Holy Strippers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaGatoTobey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if all this ‘‘occasion of sin’’ stuff has it’s root in Genesis 3?

Instead of Adam manning up and just saying yeah, sure, I ate some, and taking personal responsibilty for his actions, his first reaction, his very first instinct, was to blame the woman :eek: :mad:

😃

Sarah x 🙂
Well said.

Just as an aside and being a woman meeself. Satan is the most intelligent of all the angels and it decides it needs to tempt the woman. It leaves Adam alone, realizing it will only take a fellow female human being to tempt him - and not necessary for the most intelligent of all the angels to extend itself to Adam.🤷 It’s just an observation and meant to be fun!:o:D:blush:
 
I’m willing to go more deeply into it with you PRmerger ( even specifically with the example of the stripper) if you wish, but for me, it begins with the definition of an occasion of sin. The people making those aforementioned assertions don’t even subscribe or admit to any definition for the occasion of sin themselves ; until they do, what they are claiming , is at best frivilous.
An occasion of sin is a morally wrongful situation (e.g. woman removing all clothing as public ‘entertainment’) which therefore presents a temptation to another person which could in potential lead that person into sin. The ‘stripper’ is choosing to perform a morally wrongful act which is likely and probably will be an occasion of sin for another.
It is not the woman per se who is the occasion of sin. It is the situation of a woman removing her clothing as public ‘entertainment’. It is a woman performing a morally wrongful act, which is a situation - not the woman per se.

The woman may or may not be morally culpable for removing clothing as public ‘entertainment’ but the situation per se of her removing clothing in public is likely to be an occasion of sin. If I call a woman an ‘occasion of sin’ for me, then I have got my facts straight and owned my culpability without assigning my moral culpability to her.

A woman simply removing her clothing alone is not an occasion of sin - unless of course a male (as an example only) seeks to view it and unknown to her - then the male viewing has voluntarily entered into and created an occasion of sin for himself (and two moral wrongs).

A ‘stripper’ or any woman walking down a public street fully clothed is not an occasion of sin, unless of course a male (as an example only) chooses to imagine her without clothing. Then the culpability is the male’s.

An occasion of sin is a situation.
 
What is the purpose of being a stripper?

The purpose is to take off your clothes, dance around and arouse the people who are watching you… all for money.

Now, tell me… what exactly is holy about that?

What is HOLY about seducing others to lust after you only so you can have their money?

I think its common sense that this is anything but holy. It is an act of sin. What is there to debate?
 
What there is to debate, is the situation itself.

Is ‘stripping’ in public a holy act speaking objectively. No it is not and never could be in any way whatsoever.

Is there a difference morally between choosing to ‘strip’ and being forced to ‘strip’. Yes, there is a quite vast difference.
What is HOLY about seducing others to lust after you only so you can have their money
Choosing to seduce another to a sinful act and only for money, is not holy. Under no circumstances could ‘stripping’ for exa,ple be called objectively a “holy act”. It is clearly a morally wrongful act. Is the ‘stripper’ morally culpable? Not necessarily.

If I assume that a ‘stripper’ is doing it to seduce others to sin and only for money. Then I may have committed a morally wrongful act myself in judging the ‘stripper’ and at least in very real potential (knowing the social facts that we do know) morally judging the ‘stripper’ when there is no moral culpability to assign. We cannot know.
 
“Stripper”, incidentally is a colloquial term for a situation of when a woman (for example) takes off all her clothing in public and as public ‘entertainment’ and most often ‘entertainment’ to which is assigned a financial cost or fee for those attending the ‘entertainment’.
 
“Stripper”, incidentally is a colloquial term for a situation of when a woman (for example) takes off all her clothing in public and as public ‘entertainment’ and most often ‘entertainment’ to which is assigned a financial cost or fee for those attending the ‘entertainment’.
There are also men strippers too.
 
There are also men strippers too.
I know this, PumpkinSeed:), which is why I wrote “when a woman (for example) takes off all her clothing”. Referring to a woman was only one example, since men also may take their clothing off in public as public ‘entertainment’ etc.
 
Sorry, I have no idea what this means. Could you please 'splain?
In post #93 I understood you to imply that the only credible explanation the Church has for evil is similar to holding down a 4yo to give it immunizations. That gives me to understand that you feel that God doesn’t think much of our ability to use our mental gifts.
 
