Not exactly. The person with a foot fetish who gets off looking at pictures of sandals in a flyer from Payless is sinning, and the person who turns to porn for the arousal is also sinning. A person who is unintentionally exposed to porn will have their lust provoked, and what they do at that moment determines if they are sinning or not. Do they continue to look at porn or get away from it and try to focus on something else to get the lust out of their mind? And, of course, the people producing porn are guilty of a variety of sins.Finrock wrote: ↑March 13th, 2017, 7:27 pm I said that nudity in and of itself is not bad. I said it comes down to lust. Whether its provoking lust or lusting, it's about lust.
It sounds like you are trying to say that if someone provokes you to lust, then the person provoking is guilty, but the person lusting is not because they are being provoked.
You can look at porn and not list and it is normal and okay. Law enforcement do it all of the time. Others have overcome lust.
We don't have to lust even if provoked. But lusting is the issue, not nudity in and of itself.
-Finrock
The point I was trying unsuccessfully to make is that, as you said, nudity in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. Lust is a temptation and I believe entertaining inappropriate lust is sinful. But pornography isn't about nudity, it is about provoking lust. I suspect the purveyors of porn will be held accountable for the acts that occurred as the porn is created and for provoking lust in the people who view the porn. The viewers will be held accountable for their own immoral action as well as giving their support to purveyors of porn so they can financially benefit from their sinful creations.