Three Questions For You

[Josh]

But those with same gender attraction have to work hard to not lust after muscular men who are wearing sleeveless shirts. I know some such men.

So... if I was with such men in a dormitory setting, and was aware of their struggles, I would try to stay more clothed than what I would in a dorm full of heterosexual oriented men.

Now I could think, "hey, tough". It's not my fault that you have such attraction. Or I could think, "What would I appreciate if I was in his shoes?"

I don't know what's wrong with a woman thinking/doing the same thing towards men with opposite-gender attraction. Couldn't women be encouraged to think/act this way without blaming the women for men's lust issues.

None of the above is ever taught in the Bible at all, which is the first reason to reject it.

If someone is prancing around shirtless disputing pride and vanity than that’s bad. (I personally don’t have a struggle with that…)

Women shouldn’t engage in pride, vanity, vain glory, or try to inspire list in man. However, women also should try to be attractive, pleasant and so on (perhaps some women don’t want to try, but most have an innate God given desire to). It would be very strange to teach women that they should try to be ugly and unpleasant wouldn’t it be?

It is up to men to choose not to lust around attractive women. Those women can be modest or immodest. Prideful or humble.

As far as SSA men who are trying to live godly lives go… in my experience they prefer if you treat them exactly like one of your heterosexual friends.

[Ernie]

Women shouldn’t engage in pride, vanity, vain glory, or try to inspire list in man. However, women also should try to be attractive, pleasant and so on (perhaps some women don’t want to try, but most have an innate God given desire to). It would be very strange to teach women that they should try to be ugly and unpleasant wouldn’t it be?

Once again.

false dichotomy
[ fawlsdahy-kot-uh-mee ]
noun

a logical fallacy in which a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things.

[Ernie]

But those with same gender attraction have to work hard to not lust after muscular men who are wearing sleeveless shirts. I know some such men.

So... if I was with such men in a dormitory setting, and was aware of their struggles, I would try to stay more clothed than what I would in a dorm full of heterosexual oriented men.

Now I could think, "hey, tough". It's not my fault that you have such attraction. Or I could think, "What would I appreciate if I was in his shoes?"

I don't know what's wrong with a woman thinking/doing the same thing towards men with opposite-gender attraction. Couldn't women be encouraged to think/act this way without blaming the women for men's lust issues.

Couldn't women be encouraged to think/act this way without blaming the women for men's lust issues.

Absolutely.

It seems like RZehr and I are coming out at the same place, and Ken and Josh are coming out at a different place. I'll make a poll to see if we can nuance this a bit more.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Josh]

Women shouldn’t engage in pride, vanity, vain glory, or try to inspire list in man. However, women also should try to be attractive, pleasant and so on (perhaps some women don’t want to try, but most have an innate God given desire to). It would be very strange to teach women that they should try to be ugly and unpleasant wouldn’t it be?

Once again.

false dichotomy
[ fawlsdahy-kot-uh-mee ]
noun

a logical fallacy in which a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things.

The question at hand is teaching people (women specifically) that they need to be careful not to “make men lust”. I think this is harmful and shouldn’t be taught because:

- it isn’t in the Bible
- it creates a strange inversion where one person is responsible for the sins of another person

I think the desire of women to be attractive is innate and part of God’s created order and women shouldn’t be taught they need to be not-attractive to somehow please God.

[Ernie]

I think the desire of women to be attractive is innate and part of God’s created order and women shouldn’t be taught they need to be not-attractive to somehow please God.

I agree.

[Josh]

I think the desire of women to be attractive is innate and part of God’s created order and women shouldn’t be taught they need to be not-attractive to somehow please God.

I agree.

Eventually, women learn that being around attractive women causes some men to feel temptation to lust. Some men, even church members and Christian men, turn temptation into action and start to fall into various sins.

I believe women have limited responsibility for that. The Bible teaches them to avoid immodesty, pride, vainglory, or purchasing costly garments. Of course, they shouldn’t do things with a goal to try to make men stumble. Just like I avoid parking my car where it would make someone stumble and try to steal it. However, I don’t have responsibility to make my car hard to steal - I just shouldn’t intentionally try to get it stolen.*

I think there should perhaps be a bit more focus on making sure we are not acquiring “costly array” or being conformed to the world trying to get us to be prideful or immodest in our clothing purchases or sewing projects. Or even purchases of fabric.

I also think there is a very wide range of what can be humble, modest, and show a Christian spirit in terms of women’s clothing. In a specific culture, it may be a good bit narrower.

