enough with those caps.

Aww, does it upset you when I emphasize what might cause your argument to collapse?

And for your information, I am well aware of the abuse of St. Francis’s teaching on this thread.

 

[Nate13]

Me too. Anyone else notice how this thread was started off so well in a light hearted manner and has now been taken over?

Haha if you consider bashing the more traditional Catholics as “light hearted” then yes I agree. Excuse us “unreasonable” people for stepping into “your” thread.

 

[severus68]

If there is nothing logical to be said, I think I agree with Debora’s suggestion

You are trying to speak about logic? Debora does not need you to agree and I do not need your suggestions. You make everything personal and you just try to push your views in whatever manner.

 

[LilyM]

I have never lived in a culture where a thong bikini was the norm. Everywhere I’ve lived has viewed thong bikinis as immodest and inappropriate, though few people do wear them. I think the only places in this world where wearing thongs is considered modest/normal is Asia when they are worn by sumo wrestlers, and certain tribes in Africa who wear little thong type bottoms with flaps to cover the front. In those circumstances, wearing a thong would not be immodest.

This is completely consistent with everything I’ve been saying about culture/modesty, so I’m not sure how my answer couldn’t have been a given, but perhaps it’s my fault for not making myself clear enough through all these pages and posts.

Oh your answer was a given.

It squares quite well with my and Nate’s vibe, really. Which seems to be that you consider the only two factors that have any bearing on modesty to be
a) cultural acceptance and
b) positive intent to incite people to sin.

See, I’ve never heard even the slightest hint from you that you think it relevant, say, to critically examine the culture in question, and consider whether what IT accepts is what GOD would accept (and you know there are plenty of things accepted in plenty of cultures that He thoroughly disapproves of!). Into this comes considerations like the inherent sacredness of the body which transcends culture and which I harp on about so much.

Or consider whether what the clothing in question is helpful, harmful or neutral in your walk with Christ or the walk of those around you - and if even neutral, whether alternative clothing might be found that would be helpful.

No hint of, say, refraining from the bikini out of consideration to those who might be weaker than yourself (and Paul is rather insistent that we try to avoid putting stumbling blocks in front of them when possible)

No hint even that anything less than a positive intent to sin matters - even though in sin, as in crime, positive intent is not always required.

So tell me, how are Nate and I inaccurate when we summarize your stance as being ‘people can wear whatever they want as long as the culture accepts it and there is no positive intent to sin?’

Because this poor ignorant slob has really heard nothing else come from you - not on the previous thread or on this one.

No

 

[passer_by]

You are trying to speak about logic? Debora does not need you to agree and I do not need your suggestions. You make everything personal and you just try to push your views in whatever manner.

No my dear, I try to judge the arguments of Debora, you, or any other using Logic. If they are logically invalid, I simply point out why anyone who is reading should simply disregard those views since they are just random claims.

This is how reasonable people act. We discard the illogical, show the error and we absorb the logical.

Lots of people have opinions, so we judge whether what they say have any worth by judging if the positions expressed in their opinions are reasonable. That is what happens when you post on a forum.

 

[Debora123]

Oh your answer was a given.

It squares quite well with my and Nate’s vibe, really. Which seems to be that you consider the only two factors that have any bearing on modesty to be
a) cultural acceptance and
b) positive intent to incite people to sin.

See, I’ve never heard even the slightest hint from you that you think it relevant, say, to critically examine the culture in question, and consider whether what IT accepts is what GOD would accept (and you know there are plenty of things accepted in plenty of cultures that He thoroughly disapproves of!). Into this comes considerations like the inherent sacredness of the body which transcends culture and which I harp on about so much.

Or consider whether what the clothing in question is helpful, harmful or neutral in your walk with Christ or the walk of those around you - and if even neutral, whether alternative clothing might be found that would be helpful.

No hint of, say, refraining from the bikini out of consideration to those who might be weaker than yourself (and Paul is rather insistent that we try to avoid putting stumbling blocks in front of them when possible)

No hint even that anything less than a positive intent to sin matters - even though in sin, as in crime, positive intent is not always required.

So tell me, how are Nate and I inaccurate when we summarize your stance as being ‘people can wear whatever they want as long as the culture accepts it and there is no positive intent to sin?’

Because this poor ignorant slob has really heard nothing else come from you - not on the previous thread or on this one.

No

Why the condescending attitude?

I believe there is nothing wrong with nudity unless it hurts the dignity of the human person in some way shape or form… whether that be by inciting lust, or whatever. This is in line with what JPII said in Love and Responsibility.

