Failure of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment

[Neto]

When I saw the term 'safeguard standards" I thought of Eve telling the lie to the Satan that God said not to touch the fruit of the tree of good and evil. The Satan is the liar, and I suspect he recognized that one immediately, and made use of it to challenge Eve with his reply - "Did God really say that?"

The commands of God do need to have fences built around them. They are strong enough in themselves. I also think that if/when I am tempted to watch a nasty movie, the real temptation started well before that, the temptation that created the desire to find a movie of that sort. Nip it in the bud - stop it before it gets that far. Treat the underlying cause, don't wait until a person needs to treat the symptom.

I assume you think it is fine to build fences for children but not for adults?

For our children, we apply "set no evil thing before your eyes" by keeping certain books out of the home, choosing what videos they watch, etc. I think adults who struggle to do the right thing have often benefitted from similar restrictions. Many people have been spared from po*n because they didn't have a smart phone or didn't have open access to the internet.

I have no problem with fences for adults as long as adults can voluntarily choose to adopt the group's agreed upon restrictions.

The Word of God is the necessary "fence", the one HE thought necessary. I was not talking about physical fences. It has been demonstrated that children feel safest when playing in areas that have boundaries. I have always said that "There is freedom within known bounds." In the spiritual sense, yes, children need some protective 'fences' in their lives. Some adults may need some as well, but this is not the final solution for temptations for looking at p0rn. The 'fix' is to deal with the lust problem at the heart level, not waiting until it gets to the 'eye level'. And yes, there is also the element of 'babes' vs the 'mature in Christ' in the spiritual realm. I do not contest that.

I think you may not understand what I was attempting to communicate. Eve told the destroyer that God told them not to touch the fruit of the tree of good and evil. That claim is not supported by Scripture. It would perhaps have been wise to not touch it, but as a comparison, it is not a sin to have a smart phone, and if there is * humble determination to not look at p0rn, then there will be no issues with the phone. Eve basically said it was a sin to touch the fruit. The counterpart would be if someone says that having a smart is a sin. That is what I meant about building fences around the commands of God. It is as though the person making that rule is saying that God's own rule was not good enough. (That's what the Pharisees of Jesus' day had done.) Also, not having a smart phone is dealing with the symptoms that result from lust, not with the real problem, the lustfulness of the 'flesh'. It might well be wise for a person dealing with lust to not have a smart phone, but that is different than saying 'smart phones are sinful'.

* humble = a recognition that one does not have the necessary resources to face the challenges of life. It is saying "I am not enough, but Jesus IS enough, and not only that, but he is able and willing to provide me with his 'enoughness', so that I can successfully and victoriously face the challenges of life."

[Ernie]

It might well be wise for a person dealing with lust to not have a smart phone, but that is different than saying 'smart phones are sinful'.

I agree. And I think everyone on MN also agrees.

[JohnH]

When I saw the term 'safeguard standards" I thought of Eve telling the lie to the Satan that God said not to touch the fruit of the tree of good and evil. The Satan is the liar, and I suspect he recognized that one immediately, and made use of it to challenge Eve with his reply - "Did God really say that?"

The commands of God do need to have fences built around them. They are strong enough in themselves. I also think that if/when I am tempted to watch a nasty movie, the real temptation started well before that, the temptation that created the desire to find a movie of that sort. Nip it in the bud - stop it before it gets that far. Treat the underlying cause, don't wait until a person needs to treat the symptom.

I assume you think it is fine to build fences for children but not for adults?

For our children, we apply "set no evil thing before your eyes" by keeping certain books out of the home, choosing what videos they watch, etc. I think adults who struggle to do the right thing have often benefitted from similar restrictions. Many people have been spared from po*n because they didn't have a smart phone or didn't have open access to the internet.

I have no problem with fences for adults as long as adults can voluntarily choose to adopt the group's agreed upon restrictions.

Considering that virtually 99% of people in the groups that allow no filter smartphones in everyone’s hands seem to have problems with some kind of improper use, often involving immorality, some more respect for those groups who erect fences seems to be in order.

But my advice to those who build fences around their sheepfolds is to beware that the enemy is often driving a bulldozer.

[JohnH]

It might well be wise for a person dealing with lust to not have a smart phone, but that is different than saying 'smart phones are sinful'.

I agree. And I think everyone on MN also agrees.

Yet if almost everyone who gets a smartphone falls into sin, then it becomes reasonable to say it is sinful.

I think it is ridiculous to go to an assembly of plain men and then find out 65% of men have gotten involved in Internet porn at some point… and the other 35% seem to be from groups that don’t have Internet or phones. (And then the solution being long winded prayer meetings.)

Paper and ink isn’t sinful either, but I think most people would agree I shouldn’t keep a library full of pornographic magazines.

[ken_sylvania]

It might well be wise for a person dealing with lust to not have a smart phone, but that is different than saying 'smart phones are sinful'.

I agree. And I think everyone on MN also agrees.

Yet if almost everyone who gets a smartphone falls into sin, then it becomes reasonable to say it is sinful.

I think it is ridiculous to go to an assembly of plain men and then find out 65% of men have gotten involved in Internet porn at some point… and the other 35% seem to be from groups that don’t have Internet or phones. (And then the solution being long winded prayer meetings.)

Paper and ink isn’t sinful either, but I think most people would agree I shouldn’t keep a library full of pornographic magazines.

I suppose the Swartzentruber Amish don't have problems with immorality?

[JohnH]

I agree. And I think everyone on MN also agrees.

Yet if almost everyone who gets a smartphone falls into sin, then it becomes reasonable to say it is sinful.

I think it is ridiculous to go to an assembly of plain men and then find out 65% of men have gotten involved in Internet porn at some point… and the other 35% seem to be from groups that don’t have Internet or phones. (And then the solution being long winded prayer meetings.)

Paper and ink isn’t sinful either, but I think most people would agree I shouldn’t keep a library full of pornographic magazines.

I suppose the Swartzentruber Amish don't have problems with immorality?

I hope nobody thinks that not having smartphones is a cure all for immorality.

I also don’t keep a library of pornographic magazines in my attic, and would encourage other Christians not to do so. (This is a real thing - I once knew someone hanging on to a deceased parent’s vintage collection which was worth a fair bit of money.) But the fact I don’t have such a thing doesn’t make me immune from sin, nor a “better” Christian, nor is it a cure all.

[Neto]

....
The commands of God do need to have fences built around them. They are strong enough in themselves. ....

I see that I didn't adequately proof read this comment before I posted it. I intended to say
"The commands of God do not need to have fences built around them."

JohnH's later comments are well worth consideration in this discussion, because it certainly would be spiritually unwise to have a magazine on the coffee table in our living room (we don't have such a table, but it's the general culture, I suppose) that contains a mix of wholesome content and forbidden corrupt content. And that is very similar to television, and also to smart phones, although there are also differences between those two.

In a lesser sense it is like having a catalog in the home that has a section in it that we hope our children will not use in a sinful manner. (I'm already quite "dated", because I grew up with the Sears and Pennys catalogs in the house, and the women's undergarment section was tempting 'soft p0rn'. The same for the mannequins in stores. Those things had/have a valid purpose for the female shoppers, but I do also think that it is over done, and really does wander into pornography - Especially the provocative poses. Then there is 'swim wear' at the beach. As our society has become increasingly degradant, traditional 'rules' of propriety have been thrown to the wind there.)