Exposure(Modesty Static vs Dynamic)

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmullins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Why do you keep spreading lies?

The Church has as specific standard on what is MODEST. One major part of being modest is to not dress in a way that leads others to sexual arousal.

So Modesty, is not entirely dependent on Culture. In fact, using the plumb line above, one can determine if a culture’s form of dress meets the standards of modesty.
 
40.png
severus68:
Quote:
Originally Posted by severus68 View Post
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.

Ditto.
 
Double ditto. Interestingly, it seemed around the time or soon after I said I wished this thread would close that it devolved into angry nastiness and sarcasm. This thread (unlike most modesty threads) actually had an interesting premise which is why I participated in the beginning, but it has only confirmed my belief that no good can ever come of a modesty thread.
 
Double ditto. Interestingly, it seemed around the time or soon after I said I wished this thread would close that it devolved into angry nastiness and sarcasm. This thread (unlike most modesty threads) actually had an interesting premise which is why I participated in the beginning, but it has only confirmed my belief that no good can ever come of a modesty thread.
The problem is people get very personal with other members rather than keeping the whole discussion objective. There are certain people I’ve had to just flat out start to ignore on this thread because it seems all they were doing was being condescending and hostile… not interested in having an adult discussion, but rather in insulting other members who didn’t agree with them.

I agree that it had an interesting premise - makes you think/wonder about the human body and how it effects the brain in a more primitive level, rather than in the societally corrupt level. It could have turned into a very philosophical discussion, but instead took another turn. Which was unfortunate. I guess since I’ve been participating, I am partially to blame for that as well.
 
40.png
anp1215:
Double ditto. Interestingly, it seemed around the time or soon after I said I wished this thread would close that it devolved into angry nastiness and sarcasm. This thread (unlike most modesty threads) actually had an interesting premise which is why I participated in the beginning, but it has only confirmed my belief that no good can ever come of a modesty thread.
The problem is people get very personal with other members rather than keeping the whole discussion objective. There are certain people I’ve had to just flat out start to ignore on this thread because it seems all they were doing was being condescending and hostile… not interested in having an adult discussion, but rather in insulting other members who didn’t agree with them.

I agree that it had an interesting premise - makes you think/wonder about the human body and how it effects the brain in a more primitive level, rather than in the societal corrupted level. It could have turned into a very philosophical discussion, but instead took another turn. Which was unfortunate. I guess since I’ve been participating, I am partially to blame for that as well.

I’ve taken the same step–better to ignore. And yea – this thread started with potential – till it took another “turn”.
 
The problem is people get very personal with other members rather than keeping the whole discussion objective. There are certain people I’ve had to just flat out start to ignore on this thread because it seems all they were doing was being condescending and hostile… not interested in having an adult discussion, but rather in insulting other members who didn’t agree with them.

I agree that it had an interesting premise - makes you think/wonder about the human body and how it effects the brain in a more primitive level, rather than in the societally corrupt level. It could have turned into a very philosophical discussion, but instead took another turn. Which was unfortunate. I guess since I’ve been participating, I am partially to blame for that as well.
Oh yeah, I forgot there was an ignore option. Thanks for reminding me. Peace!
 
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.
 
Why do you keep spreading lies?

The Church has as specific standard on what is MODEST. One major part of being modest is to not dress in a way that leads others to sexual arousal.

So Modesty, is not entirely dependent on Culture. In fact, using the plumb line above, one can determine if a culture’s form of dress meets the standards of modesty.
How dare you accuse Debora of spreading lies? Is there any wonder some are afraid of the Church and some are against the Church, some who leave the Church disillusioned, with the very vocal examples of what is not Catholicism and what is definitely what Christ taught.
 
since it recommended trying to be modest, even in the privacy of one’s bedroom with the door shut and the blinds drawn, while one is undressing in order to change one’s clothes, since you don’t want to tempt your guardian angel. I’m not making that one up.)
How is it possible to tempt your guardian angel, if the angel is the same gender as you? Presumably the angel is not ay, and presumably he/she has no body, so temptation would be a moot point.
 
I actually recall this story of a group of missionaries who went to Papua New Guinea. There the people that are in the primitive tribe wear very little clothing. The men wear penis sheaths and some jewelry and the women wear grass skirts and some jewelry. That is it.

