Causing your brother to stumble?

[1yugioh]

Okay so I have been having a hard time with the don't do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

I always thought that it pertained to intentionally causing them to stumble like convincing them to do something wrong or something like that. If memory serves in the bible the example used is meat. If eating meat causes your brother to stumble then don't eat meat. for that to work wouldn't you have to know that it would cause him to stumble?

However another Christian told me that even if it was by accident or even if I didn't realize it had happened or even if I didn't know the person it would be my fault and I would be held responsible for it. in this instance I'm talking about lustful thoughts.

Now let me give you a little bit of background, the reason I ask this question is cuz I saw a hair style I liked and wanted to give a shot and that's where the whole don't cause your brother to stumble to come from. But couldn't that happen weather I do or don't get my hair done, I mean what if I just leave myself the way I am.

I have never really gotten my hair done, I only wear cover up to hide the redness from acne and occasionally I put on mascara and lipstick but with such neutral colors that to my knowledge few or no one has ever noticed. and I hardly ever wear jewelry and when I do its simple. As for clothing I'm a jeans and t shirt girl through and through So there really isn't anything really attractive about me. But still every one has there type, so could lustful thoughts be directed at me as I am? I mean would god hold me responsible for being at Wal-Mart at the same time as someone who would think such things about me as I naturally am?

Now yes I would be intentionally getting a different hair style but just for fun cuz I liked it not because I want to attract attention! And could going from kind of curly straight hair (you know the kind that frizzes a lot) to a head full of little curls really make that big of a difference?

Would it be the fact that I had to change something about myself be that makes it a sin? Cuz what about girls with hair naturally that curly? Or what about girls that naturally have baby blue eyes or naturally taller instead of short?

 

[Purge187]

Sounds like your friend is a member of one of those legalistic cults that discourages women from grooming themselves just because he can't master his thought life.

It goes back to the debate on whether or not Christians should model. As long as you're not being indecent, then it's alright.

 

[Gospel Guy]

Sounds like your friend is a member of one of those legalistic cults that discourages wome.

Yes, yes, we get it... anything you disagree with is suddenly a "cult"

Many of the styles and clothing young women wear today makes them look like cheap street walkers.

Best thing to do is go find some older women to hang out with and be mentored as the Bible talks about

Personally, I wouldn't think a hair style would make a guy lust... but tight / revealing clothing does.

It's much more classy for a lady to dress nice without wearing street walkin outfits.

Be sure and ask for the Lord's wisdom according to the first chapter of James... and wait on His leading.

 

[TannarDarr]

Okay so I have been having a hard time with the don't do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

I always thought that it pertained to intentionally causing them to stumble like convincing them to do something wrong or something like that. If memory serves in the bible the example used is meat. If eating meat causes your brother to stumble then don't eat meat. for that to work wouldn't you have to know that it would cause him to stumble?

Don't take an alcoholic to chilis and sit at the bar with them.

Whoever put the overly pharasaic spin on it, needs to read, Where the Spirit is there is Liberty.....

And the story of the two men eating meat. The one with greater faith, could do things the one with lesser faith could not do without sinning.

 

[Nig]

The alcohol image is a good one but the problem most people have is with others trying to draw them back under the law. They abuse this scripture in order to bring back mosaic law. I kinda look at it this way; the alcohol idea stands but if someone is saying to me I need to not eat pork or have Saturdays off or whatever it may be there grind, I ask the question; am I causing them to stumble or am I causing them to judge? If they want to go on about me eating bacon, they need to demonstrate to me that my eating has caused them temptation also to eat. I find most people are not in bondage to binging immorally on bacon but they are under bondage to the law that requires them to judge and preach a return to my vomit .

Funny thing is with the alcohol image is it is not against the old covenant. Ask yourself; is what they are asking genuinely a bondage to them? Or is it that they are not completely free in the new covenant in his blood. We do not even stand what they say for a moment. I am open to hear all the people who are tempted to take Sunday off instead and nibble on a bit of bacon.

 

[SG9]

Okay so I have been having a hard time with the don't do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

I always thought that it pertained to intentionally causing them to stumble like convincing them to do something wrong or something like that. If memory serves in the bible the example used is meat. If eating meat causes your brother to stumble then don't eat meat. for that to work wouldn't you have to know that it would cause him to stumble?

However another Christian told me that even if it was by accident or even if I didn't realize it had happened or even if I didn't know the person it would be my fault and I would be held responsible for it. in this instance I'm talking about lustful thoughts.

