Movie Advice

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:45 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:If God says. . . I've never heard God say nudity is bad. In fact there is very little Biblical direction about nudity. This is more of a cultural belief than a strictly religious tenet.

Leviticus 18:6-19

While it is a translation issue, I think, much of the modern American understanding of the Bible comes from the poor translation that is the King James version of the Bible. The Morman understanding is an extension of the American Protestant understanding, so I can see how the Bible might cause problems with regard to nudity.

xander
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:00 am

Feud wrote:Selfish? I asked for the opinions of others. How is that censoring anyone? Further, avoiding a potential problem is a rational choice for a person if they want to avoid a certain things. A recovering alcoholic wouldn't want to hang out in a bar all day long, and someone who doesn't want to begin drinking in the first place would be wise to avoid such as well.


You'll notice I was speaking in a general sense. I'm talking about a general issue not you in particular.

Feud wrote:First off, I have had vegetarians say I was degrading myself by eating meat. Second, beyond advocating an individual not spend money in support of media that is contrary to their standards, have I advocated for the removal of nudity from movies?


Such vegetarians would then fall under my category of people acting poorly. They are transferring their beliefs to you.

Again I was not talking about you. I was speaking of a more general problem.

Feud wrote:As I have said before, and will say again, we use more then the Bible for our Scriptures. It is not more a matter of cultural belief but is, in fact, a religious tenet.


And I'm pointing out that many things that are taken as "religious tenets" do not stem from any sacred text, but are adopted from society. The beliefs of the Puritans for example were not in general backed by the Bible, but were products of a conservative cultural movement in the guise of religion. I think such things can be quite dangerous.

Feud wrote:I, that I have thus far noticed, am the only one to have raised any objection to nudity in this discussion, and I have said it is demeaning.


Actually the issue was raised originally by KingAl. . .

Feud wrote:You can say that you weren't addressing me, but how is anyone supposed to know that? When you point out views that I have expressed, quoted me, and categorized those who express the same views as me, do you really expect anyone to think that you were not referring to me?


Theoretically people will notice my use of the third person plural instead of the second person singular. I have quoted quite a lot of people in this discussion, so how you would feel singled out, I don't quite understand in that regard. Yes, I do expect people to understand I am making general arguments and not directing them at you in particular, especially as I have stated that is what I am doing.

Feud wrote:Everybody transfers beliefs. Even saying that transferring of ones beliefs to others leads to problems is a mode of transferring your beliefs to others.


To a degree. However, is a difference between "what" and "how". I am trying to apply the "how" in general. That is my point is about how we believe. The issue with people transferring their beliefs is a problem when they are transferring "what" to believe. My argument is agnostic in that it does not require any specific theology. Things like vegetarianism and objections to nudity are based on specific theologies and thus shouldn't be transfered.


xander wrote:Leviticus 18:6-19


Last I checked, that was all about sex not nudity.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:02 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
xander wrote:Leviticus 18:6-19


Last I checked, that was all about sex not nudity.


Hence why xander cited the King James version.

The beliefs of the Puritans for example were not in general backed by the Bible, but were products of a conservative cultural movement in the guise of religion. I think such things can be quite dangerous.

In contrast with things that are backed by the Bible? :?

Regardless, I think everyone here can agree that people should not force their beliefs on others. The issue was that what you had said was easily misinterpreted as an attack on particular people when they had not in fact expressed that opinion.
Last edited by KingAl on Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!
Ultimate Uplink Guide
Latest Patch
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:07 am

KingAl wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
xander wrote:Leviticus 18:6-19


Last I checked, that was all about sex not nudity.


Hence why xander cited the King James version.


No, I understand that, I was just saying that the general translation is sex not actually nudity (I believe the KJV uses the term "nakedness"). The King James version is actually full of such odd translations. In many cases, I believe this to be one of them, they are a product of exactly the kind of religious adoption of cultural beliefs that I was talking about. Mistranslations are used to try and enshrine cultural beliefs in religious text. There is however generally no sound theologically basis for such actions.

In this instance "uncover nakedness" is used as euphemism for sex. Most commentaries on the King James version I have seen point this out and say casual or otherwise asexual nudity is not covered by this.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:15 am

KingAl wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:The beliefs of the Puritans for example were not in general backed by the Bible, but were products of a conservative cultural movement in the guise of religion. I think such things can be quite dangerous.

In contrast with things that are backed by the Bible? :?


Yes. . .

KingAl wrote:Regardless, I think everyone here can agree that people should not force their beliefs on others. The issue was that what you had said was easily misinterpreted as an attack on particular people when they had not in fact expressed that opinion.


Well like I said, this all stems from your statement about what people might believe.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:32 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
KingAl wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:...but were products of a conservative cultural movement in the guise of religion. I think such things can be quite dangerous.

In contrast with things that are backed by the Bible? :?


Yes. . .

Beliefs expressed in holy texts can be just as flawed as those of social movements. Any belief which is followed religiously is potentially dangerous.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Well like I said, this all stems from your statement about what people might believe.

Just to be clear, all I was trying to highlight were the reasons why some might wish not to see nudity on the basis of belief - I didn't mean to imply that action on those terms was appropriate...
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!

