28 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut in your case ~ if we may mention it briefly ~ they were "real" women surely? You said it was in life drawing classes with models, no? 😉
First of all suspect that Christ was referring to real women, rather than imaginary ones.
OK, I am asking you to give your interpretation of Jesus' words with regard to "real women" and sketch out some parameters applicable to real life.
28 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI am quite sure the Venus of Urbino was also a real women as well, in the 1500's one does of course not have to look at the picture and form a passion for her nor does one have to form a passion for a life model when drawing her. This is important in view of Christ's words, which naturally you know and which forms the clause of committing spiritual adultery in ones heart.
But in your case ~ if we may mention it briefly ~ they were "real" women surely? You said it was in life drawing classes with models, no? 😉
OK, I am asking you to give your interpretation of Jesus' words with regard to "real women" and sketch out some parameters applicable to real life.
28 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI have just told you, the entire clause hinges on the motivation for looking, that is whether you are looking with the intent of forming a passion for a women or whether you have some other motivations, that may be purely aesthetic. It is clear that one can appreciate beauty in a woman, but one does not have to cultivate a passion for the women herself otherwise it would be unwise to visit the art gallery which contains so many nudes, in the form of painting and sculpture, less you be overcome with passion!
What is your interpretation of those words as they apply in practical terms?
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat would be realistic parameters? Words like "passion" and "overcome" and "intent" are vague.
I have just told you, the entire clause hinges on the motivation for looking, that is whether you are looking with the intent of forming a passion for a women or whether you have some other motivations, that may be purely aesthetic. It is clear that one can appreciate beauty in a woman, but one does not have to cultivate a passion for the women hers ...[text shortened]... contains so many nudes, in the form of paining and sculpture, less you be overcome with passion!
28 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe realistic parameters are defined by limiting your passion to your marriage partner and not cultivating a passion for someone else. It does not exclude appreciating beauty in others, does it, otherwise you would need to go around blindfolded.
What would be realistic parameters? Words like "passion" and "overcome" and "intent" are vague.
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat do you mean by "passion"? Do you mean something more intense than "love" or "infatuation", and if so, does that mean these latter two things are OK?
The realistic parameters are defined by limiting your passion to your marriage partner and not cultivating a passion for someone else.
28 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFpassion is to have a desire for someone or something, surely? Love and infatuation may be related, but even so, the scripture makes it clear that one should not cultivate a desire for someone to whom we are not married. #This is very clear FMF and quite simple I don't know why you are seeking to obfuscate the matter by introducing semantic elements.
What do you mean by "passion"? Do you mean something more intense than "love" or "infatuation", and if so, does that mean these latter two things are OK?
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneFMF have been quite civil, atheists have not won, they are losers by default.
I think it's clear that with all the bickering in this thread, that the original concept for the thread has been lost.
Atheists 1, Believers 0. Congrats. Now can we move on? This thread is already about 500 posts too long.
Maybe we can have a real conversation about this topic now?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
02 May 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt really is hard to imagine why you even bother posting here robbie; you drama off in a huff for a few weeks (at your senior JW Galveston's lead) and come back posting what you know will be controversial material and then complain about being challenged on it. It all smacks of a deep-seated vanity exposing itself as attention seeking.
I think ill take my friends advice and ignore the lunacy, if you dont mind. I dont mind feeding worthy trolls, but you are a sidekick and thus unworthy of serious consideration.
To quote my friend, 'Why do you put up with these idiots? They are not humble, nor care...I suggest ignore them. I only respond to sensible inquiries, not the lunacy.'
sound advice indeed.