Now let me give you a little bit of background, the reason I ask this question is cuz I saw a hair style I liked and wanted to give a shot and that's where the whole don't cause your brother to stumble to come from. But couldn't that happen weather I do or don't get my hair done, I mean what if I just leave myself the way I am.

I have never really gotten my hair done, I only wear cover up to hide the redness from acne and occasionally I put on mascara and lipstick but with such neutral colors that to my knowledge few or no one has ever noticed. and I hardly ever wear jewelry and when I do its simple. As for clothing I'm a jeans and t shirt girl through and through So there really isn't anything really attractive about me. But still every one has there type, so could lustful thoughts be directed at me as I am? I mean would god hold me responsible for being at Wal-Mart at the same time as someone who would think such things about me as I naturally am?

Now yes I would be intentionally getting a different hair style but just for fun cuz I liked it not because I want to attract attention! And could going from kind of curly straight hair (you know the kind that frizzes a lot) to a head full of little curls really make that big of a difference?

Would it be the fact that I had to change something about myself be that makes it a sin? Cuz what about girls with hair naturally that curly? Or what about girls that naturally have baby blue eyes or naturally taller instead of short?

Women of some other cultures wear head coverings and their face is not seen nor anything that reveals their appearance and it's to prevent the lust of the eyes for flesh. Not all people believe alike and alike you. Do what you feel is right and don't allow others to discourage you. God bless

 

[~Anastasia~]

Little older post but this one intrigues me. I think there are several things going on here.

As far as changing your hairstyle - and this is just my opinion, but I think it boils down to two things: modesty, and intent. I'm not looking at the verse at the moment, but the women in the OT who were reprimanded for their braided hair, jewelry, and "mincing steps" were (in my opinion) laying it on with the intent to attract a man's eye and tempt him. I think the intent (motive) is what can make it wrong. If a person dresses in a provocative way and highlights features with makeup, jewelry, and hairstyle, with the intention of making men lust after them, then that is clearly wrong.

On the other hand, I think the sin of the man's lusting falls upon HIS OWN shoulders. He cannot be held blameless and say it was all the woman's fault. He is responsible for his own wandering eye and sinful thoughts. Surely in much of today's culture, men are constantly berated by tempting images. If they ogle them and entertain sexual thoughts, they are clearly sinning as a result and committing adultery in their minds. On the other hand, it is possible to avert one's eyes, fill the mind with some other thought, walk the other direction, etc. I don't think the woman is directly responsible for the man's sin in this case. However, she IS responsible for her own sin in deliberately acting the temptress. Even if no man was tempted by her, her intention to tempt them is a sin, in my opinion.

I mentioned modesty because it appears that some young women actually feel that they have every right to dress/make themselves look however they want, and bear NO responsibility for a man's thoughts. While it's true that the man is responsible for his own sins, the woman DOES have a responsibility, if she is loving of others, not to do things that would encourage him to sin. If she doesn't understand modesty, she needs to learn.

The Scriptures about eating meat and so on are not exactly about that, IMO, but are broader. I have Christian friends who don't believe in putting up a Christmas tree. I don't run out and tell them all about my tree, and if I post a picture online, I will probably mark it not to show to them (on Facebook). Not because I'm trying to hide anything, but because it might cause them to stumble in some way. Same with eating pork on not keeping the same Sabbath in the same way. I don't argue with them about it, and I don't mention it to them. There are times we have discussions, with those who can handle a discussion and not become enflamed, but otherwise I keep those things to myself. I believe I have freedom in these matters, but because they don't believe in the same freedom, I don't place my beliefs before them as a stumbling block.

Looking back over what I said, I'm not sure I'm actually explaining this. It's more something I feel, and arrived at years ago while praying about it.

But I don't think you getting a new hairstyle is going to make you responsible for a man's sin if he happens to find you attractive with that style, as long as you are observing a reasonable level of modesty, nor would you be if you choose not to get the new hairstyle.

ETA: that kind of thinking reminds me of recent news stories that place the blame for a man's lusting (and shamefully acting on that lust) with an INFANT GIRL - on that infant girl. I can in no way believe that it was the baby girl's fault for not covering her body, face, and hair, and that the man had no way to control himself in the situation. The man is responsible for his own actions and thoughts. Just carrying that kind of reasoning to it's limit comes to things like this, and I do NOT agree with such thinking.

