are women responsible for men's sin?

Doctor.Sphinx said:

Straw man. I didn't claim this.

Click to expand...

Your exact words were "No, rather on the bible and God's provision of clothing for Adam and Eve once they had fallen into sin." My point was that there is nothing stating exactly what that clothing covered, where it included coverage of Eve's breasts or not. At least one interpretation says that God made "breaches" for Adam and Eve, which would mean that her breasts were exposed. On the other hand, if the clothing included tops for both Adam and Eve, why would men today think that it is acceptable for them to go topless?

The only completely naked female art I'm aware of (seen mostly in books) is obviously of a sexual nature. Non-sexual art focusing on beauty always hides part of the female anatomy (but often not the breasts), as such areas are sexual in nature (irrespective of being aesthetically pleasing) across cultures. I think the Greeks had an unhealthy practice with naked male statues, but I don't believe these were or are really seen as sexual (the male nakedness was more for symbolism than sex). I'm not an expert, but from what I've read and heard, such complete nakedness (rather than semi-nakedness or tight clothing) is usually more a turn-off for women.

Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that you are not an expert. If you have evidence that supports your position I would love to see it.

Sammy-San said:

Common sense shows topless women is improper.

Click to expand...

No, your opinion says that it is improper for women to go topless. In many places it is common practice.

Sammy-San said:

clothes - creation.com

Click to expand...

What I find interesting -and not in a good way- about the OP title is that this question, answered in the positive, subtly makes its way into many Christian books on recovery from inappropriate contentography and other forms of sexual addiction brokenness. The argument, directed toward spouses (usually wives) is that while you're not ultimately responsible for your husband's sin, you have probably contributed by not being attentive to his needs as he perceives them. So your job as helpmate and wife is to be available for him. "Its your fault but..." is the message wives receive.

Walsinghsm Way said:

What I find interesting -and not in a good way- about the OP title is that this question, answered in the positive, subtly makes its way into many Christian books on recovery from inappropriate contentography and other forms of sexual addiction brokenness. The argument, directed toward spouses (usually wives) is that while you're not ultimately responsible for your husband's sin, you have probably contributed by not being attentive to his needs as he perceives them. So your job as helpmate and wife is to be available for him. "Its your fault but..." is the message wives receive.

Click to expand...

I don't get that at all. I have never heard anyone let men off the hook of inappropriate contentography by any implication that it's the fault of their wives.

Certainly not in any of the men's groups I've been in, when the issue is discussed man-to-man.

And certainly not when we address the invasion of inappropriate contentography addition into the lives of young men--down to pre-teens--who are not even married.

The issue has evolved far beyond any implication of "wives" into the problem.

It's often suggested to wives whose husbands misbehave sexually that "if only you'd met his needs, he wouldn't have needed to (insert misbehaviour here)." (And also the corollary, that if you don't give him enough sex he'll go and get his needs met elsewhere).

It's not fair or right, but it happens with monotonous regularity.

Sammy-San said:

clothes - creation.com

Click to expand...

No. Men are responsible for men's sins.
Ringo

Paidiske said:

It's often suggested to wives whose husbands misbehave sexually that "if only you'd met his needs, he wouldn't have needed to (insert misbehaviour here)." (And also the corollary, that if you don't give him enough sex he'll go and get his needs met elsewhere).

It's not fair or right, but it happens with monotonous regularity.

Click to expand...

I've been in Christian men's groups from one side of the planet to the other, and I've never heard that in man-to-man discussions as an acceptable excuse for inappropriate contentography.

It's interesting, then, that it's so often said to wives. There seems to be this sense that women ought to be (once again) God's police on this matter.

Each woman is responsible for her own sin.

Paidiske said:

It's interesting, then, that it's so often said to wives. There seems to be this sense that women ought to be (once again) God's police on this matter.

Click to expand...

When a man is being challenged by his wife, yeah, his flesh is going to fight back rather than 'fess up. That's the nature of "altercation."

But in a group with other Christian men, other men don't buy such horse manure.

Paidiske said:

It's interesting, then, that it's so often said to wives. There seems to be this sense that women ought to be (once again) God's police on this matter.

Click to expand...