* People do actually do this who want insurance money. It is very easy to get your motorcycle stolen in particular - just park it on the street in a questionable part of town.

[silentreader]

That's also possible. I'm not sure I can tell from the text exactly what the biggest problem was with his offering. It may not have been the nature of the offering but rather the attitude in which he brought it. He seems to have been very quickly offended by the rejection.

Gen 4:3  And it was so after some time that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to the Lord.
Gen 4:4  And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,
Gen 4:5  but Cain and his sacrifices he regarded not, and Cain was exceedingly sorrowful and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6  And the Lord God said to Cain, Why art thou become very sorrowful and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7  Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.

Septuagint, this is why I would think that way.

The Stone Edition of the Tanakh gives additional clarity:

Gen. 4:3 After a period of time, Cain brought an offering to HASHEM of the fruit of the ground; 4 and as for Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and from their choicest. HASHEM turned to Abel and to his offering, 5 but to Cain and his offering He did not turn. This annoyed Cain exceedingly and his countenance fell.
6 And HASHEM said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it."

[Neto]

As to the responsibility of others toward their fellow believers, to help them avoid falling into sin, there are a number of Biblical principles that can be brought to mind, to help create a proper response.

The (OT) scripture that speaks of one's responsibility to warn the sinner. The sinner has the primary responsibility, but the one who fails to give the warning also bears some responsibility for the sinner's final destiny. This would be a secondary application, not a primary one. (The "warning" is in the form of avoiding the creation of a temptation that may lead to the downfall of the observer.)

Jesus' words regarding the millstone around the neck being a better fate than causing someone to fall.

The whole 'weaker brother' deal. (I have sometimes wondered if a better word for 'weaker' would be 'more sensitive'.)

Aside from this, I WILL say that I understand Scripture, particularly the Genesis account, to teach that in general the man has a greater responsibility than does the woman. It was primarily Adam's sin that resulted in the curse upon all of creation. In the Law, a man was able to free his wife from an erroneous vow, and if he heard her vow, and did not respond, then it was valid. So it seems that he in turn would bear some responsibility for the unpleasant result of the vow.

Apart from Scripture, my own observation tells me that God created the woman to say Yes. That is, it is her nature to want to say yes. So if a man pressures a woman to do some evil thing, he bears some responsibility for the resulting sin, because the man's primary role in relation to the woman is to be a protector. So even just asking a woman to do some evil thing is a sin against her. (I think of this especially in a dating/courtship relationship - the man must say no to sin, to himself, not waiting for the woman to say no. It is a sin against her to ask anything of her to which she should say no.)

More to the point of this thread, I do have to wonder why some women want to expose that which is precious, meant only for her husband. (As Paul says, some 'members' of the physical body are treated with special care.) Why do fashion trends so often pressure women to do this, when even the fallen nature of Adam & Eve lead them to want to be covered?

On the other side, the young man is told "Do not walk past the house of the prostitute." Do not play around the edges of sin, or tempt yourself. Then, of course, there is the question of entrapment, seen especially in police tactics. (I don't know if it was a police woman, but I was once "propositioned" outside of a motel. We had just arrived, and it was already dark. I went to our room with my wife and children and the first bit of luggage. Then I returned to the car to get the rest of the things we would need for the night. As I was leaning into the trunk of the car, another car pulled up and stopped behind me. A woman in the passenger seat leaned out her open window and asked me something I could not hear. I walked over to the car, and said "I'm sorry, I could not hear you." She then asked me if I "needed any company tonight." I just said 'no', and walked back to my own car. In the morning, when we were checking out, the motel clerk asked how everything was, and I said that the room was fine, but that I didn't appreciate being propositioned in the parking lot. She - the clerk - said 'Oh, I think I know who that was'.)

[Sudsy]

If we allow ourselves and believe that the Holy Spirit who lives within will do as scripture says that He will to guide us in the way that we should go, then all of this what to wear, what to eat, where to go, etc, etc will be solved.

This is not to say that the Holy Spirit will not use the scriptures in His guidance but there are particulars that are not found in the scriptures and we need His guidance about.

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:13,14

So am I seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance in what I should do as a Christian or am I ignoring Him and relying more on my own understandings ? Am I bogged down by religion or am I living set free and looking for the Spirit's guidance ? In my life I have often got bogged down and became fruitless as I have shut out the Spirit's guidance. It's a choice I must make daily to turn over control to Him.

Thats how I sees it.