Is it "sinful" to look at photos of unclothed huma

[Zzyzx]

.

"Are you suggesting that "god" is NOT willing to forgive if a person repeats the same 'sin' too often?"

Yes I think so since repeating the sin too often suggests no real repentance in the first place. Like times I have told God I'm sorry for looking at naked women on the Internet then turn around and do it again, over and over. I'm not really sorry, I'm just saying sorry to use like a lucky charm against punishment.

The implication by Grand Pbuh is that looking at nude photographs is "sinful" and requires "repentance" and "forgiveness".

Questions for debate:

1. Do you agree or disagree or offer a different answer? Explain your reasoning.

2. Under what conditions is looking at nude photos "sinful" (or evil, or undesirable)?

3. What biblical instruction prohibits looking at photos?

4. Is it also "sinful" for a religious person to look at unclothed people in person?

5. Is it "wrong" (or "sinful") for a non-religious person to look at nude people or photos? Who makes that determination?

6. Is it more "sinful" to look at photos than to look at actual unclothed people or vice versa?

7. Must one stop looking at nude photos or people completely in order to be "forgiven"?

8. Is this issue an example of human behavior or nature being condemned by religion?

[OnceConvinced]

1. Do you agree or disagree or offer a different answer? Explain your reasoning.

I don't think it's sinful. Is it wrong to admire beauty? Why would God make that sort of beauty if he didn't want us to admire it? Christians claim lust to be a sin, but it is simply animal instinct, something we naturally develop as we reach puberty. Lust is a victimless crime. It only becomes an issue if we act on it in an inappropriate way.

2. Under what conditions is looking at nude photos "sinful" (or evil, or undesirable)?

It can never be sinful, however you would be committing an illegal act under some circumstances. There may be times it may be considered unethical too, but definitely not sinful, after all, lust in a natural human reaction.

3. What biblical instruction prohibits looking at photos?

None that I know of. But of course they never had photographs back in those days. But of course if God had wanted to prove his word was devine, he would have said something about them. Or at least mentioned images of naked women. The only thing it condems in the bible is lust, which of course is naturally human anyway. God if he exists, created us as lustful, so why would he condemn us from acting on our instincts?

4. Is it also "sinful" for a religious person to look at unclothed people in person?

No. Same as above.

5. Is it "wrong" (or "sinful") for a non-religious person to look at nude people or photos? Who makes that determination?

No. Same as above.

6. Is it more "sinful" to look at photos than to look at actual unclothed people or vice versa?

Can't see why

7. Must one stop looking at nude photos or people completely in order to be "forgiven"?

well if lust is a sin, then one should stop looking if they want God's forgiveness. However God will supposedly continue to forgive.

8. Is this issue an example of human behavior or nature being condemned by religion?

Yes, this is simply prudish old men making rules for people. Chances are, they never got to see naked women (and have sex) so figured that others shouldn't either.

[byofrcs]

Does your wife's anger establish or identify what is "sinful"?

The basis is here:

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

If I hurt her in the process of one sin, that is another sin of not loving others as myself, due to the initial sin.

.......

You can do that whether they are clothed or naked.

Let me see, Natalie Portman or Monica Bellucci clothed in anything or an extreme BBW naked: I know there is a market for the naked BBW but it is not me. Clothed women can be much more alluring, a point missed by the prudes in society that equate naked to wrong.

Whilst my wife overlooks my lust for Monica Bellucci I'll ignore her lust for Clooney.

Oddly enough does the Bible mention lust in women for men ? I'm amazed the feminists haven't brought out a modern version that is gender neutral....or have they ?. After 17 years of marriage I haven't bonked another women and I don't imagine I would anyway.

[Grand Pbuh]

You can do that whether they are clothed or naked.

I'm not always successful when we're at the beach or something with bikinis everywhere. I can control looking at Internet porn much easier.

Oddly enough does the Bible mention lust in women for men ?

I think the same is supposed to be applied to both.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm amazed the feminists haven't brought out a modern version that is gender neutral....or have they ?.

"The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy"

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html

[Zzyzx]

.

You can do that whether they are clothed or naked.

I'm not always successful when we're at the beach or something with bikinis everywhere. I can control looking at Internet porn much easier..

Much of what you write appears to indicate an obsession with sex. I do NOT offer that as a diagnosis – but as an observation about the impression created by what is presented in your posts.

Sexual obsession or addiction is formally known as Compulsive Sexual Disorder and is considered by some clinicians as a sub-type of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It is regarded by some mental health professionals as a serious personality disorder that can be disruptive of life and relationships. Perhaps becoming involved with or obsessed with religion is less damaging for some individuals – but is not a cure for the condition.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00144.html
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/cont ... l/41/21/22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_obsessions

A healthy interest in sex is not abnormal or debilitating; however, when a person indicates that they have great difficulty controlling their thoughts or desires and their actions, there is some indication that the situation is beyond "normal".

Rather than discussing these personal matters on an Internet religious debate forum it might be wise to seek professional counseling.

[Grand Pbuh]

Much of what you write appears to indicate an obsession with sex. I do NOT offer that as a diagnosis – but as an observation about the impression created by what is presented in your posts.

Thank God I have prayer to help me overcome it, I'm no longer obsessed, just tempted to lust for other women from time to time. That's why I write about sex, and anger, and desire to party and get drunk, and a lot of other things that have been problems for me in my life. Prayer helps me overcome them all, maybe it will help others too if they decide to try it.

