Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In our society, one can't escape coming across immodest woman (or men for that matter). So we as Christians just need to put up our gaurd and not look, and if the looking is causing arousal of the flesh nature than we need to stop and take that to prayer.
Can't escape it. In the congregation that is another matter though.
Keep my "guard" up? Can't "escape" it? What kind of Christianity sees enemies on all sides?
And even if it were true....are we not mandated to love those people---enemies or no----as we love ourselves? Help?
I wouldn't write off for one second the power of influence, and that includes absolving women who wear revealing attire. But any man strong in his convictions will pass this would-be test of temptation. Unless the woman is completely naked and throwing herself on you, I'd say it doesn't take an exceptional man to keep his mind out of the gutter. What's the mystery? You see a woman in a short skirt, say to yourself "Wow, someone's desparate for attention" and then get on with your day. If an atheist like me can do it, a Christian should be able to do it that much easier.
And contrary to the OP, I don't believe it's a one-way street. The same man can also "murder the soul" of the woman by letting his actions control him to the point of starting a sexual relationship up with her. Then, this could drive a woman further from who she should be and the man would be "to blame". After all, maybe she's just wearing it because she thinks it looks good (just general "good", not "sexy"). These women may be guilty of a lot of things, but derailing someone in their walk with a higher power with whom they supposedly have a strong relationship? That's a bit overdramatic, I would say.
I wouldn't write off for one second the power of influence, and that includes absolving women who wear revealing attire. But any man strong in his convictions will pass this would-be test of temptation. Unless the woman is completely naked and throwing herself on you, I'd say it doesn't take an exceptional man to keep his mind out of the gutter. What's the mystery? You see a woman in a short skirt, say to yourself "Wow, someone's desparate for attention" and then get on with your day. If an atheist like me can do it, a Christian should be able to do it that much easier.
And contrary to the OP, I don't believe it's a one-way street. The same man can also "murder the soul" of the woman by letting his actions control him to the point of starting a sexual relationship up with her. Then, this could drive a woman further from who she should be and the man would be "to blame". After all, maybe she's just wearing it because she thinks it looks good (just general "good", not "sexy"). These women may be guilty of a lot of things, but derailing someone in their walk with a higher power with whom they supposedly have a strong relationship? That's a bit overdramatic, I would say.
Thats pretty much my thinking, too. You just said it better.
Among other things. Christian women show respect for men by their manner of dress.
Stop circumcision, and decriminalize prostitution. Young men wouldn't have half the problems that they do today if the culture weren't mutilating them as infants and attacking their masculinity.
That's a pretty big experimental gamble. Who could even anticipate or predict how high the promiscuity rates could go if we did that? Boys have plenty masculinity to go around, and barely anything can hamper that. In fact, I'd say we're not doing ENOUGH, and there's TOO MUCH stimulus for (at least, European/American) boys going around.
That's a pretty big experimental gamble. Who could even anticipate or predict how high the promiscuity rates could go if we did that?
Quite the contrary: trying to impose the sexual practices of the effete on men was the experiment, and everywhere we look, there are boys degrading themselves for the attention of corrupt young women... and other young men.
And choosing not to mutilate the genitals of infants? That wouldn't be an experiment.
Quote:
Boys have plenty masculinity to go around, and barely anything can hamper that.
You have a definition of masculinity that is foreign to me. Farming pimples and waist girth while playing video games is not my definition of masculine behavior.
Quote:
In fact, I'd say we're not doing ENOUGH, and there's TOO MUCH stimulus for (at least, European/American) boys going around.
There's a difference between being sexually stimulated and sexually gratified. Lack of gratification is the problem until hormone suppression takes on a role in medicating to gain the theoretical form of normalcy that we have adopted.
Last edited by The Homogenizer; 11-27-2012 at 09:03 PM..
I once listened to a very wise Protestant pastor speak on this very subject. He said there were two kinds of men:
The first are the men who, when they see a scantily dressed woman, take personal responsibility for their reaction. He explained that they were the ones who averted their eyes. Or did something useful with all that lustful energy like chop some wood.
Then there are the second kind who take no personal responsibility and, indeed, take it a step further and blame it on the woman.
He challenged the men in the audience to be the first kind of Man. (Capital M.) Because real men know that they, and they alone, are accountable to God for their actions. They don't play the blame game because that's what boys do.
I once listened to a very wise Protestant pastor speak on this very subject. He said there were two kinds of men:
The first are the men who, when they see a scantily dressed woman, take personal responsibility for their reaction. He explained that they were the ones who averted their eyes. Or did something useful with all that lustful energy like chop some wood.
Then there are the second kind who take no personal responsibility and, indeed, take it a step further and blame it on the woman.
He challenged the men in the audience to be the first kind of Man. (Capital M.) Because real men know that they, and they alone, are accountable to God for their actions. They don't play the blame game because that's what boys do.
I absolutely LOVE yer post, Dew!!! Great thoughts!! We need more of this!!
Is woman flaunting their flesh in the Church going to increase adultery (lusting with the heart/covetousness) or is it going to decrease it? The law of love says the following..
Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Satan's works to provide the flesh available so one is drawn after their own desires.
James 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
A Christian knows that to fall back in the flesh is death (separation from fellowship, loss, etc). God wants us focusing on him in the Spirit not the pretty young lady in front having unpure thoughts. Beauty is the countenance of a Godly woman, and it doesn't make a brother stumble.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When in doubt always blame the victim???!!!
