A Denial of the Kenosis?

[ALAYMAN]

Been there, done that, read the multiple threads that came to the same conclusion.  The guilt of lust is solely laid on the person who lusts.  You can't blame it on someone's nakedness.

Once again, on full display, a denial of reality, common sense, reasonable Christian responsibilities in a sin-cursed and fallen world.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'll say this again, since only rsc2a seems to get it so far:

One can only feel shame if there's something wrong that is exposed.  Jesus is/was perfect. 

Even if one makes the argument that Jesus felt shame on the cross because He was made sin for us (and therefore sin was exposed through Him in shame), the logical outcome of that is that our sin was erased in Him, and we no longer have any reason to feel shame.  That's why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

The only argument left against nakedness in film, photography, personal nakedness, etc., is one of IFB man-made rules.  I'm talking about just normal NAKEDNESS, not attempts to incite sexual lust, which people can do with all their clothes on, too.

Normal nakedness incites lust in man. Maybe not you, but certainly others.

You've gone to extremes to support the idea that nakedness is okay since it doesn't affect you personally. You're being purposely naive in applying your situation to everyone else.

Been there, done that, read the multiple threads that came to the same conclusion.  The guilt of lust is solely laid on the person who lusts.  You can't blame it on someone's nakedness.

How did I place blame? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Its like saying liquor can't make someone drunk. No matter how you slice it..... its not okay to get drunk.

Putting the bottle to your alcoholic neighbors lips..... doesn't make you guiltless.

 

[Ransom]

I was just going to ignore Ransom from now on,  but with you condoning this kind of thing,  just go ahead and close my account.

So it's safe to say you think I should feel shame for suggesting a hypothetical situation involving rape, as does rsc2a.

So how much more would the actual act be shameful? I wonder why the forum Jesuit can't just come out and say so.

 

[FSSL]

And, to think,  you used to be reasonable...

Apparently more reasonable than you.

You are still here.
Tomato is back, after a very brief, temporary ban, spewing all kinds of garbage
You have made outlandish posts
Both You and Tomato are against me...

YET... you are here, without warning or prejudice.

I think I am a tolerably reasonable guy. I like to engage passionately in discussion.

What other forum admins would put up with the same kind of opposition on their forums?

 

[samspade]

Case in point: were I to walk thru Nashville naked I should feel shame because I am violating my neighbors...

Not violating one's neighbors is one of many good reasons why one should not do this.  But the motivation should be love of others,  not shame.

And if we were discussing WHY you shouldn't walk thru Nashville naked you would be correct. But we weren't. We were discussing your position that you would not feel shame doing so. So you changed the subject and answered something different. Isn't that exactly what you are accusing others of doing?

The fact is that I tend to agree with your theological positions more than I disagree. But In this instance it appears as if you are arguing your position based more on who is against it than the soundness of your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'll say this again, since only rsc2a seems to get it so far:

One can only feel shame if there's something wrong that is exposed.  Jesus is/was perfect. 

Even if one makes the argument that Jesus felt shame on the cross because He was made sin for us (and therefore sin was exposed through Him in shame), the logical outcome of that is that our sin was erased in Him, and we no longer have any reason to feel shame.  That's why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

The only argument left against nakedness in film, photography, personal nakedness, etc., is one of IFB man-made rules.  I'm talking about just normal NAKEDNESS, not attempts to incite sexual lust, which people can do with all their clothes on, too.

Normal nakedness incites lust in man. Maybe not you, but certainly others.

You've gone to extremes to support the idea that nakedness is okay since it doesn't affect you personally. You're being purposely naive in applying your situation to everyone else.

Been there, done that, read the multiple threads that came to the same conclusion.  The guilt of lust is solely laid on the person who lusts.  You can't blame it on someone's nakedness.

How did I place blame? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Its like saying liquor can't make someone drunk. No matter how you slice it..... its not okay to get drunk.

Putting the bottle to your alcoholic neighbors lips..... doesn't make you guiltless.

Blame isn't the issue.  Unless you meant something different, the normal reading of "Normal nakedness incites lust in man" is the same as saying normal nakedness CAUSES a man to lust.  And we pretty much obliterated that argument in other threads.  A man's lust is initiated in his own heart.  He gladly kindles it when looking at nakedness, maybe, but the nakedness doesn't CAUSE him to lust. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'll say this again, since only rsc2a seems to get it so far:

One can only feel shame if there's something wrong that is exposed.  Jesus is/was perfect. 

Even if one makes the argument that Jesus felt shame on the cross because He was made sin for us (and therefore sin was exposed through Him in shame), the logical outcome of that is that our sin was erased in Him, and we no longer have any reason to feel shame.  That's why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

The only argument left against nakedness in film, photography, personal nakedness, etc., is one of IFB man-made rules.  I'm talking about just normal NAKEDNESS, not attempts to incite sexual lust, which people can do with all their clothes on, too.

Normal nakedness incites lust in man. Maybe not you, but certainly others.

You've gone to extremes to support the idea that nakedness is okay since it doesn't affect you personally. You're being purposely naive in applying your situation to everyone else.