[MagusYanam]

I think there's kind of a problem here with people mistaking 'sin' for 'being naughty' or 'doing naughty things'. If that were the entire extent of sin, it would be a rather weak concept. Sin is a misrelation within the self (to use Kierkegaard's language - because he himself put it so well - this would be the self not recognising itself as a self, or willing not to be itself, or willing in defiance to be itself), which ends up causing evil, so it can be far more subtle and far more pervasive than just 'being naughty'.

The problem with seeing nudity as 'sinful' reminds one of the Genesis story (which I think someone before pointed out). Adam and Eve were nude before they ate of the fruit, and God did not tell them that being nude (or looking at one another nude) was wrong. The rules were simple: eating of any other tree was right, eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was wrong. The irony of the story is that before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they knew what was good and what was evil. It was only afterwards that this misrelation arose, and they became confused. They thought being naked was shameful and evil, though God had not told them so.

Also, a note on 'lust' - OnceConvinced seems to equate lust with sexual desire (a 'victimless crime'), which I don't think is the case. I think it's a confusion that comes with etymology and translation - 'lust' comes from a Germanic root simply meaning 'desire', 'pleasure' or 'interest' (cp. German Lust, which simply means 'joy' and does not necessarily have sexual connotations), but the Greek word 'epithymia' in the New Testament does not equate simply to 'desire'. 'Epithymia' holds connotations of exploitation, making it no longer a 'victimless crime': if a man cheats on his wife, she is being exploited and her trust in her relationship with her husband is being abused, or if a woman cheats on her husband, his trust is being abused and he is being exploited.

So, is looking at naked pictures sinful? Depends on if exploitation plays into the picture, as with child pornography, for example (which is and must be seen as exploitative, unhealthy and sinful). I think when all parties are consenting it becomes more difficult to make the case that it is sinful.

[Vanguard]

1. Do you agree or disagree or offer a different answer? Explain your reasoning.

The question seems too "all or none". I can imagine scenarios where it would be inappropriate and plenty of scenarios where it is not. By the way, do you mean to ask whether the behavior is considered "unhealthy" or are you using "sinful" to mean something totally different?

2. Under what conditions is looking at nude photos "sinful" (or evil, or undesirable)?

Sorry, but there is no litmus for determing that line. Your use of the term "undesirable" prompts me to believe you also mean "unhealthy". Am I correct? In an attempt to answer your question, one general consideration would include whether the individual seeks after this material for the purposes of sexual satisfaction.

3. What biblical instruction prohibits looking at photos?

I believe Grand P has already referenced the Matthew passage and I am satisfied with this. cnorman also rightly calls attention to the reality that the Bible says nothing about "photos".

4. Is it also "sinful" for a religious person to look at unclothed people in person?

Once again, it depends on the context.

5. Is it "wrong" (or "sinful") for a non-religious person to look at nude people or photos? Who makes that determination?

Again, I question what you mean by "sinful"? Do you mean "unhealthy"? If so, God has already made this determination for us. It matters not whether a non-theist accepts the notion of God.

6. Is it more "sinful" to look at photos than to look at actual unclothed people or vice versa?

Who knows? There are plenty of professions that require viewing the naked body. In what context do you mean?

7. Must one stop looking at nude photos or people completely in order to be "forgiven"?

The power that comes from complete forgiveness can only be attained through absolute abstinence.

8. Is this issue an example of human behavior or nature being condemned by religion?

Neither. It is not an arbitrary religious edict created out of whole cloth but rather divine direction given by God.

[MagusYanam]

The question seems too "all or none". I can imagine scenarios where it would be inappropriate and plenty of scenarios where it is not. By the way, do you mean to ask whether the behavior is considered "unhealthy" or are you using "sinful" to mean something totally different?

Hm. Well, what would your own definition of sin be? I think Kierkegaard's idea of sin as a fundamental misrelation within the self is an extremely careful and nuanced view of sin, and doesn't fall into the trap of equating sin with just 'being naughty'. If one were to say that what is 'sinful' is also 'unhealthy', I might say that's not far from the mark either, if a bit of a crude approximation - though 'unhealthy' in a psychological way.

I believe Grand P has already referenced the Matthew passage and I am satisfied with this. cnorman also rightly calls attention to the reality that the Bible says nothing about "photos".

An interesting point on the St Matthew passage - one of the problems with adultery is that not only is the adulterer betraying his relationship with his partner or spouse, but that he is betraying a commitment he has made, and is thus betraying himself as well. If one has an unhealthy relation to that commitment, on a deeper level, it's a reflection of the misrelation of the self to the self.

[Beto]

Much of what you write appears to indicate an obsession with sex. I do NOT offer that as a diagnosis – but as an observation about the impression created by what is presented in your posts.

Thank God I have prayer to help me overcome it

I tickle my pickle.

I'm no longer obsessed, just tempted to lust for other women from time to time.

Me, I never lust. I get off on their occasional image and go about my business without longing for them in more real ways (actual lust), which is what usually happens when people repress their sexual urges long enough and keep "thanking God". I don't think guilt is something to be thankful of, but that's me.

That's why I write about sex, and anger, and desire to party and get drunk, and a lot of other things that have been problems for me in my life.

Funny how you lump all those things together in there, as if no moderation is possible by sensible people. Some folks are addicted to sex, but that doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with it. Some people get angry a lot, etc, etc. You may have addiction genes, or you may have had a deficient education, but you're probably old enough to recognize that those are the likely culprits to your problems, and not sex, anger, parties, or alcohol.

Prayer helps me overcome them all, maybe it will help others too if they decide to try it.

Not everyone is willing to trade one addiction over another.