Lap Dancing Clubs

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok just had a night out on the town.

Questions:

Is it immoral to be a dancer in lap dancing club?
Is it immoral tol be a waitress or waiter or doorman for a lap dancing club?
Is it immoral to be a punter in a lap dancing club?

[Goat]

---allright then goat if your just going to take her word for it that's fine but please refer me to a creditable traslation in a book that states that "Sheol" is only refering to the grave. or a website with this veiw. because alls you've told me is it's according to Jrosemary.
---besides commentary is commentary and it's the view of one individual and hardly an accurate interpretation by itself.

---and just curious but what do you think is the so called " best" translation of the Bible.

The JPS translation with commentary

[Cathar1950]

---allright then goat if your just going to take her word for it that's fine but please refer me to a creditable traslation in a book that states that "Sheol" is only refering to the grave. or a website with this veiw. because alls you've told me is it's according to Jrosemary.
---besides commentary is commentary and it's the view of one individual and hardly an accurate interpretation by itself.

---and just curious but what do you think is the so called " best" translation of the Bible.

The JPS translation with commentary

I am going with her because she is right.
As far as I recall from my readings and classes.

[Megaboomer]

---lol the only thing orthodox about the commentary that states that Sheol only refers to the ground is it shows that liberal Jewish ideals are shockingly similar to that of the sadducees in the roman days. the pharisees(similar to the conservative Jews) are the ones who tried to stay true to the traditions of the Jewish religion. it seems, like the sadducees, the liberal view doesn't associate itself with a belief in much of any of what scripture tries to teach. it's also funny how just like the liberal view of pushing things to the border and thinking that they should decide what is right for themselves the sadducees unlike the Pharisees didn't even try to live according to anything that defined a Jew and where also looked at as traitors absorbing the culture around them.
----so it really just depends on what rabbi your talking to because I've heard and seen many commentaries on how Sheol refers to the grave (1), the pit (2), and a spiritual place in similarity with the Greek term hades (3). the term being used here is a spiritual one that's why most translations say hell. it really doesn't matter that much about the word but if you take the context of scripture into consideration you can clearly see that Solomon is saying provocative women are not good for you just like your parents should have told you when you where a kid.

[MagusYanam]

From Page 3 Post 27:

yes, because it is degrading to women.

Says you.

Joey, just some friendly advice here - if you're going to be arguing against this point, it's generally not a good idea to compare a man marrying a woman to him buying a car.

i believe that a womens body is a sacred thing that should only be unveiled for marriage.

Would you buy a car without riding it first?

I have some fairly strong Heideggerian objections to such an analogy, because it has implications that are misogynist and degrading to women. Are women property to be bought? Do you only keep them for three years before divorcing them? Are 'used' women worth less?

That said, of course, it is possible for people to view the nude female body in ways that are respectful and even reverent. Or Megaboomer, would you ban all classical art, Baroque paintings and la Liberté guidant le peuple along with 'gentlemen's clubs'?

[Megaboomer]

---Well as far as my own belief, as a Christian, I know that there is a respectful way to view a womens body but it's not in a public way that's for sure.
----as far as banning things if i was, hypothetically, in charge, I think the atheists or anyone who enjoys exotic clubs would not want me in charge because i would be obligated to put the will of God before anything else.
---(Romans 12:9) "Let love be without hypocrisy. abhor what is evil. cling to what is good".
---(Deuteronomy 4:23) Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God which He made with you, and make for yourselves a carved image in the form of Anything which the Lord your God has forbidden you.
---I love art but if I was in leadership, I would not want anything of an appearance of evil to influence the nation that i serve. when you are truly trying to serve God the question is not, what can we get away with or what can i do without making God angry, But it's what can i do to please God more.

[MagusYanam]

Why would presenting the nude female body in a reverent and respectful artistic way make God angry? God made women just as he made men, and just as he pronounced men good he pronounced women good. He never told Adam and Eve that being nude was, in itself, sinful - that was something they decided for themselves after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I'm not advocating for nudism here, of course, but it does raise an interesting question. Why is nudity still considered sinful? It does not seem to be a Biblical concept. Lust - that is, the exploitation of or the desire to exploit others for sexual purposes - is a sin, but nudity is not always connected with lust.

[Megaboomer]

---yes, your correct, lust is the cause of sin and twisted things. but there's a problem with the logic, of the view, that you can publicly view a womens naked body in a respectful way.
---#1. the big one is you've got to admit the most men struggle with lust and seeing a naked body can arouse lust. it's funny that even though atheists are a minority, and most people in the world believe in a god/gods, and most religious people feel that sensuality is wrong, there is many exotic dance clubs and prostitution world wide. lol bunch of hypocrites.
----#2. God knows how we are because he made us. therefore it is written about king David in 2 Samuel 11 about Davids fall with Bathsheba. he first gazed upon her taking a bath probably innocently at first, probably multiple times in interest and lust. he soon was bound by sin to commit acts of adultery.
----#3. it's compromising to say " let us just look at it, because God made us this way, why would he be angry"? Romans 3:6 says and why not say "let us do evil that good may come" as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. their condemnation is just. Paul is telling the Romans in this passage about the people who have a philosophy about affirming God through things that God forbade because " God said that man was naturally sinful.
--- Gods heart is that you don't even put before you any temptation. for example is it easier to resist a women if your in public? or if your in her house?
---- food for thought.

