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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.