I have no such expectation of women. However, I do expect for women to understand that there is a difference between a masculine, testosterone driven mind versus one driven more by estrogen. And sometimes it seems to me that while the ladies do very well understand (and at times take advantage of) this difference ... they don't know the extent to which there really IS a difference. It's kind of like playing with fire, and women don't realize what they spark off. Sometimes, they make a 'little itsy-bitsy' spark of social-sexual overture toward men, and then they act surprised if it sets off a blazing inferno. They then respond with the ol' Irkle response, " Uh....did I do that?!"

This isn't to say that I think women are merely making excuses in order to not have to recognize the impact and the extent to which the sexual differences between men and women play out socially and psychologically (or even spiritually in some regards) with men, but I get the sense that they really don't know the kind of fire they're setting off, for lack of a better metaphor.

Addendum: So, with that said, I would also assume, then, that the biblical contrast between a 'virtuous woman' and the 'adulteress' should be telling, and in this sense, yes, women should be doing some policing, but the policing shouldn't be expected to be made upon men (of course), but rather upon their fellow women.

P.S. And as far as what transpires between a husband and a wife, I think it's obvious that both are responsible for doing the best they can to be not only loving, caring and devoted to each other, but a part of all of this also means that, if at all possible, each of them will realize that they they need to work at being the best they can for each other, both physically and spiritually. God didn't create us to be slouchy, couch potato partners who then demand that the other spouse just "except us as we are." When Paul says in 1 Corinthians that the husband's body belongs to the wife, and the wife's body belongs to the husband, I don't think he's merely saying they should be physically involved with each other and not deprive each other; no, he's saying more than that, he's saying that both spouses can request that the other "shape up" in various ways as might be individually needed within each specific relationship.

Sammy-San said:

clothes - creation.com

Click to expand...

There is a general principle Jesus speaks of.

Lu 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.
Lu 17:2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

So if one leads another into being tempted to sin, is that not also sin?

bcbsr said:

There is a general principle Jesus speaks of.

Lu 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.
Lu 17:2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

So if one leads another into being tempted to sin, is that not also sin?

Click to expand...

Yes, but each person is responsible for their own sin.

Look at Eve. She was tempted/deceived. God punished her.

In the garden Adam tried to shift the blame. Eve tried to shift the blame. Adam, Eve and the serpent were punished. God does not accept us not taking responsibility by blaming others.

Sam91 said:

Yes, but each person is responsible for their own sin.

Look at Eve. She was tempted/deceived. God punished her.

In the garden Adam tried to shift the blame. Eve tried to shift the blame. Adam, Eve and the serpent were punished. God does not accept us not taking responsibility by blaming others.

Click to expand...

I agree. However, with respect to the quoted verses:

Lu 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.
Lu 17:2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Here and in Matthew 18 discussing divorce, Jesus uses the particular word "caused." I believe this is a different thing from "tempted."

As we learn in James, a person sins when he is tempted by the various lusts rooted in the flesh, gives in to them, and allows them to dictate his choices.

"Causing" to sin is a different thing. Jesus speaks of women illegally put out of their homes by unjust husbands being "caused" to commit adultery--being placed into a situation where there would be no choice other than a bleak existence and an early death. In Luke 17, He speaks of "little ones"--that is, those of inferior power and authority in the situation--being "caused" to sin.

I believe Jesus is telling us in Luke 17 that He is no idiot, nor is He a martinet. He fully well knows who to blame for sin in such cases.

RDKirk said:

I agree. However, with respect to the quoted verses:

Lu 17:1 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.
Lu 17:2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Here and in Matthew 18 discussing divorce, Jesus uses the particular word "caused." I believe this is a different thing from "tempted."

As we learn in James, a person sins when he is tempted by the various lusts rooted in the flesh, gives in to them, and allows them to dictate his choices.

"Causing" to sin is a different thing. Jesus speaks of women illegally put out of their homes by unjust husbands being "caused" to commit adultery--being placed into a situation where there would be no choice other than a bleak existence and an early death. In Luke 17, He speaks of "little ones"--that is, those of inferior power and authority in the situation--being "caused" to sin.

