Christian Women, Are You Causing Men to Sin?

[Catherineanne]

Let me appoligize, I'm being needlessly mean.

I completely take offense that women must change their behavior, lest they be blamed for something men do. As someone else already said, that's why women wear burkas in some countries. They must be burdened for the lack of self-control in men, and that's not right.

So I took issue with the hole "some parts are holy" aspect of your post. I'm pretty sure you believe breasts are among those "holy" parts that should be covered up; yet, a man's chest is perfectly okay to display. Lately, I've come to think some double-standards just shouldn't exist, and wanted to make you think about the logic of saying "we must choose what parts are holy". I think it's just an excuse to blame the other for our own sins.

If women want to show their breasts, that is up to them. I don't have a problem myself, and I share your dislike of the double standard in this.

Still, I was a complete jerk for trying to make my point this way, and I apoligize. Sarcasm can be completely useless and counter-productive at times.

It doesn't work on me, certainly. But I wasn't offended. I thought it was funny, really.

Anyway, God bless. Women are the best things God's ever made.

If I speak for myself at present, the parts that I cover up, with several layers, are pretty well everything except my hands and face. But not because I am particularly holy, but because there are four inches of snow outside, and my house is very, very cold.

In the summer I have bare arms, and slightly lower tops, but the rest remains covered. I am attention averse. However, I do not set the standard for anyone else to follow; I am happy for other women to decide for themselves. If women live in a culture where breasts may be displayed, then good for them. I have no problem with that.

I was talking only of moving from a concept of shame to one of holiness. If that holiness is only covered by a G-string, that is fine with me, as long as nobody expects me to appear like that.

I was only trying to lose the 'naked equals shameful' motif. I think you assumed from that 'naked equals profane', which to be honest is just as bad. Veiled/hidden equals holy is more the way I would express it.

Female sexuality is necessarily more holy than male sexuality, because God hides it further away from sight. When a man undresses his sexuality is apparent; a woman's remains hidden, because it is holier. By which you can conclude that I am not including the breasts as sexual organs, because they are not.

 

[Catherineanne]

Only in the more "primitive" cultures do women go topless. Those are cultures where Christianity is rare or nonexistant.

It looks as if you have cause and effect mixed up. The influence of Christianity on a traditional culture will achieve the tabooing of female breasts being shown in public. Where Christians are relatively rich and powerful, emulating their standards of 'decency' will be regarded as higher status, and remaining traditional will be regarded as you describe it; primitive. But this is a Christian value judgment, not an objective one.

Christianity is not less primitive, only less tolerant of female nudity.

 

[Alive_Again]

I said: "Interesting perspective. We are bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh."

What do you mean by this? That's not there in Genesis applying to God.

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." Eph 5:30


I said: "Within most cultures it is pretty obvious. Only in the more "primitive" cultures do women go topless. Those are cultures where Christianity is rare or nonexistant."

What a cultural mindset you come from. That harks back to the days of colonialism. In our country that would be deemed racially offensive.

It's this way in North America and Europe. These are basically Christian cultures. If a woman in America in most places where to go for a walk topless, she would probably be attacked/assaulted. You're asking for it. In this culture that would cause arousal. If she were to not wear her bottoms, she would almost certainly be accosted. In our culture, that's a bit of an overload. Especially for a Christian man. Sexual appetites in Christians are supposed to be kept in check unless you're with your wife/husband in an appropriate time and place. That's common sense. If you're single and "fasting" these appetites, going somewhere where there is direct opposition to your fast is not profitable. That's the whole point of the OP. You run the chance of causing someone to break their fast and dishonor God's wishes. You don't want to be an occasion for stumbling.

That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
1 Thess 4:4-6


That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
1 Thess 4:4-6 (KJV)

I don't know what it's like in New Zealand, but in most places in the world that is not acceptable behavior. Without rendering final judgment on African cultures, the ones that mutiliate their women, their bodies with rings and "odd stuff" inserted in their ears, noses, lips, cannabilitic, head shrinking, witch doctors, etc. That is without a doubt primitive and not of God. When Christianity hits the scene, this stuff comes to an end, because it's not that way in Heaven. "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven."

I'm surprised you seem resistant. It's not about bodies being shameful. It's about as the post mentioned earlier, being inappropriate, as per the context.

 

[Johnnz]

I accept context. But I also see our cultural and some current Christian context somewhat astray from biblical standards, and therefore open to challenge. A similar situation was slavery, where some verses were quoted to support slavery. It took considered Christian rebuttal of an existing cultural standard to start the opposition that eventually led to the practice being outlawed.

I don't advocate widespread public nudity. But I do strongly support less cant and exploitation of human sexuality which requires a far more robust and biblically based advocacy. That would include acceptance that some Christians can adopt responsible nudity with integrity.