I don’t think any error has been “embraced”. The point is a valid one: to call a *person *(a woman who strips) an “occasion of sin” is dehumanizing. To call the *act *(stripping) an occasion of sin is correct.
Yes. 👍
 
Some here think it’s all just a game, and they say certain things which aren’t even pertinent simply to be argumentative. When someone does that, without being able to prove what they’re saying or another starts parroting the same thing unproven just to be an instigator , it doesn’t merit any response.

If you wish to get into a one-on-one concerning this, I’ll give it a try with you , as long as we can keep it civil and give honest answers. Let me know if that’s what you’d like – (maybe we could both come away from it learning a little more from each other.)

If you go back and read the posts which were being responded to , a poster repeatedly said they wouldn’t refer to any person as an occasion of sin, and made the inference that neither should we. The stripper was simply the first step.
As everyone here knows, you are obviously referring to me.

And you are totally correct. The ONLY reason I don’t think it’s charitable to call another person an “occasion of sin” is so that I can be argumentative with YOU. You got me. :rolleyes:
 
An occasion of sin is a morally wrongful situation (e.g. woman removing all clothing as public ‘entertainment’) which therefore presents a temptation to another person which could in potential lead that person into sin. The ‘stripper’ is choosing to perform a morally wrongful act which is likely and probably will be an occasion of sin for another.
It is not the woman per se who is the occasion of sin. It is the situation of a woman removing her clothing as public ‘entertainment’. It is a woman performing a morally wrongful act, which is a situation - not the woman per se.

The woman may or may not be morally culpable for removing clothing as public ‘entertainment’ but the situation per se of her removing clothing in public is likely to be an occasion of sin. If I call a woman an ‘occasion of sin’ for me, then I have got my facts straight and owned my culpability without assigning my moral culpability to her.

A woman simply removing her clothing alone is not an occasion of sin - unless of course a male (as an example only) seeks to view it and unknown to her - then the male viewing has voluntarily entered into and created an occasion of sin for himself (and two moral wrongs).

A ‘stripper’ or any woman walking down a public street fully clothed is not an occasion of sin, unless of course a male (as an example only) chooses to imagine her without clothing. Then the culpability is the male’s.

An occasion of sin is a situation.
Thank you. Honestly, the reason I didn’t get more into it with the poster you are responding to is because I have absolutely 0 patience to try to reason with someone who is determined to label others. I’ve tried it before, and it doesn’t work so I see no point.
 
Originally Posted by Gaber
Any statement from any teaching that is in the form of “Atman is Brahman” will do. Gnothi Seauton, "Know thySelf will get you there as well. The root of any of the four forms of the Goldien Rule are based on it and are independent of Catholicism
PR~That is a little close to the revolutionary concept that we are made in the image and likeness of God, Gaber.

But only as close this pagan mantra: “do good” is as close to the Christian concept of agape.

Yes, that is your take on it. It has to be, as you are a devout Catholic and you have that mindset. It isn’t so from a broader picture. Your faith requires you to see and interpret according to your faith, not according to Reality. that is why it is called a “faith,” yes? And how would someone state “created in the image and likeness of God” in another language, especially if they didn’t have a misleading dualistic concept of what constitutes “creation” as do, imo, most Catholics?

Somehow you seem to be struggling to make Catholic what simply was always already the case and known even before it was perceived as Reality distinct from any particular system. You seem to be claiming that it’s Real because it’s Catholic, not because it just IS. Kind of “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” you know? The condition called “created in the image and likeness” existed as a quality, if you will of mankind as such. It wasn’t invented by the Jews or Christians or anyone. It was simply a fact discovered independently by many throughout the ages, and continues to be discovered today, even and especially beyond book learning about it. And usually in more accurate terms, albeit rarely. Most stop at the last barrier and are good with that. Others find themselves beyond that, and the world changes for them in and instant. And yet remains the world. Go figure.
 
What is the purpose of being a stripper?

The purpose is to take off your clothes, dance around and arouse the people who are watching you… all for money.

Now, tell me… what exactly is holy about that?

What is HOLY about seducing others to lust after you only so you can have their money?

I think its common sense that this is anything but holy. It is an act of sin. What is there to debate?
Um, no one here is saying that stripping is a holy act. :confused:
 
It was hinted at, and foreshadowed by other religions.

But the revolution came when God revealed this to the Jews.

😃
Yes, that is what you tell yourself, necessarily, if you have your specific faith about such.
Yep, Gaber. You are certainly right about this. The concept that we are made in the image and likeness of God existed before the English language.
Must. Stop. Self. From. Sarcastic. Comment. About. Stating. The. Obvious.
Not the concept, the fact. And you know what? I get the feeling that if we were ta;lking face to face, you just might sound a leeetle bit snippy and dismissive. Yes?
Your “therefore” does not follow from the above comment
. No, not if you equate or conflate belief about with knowledge of. If you don;t it does follow, yes?
One cannot have a relationship without God unless one has knowledge of God.
One “has” a relationship with God whether one has no clue, as a baby, or is a transcendent contemplative. I think you mean either a believed relationship based on inculcated tenets, or an functional relationship based on work and grace which result in experience.
Therefore a belief system about God is required to have a relationship with God.
No, one only needs be. It is a preexisting condition accounted for if origins come into consideration, and then in whatever parochial manner one is born into or, if one is supremely fortunate works through to actual knowledge.
As with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or but both/and.
Religion is about a belief system AND a relationship with God.
That works insofar as the religion, whatever it is, corresponds 1/1 in the mind and practice of the practitioner with Reality. But the religion isn’t the relationship. it is and explanation for it and perhaps an encouragement until one actual can see.

One cannot have a relationship (religare) with God unless one has a religion (religare).As I said, the “relationship” is preexisting. the religare part is to a belief, which is a description. Beyond the description, with its inaccuracies and misinterpretations, is experience. In the sense of what happens to a transcendent contemplative, that experience is exceedingly rare. It is transformative. In a sense, it all gets turned around and inside out. And yet it remains the same. Until then, there is getting tied to an artificial paradigm and teleology. But the paradigm isn’t God, and is only a pointer as effective as the one engaging it works at. And of course, there is Grace. it is all grace, even the religion. 🙂
 
If the Church says an occasion of sin is *“ **any person ***,place or thing that can lead one to do wrong ” , is it an error to say we must not call persons occasions of sin, (primarily for analytical purposes), or not?
Firstly, NI, you do know that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not represent “the Church says”, right?

So could you please provide a citation from a Church document that refers to a person as an “occasion of sin”, then we can move forward.

For as a Catholic I need not assent to definitions provided by encyclopedias, no matter how “holy” that reference may be; I must give religious assent to the teachings of the Church.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, BTW.
 
In post #93 I understood you to imply that the only credible explanation the Church has for evil is similar to holding down a 4yo to give it immunizations. That gives me to understand that you feel that God doesn’t think much of our ability to use our mental gifts.
Nope.

You will notice that I never said “the only credible explanation”. It is one explanation among many that we may use to apprehend the mystery of the problem of evil.

Also, I think I was being quite generous in assigning a value of a 4 year old child to humanity, when compared to the Infinity of the Godhead. In reality, there is no analogy that would suffice.

Even comparing our mental ability to an amoeba as it compares to the Eternal Logos would be overstating it, don’t you think?
 
The definitions of "occasion of sin" were given earlier in the thread at post # 103. Here they are again :.
I searched the Catechism of the Catholic Church online, and I can’t find any reference to a definition by the Church of what is an ‘‘occasion of sin’’.

In letters of the Popes, and Trent, I found this:

“Hence if the circumstances suggest it, it may be necessary to remind them of that well-known precept of the natural and divine law, which commands us to avoid not only sins but the next occasion of sin as well” Encyclical on Mixed Marriages by Pope Gregory XVI, 1832

“On this point it should be noted, as indeed the Fathers and Doctors of the Church teach, that we can more easily struggle against and repress the wiles of evil and the enticements of the passions if we do not struggle directly against them, but rather flee from them as best we may. For the preserving of chastity, according to the teaching of Jerome, flight is more effective than open warfare: “Therefore I flee, lest I be overcome.”[92] Flight must be understood in this sense, that not only do we diligently avoid occasion of sin, but especially that in struggles of this kind we lift our minds and hearts to God…” ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY MARCH 25, 1954

“Again, to satisfy is to cut off all occasions of sin, and to close every avenue against its suggestions” Catechism of Council of Trent, Sacrament of Penance

“Finally, we pray that God would remove all occasions of sin and iniquity” Catechism of Council of Trent, The Lord’s Prayer

Unless I’ve missed something (very possible) it seems the Catholic Church itself has not provided any definitive definite definition of what an ‘‘occasion of sin’’ is, and nowhere could I find an official document or definition saying that **a person **, by virtue of just their personhood, was an occasion of sin.

It seems to me that a person can most certainly be an occasion of sin - by their actions! This could range from stripping their clothes off in public, to sitting on their own at the back of the bus, seductively moving their hands across their body and caressing their neck while giving the guy looking at her ‘‘the look’’ to everything in between.

But these all involve ‘‘actions’’ on the part of that person.

I can not see that the person in and of themselves can in any way be a ‘‘occasion of sin’’ for anyone, without ‘‘doing’’ something.

And let’s be honest here, we’re talking for the most part about women, and men’s inability to stop themselves from lusting in one way or another, around women.

Look at one of the Scriptural references given for ‘‘occasion of sin’’:

Look not upon a woman that hath a mind for many: lest thou fall into her snares. Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, and hearken not to her, lest thou perish by the force of her charms. Gaze not upon a maiden, lest her beauty be a stumblingblock to thee. Look not round about thee in the of the city, nor wander up and down in the streets thereof. Turn away thy face from a woman dressed up, and gaze not about upon another’s beauty. For many have perished by the beauty of a woman, and hereby lust is enkindled as a fire. Many by admiring the beauty of another man’s wife, have become reprobate, for her conversation burneth as fire. Sit not at all with another man’s wife, nor repose upon the bed with her: And strive not with her over wine, lest thy heart decline towards her, and by thy blood** thou fall into destruction**. Ecclesiasticus 9:3-5, 7-9, 11-13

If a woman, by virtue of no other reason other than she is a woman, is an ‘‘occasion of sin’’ for a man, then that man is the one with the problem - judging the woman as an occasion of sin for the guy when all she’s done is actually exist is about as misogynistic as it gets.

On the basis that occasions of sin can be ‘‘people’’ if the referenced prayer of Trent above for God to get rid of every occasion of sin, every pretty girl in the world, going about her thing minding her own business, would be wiped off the face of the earth - you know, just in case some guy got an eyeful of leg and couldn’t control his thoughts :eek:

After 2000 years of ‘‘civilization’’ it really is time guys grew up and stopped blaming women for their own lack of maturity and self control.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Nope.

You will notice that I never said “the only credible explanation”. It is one explanation among many that we may use to apprehend the mystery of the problem of evil.

Also, I think I was being quite generous in assigning a value of a 4 year old child to humanity, when compared to the Infinity of the Godhead. In reality, there is no analogy that would suffice.

Even comparing our mental ability to an amoeba as it compares to the Eternal Logos would be overstating it, don’t you think?
Yes, I did notice that, but it was presented as a stand alone and that is what I spoke to because it was there, like that.

I think comparisons are both odius and misleading, whatever limited usefulness they might have. Witness your own Shakespeare and airplane analogies. They fail, on grounds of not being in the relevant area. Both have researchable and experiencible components leading to practical results that faith does not.
 
What do you think it means then?
What do you think they might mean other than what you believe they do? Have you ever thought about that, or had an experience that pointed to a need for questioning that you didn’t pass over by dismissing it because you’d rather be verified by accepting the explanation of an inculcated belief? Have you ever looked at other cosmologies, at epistemology, or philosophical or psychological treaties about the nature of belief, religion, and faith? And how those are acquired and how and from whom under what conditions? Are you not curious about your own nature apart from a religious framework that is often superseded by both science and common sense? Have you ever Critically read anything like *The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object? * Or The Crown Jewel of Discrimination? or The Experience of No Self? Do you know which of those three was written by a hyper devout Roman Catholic?

I mean you criticize me for not being up on contemporary RC scholarship, but what has changed from my days in the area of the Creed or the basic tenets? Have the doctrines on transubstantiation, or the hypostatic union changed all that much that I now have a radical misunderstanding of those teachings? I apparently had a pretty good grasp of them in competitions. But I guess while I wasn’t looking, all the basic stuff changed?
 
I think comparisons are both odius and misleading,
Yes, Gaber, you are correct in that everything that we can use to apprehend God is inutile.

The Catechism proclaims as much in that God is concealed in the shadows. Because we are disfigured by sin and death our ability to apprehend the numinous has been greatly marred.

So, all we have by way of explication of our theophanies are analogies and shadows.

Which are, of course, inadequate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top