Your claim that I believe “we should all bare all all the time unless we have serious reasons not to,” is completely illegitimate, and so I made it clear to you that it was incorrect and asked you to please stop putting words in my mouth.

You seem very angry.

 

[passer_by]

I believe there is nothing wrong with nudity unless it hurts the dignity of the human person in some way shape or form… whether that be by inciting lust, or whatever. This is in line with what JPII said in Love and Responsibility.

What you might have missed in reading Love and Responsibility is the part where he speaks about Concupiscence and how its a life long battle.

Your claim that I believe “we should all bare all all the time unless we have serious reasons not to,” is completely illegitimate, and so I made it clear to you that it was incorrect and asked you to please stop putting words in my mouth.

You seem very angry.

But as far as what I read, I have to agree with LilyM. All you have said is that if the culture supports it, then it is modest.

 

[Nate13]

Why the condescending attitude?

I believe there is nothing wrong with nudity unless it hurts the dignity of the human person in some way shape or form… whether that be by inciting lust, or whatever. This is in line with what JPII said in Love and Responsibility.

Your claim that I believe “we should all bare all all the time unless we have serious reasons not to,” is completely illegitimate, and so I made it clear to you that it was incorrect and asked you to please stop putting words in my mouth.

You seem very angry.

I tried putting it this exact same way earlier as was picked apart even after I respecified it 3 times…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate13 View Post
-never loses dignity in God’s - true
-never loses dignity in your own eyes - false, but as you said you have complete control over this. Only I can lower the dignity I see in myself.
-never loses dignity in the eyes of others - false

This was the final reversion at which I got this response from Walking_Home:

That would speak of a deficiency of a Christ like attitude on the part of those others.

so… I guess when you say it its fine, but if I say it I have a hidden agenda

Here is the way I put it that was so adamantly opposed…

Originally Posted by Nate13 View Post
In general I agree. Read the Catechism. Read Love and Responsibility. Inform yourself and then use that thing called a conscience that God gave us. Dress to the point necessary to get the respect and dignity you deserve. Those are standards we can all live by.

 

[Debora123]

I tried putting it this exact same way earlier as was picked apart even after I respecified it 3 times…

This was the final reversion at which I got this response from Walking_Home:

so… I guess when you say it its fine, but if I say it I have a hidden agenda

The difference is you spoke of people “losing dignity.” People never lose dignity, and that’s what WH was getting at.

 

[Nate13]

The difference is you spoke of people “losing dignity.” People never lose dignity, and that’s what WH was getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate13 View Post
In general I agree. Read the Catechism. Read Love and Responsibility. Inform yourself and then **use that thing called a conscience that God gave us. Dress to the point necessary to get the respect and dignity you deserve. Those are standards we can all live by. **

This is the original statement that was contested… I admit lose is probably not the best word to describe it in my attempts after to redescribed it, but your use of the word “hurt” isn’t that far away… I should not have even had to try and describe it better, because the original statement should not be controversial.

 

[severus68]

Aww, does it upset you when I emphasize what might cause your argument to collapse?

And for your information, I am well aware of the abuse of St. Francis’s teaching on this thread.

I do not even know you, I can only be upset by people I care about and people I respect,sorry but you are neither.

 

[passer_by]

I do not even know you, I can only be upset by people I care about and people I respect,sorry but you are neither.

As thoughtful as it was of you to reply, what you said provides no logical argumentation.

In fact, it seems to contradict the fact that you implored me as “Please enough with the caps”.

You do realize that the stuff you wrote can be referred back to as evidence?

 

[LilyM]

Why the condescending attitude?

I believe there is nothing wrong with nudity unless it hurts the dignity of the human person in some way shape or form… whether that be by inciting lust, or whatever. This is in line with what JPII said in Love and Responsibility.

Your claim that I believe “we should all bare all all the time unless we have serious reasons not to,” is completely illegitimate, and so I made it clear to you that it was incorrect and asked you to please stop putting words in my mouth.

You seem very angry.

You are now the one putting words into my mouth. I said nothing of ‘we SHOULD bare it all the time’ but rather ‘we CAN bare it all the time if we want to…’ I am sorry if anything I said lead you to think otherwise.

Please, if your attitude is anything other than ‘we can bare it…’ please explain what the difference is. I’m interested in what you think.

Angry? No. I feel a bit like a musician in a room full of tone-deaf people though … or perhaps the other way around?

 

[Debora123]

You are now the one putting words into my mouth. I said nothing of ‘we SHOULD bare it all the time’ but rather ‘we CAN bare it all the time if we want to…’ I am sorry if anything I said lead you to think otherwise.

Ah, sorry, I guess my wording was off. Either way, such is not my attitude:

Originally Posted by LilyM
See the difference? My attitude is ‘cover up (within reason) unless you have serious cause to expose.’ Yours is ‘expose if you want, unless you have SUPER serious cause to cover up.’

Please, if your attitude is anything other than ‘we can bare it…’ please explain what the difference is. I’m interested in what you think.

Honestly, I don’t know how else to put it or what else to say to you. I’ve been completely open and honest about exactly how I view this whole thing and how I handle it on a personal level. I have been so open about it, in fact, that the information has been used against me a number of times. So I’m not sure what else to say. Sorry if my stance on this whole thing is still somehow unknown to you but I don’t know how else to help you. I can keep answering any specific questions you may have, if that’ll help.

Angry? No. I feel a bit like a musician in a room full of tone-deaf people though … or perhaps the other way around?

Well you seemed to be getting kinda personal and confrontational, but maybe that was just my perception.

 

[Debora123]

I do not even know you, I can only be upset by people I care about and people I respect,sorry but you are neither.

Yeah it’s kind of hard to get upset by a stranger online. But that is a good thing, because it helps keep the discussion more objective and less personal. Which is key when trying to have an intelligent adult conversation.

 

[severus68]

Oh your answer was a given.

It squares quite well with my and Nate’s vibe, really. Which seems to be that you consider the only two factors that have any bearing on modesty to be
a) cultural acceptance and
b) positive intent to incite people to sin.

See, I’ve never heard even the slightest hint from you that you think it relevant, say, to critically examine the culture in question, and consider whether what IT accepts is what GOD would accept (and you know there are plenty of things accepted in plenty of cultures that He thoroughly disapproves of!). Into this comes considerations like the inherent sacredness of the body which transcends culture and which I harp on about so much.

Or consider whether what the clothing in question is helpful, harmful or neutral in your walk with Christ or the walk of those around you - and if even neutral, whether alternative clothing might be found that would be helpful.

No hint of, say, refraining from the bikini out of consideration to those who might be weaker than yourself (and Paul is rather insistent that we try to avoid putting stumbling blocks in front of them when possible)

No hint even that anything less than a positive intent to sin matters - even though in sin, as in crime, positive intent is not always required.

So tell me, how are Nate and I inaccurate when we summarize your stance as being ‘people can wear whatever they want as long as the culture accepts it and there is no positive intent to sin?’

Because this poor ignorant slob has really heard nothing else come from you - not on the previous thread or on this one.

No

I must say that you and Nate have been pushing and pushing and coming up with variations of your questions especially with Debora who has been nice enough to try to respond as well as she can.

Just to respond to what you say above.
Not all things said to be culture is good like bullfighting, throwing live goats off roofs, giving a girl/woman no right to refuse a marriage for her to give a few examples. However when the culture of any society does not see anything wrong with a woman going around topless for example, as they have never seen exposed breasts as sexual or sexually arousing, they are not being immodest and not sinning.

Europeons went around the world ‘discovering’ inhabited places. Misguided Christian missionionaries ‘educated’ the Polynesians on the sin of wearing less than what Europeons of that time did. By making them aware of a sin that was not there, they took away innocence. It is clear who was wrong.

Perhaps Nat and you can come straight out and state your postion on this. There is no point in digging and digging. If you think we are sinners, fine, at least it would be honest and less time consuming and painful than this process.

 

[Debora123]

I must say that you and Nate have been pushing and pushing and coming up with variations of your questions especially with Debora who has been nice enough to try to respond as well as she can.

Just to respond to what you say above.
Not all things said to be culture is good like bullfighting, throwing live goats off roofs, giving a girl/woman no right to refuse a marriage for her to give a few examples. However when the culture of any society does not see anything wrong with a woman going around topless for example, as they have never seen exposed breasts as sexual or sexually arousing, they are being immodest and not sinning.

Europeons went around the world ‘discovering’ inhabited places. Misguided Christian missionionaries ‘educated’ the Polynesians on the sin of wearing less than what Europeons of that time did. By making them aware of a sin that was not there, they took away innocence. It is clear who was wrong.

Perhaps Nat and you can come straight out and state your postion on this. There is no point in digging and digging. If you think we are sinners, fine, at least it would be honest and less time consuming and painful than this process.

This is correct. I too in no way shape or form ever believe that everything about a culture is ok as long as the culture says it is. But when it comes to modesty, I believe it is a little bit different… since the Church does not have a specific standard of what is supposed to be considered modest, it really depends on what the culture views as inappropriate and inciting of lust. Since the human body itself is not immodest, if something does not incite lust or have the intention of inciting lust in any way, then there is nothing wrong with it.