John
NZ

 

[CreedIsChrist]

I want to make a somewhat bizarre shot at a bid for discussion. I'm going to state my hypothesis/theory/belief and anyone may counter it if they like. So here we go:

Physical modesty is relative to the surroundings.

This is why I say this: The first time I saw a Muslim woman was when I was 16. Going by her clothing (a black dress topped with the black hajib and a black opaque veil) she was Saudi, and had in tow behind her a gaggle of small children. Needless to say I stared at her as the bus I was traveling in passed her by.
Ironically, this Saudi woman, in an attempt to be modest, actually drew more attention to herself than if she had worn a long sleeved shirt, and a long skirt with the head scarf. If modesty is NOT drawing attention to yourself physically then she was more immodest than a woman who wears short skirts and a low top.

I'm also prone to think about modesty issues in a nudist colony. Is it immodest in a nudist colony to wear clothes simply because that singles you out of the crowd and places attention on you? But that's kind of a farcical whimsy...

So...Discuss Comrades, Discuss!

well, put a modest women in a place like Sodom and Gomorrah and obviously she will stick out..

THis is actually very saddening. IF women who dress modestly are actually sticking out in public then there is something very wrong going on in society and people have such a seered conscious and are so used to lust and sin that anything modest stands out.

modesty is not about attention. It is about covering up the body in a tasteful fashion that does not incite lust in others. Look at how Christ's mother is dressed..a rebellious woman who dresses any way she wants is being self-centered and prideful because she does not care about whether her clothing could cause others to fall into lust and sin. And Jesus said you will give account for the other people who you have helped to fall. God even put Ezeziel accountable for the repentance of others so much so that their blood would be on his shoulders, and he was a holy man. Can you imagine how much more so for a rebellious prideful woman??

when a woman is looking at clothing, she should not be thinking about whether it is sexy, fashionable, good looking, or elegant, rather the first thing she should ask is "will this article of clothing cause scandal and lust in others and uphold my modesty and dignity"?

 

[Johnnz]

when a woman is looking at clothing, she should not be thinking about whether it is sexy, fashionable, good looking, or elegant, rather the first thing she should ask is "will this article of clothing cause scandal and lust in others and uphold my modesty and dignity"?

I have a yes BUT..... response to that statement. Why?

a) It completely overlooks the fact that in creating humanity in two genders and hormones to make them mutually attractive any woman, however dressed, has the capacity to interest a guy (and vice versa of course).

b) That being the case, Christian morality requires neither sex to exploit that attraction. That does not negate attractiveness per se, only the misuse of it.

c) Each gender has the responsibility to maintain Christian moral standards. That includes unnecessary eroticism as well as seeing people as people, not just bodies.

d) From this we can see that:

i) However a women dresses she is responsible for maintaining acceptable values and boundaries. But that should not make her captive to any male who happens to be around. That is far too one sided. Men have responsibility not to see women predominately in sexual terms. A rather more extreme example that does illustrate this point: a Christian male nudist can interact with other naked women without either gender experiencing arousal or impure lust.
ii) Impure lusts occur whatever a woman wears. It's not a modern phenomenon and was just as present in past, very much more clothed times. Remember what Jesus taught about where defilement arises - from within, not without.

​

e) Cultural values are important and can differ greatly. We must never simply assume our own cultural values are superior, or the 'real biblical ones'. Many church goers today would have incurred congregational wrath a few decades ago for wearing what they would now consider to be suitably modest clothing. We must always be alert to any cultural value that runs counter to biblical values. Undue modesty can similarly qualify for some critical examination.

f) The scripture in Timothy refers to ostentatious dressing reflecting social superiority, not sexually modest dressing as most often quoted.

g) Nakedness was everywhere in NT society. Purity of thought was unrelated to the sight of the human body, as nakedness was a daily sight. Some Christian slaves may well have worked partially or totally naked as a matter of custom. For those Christians sexual purity of though was much more than encountering human flesh.

John
NZ

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

well, put a modest women in a place like Sodom and Gomorrah and obviously she will stick out..

Obviously you've never been to Ogden Utah...Capped sleeves and shorts below the knees are considered the bare minimum that women here are allowed to wear.

THis is actually very saddening. IF women who dress modestly are actually sticking out in public then there is something very wrong going on in society and people have such a seered conscious and are so used to lust and sin that anything modest stands out.

That woman was not modest. Every single eye on that side of the bus was on her, including the eye of my boyfriend. I don't know if it incited lust, but he noticed for sure.

modesty is not about attention. It is about covering up the body in a tasteful fashion that does not incite lust in others. Look at how Christ's mother is dressed..a rebellious woman who dresses any way she wants is being self-centered and prideful because she does not care about whether her clothing could cause others to fall into lust and sin. And Jesus said you will give account for the other people who you have helped to fall. God even put Ezeziel accountable for the repentance of others so much so that their blood would be on his shoulders, and he was a holy man. Can you imagine how much more so for a rebellious prideful woman??