Ultimate Uplink Guide

Latest Patch
User avatar
BrianBlessed
level4
level4
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:33 pm

Postby BrianBlessed » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:03 pm

Wouldn't a prohibition against nudity contradict Genesis anyway? Seeing as man was created 'as god intended' but only knew to cover himself up when he gained the knowledge of shame, which was in itself a sin.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:24 pm

just a quick question on the violence thing for feud:
do you watch the news ?
if so why do you have a problem with violence in movies but not in the news ?

ps:do you also have a problem with swearing in movies ?
User avatar
wwarnick
level5
level5
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Rexburg, ID

Postby wwarnick » Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:36 pm

stewsburntmonkey, saying that one shouldn't project his beliefs onto others is like saying killing is wrong only if the murderer thinks so too, whereas if the murderer was alright with it, then no harm done. If we believe the body (certain parts) is sacred and shouldn't be shown to anyone but your spouse, then we'd be hypocrites to not disapprove when someone does so. However, since those affected by nudity take it voluntarily and they don't die from it (unlike murder), barring them from it would be removing their free agency.

zjoere wrote:just a quick question on the violence thing for feud:
do you watch the news ?
if so why do you have a problem with violence in movies but not in the news ?

ps:do you also have a problem with swearing in movies ?

Violence when not for the sake of entertainment, I think, is alright up to the point that it becomes ridiculous. I'd rather only see as much as will convey the desired message and no more. However, my personal threshold can't be projected to all Mormons because it has no concrete scriptural backing.

Nudity, however, I wouldn't want to see at all, not even a bikini or immodest clothing because aside from disapproval it tempts me.

As for swearing, we would rather not hear strong language.

wwarnick
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:01 pm

wwarnick wrote:stewsburntmonkey, saying that one shouldn't project his beliefs onto others is like saying killing is wrong only if the murderer thinks so too, whereas if the murderer was alright with it, then no harm done.


While I see where you're coming from, Stews' argument is the exact opposite - i.e. that the murderer can't kill just because he doesn't think it's bad. The key with regards to 'transferrence of belief' is that you can believe what you like, as long as the need to comply with that belief does not negatively affect others with contrary beliefs.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!

Ultimate Uplink Guide

Latest Patch
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:10 pm

wwarnick wrote:stewsburntmonkey, saying that one shouldn't project his beliefs onto others is like saying killing is wrong only if the murderer thinks so too, whereas if the murderer was alright with it, then no harm done.


No, by murdering someone the murderer is transferring his beliefs to the victim. However this is also more of a "how" thing than a "why" thing. It might be clearer to think about it in terms of political versus moral. Murder is illegal not because it is morally wrong (that would be transferring beliefs to the populous), but because it infringes on the rights of others to a degree that cannot be allowed. We should not make laws for moral reasons, but to protect the rights of citizens.

wwarnick wrote:If we believe the body (certain parts) is sacred and shouldn't be shown to anyone but your spouse, then we'd be hypocrites to not disapprove when someone does so. However, since those affected by nudity take it voluntarily and they don't die from it (unlike murder), barring them from it would be removing their free agency.


I don't know that you'd be a hypocrite in such a situation. I am Christian but I don't disapprove of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. I simply accept that we have different views on spirituality and religion. I'm not a nudist, but I don't have a problem with those who are. There is nothing wrong with holding yourself to a higher standard than you hold others too.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:19 pm

zjoere wrote:just a quick question on the violence thing for feud:
do you watch the news ?
if so why do you have a problem with violence in movies but not in the news ?

ps:do you also have a problem with swearing in movies ?


Yes and no about the news thing. I don't watch the news for entertainment, I watch it to be informed. Were they to ignore shootings, bombings, assaults, and such things then they public would be unaware of the world around them. While I do think that the news focuses too much on violent content for ratings purposes to the point that less violent but equally news worthy events are excluded or under reported, I think that they have a duty to tell the truth of what happens.

As for swearing, it depends what time of year it is. If it's around Christmas or April, after I've been living in Idaho for a few months then it would bother me quite a bit. Right now, after working all summer in an Arizona construction office, I probably wouldn't notice it too much. My feelings about it would be the same in both cases when I noticed it, but it would take a lot more before it stood out in my mind.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:35 pm

I've only skimmed this topic, but as far as nudity goes and whether or not there's a biblical guideline the answer is yes there is. Gen 3 clearly shows that nakedness (nudity) out in the open is not to be.
Genesis wrote:She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it (fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves ... He (Adam) answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
And He (God) said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" ... The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

People tend to overlook the not so plain points the bible makes. Here, we see clearly that nudity for the sake of nudity is not right. Otherwise, would God have bothered to make better clothing than the fig leaves? Wouldn't he have simply said, "heh, you don't need those fig leaves!" and let them run around naked? I say better because I would assume that fig leaves would be uncomfortable and harder to keep on than "garments of skin".

If you put the rest of the bible together, you can also see that between a husband and wife it is ok...
Hebrews wrote:Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: ...

Now if you want to say that it was ok because they were the only two running around in the world and were "husband and wife" then I would say that they were being taught morals and right and wrong in a proper and orderly fashion by God, a perfect teacher, and that lesson hadn't been reached in their curriculum. They skipped ahead and read the teachers manual (so to speak) before they were ready.

In short, what was the first thing that happened after their eyes were opened to the knowledge of good and evil? They put clothes on!

On a side note: I don't believe as some religious groups do that sex is only for having children. That idea is just plain silly. Sex in marriage has a great deal more (beneficial) depth to it. Conversely, the affects of sex outside marriage has a great deal more depth than most are willing to recognize. But, that's another subject :wink:
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:38 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:But, that's another subject :wink:


Now that it's been mentioned, it isn't anymore...
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:43 pm

From the nature of Feud's original post, it was pretty predictable that the thread would degrade like this.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests