Lust, who's fault is it?

[Hupomone10]

You're suggesting in Heaven we might still be able to lust, thus sin, thus modesty is required?

Not in Heaven; in the Kingdom. The Millenial Reign of Christ. But I could be wrong; so I will give you the last point, as not having much thought in or support for.

The rest I stand by; and wonder why any believer would try to defend such obviously "of the flesh" behavior. Maybe because we've forgot the admonition to "walk by the Spirit" rather than "walk by the flesh." This truly helps me; it has been instructive. I wanted to see some of the evidence I've heard others mention that indicates the apostate condition into which the church is descending. But there is encouragement, after Laodicea comes the rapture !

 

[127.0.0.1]

So now your saying in Heaven we won't lust, but we'll still wear cloths? What for?

And now your saying we ought focus on the spiritual world and not the earthly world?

 

[Archivist]

No, suggesting that women go topless in public is ridiculous.

In your opinion. I'm sorry you can't carry on a discussion without being rude.

"Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:9-10

"And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. "For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37

Yes, and Jesus died on a cross for our sins. In addition, you are assuming that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation--interesting given that the Bible doesn't address the issue. Scripture does talk about women overdressing--it says that they should avoid adornments, braids and jewelery--but it doesn't talk about women going topless.

No, it is because I committed my life to live as best I could by God's Word and walk in the Spirit, rather than walking according to the flesh. I was brought up in a society that says it's ok to get drunk and abort your baby; but I don't get drunk and don't approve of murder of unborn children.

But there is nothing in scripture that says that women can't go topless in public but men can. Ethiopia became a Christian nation in the 300's AD, although there were Christians there before then. Women in Ethiopia hve always gone topless. It is a matter of culture.

Since you are complaining that I am off-topic, why are you raising issues regarding abortion and alcohol, neither of which has anything to do with women having the same rights as men.

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings... And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Genesis 3:7,21

And, as I already said, this doesn't say that Eve covered her breasts. In fact, the Geneva Bible of 1560 specifically states that Adam and Eve were clothed in "breeches," which would mean that neither was clothed above the waist.

There is also a Christian Atheist movement. This also can be found on Wikipedia.

I'm sure there is and I'm sure that it is on Wikipedia. The difference is that scripture clearly tells us that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." However, there is nothing in scripture that states "she who goes topless shall be damned."

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way... So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another... It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles... The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.[/bible] - Romans 14

So a topless man cannot be a "stumbling block" to a woman? If so, why do we allow men to go topless?

For the Christian, it's not a matter of rights, but of right. And "right" for the Christian is determined by God's truth, not man's spin on the truth.

But scripture doesn't address this issue, so what you are saying is your spin on the truth, not God's truth.

 

[Hupomone10]

--interesting given that the Bible doesn't address the issue. Scripture does talk about women overdressing--it says that they should avoid adornments, braids and jewelery--but it doesn't talk about women going topless.

"Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed." -Rev 16:15
I realize this is not about physical nakedness; it is a metaphorical use of nakedness to show that we shouldn't be living in our own strength and resources but be clothed with Christ. However the fact that Jesus used nakedness as an example shows His view of it. Regardless of interpretation, Jesus is using nakedness in the negative here, not the positive; and being clothed as a positive.

why are you raising issues regarding abortion and alcohol, neither of which has anything to do with women having the same rights as men.

With all due respect, this thread is NOT about women's rights. You have made it so. As mentioned before, it is about who's at fault - the man/woman who lusts or the woman/man who goes topless. I am interested in just your opinion on whether it's both's responsibility or only the one lusting.

However, there is nothing in scripture that states "she who goes topless shall be damned.

Never said there was. As stated repeatedly, I was trying to deal with the issue this thread asked, the issue of responsibility, not the issue of legality, and not the issue of whether a sin can damn a person whose salvation is "protected by the power of God through faith." I noticed there is another thread regarding this as a legal issue. It seems that maybe you are trying to bring the same arguments from that thread to this one, indicating that you do not see it as an issue of responsibility at all, but merely a legal one. Is that true?

So a topless man cannot be a "stumbling block" to a woman? If so, why do we allow men to go topless?

If indeed a topless man can be a stumbling block to a woman, then I'm all in favor of men being sensitive to this and not going topless. I realize we can go to extremes at this, but our responsibility to not be a stumbling block to fellow believers is supposed to carry more importance than our own pleasure.