 

[contango]

Okay so I have been having a hard time with the don't do anything to cause your brother to stumble.

I always thought that it pertained to intentionally causing them to stumble like convincing them to do something wrong or something like that. If memory serves in the bible the example used is meat. If eating meat causes your brother to stumble then don't eat meat. for that to work wouldn't you have to know that it would cause him to stumble?

However another Christian told me that even if it was by accident or even if I didn't realize it had happened or even if I didn't know the person it would be my fault and I would be held responsible for it. in this instance I'm talking about lustful thoughts.

Now let me give you a little bit of background, the reason I ask this question is cuz I saw a hair style I liked and wanted to give a shot and that's where the whole don't cause your brother to stumble to come from. But couldn't that happen weather I do or don't get my hair done, I mean what if I just leave myself the way I am.

I have never really gotten my hair done, I only wear cover up to hide the redness from acne and occasionally I put on mascara and lipstick but with such neutral colors that to my knowledge few or no one has ever noticed. and I hardly ever wear jewelry and when I do its simple. As for clothing I'm a jeans and t shirt girl through and through So there really isn't anything really attractive about me. But still every one has there type, so could lustful thoughts be directed at me as I am? I mean would god hold me responsible for being at Wal-Mart at the same time as someone who would think such things about me as I naturally am?

Now yes I would be intentionally getting a different hair style but just for fun cuz I liked it not because I want to attract attention! And could going from kind of curly straight hair (you know the kind that frizzes a lot) to a head full of little curls really make that big of a difference?

Would it be the fact that I had to change something about myself be that makes it a sin? Cuz what about girls with hair naturally that curly? Or what about girls that naturally have baby blue eyes or naturally taller instead of short?

It's very easy to get very legalistic about this kind of thing, and I think the answer is actually very simple.

If I am faced with a real brother in a real situation, I need to avoid doing something that will cause him to stumble. So if he is a recovering alcoholic, it's tactful to meet him somewhere that doesn't serve beer, it's tactful to choose a soft drink in his presence even though I can drink beer without stumbling, and so on. If a woman knows men around her have issues with lust she might avoid wearing particularly revealing clothing.

If I am faced with a hypothetical brother in a hypothetical situation there is nothing I can be expected to do. If I am expected to do nothing to cause such a hypothetical brother to stumble than I can do nothing at all. I would end up in an impossible situation where I could not drink beer in case some hypothetical recovering alcoholic copied me and went off the rails, I would have to avoid eating meat in case someone somewhere was offended by meat. I would have to avoid talking about ways to lose weight in case a recovering anorexic somewhere figured they would join me in shedding some surplus fat and stopped eating, and yet I would be unable to talk about eating in case a bulimic somewhere decided that binge eating was acceptable. I couldn't eat a slice of chocolate cake in case someone on a diet took offence at my calorific waywardness, I couldn't drink coffee in case a former Hare Krishna still considered it inappropriate, and so on. In the context of worship I couldn't enjoy a lively charismatic service in case I offended traditionalists, while at the same time I couldn't take part in a traditional service in case I offended those who thought it put God in a box.

Appeals to hypothetical brothers in hypothetical situations as justification for attempts to prohibit any particular type of activity are little more than legalism - the only reason someone would attempt to impose such legalism is to exert their will over yours. If you flip the situation around and present a hypothetical brother who would take great offence at something they enjoy doing you can be reasonably sure they would offer reasons why the comparison wasn't relevant.

 

[Purge187]

Yes, yes, we get it... anything you disagree with is suddenly a "cult"

Well, many Muslim communities keep their women in burkas, and some Independent Oneness Pentecostals encourage their women not to wear make-up. Both groups are cults.

A good rule of thumb is the dress code that most of our workplaces encourage--shoulders covered, nothing higher than the knees, etc. It's up to us to keep our thoughts to ourselves.

 

[shnarkle]

Don't take an alcoholic to chilis and sit at the bar with them.

Whoever put the overly pharasaic spin on it, needs to read, Where the Spirit is there is Liberty.....

And the story of the two men eating meat. The one with greater faith, could do things the one with lesser faith could not do without sinning.

shnarkle: That's isn't what Paul says at all. He says that the one with the greater faith isn't being charitable if he continues eating meat that causes his brother to stumble. He explicitly states that if it causes our brother to stumble then he will not eat anything that causes our brother to stumble.