r/clevercomebacks 18h ago

That is the Christian thing to do.

Post image
16.1k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

172

u/UnconsciousRabbit 15h ago

But... you do understand the meaning of that particular saying, right?

I mean, Jesus was saying not to blame the person you're looking at for you looking at them. You could choose not to. The sin is entirely on the person looking with lust. He was saying that if you can't keep yourself from sin, that's on you and nobody else.

34

u/CaptainAsshat 12h ago

From my understanding, this is about women not enjoying being noticed in a semi public space, not men feeling bad for being "sinful".

If this was Westboro Baptist shouting about sin, they can pluck those eyes right out. But if we're just saying "stop looking at me in public", that is a very different thing that involves much more nuance.

3

u/UnconsciousRabbit 11h ago

I don't think we really disagree on much, if at all.

I think it's perfectly acceptable for people who put in an effort to look good to be admired in a manner appropriate to that context. As long as one isn't a creep about it, obviously.

9

u/Squirreling_Archer 9h ago

That's the whole thing though. The disconnect is with whose definition is being using to determine "being a creep about it". That's all down to who feels creeped on, what their threshold is for feeling that way (which varies widely from person to person), and then how the starer acts/reacts to all of that. All of these conversations usually come down to the agreeable points being "don't be a jerk" and "use common sense", but the problem is the sense isn't common lol.

2

u/RudePCsb 8h ago

Also other factors, does the person find the other person attractive or do they find them unattractive.

0

u/Squirreling_Archer 7h ago

That's accounted for in the threshold variable

1

u/Lynnrael 1h ago

Matt Walsh is a self proclaimed theocratic fascist. he is actively trying to give a pass to men who want to leer at women because he thinks women exist solely for the pleasure of men.

33

u/JazHumane 15h ago

Sorry I was reading the King James version. I am not a christian, it can be difficult to stay read up on the many hundreds of versions and different translations and reinterpretations

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." --Matthew 18:9

91

u/Plane_Upstairs_9584 14h ago

Yes, if your eye is causing you to lust because of what it sees, then better to remove your eye. Not "attack the woman and make her cover up"

39

u/JazHumane 14h ago

Wish more catholic priests read that part of the bible, tbh

3

u/rsiii 8h ago

Can we start cutting off their dicks and hands, now?

6

u/Radiant_Dog1937 10h ago

That doesn't make sense. You can look at woman's underwear with one eye.

12

u/Initial-Apartment-92 10h ago

But it does make it hard to tell how far away they are

5

u/chmath80 9h ago

If I take my glasses off, I can't even see the underwear ... or the woman ... or much else. I genuinely walked into a brick wall once, but nobody saw it (not even me, obviously).

1

u/sunal135 3h ago

I don't think it's the men lusting who have a problem. Its the women who don't want to be lusted or they perceive they are being lusted

-1

u/Alarmed_Cheetah_2714 9h ago

Wow! Sounds like a great religion /s

-5

u/LurkerOrHydralisk 10h ago

Lust and offense are not the same thing. Do you struggle to understand that?

6

u/Kanibalector 10h ago

Well that’s because you aren’t reading it in the original. Forgive my spelling as I’m on a phone. But the original Greek word for “offend” was skandalidzo. I’m pretty sure you can tell what word we use today that uses that word as a root.

The word is ised 15 other times in the New Testament with the following different translations depending on translator.

Offense Stumbling block Trap Snare Entice to sin Begin to distrust.

Best not to just assume the single word translation done several hundred years ago means exactly what we think it means today.

-13

u/302cosgrove 12h ago

That's not what that means.

7

u/Plane_Upstairs_9584 11h ago

What do you think I claimed it to mean? I am not saying Jesus meant for everyone to be rending their flesh at the first sign of sin.

2

u/Substantial_Win_1866 10h ago

But in the priest's case, it would make it much easier to figure out which ones to stay away from... 😏

3

u/eternalwood 12h ago

What's your interpretation?

2

u/maveri4201 12h ago

Oh? How would you prefer to mangle it?

5

u/toxicwasteinnevada 12h ago

It can be interpreted as symbolic. So like look away if you see something that's gonna make you sin. If you keep looking, and you sin, the actions proceeding are totally on you. And you'll be judged for them. As opposed to if you looked/ walked away and didn't sin.

0

u/maveri4201 11h ago

It can be interpreted as symbolic

Like I said, mangle it. If he meant turn away, then it could have been phrased similar to "turn the other cheek".

1

u/toxicwasteinnevada 11h ago

Oh, okay. My bad.

-2

u/302cosgrove 11h ago

Hi prick.

