There are women who wear makeup to enhance their looks in an honest way for themselves, and who are not affected or jealous by how other women look. There are women who don’t wear makeup, yet are deeply jealous of a woman that has made a little effort with herself, and deep down are far more conscious and negative about their own looks. It’s your attitude to your own looks with or without makeup, not whether you do or do not wear makeup.
I have loved this podcast ever since I found out about it, but I just have one suggestion you could maybe consider. Considering that it takes over 6 minutes for the discussion to actually get started, it would be great if you could provide a link--perhaps in the description--to when the discussion really gets going. That way, those who want to skip through the introductory remarks, especially since it takes a decent bit of time (over 6 minutes) to get into the discussion in the video.
Matt, I don’t mean to be picky but I’ve concerned for some time now about the beer in the mug that Aquinas is holding. The meniscus is not horizontal! Is this a miracle?
@@kristinacatherine5121 Nice Try Kristina but your reply doesn’t hold beer (water). 😀 The beer should remain level at all times no matter the angle of the container. It’s elementary ….even my yr 8 kids knew that. Blessings🙏🏻
A friend of mine (who’s now actually in minor seminary) who is a fairly attractive dude told me of being sexually objectified by (iirc) two different women he worked with. Mind you this was sexually charged stuff, not just “I wanna go out with you.” While women may not be as visually oriented as men, to deny that physical attraction plays no role is foolish IMO. Also, check out the Apostolic Constitutions for early Christian instruction given specifically to MEN regarding modesty.
We are Temples of the Holy Spirit. We make and maintain beautiful, attractive and dignified temples, churches and Cathedrals, don't we? So much more should we maintain ourselves for God's sake.
We are Temples of the Holy Spirit. We make beautiful, attractive and dignified temples, churches and Cathedrals, don't we? So much more attention must we generously give to maintain ourselves as beings of bodies and souls for God's sake and His purposes for us as gifts to Him and each other.
@@anthonylozano8035 True, but he implements his way through his church and apostles. Maybe ask a priest or just confess it to be safe? Just looking out for y'all
Excellent talk. Lots of good points. I like that Matt was trying to come up with good and reasonable objections. Very Scholastic! I would like to talk about the subject of mutilation and circumcision that was brought up. Matt defined mutilation as frustrating or destroying the natural end of an organ. Emily defined mutilation as doing unnecessary violence to an organ. I think these are both good definitions. Emily’s is certainly a much broader definition and is this more controversial. I would add a definition of mutilation as anything that unnecessarily impairs the end of an organ. This is a little broader than Matt’s definition, but more narrow than Emily’s. I would say it is not a very controversial definition. For example, removing half of the penis would not completely frustrate its end (urination and insemination), but it would certainly drastically impair the end (making sexual function much more difficult). This by anyone’s account would be considered mutilation. With this definition, I would argue that non-therapeutic modern circumcision, in which the entire prepuce is removed, is a form of mutilation. The reason it is mutilation is because the prepuce is the male analogue to the female labia (minora and majora) and clitoral hood. It is analogous to the clitoral hood insofar as it protects the sensitive glans, which is the male analogue to the clitoris. It also is very responsive to stimuli in its own right. It also has lubricator functions like the female labia. Therefore, it is a very important part of the penis for engaging in intercourse. With modern hygiene and over the counter lubricants, the obstacles created by circumcision can be bypassed, but it certainly does reduce functionality in a way that could reduce sexual satisfaction amongst a couple.
I really love these types of conversations, i.e. long format moral/ethical issues being discussed intelligently. But I think I've never really been able to get into Aquinas because of the angels-dancing-on-pins hypotheticals. But still, keep up the good work and interesting topics!
Brian R The angels dancing on the head of a pin is Protestant parody of Scholasticism. It was never a hotly debated issue. Although the question of whether multiple angels could occupy the same place is in the Summa, it hardly is given the weight of natural theology or the Trinity. If your concern is that Scholasticism deals with too much minutia, I would say that the devil is in the details. There is a Scholastic saying to the effect of “Small errors in the premise lead to great errors in the conclusion”. This is a logical analogue to chaos theory. A small change in the first principles or conditions has vast implications for the final word. I could easily imagine someone saying that the Scholastic theory of relations is worthless minutia until they begin studying the Trinity. So I would urge you to not let “minutia” keep you from studying Scholastic philosophers in the same way that I would urge you to not let the minutia of special relativity (who deals with particles approaching relativistic speeds in their day-to-day?) from studying physics on the whole. You can start with the basics, and then use those basic principles and apply them to the minutia as it is applicable to your life. Cheers!
Well, some people "express themselves" through mass murder. That doesn't make an action right... Dressing yourself isn't all about expressing yourself. That reasoning is rooted in pride.
This was great, but the audio suddenly getting louder at around an hour scared the crap out of me.
😂
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who fell for the jump-scare.
There are women who wear makeup to enhance their looks in an honest way for themselves, and who are not affected or jealous by how other women look. There are women who don’t wear makeup, yet are deeply jealous of a woman that has made a little effort with herself, and deep down are far more conscious and negative about their own looks. It’s your attitude to your own looks with or without makeup, not whether you do or do not wear makeup.
very well put.
