8 (originally 7) dead in shootings at three spas in metro Atlanta

GreatLakes4Ever said:

My claim is that purity culture says that causing boys to lust after you by your immodest actions and/or dress is a sin. And since any sin is enough to get you a sentence of eternal damnation, you would be punished in this instance for someone else’s thoughts. Here’s two examples of it being taught:

Are Immodest Women Responsible for Causing Men to Lust?

You are being redirected...

The shooter in Atlanta could have taken part in the video in this one if we are to believe him that this was all because of him struggling with sexual sin Modesty: A Sincere Message to Women from Men

Click to expand...

I didn't view the video, but I did read the article. And the article does not claim that if a woman dresses immodestly she is going to burn in the fires of hell. That is a complete misrepresentation of scriptural thought and principles. Romans is VERY clear on the principle of the believers responsibility to each other. We have a responsibility not to put a stumbling block in front of another believer. However no where in that passage does it say anything about eternal punishment or burning in the fires of hell.

In fact it does say

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling.I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. - Romans 14:13-14,21-22 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14:13-14, Romans 14:21-22 - American Standard Version

So, the passage is based upon a principle of caring for one another. Our liberty should not be used as a reason to do things that cause others to stumble. In fact those that claim "I have no responsibility to anyone and I can do whatever I want and you just have to suck it up" is actually violating this principle.

In this case the man is absolutely responsible for his own sin if lust should he do so. The woman, as a caring and living believer, should not use her freedom to do or dress however she wants when she knows that dress could cause her brother to lust. She is not committing a sin against God. The passage doesn't say that. But she is violating a principle of care towards others. Whereas the brother who lusts IS sinning. The scripture soeeks specifically about lust in various places calling it sin. The scripture doesnt call a particular dress sinful.

rjs330 said:

I didn't view the video, but I did read the article. And the article does not claim that if a woman dresses immodestly she is going to burn in the fires of hell. That is a complete misrepresentation of scriptural thought and principles. Romans is VERY clear on the principle of the believers responsibility to each other. We have a responsibility not to put a stumbling block in front of another believer. However no where in that passage does it say anything about eternal punishment or burning in the fires of hell.

In fact it does say

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling.I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. - Romans 14:13-14,21-22 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14:13-14, Romans 14:21-22 - American Standard Version

So, the passage is based upon a principle of caring for one another. Our liberty should not be used as a reason to do things that cause others to stumble. In fact those that claim "I have no responsibility to anyone and I can do whatever I want and you just have to suck it up" is actually violating this principle.

In this case the man is absolutely responsible for his own sin if lust should he do so. The woman, as a caring and living believer, should not use her freedom to do or dress however she wants when she knows that dress could cause her brother to lust. She is not committing a sin against God. The passage doesn't say that. But she is violating a principle of care towards others. Whereas the brother who lusts IS sinning. The scripture soeeks specifically about lust in various places calling it sin. The scripture doesnt call a particular dress sinful.

Click to expand...

Is it a sin to cause other people to stumble into sin?

High Fidelity said:

Sex addiction apparently.

Pathetic.

Click to expand...

What's pathetic is having such a problem but blaming other people for it, especially if to a level that it motivates one to kill them. =(

GreatLakes4Ever said:

Is it a sin to cause other people to stumble into sin?

Click to expand...

Yeah. Jesus says that anyone who causes "one of his little ones" (pretty sure he may have been talking about children but maybe not) to falter" that it would be better to have a millstone tied around their neck and tossed into the sea.

To be CLEAR....that was a message given to JEsus' followers...not society as a whole.

GreatLakes4Ever said:

Is it a sin to cause other people to stumble into sin?

Click to expand...

I need an example.

rjs330 said:

I need an example.

Click to expand...

The video I posted in Post #140 has several men mentioning things women do that give them sinful thoughts. If a women having been told that would continue to do the things mentioned, would she be sinning by causing these men to sin?

essentialsaltes said:

Robert Aaron Long pleads guilty to 4 of the murders; still faces death penalty on the 4 cases in another county.

He said he was driven by a desire to “punish” the people who worked there.

Click to expand...

I was really surprised when I learned he was being tried separately in each county instead of just once by the state.

Arcangl86 said:

I was really surprised when I learned he was being tried separately in each county instead of just once by the state.

Click to expand...

Is someone heating up the cast iron skillet?

He decided to punish these women for making him feel the way he did?

This is certainly misogyny.

Whyayeman said:

He decided to punish these women for making him feel the way he did?

This is certainly misogyny.

Click to expand...

I call it projection with extremely harmful consequences, personally. He wanted to judge everyone else but himself for his screw-ups, and it cost eight women their lives who are not at all responsible for his personal problems with sexual matters.

rambot said:

Yeah. Jesus says that anyone who causes "one of his little ones" (pretty sure he may have been talking about children but maybe not) to falter"

Click to expand...

No, he's not talking about little ones as in children, he's talking about disciples, not the 12 apostles. The Greek expression used can refer to many things other than children. Jesus is not talking about what you think he's talking about (sexual temptation from society). He's talking about religious leaders that scandalize the disciples or followers of Jesus and damage their faith.

The courts will decide according to the law. He is likely to get the death penalty which will then be appealed and his case will bounce around courts for the next ten or twenty years. He will probably grow old on death row.

Whyayeman said:

The courts will decide according to the law. He is likely to get the death penalty which will then be appealed and his case will bounce around courts for the next ten or twenty years. He will probably grow old on death row.

Click to expand...

Apparently the whole reason he pled guilty was so that the death penalty would be taken off the table for those four. The question is what happens in the other county.

I see. And he can only be killed the once.

(I would not want the death penalty for him, despite the eight murders being against it for all crimes.)