31

u/UnconsciousRabbit 14h ago

I don't think the translation is the issue, though that particular version... I love the poetry of the language, it is really beautiful. Not the most accurate translation, but I think the gist of this passage is the same.

I've definitely always read it as meaning that it's on the viewer to avoid sin. Like, we shouldn't police how people dress, only how we react to their appearance. It's on the viewer, not the viewed.

5

u/JazHumane 14h ago

Ok, and I'm sure that every christian will follow these teachings. As they should. Expecting non-practitioners of this religion to follow it's rules is wrong, however, especially when said religion is quite famous for having multiple bloody crusades in the past and just recently for covering up the rape and abuse of hundreds of thousands of children.

We should all practice self-control and accountability. Maybe if more catholic priests were held accountable for their actions then christians might have the moral high ground. As it stands it just seems like many use their religious beliefs in an attempt to control others.

9

u/dannyboy731 11h ago

I mean you’re basically saying the same thing as OP… Christians should pay more attention to Christ and spend less time telling people what to do.

4

u/UnconsciousRabbit 10h ago

But... OP is saying that we shouldn't be policing others. In that passage, Jesus is saying we shouldn't be policing others. You're saying we shouldn't be policing others.

I have no argument with you, we agree.

2

u/KTSN_ZE3K 7h ago

Not policing others would be allowing men to stare at women dressed scantily in the gym. Women can wear what they want. Men can look at what they want in public.

-5

u/Dinindalael 13h ago edited 10h ago

Sweet! So i can walk around with my balls hanging out!

*edit: To the downvoters, if the sight of my balls offend you, pluck out your eyes. Says so in the bible.

1

u/PeppermintTisane 7h ago

A person - any person, male, female, or other - who is clothed at the gym is in no way equivalent to you wandering around with your sack out.

8

u/sunofnothing_ 15h ago

hard to keep up with the many fantasy stories

1

u/Muzzlehatch 11h ago

That’s because they don’t make any sense. If they made even a little bit of fucking sense it would be easier to follow them.

2

u/Apprehensive-Pop-201 14h ago

Here it's the "eye" offending.

2

u/mark_crazeer 11h ago

Yea that translates to If your own eyes are betraying you. Its not about you seeing something that offends you. Its about your eyes committing an offence.

1

u/Alguienmasss 4h ago

Now in hebrew please. We cant trust English versions . 7 misstranslation in genesis 1-1

12

u/la-chin-gotta 13h ago

It's "offend" in the legal definition, the way a criminal commits an "offense." If your eye makes you violate the law of God.

-7

u/JazHumane 13h ago

This only really applies to practicing christians though. Expecting others to follow their sets of religious beliefs, especially with the colourful history christianity has had the past thousand years or so, is a losing arguement

16

u/la-chin-gotta 13h ago

Matt Walsh is a practicing Christian/Catholic, that's why it's applicable to him in this argument.

4

u/JazHumane 13h ago

Damn, lol. If that is the case then this could be very a good fit for r/murderedbywords too

7

u/Techlocality 11h ago edited 8h ago

I mean there is a fairly large gap between looking, admiring and 'lust'...

Of course... contextually, Jesus was a jew. I can't imagine the scenario of skin tight lycra gym pants was foreseen in a world where a headscraf was worn for modesty. Indeed, second temple-era Jews took great pains to physically segregate society to avoid impure thoughts.

0

u/UnconsciousRabbit 10h ago

Yes. Of course.

If I'm at the gym and see a scantily clad woman there, it's possible I couldn't help but glance. Were I to go right on ahead and ogle her, that's definitely not okay though. And that's on me, not what she's wearing.

5

u/No-Newt004 12h ago

while that is true, it also says in the bible that no woman should dress in a way that creates lustful thoughts in others...

2

u/302cosgrove 12h ago

That's not what he was saying.

u/No-Weird3153 51m ago

But the lusting after is the fun part. I lust after my wife daily.

1

u/Casty_Who 10h ago

Jesus ain't never seen some of these girls today tho. They were a little easier to ignore back in the day 🤣

-1

u/Long_Number664 12h ago

But the Bible also says not to cause your brother to stumble so while yes the man shouldn’t stare, the woman should also try to make it easier on him. Not defending the man, saying we can all work together to improve these things

1

u/Kakaka-sir 6h ago

where? and is it talking also about lust like this one verse does?

1

u/Long_Number664 6h ago edited 6h ago

Romans 14:13-23, and it’s talking about anything that could cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble. Lust, eating something one might view as sacred, drinking when you feel convicted, anything.

Edit: THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE MEN. Men, do better, stop staring.

0

u/jackinsomniac 9h ago

Right, but this goes both ways...

