I am going to post 2 screenshots of TB's sharings, one is lewd and the other is not lewd. They cannot be both lewd or both non-lewd. You tell us which one is not lewd.
Whether something appears lewd depends not merely on the object perceived, but on the moral and spiritual condition, or more precisely the state of being, of the perceiver. Perception is conditioned by whether one is still bound in a fallen mode of being or has been renewed by grace. One therefore cannot simply substitute one’s own perception for that of another, especially where differing states of being shape what is experienced as temptation or purity.
How, then, does the state of mind of a true believer differ from that of someone who does not share the same faith?
To answer that question, one must revisit the Garden of Eden. Before Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he and Eve were naked in each other's presence. Yet Eve's nakedness was not regarded as lewd in Adam's eyes. Scripture states that “the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” This was before the Fall. It was only after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit that they became conscious of their nakedness and experienced shame.
I have set some conditions, this time will be tougher for your response.
In other words, lewdness does not exist in an original sense; it emerges from shame. Shame itself is not original either, but arises from sin. The premise of your question, therefore, rests on the mistaken assumption that sin, and consequently lewdness, is original and self-existent.
Unlike truth, which is ontologically primary, sin has no independent ontological status. It is derivative rather than original, existing as a privation or corruption of the good. Consequently, lewdness, as an expression of sin, is even further removed from what is ontologically primary. You cannot, therefore, treat lewdness as an absolute standard by which all things are measured and judged. To do so is to elevate what is derivative and privative to the status of what is original and absolute - a category mistake. Truth, not sin or its manifestations, is the proper ontological and moral reference point. This metaphysical distinction underlies Jesus' warning: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
I will now turn to the truth.
Before Adam sinned, he existed in a state of being
“able to sin.” After he sinned against God, he fell into a lower state of being -
“not able not to sin.” Through the gospel of salvation, a true believer is restored to a renewed state of being:
“able not to sin.” Finally, upon full reunion with God, the believer is perfected beyond Adam’s original condition of “able to sin,” entering a state like God’s own, in which one is
“not able to sin.”
The true believer is now in the state of being
“able not to sin.” Accordingly, it is entirely possible that images deemed lewd by another may not evoke lust within such a person. This may not be readily comprehended by one who remains in a lower state of being,
“not able not to sin,” and who must not presume that others are living in the same state of being as he is.
BTW, this is not my invention, but that of Augustine of Hippo, who articulated the underlying framework of human will, grace, and sin from which these distinctions are drawn.
@Nut 頑徒, 可以嗎?
KNN, 這個 forum 越來越難混了