The missionaries were trying to get them to be more modest and gave them t-shirts. All the tribes people wore their t-shirts with pride. Then a storm hit (it rains very often here) and all of their t-shirts got wet. A whole bunch of the tribes people sat in their wet shirts and many got pneumonia and a few even died. When they went without t-shirts their skin dried way faster and they didn’t stay soaked for long periods of time. I would say that although the missionaries were trying to do good, they ended up making a very large error that costed lives. I think in tribes it is not fine to modestly go around without a top, but obviously practical when you live in small houses up in the trees without places to store extra clothing.

Modesty does depend on culture. In the Victorian era it was immodest and scandalous for a woman to show her ankles. Today that is obviously not true. No matter what time it is there will always be lust around. There was in the Victorian era when women were covered from their necks to their wrists to their feet. In tribes people walk around topless all the time because that is just the cultural garb. Everyone’s breasts are showing, so no one gives it a second thought. It is not immodest.

Now in our society I think it is perfectly fine to wear things that hit a little above the knee (within a few inches or so depending on leg length) and wearing tank tops or shirts is fine as long as they aren’t low cut and are worn in the appropriate setting. Like not wearing a tank top , shorts, and flip flops to church.

If you have such bad lust problems that seeing shoulders or knees, then you probably need to get help through counseling. You can’t spend all your time blaming women, because even if all women were dressed in Victorian style clothing (which is hot and uncomfortable especially in 100 degree + weather) you may still have problems with lust. Men did in the Victorian era and women were totally covered back then.

There is a reasonable level of modesty we should all dress in to help protect those struggling with lust, but when we start having double standards or asking people to sweat to death, we go too far. We need to not pass off our sins onto other people like Adam did in the Garden (the woman made me do it!), but instead teach our children to take responsibility for their own actions and short-comings. When they see us blaming our sins on everyone but ourselves, they will not learn personal responsibility.
This is my position and I stand by it. Also I may not be able to post any more today due to the fact I work most of the day. (I am going now), but I agree with Debora as well as other’s that some are being incredibly uncharitable and combative. I think that we all should report the uncharitable and combative posts to moderators, so they may start to understand that is not acceptable and not actual debate, or in the very least let them know if they use those tactics on this site there will be consequences.
 
How dare you accuse Debora of spreading lies?
If it is false. And someone speaks of it as true with authority, that is a lie I am afraid. It might not be intentional.

If you want, I will rephrase it as spreading misinformation.
Is there any wonder some are afraid of the Church and some are against the Church, some who leave the Church disillusioned, with the very vocal examples of what is not Catholicism and what is definitely what Christ taught.
Sigh.

People can leave the church for various illogical reasons, the one you mentioned being one of them.

As I said before, one joins the Catholic Church, not because its teachings make sense, not because the people in the church are good people, and not because the teachings are attractive. One becomes Catholic because given Christ rose from the dead, that is the logical thing to do if you want to follow Christ. So you listen to what is taught and you follow it. One doesn’t give ones opinions on teachings because its not worth dime a dozen. ESPECIALLY when ones opinion is not based on any rational form of argument.

So as I said once before, people on this thread seem to approach this issue as if they know the truth and they are analyzing Church teaching. That is an invalid position. The right thing to do is accept Church teaching, whether you like it or not, whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not.
 
This is my position and I stand by it. Also I may not be able to post any more today due to the fact I work most of the day. (I am going now), but I agree with Debora as well as other’s that some are being incredibly uncharitable and combative. I think that we all should report the uncharitable and combative posts to moderators, so they may start to understand that is not acceptable and not actual debate, or in the very least let them know if they use those tactics on this site there will be consequences.
In a debate, one party analyzes the arguments of the other using logic.

Unfortunately, many on this thread that support your view, do not present any rational argument. So they get pointed out that they are wrong.

But it appears that somehow these posters who post illogical arguments feel that they are entitled to be merely respected for their opinions no matter how irrational they might be. That is not a debate.

If one is willing to give ones opinion on a forum, they must be prepared and strong enough to take an outright criticism of their arguments, implicit positions AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, correct themselves or counter-argue using rational arguments. That is something none of the posters who hold your view do. Instead they keep giving examples of situations (Which they already assume to be moral) and use the argument of the form “It was good there, so it must be good here”. That is not a rational argument.

Now just to point out why your position is lacking, it does not take in to account any concept of Concupiscence. It seems to think that the need for modest dress is to help those struggling with lust. On the contrary, the need for modest dress is to help entire mankind that is struggling with Concupiscence as a result of the fall.

Finally, if you or any one wants to argue, please use the QUOTE feature properly so that people can respond to you as well.
 
This is my position and I stand by it. Also I may not be able to post any more today due to the fact I work most of the day. (I am going now), but I agree with Debora as well as other’s that some are being incredibly uncharitable and combative. I think that we all should report the uncharitable and combative posts to moderators, so they may start to understand that is not acceptable and not actual debate, or in the very least let them know if they use those tactics on this site there will be consequences.
Agreed. I think we should perhaps just ignore them.
 
This is my position and I stand by it. Also I may not be able to post any more today due to the fact I work most of the day. (I am going now), but I agree with Debora as well as other’s that some are being incredibly uncharitable and combative. I think that we all should report the uncharitable and combative posts to moderators, so they may start to understand that is not acceptable and not actual debate, or in the very least let them know if they use those tactics on this site there will be consequences.
Thanks for reposting your previous post. I agree with it completely and it is my stance as well. 👍

I have not reported anyone because I think they know exactly what they are doing. If that’s what some people have to do to feel good or have fun, well then I’m letting them have at it lol.
 
I actually recall this story of a group of missionaries who went to Papua New Guinea. There the people that are in the primitive tribe wear very little clothing. The men wear penis sheaths and some jewelry and the women wear grass skirts and some jewelry. That is it.

The missionaries were trying to get them to be more modest and gave them t-shirts. All the tribes people wore their t-shirts with pride. Then a storm hit (it rains very often here) and all of their t-shirts got wet. A whole bunch of the tribes people sat in their wet shirts and many got pneumonia and a few even died. When they went without t-shirts their skin dried way faster and they didn’t stay soaked for long periods of time. I would say that although the missionaries were trying to do good, they ended up making a very large error that costed lives. I think in tribes it is not fine to modestly go around without a top, but obviously practical when you live in small houses up in the trees without places to store extra clothing.

Modesty does depend on culture. In the Victorian era it was immodest and scandalous for a woman to show her ankles. Today that is obviously not true. No matter what time it is there will always be lust around. There was in the Victorian era when women were covered from their necks to their wrists to their feet. In tribes people walk around topless all the time because that is just the cultural garb. Everyone’s breasts are showing, so no one gives it a second thought. It is not immodest.

Now in our society I think it is perfectly fine to wear things that hit a little above the knee (within a few inches or so depending on leg length) and wearing tank tops or shirts is fine as long as they aren’t low cut and are worn in the appropriate setting. Like not wearing a tank top , shorts, and flip flops to church.

If you have such bad lust problems that seeing shoulders or knees, then you probably need to get help through counseling. You can’t spend all your time blaming women, because even if all women were dressed in Victorian style clothing (which is hot and uncomfortable especially in 100 degree + weather) you may still have problems with lust. Men did in the Victorian era and women were totally covered back then.

There is a reasonable level of modesty we should all dress in to help protect those struggling with lust, but when we start having double standards or asking people to sweat to death, we go too far. We need to not pass off our sins onto other people like Adam did in the Garden (the woman made me do it!), but instead teach our children to take responsibility for their own actions and short-comings. When they see us blaming our sins on everyone but ourselves, they will not learn personal responsibility.
100% agree with everything here, and this is my stance as well.

I believe it is both the CATHOLIC stance and a very LOGICAL stance as well. Good job! :clapping:
 
Agreed. I think we should perhaps just ignore them.
Absolutely. Some comments simply do not deserve a response, due to their degrading, mean spirited nature.
Always remember folks, in a debate, you will always be pointed out when you are wrong and be expected to give rational counter-arguments. If bad arguments are given after that, they will still get torn apart.

It can be quiet upsetting if you haven’t engaged in much debate or are used to just being nice and accepting opposing views like many these days do. But that is not how debates work. Your arguments and positions will be dissected and you will simply be told you are wrong if they don’t hold up.
 
100% agree with everything here, and this is my stance as well.

I believe it is both the CATHOLIC stance and a very LOGICAL stance as well. Good job! :clapping:
As I posted in reply to the person, the position is anything but Catholic. So I assume you mean that according to the best of your knowledge it looks Catholic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top