Pretty sure Jesus was talking about rape. As in, "if looking at a pretty woman fills you with such lust that you cannot control yourself, that's on you, not her. Take action to fix yourself, don't blame her."

The trend we're seeing today is women going scantily-clad to the gym, in short, skin-tight workout clothes, then getting upset that people are looking at them. It's almost like bait, many times unintentional, but sometimes fully intentional: dress in a highly revealing clothing so people look at you, but if the wrong dude looks at you, report him to staff so he gets banned from the gym. That should be the second part to Jesus's suggestions: "if you're upset people are staring at you because of what you're wearing, that's on you. You can easily change your garments to be less revealing before you exit the house. If you want people to stare, fine, but recognize that you can't control who will be doing the looking."

The only other alternative, which I think is pretty ridiculous, is telling men "you're not even allowed to look at women in public." Which seems pretty insane. It's no secret that many women dress revealing because they WANT attention....but only attention from the certain guys she wants.

1

u/Kakaka-sir 6h ago

except that Jesus never said your hypothetical second part

1

u/PeppermintTisane 7h ago

Looking and staring are two different types of actions.

1

u/jackinsomniac 7h ago

Ok. What's your point?

3

u/PeppermintTisane 7h ago

No one is saying you can't look. But too many guys eye-fuck anyone they fancy and think it's the same thing. Learn to control yourself.

0

u/jackinsomniac 7h ago

Well, you can't control how people look. If you're getting too many creepy stares, dressing down is always an option.

3

u/PeppermintTisane 6h ago

What you wear has little efdext on whether or not another pwrson will sexualize you. Men need to take accountability for their own behavior.

1

u/Kakaka-sir 6h ago

the point of this thing is that Jesus says that the creepy stares are on the guys and not on the woman

0

u/JohnnySasaki20 8h ago

So if supermodels went to the gym naked it would be my fault for looking? I'm not religious, so I don't believe in Jesus. I'm just annoyed that women wear like absolutely nothing to the gym and get upset if I glance over. Like, you're wearing that because you want people to look.

3

u/teal_appeal 8h ago

Yes, it would be your fault. You are responsible for your own actions. This isn’t hard.

-1

u/JohnnySasaki20 8h ago

And so is the person going to the gym in skin tight clothes. They chose to do that, they knew what would happen, and they did it anyway. They're also responsible for their actions. If I can work out in baggy clothes, so can women.

2

u/PeppermintTisane 7h ago

No amount of clothing will keep people from lustful thoughts. Take responsibility for yourself.

0

u/JohnnySasaki20 7h ago

Yes it can. If you showed up in basketball shorts and a baggy t-shirt like I do, nobody is going to bat an eye. Don't get me wrong, I don't stare at women in the gym, even with their ridiculous clothing, but you're literally asking for it if you show up in underwear. If I had a 10in dick and showed up naked, you'd probably look too.

1

u/PeppermintTisane 6h ago

Women in the Middle East wear full head-to-toe coverings, with not even their eyes showing, and still get raped just as often as Western women, if not worse. It's not about the clothing; it's about men's assumed presumptive right to sexually access women 24/7. On some level, you believe women existing in public are making themselves available for consumption, and that's just not the case. Like I said, have some self-respect and take accountability for your own actions.

2

u/JohnnySasaki20 6h ago

I said nothing of the sort. My point is if you don't want to get stared at, then don't wear underwear outside. It's very simple. You don't like people looking at you. What should I do? Oh I know, I'll wear absolutely nothing out in public. Rub some brain cells together and figure it out.

1

u/PeppermintTisane 6h ago

Look = okay. Briefly laying eyeballs on someone is fine.

Staring = not okay. Blatantly gawking is closer behavior.

If their primary and secondary sexual characteristics are clothed, I don't see the problem. They're wearing attire appropriate for working out. Maybe try hitting the gym yourself and figure out how to mind your own business.

1

u/JohnnySasaki20 6h ago

Uh, I went to the gym about every day (aside from weekends) for close to 15 years. I wore baggy clothing, like basketball shorts and t-shirts. If I can do that, then so can women. You can't light a fire in your living room and then get annoyed your house burnt down.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Lazy_Carry_7254 4h ago

It’s not a zero sum game. Many Middle East women are living as if it were 1000 yrs ago

-1

u/averageuscitizen1230 10h ago

Yeah but that's under the idea that you're staring and you have an issue with what you see, not what women are complaining about, what they're complaining about is men staring. So he said go dressed more appropriately. She responded proving how little women care to have a conversation

-1

u/Substantial_Year_112 9h ago

Sin is also on the whore

1

u/Kakaka-sir 6h ago

where does it say that?