Legality: If the choice is between both men and women parading topless or neither; I would support legislation allowing neither, since you believe this is such an issue.

But scripture doesn't address this issue, so what you are saying is your spin on the truth, not God's truth.

There are more references on this than I can possibly include here. A study of the word "nakedness" in the scriptures, will show if it is my spin on the truth or whether nakedness is always used in the negative, as a shame, not the positive. In Hebrew (OT) it is the word "ervah." Regarding that, if you are truly searching for the truth rather than just to support your opinion regarding legality of women to go topless, use the NASB, KJV, or NKJV. I see part of the problem I think. The NIV has eliminated all references to the word "nakedness", even though it is included in the Hebrew text and Greek text. If one searches only the NIV, they will miss this, and could conclude it's not important, nor addressed. The NIV is a "word to phrase" translation rather than a "word to word."

 

[Archivist]

"Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed." -Rev 16:15
I realize this is not about physical nakedness; it is a metaphorical use of nakedness to show that we shouldn't be living in our own strength and resources but be clothed with Christ. However the fact that Jesus used nakedness as an example shows His view of it. Regardless of interpretation, Jesus is using nakedness in the negative here, not the positive; and being clothed as a positive.

Yes, what you cited is figurative. However, we aren't talking about nakedness here, we are talking about women going topless. Do you consider a topless man to be naked? As I have pointed out, in many places in the world women regularly go topless. It is a matter of culture.

With all due respect, this thread is NOT about women's rights.

Correct.

You have made it so.

No, I posted a single response to your statement that "To the woman I would say, if you wear honey on your skin don't be surprised if it attracts bees, and you get stung a little." My reply was "But why should that only apply to women? Our laws need to provide equal rights. Either no one should be allowed to go topless or both men and women should have the right to go topless." That was a reasonable response to your statement. Your the one who has continued to challange me on the point. If you think that the thread is off-topic then drop your attacks.

As mentioned before, it is about who's at fault - the man/woman who lusts or the woman/man who goes topless. I am interested in just your opinion on whether it's both's responsibility or only the one lusting.

And, as I stated in my first post in the thread, "The fault lies with the person doing the looking."

Never said there was. As stated repeatedly, I was trying to deal with the issue this thread asked, the issue of responsibility, not the issue of legality, and not the issue of whether a sin can damn a person whose salvation is "protected by the power of God through faith." I noticed there is another thread regarding this as a legal issue. It seems that maybe you are trying to bring the same arguments from that thread to this one, indicating that you do not see it as an issue of responsibility at all, but merely a legal one. Is that true?

I was also dealing with the issue of the thread. Again, as I stated early in this thread, "The fault lies with the person doing the looking."

If indeed a topless man can be a stumbling block to a woman, then I'm all in favor of men being sensitive to this and not going topless. I realize we can go to extremes at this, but our responsibility to not be a stumbling block to fellow believers is supposed to carry more importance than our own pleasure.

And as I said, it is a matter of culture.

Legality: If the choice is between both men and women parading topless or neither; I would support legislation allowing neither, since you believe this is such an issue.

So, you would want to go back to the Victorian days when both sexes had to wear bathing suits that covered their tops? I sure wouldn't. I was in Europe over the summer and saw many topless women on the beaches. You could easily pick out the American men--they were the ones who were staring. The European men didn't seem to pay much attention.

There are more references on this than I can possibly include here. A study of the word "nakedness" in the scriptures, will show if it is my spin on the truth or whether nakedness is always used in the negative, as a shame, not the positive. In Hebrew (OT) it is the word "ervah." Regarding that, if you are truly searching for the truth rather than just to support your opinion regarding legality of women to go topless, use the NASB, KJV, or NKJV. I see part of the problem I think. The NIV has eliminated all references to the word "nakedness", even though it is included in the Hebrew text and Greek text. If one searches only the NIV, they will miss this, and could conclude it's not important, nor addressed. The NIV is a "word to phrase" translation rather than a "word to word."

Again, we aren't talking about women or men going naked. We are talking about both sexes going topless. Two different things.

 

[Test All Things2]

Hello all,

what about King David and Bathsheba? King David was merely admiring God's handiwork? He entertained with his "EYES" a woman that "WAS NOT" his own. That entertainment (allowing his eyes to drink in her beauty) was the point where he could have (and should have) stopped or turned his "EYES" somewhere else.