I have loved this podcast ever since I found out about it, but I just have one suggestion you could maybe consider. Considering that it takes over 6 minutes for the discussion to actually get started, it would be great if you could provide a link--perhaps in the description--to when the discussion really gets going. That way, those who want to skip through the introductory remarks, especially since it takes a decent bit of time (over 6 minutes) to get into the discussion in the video.
I agree!
Matt, I don’t mean to be picky but I’ve concerned for some time now about the beer in the mug that Aquinas is holding. The meniscus is not horizontal! Is this a miracle?
you must be an engineer
@@anthonylozano8035
Not an engineer but a high school science teacher for 25 years. 😀
No, he looks pensive, but it's actually an action shot. He's slamming it so hard that the force is keeping the liquid level in the glass. 🤔😂
@@kristinacatherine5121
Nice Try Kristina but your reply doesn’t hold beer (water). 😀
The beer should remain level at all times no matter the angle of the container. It’s elementary ….even my yr 8 kids knew that.
Blessings🙏🏻
A friend of mine (who’s now actually in minor seminary) who is a fairly attractive dude told me of being sexually objectified by (iirc) two different women he worked with. Mind you this was sexually charged stuff, not just “I wanna go out with you.” While women may not be as visually oriented as men, to deny that physical attraction plays no role is foolish IMO. Also, check out the Apostolic Constitutions for early Christian instruction given specifically to MEN regarding modesty.
Yes!! Men shouldn't be flirts! What a great analogy!!!
Hi Emily 🖐️(I can't believe I missed this 2 years ago)
We are Temples of the Holy Spirit. We make and maintain beautiful, attractive and dignified temples, churches and Cathedrals, don't we? So much more should we maintain ourselves for God's sake.
Peddling tank tops during a podcast about modesty 😂😇🤣
What about tanning and whitening?
I would still love to see and episode on bodybuilding!
Great video, awesome to hear a woman's perspective on such a radical topic. Thanks Matt and Emily!
We are Temples of the Holy Spirit. We make beautiful, attractive and dignified temples, churches and Cathedrals, don't we? So much more attention must we generously give to maintain ourselves as beings of bodies and souls for God's sake and His purposes for us as gifts to Him and each other.
What would you say to a woman who gets a breast enhancement to please her husband?
my wife did :x
@@anthonylozano8035 Isn't that a sin bro?
@@avemaria4788 I guess that’s just up to God
@@anthonylozano8035 True, but he implements his way through his church and apostles. Maybe ask a priest or just confess it to be safe? Just looking out for y'all
Excellent talk. Lots of good points. I like that Matt was trying to come up with good and reasonable objections. Very Scholastic!
I would like to talk about the subject of mutilation and circumcision that was brought up. Matt defined mutilation as frustrating or destroying the natural end of an organ. Emily defined mutilation as doing unnecessary violence to an organ. I think these are both good definitions. Emily’s is certainly a much broader definition and is this more controversial. I would add a definition of mutilation as anything that unnecessarily impairs the end of an organ. This is a little broader than Matt’s definition, but more narrow than Emily’s. I would say it is not a very controversial definition. For example, removing half of the penis would not completely frustrate its end (urination and insemination), but it would certainly drastically impair the end (making sexual function much more difficult). This by anyone’s account would be considered mutilation. With this definition, I would argue that non-therapeutic modern circumcision, in which the entire prepuce is removed, is a form of mutilation. The reason it is mutilation is because the prepuce is the male analogue to the female labia (minora and majora) and clitoral hood. It is analogous to the clitoral hood insofar as it protects the sensitive glans, which is the male analogue to the clitoris. It also is very responsive to stimuli in its own right. It also has lubricator functions like the female labia. Therefore, it is a very important part of the penis for engaging in intercourse. With modern hygiene and over the counter lubricants, the obstacles created by circumcision can be bypassed, but it certainly does reduce functionality in a way that could reduce sexual satisfaction amongst a couple.
I really love these types of conversations, i.e. long format moral/ethical issues being discussed intelligently. But I think I've never really been able to get into Aquinas because of the angels-dancing-on-pins hypotheticals. But still, keep up the good work and interesting topics!
Thanks, mate.
Brian R The angels dancing on the head of a pin is Protestant parody of Scholasticism. It was never a hotly debated issue. Although the question of whether multiple angels could occupy the same place is in the Summa, it hardly is given the weight of natural theology or the Trinity.
If your concern is that Scholasticism deals with too much minutia, I would say that the devil is in the details. There is a Scholastic saying to the effect of “Small errors in the premise lead to great errors in the conclusion”. This is a logical analogue to chaos theory. A small change in the first principles or conditions has vast implications for the final word. I could easily imagine someone saying that the Scholastic theory of relations is worthless minutia until they begin studying the Trinity. So I would urge you to not let “minutia” keep you from studying Scholastic philosophers in the same way that I would urge you to not let the minutia of special relativity (who deals with particles approaching relativistic speeds in their day-to-day?) from studying physics on the whole. You can start with the basics, and then use those basic principles and apply them to the minutia as it is applicable to your life.
Cheers!
i like those that you shame , my paeple are goths cosplaying at ren fairs dressed and paited like that cause its how they like to exspress them selfs
Well, some people "express themselves" through mass murder. That doesn't make an action right...
Dressing yourself isn't all about expressing yourself. That reasoning is rooted in pride.