Been there, done that, read the multiple threads that came to the same conclusion.  The guilt of lust is solely laid on the person who lusts.  You can't blame it on someone's nakedness.

How did I place blame? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Its like saying liquor can't make someone drunk. No matter how you slice it..... its not okay to get drunk.

Putting the bottle to your alcoholic neighbors lips..... doesn't make you guiltless.

Blame isn't the issue.  Unless you meant something different, the normal reading of "Normal nakedness incites lust in man" is the same as saying normal nakedness CAUSES a man to lust.  And we pretty much obliterated that argument in other threads.  A man's lust is initiated in his own heart.  He gladly kindles it when looking at nakedness, maybe, but the nakedness doesn't CAUSE him to lust.

But you're ignoring the obvious. You don't put a naked person in front of someone that you know will rape them. You don't put a bottle of liquor in front of drunk who you know will kill himself with it.

Yes. I agree. ALL SIN comes from the heart. There is nothing unclean of itself. This doesn't mean that "THINGS" can't bring a person under bondage.

1Co 6:12  All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'll say this again, since only rsc2a seems to get it so far:

One can only feel shame if there's something wrong that is exposed.  Jesus is/was perfect. 

Even if one makes the argument that Jesus felt shame on the cross because He was made sin for us (and therefore sin was exposed through Him in shame), the logical outcome of that is that our sin was erased in Him, and we no longer have any reason to feel shame.  That's why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

The only argument left against nakedness in film, photography, personal nakedness, etc., is one of IFB man-made rules.  I'm talking about just normal NAKEDNESS, not attempts to incite sexual lust, which people can do with all their clothes on, too.

Normal nakedness incites lust in man. Maybe not you, but certainly others.

You've gone to extremes to support the idea that nakedness is okay since it doesn't affect you personally. You're being purposely naive in applying your situation to everyone else.

Been there, done that, read the multiple threads that came to the same conclusion.  The guilt of lust is solely laid on the person who lusts.  You can't blame it on someone's nakedness.

How did I place blame? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Its like saying liquor can't make someone drunk. No matter how you slice it..... its not okay to get drunk.

Putting the bottle to your alcoholic neighbors lips..... doesn't make you guiltless.

Blame isn't the issue.  Unless you meant something different, the normal reading of "Normal nakedness incites lust in man" is the same as saying normal nakedness CAUSES a man to lust.  And we pretty much obliterated that argument in other threads.  A man's lust is initiated in his own heart.  He gladly kindles it when looking at nakedness, maybe, but the nakedness doesn't CAUSE him to lust.

But you're ignoring the obvious. You don't put a naked person in front of someone that you know will rape them. You don't put a bottle of liquor in front of drunk who you know will kill himself with it.

Yes. I agree. ALL SIN comes from the heart. There is nothing unclean of itself. This doesn't mean that "THINGS" can't bring a person under bondage.

1Co 6:12  All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I agree with what you're saying, but others are saying that nakedness is inherently shameful.  It isn't.  Just because a woman would be stupid to strip naked in front of a lecherous man doesn't mean that nakedness itself is shameful. 

Nakedness (the concept, not limited to the body) is only shameful if you did something wrong.  The Bible treats it that way, esp. throughout the OT.  It's the sin that is being exposed that makes it shameful.

It's the sin, not the skin. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'll say this again, since only rsc2a seems to get it so far:

One can only feel shame if there's something wrong that is exposed.  Jesus is/was perfect. 

Even if one makes the argument that Jesus felt shame on the cross because He was made sin for us (and therefore sin was exposed through Him in shame), the logical outcome of that is that our sin was erased in Him, and we no longer have any reason to feel shame.  That's why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 

The only argument left against nakedness in film, photography, personal nakedness, etc., is one of IFB man-made rules.  I'm talking about just normal NAKEDNESS, not attempts to incite sexual lust, which people can do with all their clothes on, too.

Normal nakedness incites lust in man. Maybe not you, but certainly others.

You've gone to extremes to support the idea that nakedness is okay since it doesn't affect you personally. You're being purposely naive in applying your situation to everyone else.

Been there, done that, read the multiple threads that came to the same conclusion.  The guilt of lust is solely laid on the person who lusts.  You can't blame it on someone's nakedness.

How did I place blame? I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Its like saying liquor can't make someone drunk. No matter how you slice it..... its not okay to get drunk.

Putting the bottle to your alcoholic neighbors lips..... doesn't make you guiltless.

Blame isn't the issue.  Unless you meant something different, the normal reading of "Normal nakedness incites lust in man" is the same as saying normal nakedness CAUSES a man to lust.  And we pretty much obliterated that argument in other threads.  A man's lust is initiated in his own heart.  He gladly kindles it when looking at nakedness, maybe, but the nakedness doesn't CAUSE him to lust.

But you're ignoring the obvious. You don't put a naked person in front of someone that you know will rape them. You don't put a bottle of liquor in front of drunk who you know will kill himself with it.

Yes. I agree. ALL SIN comes from the heart. There is nothing unclean of itself. This doesn't mean that "THINGS" can't bring a person under bondage.

1Co 6:12  All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I agree with what you're saying, but others are saying that nakedness is inherently shameful.  It isn't.  Just because a woman would be stupid to strip naked in front of a lecherous man doesn't mean that nakedness itself is shameful. 

Nakedness (the concept, not limited to the body) is only shameful if you did something wrong.  The Bible treats it that way, esp. throughout the OT.  It's the sin that is being exposed that makes it shameful.

It's the sin, not the skin. 

Through the law came the knowledge of sin. That doesn't mean the law is bad. I know you're point. Its overly simplistic.

Nakedness (the concept, not limited to the body) is only shameful if you did something wrong.

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

Now you've moved the discussion into cultural norms.  In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

Now you've moved the discussion into cultural norms.  In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

Name the culture. I'd like to see the evidence.

Even pagan aboriginal women would cover their gentiles when they sat down.

 

[FSSL]

In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

YET... even in the most undressed of all societies, the use of certain coverings are still in order.

 

[Ransom]

Even pagan aboriginal women would cover their gentiles when they sat down.

Uncovered gentiles? I'd Hittite.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

Now you've moved the discussion into cultural norms.  In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

Name the culture. I'd like to see the evidence.

Even pagan aboriginal women would cover their gentiles when they sat down.

Pick up a National Geographic sometime. 

I didn't know aboriginal women HAD gentiles.  I'm pretty sure they ARE gentiles. 

And I didn't say genitals, I said topless, although IIRC, National Geographic has published pictures of men running around totally naked as a norm.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

Now you've moved the discussion into cultural norms.  In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

Name the culture. I'd like to see the evidence.

Even pagan aboriginal women would cover their gentiles when they sat down.

Pick up a National Geographic sometime. 

I didn't know aboriginal women HAD gentiles.  I'm pretty sure they ARE gentiles. 

And I didn't say genitals, I said topless, although IIRC, National Geographic has published pictures of men running around totally naked as a norm.

Man... I've been typing Gentiles too often lately...

So you DO have a problem with some private parts on women? Are you just saying topless is okay in some places? Would bottomless be okay for women?

Can you give me a count how many cultures practice what you see as being a valid example?

I know some people drink coffee made from beans that came from animal poop. I wouldn't call that a standard.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

Now you've moved the discussion into cultural norms.  In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

Name the culture. I'd like to see the evidence.

Even pagan aboriginal women would cover their gentiles when they sat down.

Pick up a National Geographic sometime. 

I didn't know aboriginal women HAD gentiles.  I'm pretty sure they ARE gentiles. 

And I didn't say genitals, I said topless, although IIRC, National Geographic has published pictures of men running around totally naked as a norm.

Man... I've been typing Gentiles too often lately...

So you DO have a problem with some private parts on women? Are you just saying topless is okay in some places? Would bottomless be okay for women?

Can you give me a count how many cultures practice what you see as being a valid example?

I know some people drink coffee made from beans that came from animal poop. I wouldn't call that a standard.

You have wandered so far off the topic of shame that I find it tedious continuing the discussion.  Sorry. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Stripping naked in front of eunuch is different than stripping naked in front of a 10 year old boy. Tell me how this "fits" into your narrative?

Now you've moved the discussion into cultural norms.  In other parts of the world (some regions of Africa, for example), women routinely walk around topless in front of little boys, and nobody cares.  It's not shameful there because it's an accepted part of the culture.  I don't know if I'd call it shameful here, but it would be inappropriate for our culture.  And probably against the law.

Name the culture. I'd like to see the evidence.

Even pagan aboriginal women would cover their gentiles when they sat down.

Pick up a National Geographic sometime. 

I didn't know aboriginal women HAD gentiles.  I'm pretty sure they ARE gentiles. 

And I didn't say genitals, I said topless, although IIRC, National Geographic has published pictures of men running around totally naked as a norm.

Man... I've been typing Gentiles too often lately...

So you DO have a problem with some private parts on women? Are you just saying topless is okay in some places? Would bottomless be okay for women?

Can you give me a count how many cultures practice what you see as being a valid example?

I know some people drink coffee made from beans that came from animal poop. I wouldn't call that a standard.

You have wandered so far off the topic of shame that I find it tedious continuing the discussion.  Sorry.

In this thread or any thread? We can discuss it somewhere else.... so you can talk about "shame" in its proper place...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

In this thread or any thread? We can discuss it somewhere else.... so you can talk about "shame" in its proper place...

It doesn't matter.  I was really only debating nudity and shame, not cultural norms.  I simply made the point that your example was based on a cultural norm.  You take take the discussion down the road of cultural norms if you want, but it just doesn't interest me. 

 

[FSSL]

... and Scripture doesn't interest him either. Truly, a "man in his own island."

 

[ALAYMAN]

In this thread or any thread? We can discuss it somewhere else.... so you can talk about "shame" in its proper place...

He frequently avoids questions that make his theology look inconsistent (what was that "h" word he is so fond of ), like when Timothy asked him if he'd be okay with his wife and/or daughter were to play the role of the women in the strip bar or sex scene in Deadpool.  Just some things that make ya go hmmmmmmm.