He did not turn away, and look at the chain of events that soon followed. This is a perfect example of what Jesus said that if you look (lust) after a woman in your heart you have already committed adultery with her. It is the process of opening your heart to adultery that "STARTS WTH YOUR EYES" (lusting) and multiplies in your mind and heart till it becomes physically adultery.

We as christians are responsible for our own actions (AND THOUGHTS). We will all stand before him and be judged some day. Looking at others (except your own husband or wife) with sexual intent or thought is wrong in God's sight period.

Engaging in such behaviour is a form of adultery within itself as you are giving attention to someone other than your spouse (if married), and if you are not married it is wrong anyway because they are not your spouse.

This will not sit well for lots of people, but study the bible, and pray and seek God's counsel and see what you come up with regarding this issue.

Lust is wrong and should have no place in a christian heart or mind.

 

[dayhiker]

King David went from admiring Bathsheba's beauty to coveting Uriah's wife. The commandments say its wrong to covet an other man's wife. Ex.20 This is indeed what jesus is saying when he says we are to lust, Gr. is often translated covet, another man's wife because we are commiting adultery in our heart.

Looking at a topless person and admiring their beuaty isn't coveting a person's wife in my opionion. Some think that any beauty admiring will lead one to commit adultery, a kind of slippery slope argument. While not doult it will for some, I don't think it does for most.

dayhiker

 

[Archivist]

King David went from admiring Bathsheba's beauty to coveting Uriah's wife. The commandments say its wrong to covet an other man's wife. Ex.20 This is indeed what jesus is saying when he says we are to lust, Gr. is often translated covet, another man's wife because we are commiting adultery in our heart.

Correct, and any fault lies with David. Bathsheba was bathing when David spotted her from the roof of his palace. She wasn't doing anything to entice him on purpose.

Looking at a topless person and admiring their beuaty isn't coveting a person's wife in my opionion. Some think that any beauty admiring will lead one to commit adultery, a kind of slippery slope argument. While not doult it will for some, I don't think it does for most.

Agreed

 

[ittarter]

[post deleted]

 

[ittarter]

Correct, and any fault lies with David. Bathsheba was bathing when David spotted her from the roof of his palace. She wasn't doing anything to entice him on purpose.

Except... she didn't refuse the king, she didn't tell her husband, she went along with the kingly plot to disguise her adultery...

If she was complicit in all of these subsequent plottings, it would not surprise me if the enticement was likewise intentional. Why rule it out?

 

[BridgetsMom]

I am really confused now. I am also really uneducated in the bible (though I am working on that), and so I am about to honestly ask a question which will sound very naive (because it is!):

In this thread, some people say that God will judge you and hold you accountable for every bad [thought/word/action] in your life. I thought that we were all sinners, and that Jesus' sacrifice atoned for all of our sins, and we were forgiven for all of them, no matter how big or small, presuming we believe/have faith/repent? What sort of 'holding accountable' takes place if we've been forgiven? Is this like Purgatory or something? I am confused!

Note that I am not advocating that we intentionally and freely sin, because surely once you accept Jesus' great love and sacrifice, you have to try to live up to it as best you can -- but that "best" will never be good enough to earn salvation from our own merit, surely, so we can assume that we will still sin, and that that will not prevent Jesus' sacrifice from redeeming us. Right?

I am sorry, this is perhaps a total derail, if there is a better place for me to ask this question, please feel free to direct me elsewhere, or to ignore this post. I am new here, and may be transgressing out of ignorance. Thank you.

 

[Archivist]

I am really confused now. I am also really uneducated in the bible (though I am working on that), and so I am about to honestly ask a question which will sound very naive (because it is!):

In this thread, some people say that God will judge you and hold you accountable for every bad [thought/word/action] in your life. I thought that we were all sinners, and that Jesus' sacrifice atoned for all of our sins, and we were forgiven for all of them, no matter how big or small, presuming we believe/have faith/repent? What sort of 'holding accountable' takes place if we've been forgiven? Is this like Purgatory or something? I am confused!

Note that I am not advocating that we intentionally and freely sin, because surely once you accept Jesus' great love and sacrifice, you have to try to live up to it as best you can -- but that "best" will never be good enough to earn salvation from our own merit, surely, so we can assume that we will still sin, and that that will not prevent Jesus' sacrifice from redeeming us. Right?

I am sorry, this is perhaps a total derail, if there is a better place for me to ask this question, please feel free to direct me elsewhere, or to ignore this post. I am new here, and may be transgressing out of ignorance. Thank you.