That's funny because every single entry for modesty and immodesty in the dictionary starts with the emotional/spiritual meaning of the word, followed by the physical meaning. Seems to me that being modest is having a contrite heart and not drawing attention to yourself through the way you act, behave or dress, whether it be in a halter top or a black shroud.

And you CAN take modesty too far, and I believe the Saudi woman I saw was taking it too far. The idea behind muslim dress is to draw attention AWAY from women (and it works...in other mulsim countries where all the women are dressed the same. They kind of blend into the background). If that is what she was aiming for she failed because I sure noticed.

when a woman is looking at clothing, she should not be thinking about whether it is sexy, fashionable, good looking, or elegant, rather the first thing she should ask is "will this article of clothing cause scandal and lust in others and uphold my modesty and dignity"?

So what if a woman wears a modest outfit, and a man still makes an inappropriate pass at her? At that point the man isn't upholding his dignity or her dignity, and yet many in your camp would say she MUST have done something to get his attention, and therefore it was her fault.
For example my best friend is well endowed. She was wearing a regular X-L t-shirt, black and a coat. Still some pig thought it would be funny to hold his hands up and "bump" into her. Was it her fault?

 

[Catherineanne]

It's this way in North America and Europe. These are basically Christian cultures. If a woman in America in most places where to go for a walk topless, she would probably be attacked/assaulted. You're asking for it.

Complete drivel. Nudity of any kind does not invite assault of any kind; well, outside Saudi Arabia and Iran anyway. That is a barking mad suggestion.

If a woman walked down the street topless in the UK she would draw eyes, certainly, but she would absolutely NOT be attacked or assaulted. She might get some comments, and some whistles, but I am certain nobody would touch her. I am not sure what makes you think that they would.

What would then happen is that some kind police officer would approach her and ask her to cover herself up, and if she didn't, he would arrest her for public indecency, the same as if a man wandered around inappropriately covered. Chances are, she would get a free ride to the nearest police station, a good talking to, and then let off without charge.

 

[Catherineanne]

That would include acceptance that some Christians can adopt responsible nudity with integrity.

Who said we can't?

 

[Catherineanne]

when a woman is looking at clothing, she should not be thinking about whether it is sexy, fashionable, good looking, or elegant, rather the first thing she should ask is "will this article of clothing cause scandal and lust in others and uphold my modesty and dignity"?

Twaddle.

Clearly you do not understand eroticism, nor appreciate that some men find excessive covering highly arousing. Even a nun's habit can cause scandal and lust, given a dirty enough mind. Do you honestly not realise that Moslem men find those burkas and hijab's etc erotic? You are very naive if you do not realise this.

Women are not responsible for male lust. Men are. It matters very little what women wear; some man somewhere will eroticise pretty well any choice, and lust after a woman wearing it. The responsibility for male behaviour must, therefore, remain with the man concerned.

 

[Aibrean]

In short, no I'm not. I don't wear dresses to church and I only have one dress in my closet that fits and it's not short, nor revealing.

 

[Alive_Again]

Aibrean...
In short, no I'm not. I don't wear dresses to church and I only have one dress in my closet that fits and it's not short, nor revealing.

I'm pulling for you to reach your goal weight! I know when you do, they'll be a whole wardrobe of beautiful things to enjoy. I really sense God's interest in your ability to reach a healthier weight. I'm blessed just to sense that inwardly.

I could stand to drop a good 10-15 myself.

 

[theodre]

It is so sad that a woman is considered a stumbling block to men:

.I, too, see it as a cop out. I believe Christian men have been led to believe the lie that they will always struggle with lusting after women. It's taught when they are teens, and supported through adulthood. This lie leads them to treat half the Christian population like they are invisible (bouncing the eyes) and keeps them from reaching out to women who aren't believers because they may be dressed skimpily.
Yes, men can and do have lust problems, but they don't have to be slaves to lust! Jesus came to set us free—how do we display that freedom with the current ways we teach men?? Seems to me they become even more enslaved to the program of keeping themselves 'pure' while beautiful sisters in Christ are not looked at, not talked to, etc. because these teens/men are encouraged to 'bounce their eyes'.

Yes, it's a sore spot for me as a beautiful woman who is friends with beautiful women who have all felt weird by men who won't look at us when we say hi!"

It is ludicrous that what God created in His Own Image(women) are considered as stumbling blocks for men.We live in a society whereby women are sexually objectified by the Playboy and inappropriate content culture.

 

[Johnnz]

I agree.

It distresses me that many of the real struggles people have with their sexuality are in some ways by products of defective Christian teachings.

John
NZ

 

[OGM]

It is so sad that a woman is considered a stumbling block to men:

.I, too, see it as a cop out. I believe Christian men have been led to believe the lie that they will always struggle with lusting after women. It's taught when they are teens, and supported through adulthood. This lie leads them to treat half the Christian population like they are invisible (bouncing the eyes) and keeps them from reaching out to women who aren't believers because they may be dressed skimpily.
Yes, men can and do have lust problems, but they don't have to be slaves to lust! Jesus came to set us free—how do we display that freedom with the current ways we teach men?? Seems to me they become even more enslaved to the program of keeping themselves 'pure' while beautiful sisters in Christ are not looked at, not talked to, etc. because these teens/men are encouraged to 'bounce their eyes'.

Yes, it's a sore spot for me as a beautiful woman who is friends with beautiful women who have all felt weird by men who won't look at us when we say hi!"

It is ludicrous that what God created in His Own Image(women) are considered as stumbling blocks for men. We live in a society whereby women are sexually objectified by the Playboy and inappropriate content culture.

Yes it is sad and very destructive. I have heard about the “eye bouncing philosophy” you speak off that is a fallout of male purity programs. The programs seem to draw an extremely fine line between lust and attraction. The programs say “avoid temptation at all cost”. In practice this turns in to “avoid women at all costs” and “bounce your eyes” if you see a woman that attracts you. I know of some Brothers who will avoid a public beach because they feel they have to avoid seeing women in swimwear.

 

[SoaringOnHisWings]

I DID watch the video, but have not read all the responses. Most of the ones I have read so far make me sad. I whole-heartedly agree with the OP and I am shocked that so many are so adamantly opposed to it.

There is nothing misogynistic about it, and it has nothing to do with stifling sexuality. It is about dressing modestly, which is clearly taught in scripture. Why do so many have issue with that?

The pastor clearly says that men (and women) will be responsible before God for their own actions, their own staring, their own lust. But that does not mean that women (and men) do not have their OWN responsibility to be modest and not tempt others to sin.

No one has said anything about burkas or other extremes. Modesty is not about legalistic rules, measuring how many inches a skirt is, etc. Modesty is a heart issue. Could you stand before God in that exact outfit and tell Him truthfully that it is modest? As in everything, our thoughts should be about pleasing God, even in how we dress. He loves us, He is jealous for us, and He designed us to be sexually pleasing to our SPOUSE, not to every passer-by.

It is sad to see how this particular biblical teaching is so hated, even among fellow Christians.

 

[chingchang]

It is so sad that a woman is considered a stumbling block to men:

.I, too, see it as a cop out. I believe Christian men have been led to believe the lie that they will always struggle with lusting after women. It's taught when they are teens, and supported through adulthood. This lie leads them to treat half the Christian population like they are invisible (bouncing the eyes) and keeps them from reaching out to women who aren't believers because they may be dressed skimpily.
Yes, men can and do have lust problems, but they don't have to be slaves to lust! Jesus came to set us free—how do we display that freedom with the current ways we teach men?? Seems to me they become even more enslaved to the program of keeping themselves 'pure' while beautiful sisters in Christ are not looked at, not talked to, etc. because these teens/men are encouraged to 'bounce their eyes'.

Yes, it's a sore spot for me as a beautiful woman who is friends with beautiful women who have all felt weird by men who won't look at us when we say hi!"

It is ludicrous that what God created in His Own Image(women) are considered as stumbling blocks for men.We live in a society whereby women are sexually objectified by the Playboy and inappropriate content culture.

Problem is in the definition of lust. Feeling sexually attracted to someone is not "lust". It is normal to feel those feelings...we are programmed that way. So...ladies...you are not the problem. The false teaching is the problem and the men who can not accept themselves for who they are...are the problem. Seriously. Fighting the thoughts only draws attention to and magnifies something that would otherwise normally come and go. If a man would just look at the attractive woman...accept that she is attractive...know that it is normal and o.k. to be attracted to her...but then move on because there are millions upon millions of attractive women in the world...this wouldn't be an issue. This is only an issue when one covets the property (wife/husband) of another.

Shoot...I'd probably go the other way and encourage men to compliment their Christian sisters if they like what they see. I...for one...refuse to feel shame over God's creation...let's celebrate it instead! We were created in his image...just sayin'....

CC

 

[chingchang]

I know of some Brothers who will avoid a public beach because they feel they have to avoid seeing women in swimwear.

They better hope Paradise isn't like Eden...they'll just have to close their eyes I guess...

CC

 

[Dionysiou]

haha I see women walking round almost naked all the time, get over it. They obviously want attention and to know that they still look good. Girls will have an easier time getting a man if they can catch your eye. Appreciating women isn't a crime and theres no need to oppress sexual feelings, it's natural.

 

[Dionysiou]

They better hope Paradise isn't like Eden...they'll just have to close their eyes I guess...

CC

lol some people put women on a pedestal.