I believe Jesus is telling us in Luke 17 that He is no idiot, nor is He a martinet. He fully well knows who to blame for sin in such cases.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I believe a Christian women ought to be careful. I stated pages ago, (this thread is still going ) that I think she is seperately accountable to God for how she dresses/behaves. This in no way diminishes the man's responsibility. He is still fully responsible for his sin.


1 Corinthians 10:13

Fortunately, he has the power to overcome through the Lord.

2PhiloVoid said:

Addendum: So, with that said, I would also assume, then, that the biblical contrast between a 'virtuous woman' and the 'adulteress' should be telling, and in this sense, yes, women should be doing some policing, but the policing shouldn't be expected to be made upon men (of course), but rather upon their fellow women.

Click to expand...

The "God's police" reference comes from the title of a famous book, which unfortunately because of CF rules I can't name in full here. But the book contrasted the roles open to women in the very early Australian colonies. And yes, there is a parallel between the virtuous woman and the adulteress, but one of the points the book made was that the - ah - unvirtuous women in the early colonies often didn't have virtue open to them as an option.

I'm not sure that women policing women is any solution to that set of problems. (Or to anything much, actually. How on earth could women in general effectively "police" other women?)

2PhiloVoid said:

P.S. And as far as what transpires between a husband and a wife, I think it's obvious that both are responsible for doing the best they can to be not only loving, caring and devoted to each other, but a part of all of this also means that, if at all possible, each of them will realize that they they need to work at being the best they can for each other, both physically and spiritually. God didn't create us to be slouchy, couch potato partners who then demand that the other spouse just "except us as we are." When Paul says in 1 Corinthians that the husband's body belongs to the wife, and the wife's body belongs to the husband, I don't think he's merely saying they should be physically involved with each other and not deprive each other; no, he's saying more than that, he's saying that both spouses can request that the other "shape up" in various ways as might be individually needed within each specific relationship.

Click to expand...

Within reason. I've seen men expecting their wives to have the body of a model shortly after giving birth. To that I say those men need to be told to pull their heads in, and to realise that until she gets enough sleep, exercise ain't going to be a priority (for example).

It's reasonable to make requests, it's not reasonable to have unrealistic expectations, or to then be upset if your requests aren't met, for whatever reason. We don't get to control one another's appearance.

Paidiske said:

Within reason. I've seen men expecting their wives to have the body of a model shortly after giving birth. To that I say those men need to be told to pull their heads in, and to realise that until she gets enough sleep, exercise ain't going to be a priority (for example).

It's reasonable to make requests, it's not reasonable to have unrealistic expectations, or to then be upset if your requests aren't met, for whatever reason. We don't get to control one another's appearance.

Click to expand...

I do not think those requests are reasonable. I think it maybe sinful.

I am on a diet (I am no longer overweight and I'd put on a stone and a half due to thyroid issues). Have 7 pounds to go to be in the centre of the healthy weight range . However, I am being convicted of it. I am spending too much thought/time on the vast amount of exercise and finding ways to eat as little as possible instead of praying, serving and seeking Him. It doesn't sit well, feels like idolatry.

Now to expect someone else to do that to please the flesh? It is also encouraging vanity and putting value on the outside than on the inner heart.

It isn't loving either. We are to put the other first, not our own desires.

I was at the mall yesterday and saw two young men wearing their pants so that they were showing their underwear. I thought that look had gone out, but apparently not for these two. If an attractive women were to do that I’m sure we would have some in this thread saying that she would be causing men to sin.

We have a thread here about women causing men to sin based on their dress. Why is the thread not about the effect that any persons dress can have on others regardless of their sex?

I stand by what I have said throughout this thread—we are each responsible for our own sins

Archivist said:

I was at the mall yesterday and saw two young men wearing their pants so that they were showing their underwear. I thought that look had gone out, but apparently not for these two. If an attractive women were to do that I’m sure we would have some in this thread saying that she would be causing men to sin.

We have a thread here about women causing men to sin based on their dress. Why is the thread not about the effect that any persons dress can have on others regardless of their sex?

I stand by what I have said throughout this thread—we are each responsible for our own sins

Click to expand...

That's what every contributor to this thread except the OP has said. Why are you acting like the Lone Ranger?