[Coyotero]

---yes, your correct, lust is the cause of sin and twisted things. but there's a problem with the logic, of the view, that you can publicly view a womens naked body in a respectful way.
---#1. the big one is you've got to admit the most men struggle with lust and seeing a naked body can arouse lust. it's funny that even though atheists are a minority, and most people in the world believe in a god/gods, and most religious people feel that sensuality is wrong, there is many exotic dance clubs and prostitution world wide. lol bunch of hypocrites..

I believe you are mistaken. It's really only the Abrahamic religions that are afraid of sex and lust. The rest of us are comfortable with the fact that it's a natural, healthy, human thing. And fun too.

----#2. God knows how we are because he made us. therefore it is written about king David in 2 Samuel 11 about Davids fall with Bathsheba. he first gazed upon her taking a bath probably innocently at first, probably multiple times in interest and lust. he soon was bound by sin to commit acts of adultery.

I have a problem with this terminology "Bound by sin". Are you saying that if I look at naked women I am bound to cheat on my wife? There is a difference between seeing and doing. Sin doesn't make anyone do anything (Whether or not sin even exists is another matter entirely.). People do things because they want to. Whether it be a premeditated and purposeful act, or a loss of self-control.

----#3. it's compromising to say " let us just look at it, because God made us this way, why would he be angry"? Romans 3:6 says and why not say "let us do evil that good may come" as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. their condemnation is just. Paul is telling the Romans in this passage about the people who have a philosophy about affirming God through things that God forbade because " God said that man was naturally sinful.
--- Gods heart is that you don't even put before you any temptation. for example is it easier to resist a women if your in public? or if your in her house?
---- food for thought.

The problem is your still looking at sexuality as being something shameful or dirty. If one believes that God created us, then he created us as we are, with all of our natural drives and needs.

-Either God created us as sexual creatures, and sexuality is a need as base as being loved or being part of a community, and thus god intends us to fulfill these needs.

Or...

-God created us, with all of our needs and desires, and then denies of these... Why? To what point or purpose?

Or...

-God didn't create us, and we're just highly developed animals with our needs, and our needs are simply needs, and nothing more. So why fear them?

[MagusYanam]

---yes, your correct, lust is the cause of sin and twisted things. but there's a problem with the logic, of the view, that you can publicly view a womens naked body in a respectful way.

The distinction I think you are failing to make is between form and content. You are disputing the form (the display of the nude female body) when it seems like what you really want to go after is the content (activities and modes of presentation which encourage the sinful exploitation of women). As a man who does sometimes struggle with his own sexuality, I can say with confidence that the display of the nude female body per se is not sinful - most people, including myself, do not look at la Liberté guidant le peuple out of prurient or lustful interest in the female model. It is a powerful work of art with deep national, political and emotional significance. Likewise we can understand the reverence with which the classical, Renaissance and Baroque artists depicted the female (and male) forms.

Personally, I think it is merely a reflection of a politician's own prurient desires and wishes when said politician (*ahemjohnashcroftahem*) censors such art in the name of 'decency'.

[Megaboomer]

---yes, your correct, lust is the cause of sin and twisted things. but there's a problem with the logic, of the view, that you can publicly view a womens naked body in a respectful way.

The distinction I think you are failing to make is between form and content. You are disputing the form (the display of the nude female body) when it seems like what you really want to go after is the content (activities and modes of presentation which encourage the sinful exploitation of women). As a man who does sometimes struggle with his own sexuality, I can say with confidence that the display of the nude female body per se is not sinful - most people, including myself, do not look at la Liberté guidant le peuple out of prurient or lustful interest in the female model. It is a powerful work of art with deep national, political and emotional significance. Likewise we can understand the reverence with which the classical, Renaissance and Baroque artists depicted the female (and male) forms.

Personally, I think it is merely a reflection of a politician's own prurient desires and wishes when said politician (*ahemjohnashcroftahem*) censors such art in the name of 'decency'.

----your correct again, I'm not making a distinction, because you see the point I'm trying to make is that even if you, and I'm sure you don't based on what you've told me, don't feel any sexual enticement towards a nude work of art the fact still stands that others might who are not as strong.
---(1 Corinthians 8:9) "but beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak."
--- and (verse 11) also "and because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?"
--- I encourage you to read chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians, Paul is stating the fact that even though we know what is right, and we may be able to do certain things without falling into sin, others may not be able to do the same, therefore we should not do them for the sake of others.
---- for example: if you have some one come to your house for dinner who you know is an alcoholic are you going to have wine to drink at the table? no one would do that unless they didn't really care for the person who might say "hey it's OK to have one drink"... "he's OK, maybe one won't hurt".
--- I understand that you are a person that upholds moral values. but if we are placed (hypothetically speaking) into a leadership position, don't you think that we should consider the fact that taking nude pictures of the wall might keep others from easily falling into sin?
---- i know that many kids for example try to get past the blockers on the Internet by just viewing artistic nudity. also when you allow this artistic nudity who defines what is artistic and what is pornographic?