Well said, and, no, your excellent post doesn't derail this thread in any way.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes, it is only my opinion. Just seemed a strange... no, ridiculous, suggestion to make on a Christian forum entitled, oddly enough, "ethics". That's all. Hope I haven't offended.

And I trust that you will be willing to defend this point of view when we stand before our Lord on That day and tell Him what you've written here? And yes, I must defend the thought that it's ridiculous to suggest that women be allowed in ANY society to go around topless, in front of young men, and children.

It will be interesting to see what He has to say; and on that day what He says is all that will matter. I wonder... hmmm, if the Lord Jesus will allow women to walk around in the Kingdom topless.
My money is on Not. And who knows, maybe I'll be wearing a shirt too!

Just a guess, but I think God already knows that when humans stop objectifying female breast as sexual objects by the way we treat them, they will stop being viewed as sexual objects.


And I highly suspect you would allow your daughter to go outside with her ankles and face uncovered, even though in some cultures (especially in the past), that was considered as immodest as going topless.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If indeed a topless man can be a stumbling block to a woman, then I'm all in favor of men being sensitive to this and not going topless. I realize we can go to extremes at this, but our responsibility to not be a stumbling block to fellow believers is supposed to carry more importance than our own pleasure.

Legality: If the choice is between both men and women parading topless or neither; I would support legislation allowing neither, since you believe this is such an issue.

So what about letting women (and possibly men) display ankles? People may lust over that. Or more relativistically (for our society), what about women being allowed to display midriffs and legs? What about wearing clothing that does not purposefully hide the size of waist/hips/burst (which can cause lust as well)? What about allowing either men/women to wear skin tight clothing, such as swim suits or gymnastic suits?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Except... she didn't refuse the king, she didn't tell her husband, she went along with the kingly plot to disguise her adultery...

If she was complicit in all of these subsequent plottings, it would not surprise me if the enticement was likewise intentional. Why rule it out?

Last I read the story, it did not go in-depth about what happened. If David was willing to kill her husband, what else was David willing to do to disguise it?

 

[ittarter]

Last I read the story, it did not go in-depth about what happened. If David was willing to kill her husband, what else was David willing to do to disguise it?

You need to read the story more closely. Keep asking yourself questions about who knows what, and what each party's intention is.

The story is, following Meir Sternberg's interpretation, purposefully ambiguous.

Anyway, my point was about Bathsheba, not David.

 

[Test All Things2]

Given our freedom in Christ...... (Romans CH 6:1-2)

shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!

We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

----------------------------------------------
(Romans CH 6:11-15)

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
--------------------------------------------------------

Notice there are some "our part parts" in this discourse from Paul. I notice distinctly some submission and obedience (on our part) to God in these few sentences.

What do the rest of you say about that? There is no such thing as a "get out of hell free card" that allows you to continue habitually sinning like someone who is not saved. People that live immoral lives WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

1 Corinthians 5:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 5:20 You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. Are you (we, me) honoring God? This is an obedience part for a christian to follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Holy Spirit inside us also makes us aware of our sin and the need to put a stop to it, but the "our part part" is listening (hearing the still small voice of truth), and submitting to, and obeying God (that means getting rid of sin as God directs through the Holy Spirit)

I have been a backslider christian...disobedient and not listening to the Holy Spirit. I suffered because of my own willful disobedience. I have the hat, the tee-shirt and keychain from backsliding 101B

I try alot harder these days to work daily at my faith, and my oppinion on sinning is LESS tolerable (mainly concerning my own self). But I will share with others given the opportunity.

I really believe much stronger in submitting to God (submission isn't always what we would like or choose), and being wary of what my flesh seeks or might seek.

Pray and ask God if there are things that I (we,me,you) might change or give up to improve our relationship with our heavenly Father.

God blesses those kinds of sacrifices. I attest and witness to that in my own life.

Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you!

 

[AbortMission]

I have a problem creating a fake distinction and placing blame here. It is not any woman's fault that men instinctively feel lust from female appearance. They can lust after anything, depending on preferences and fetishes.

But on a similar note, it is not my fault that I was born a man, and get sexually aroused when looking at cleavages, and it is not my fault that my eyes start wandering, even when I am not thinking about it.

I think the notion "someone has to be at fault" is a very, very sick and undesirable, intolerant and bigoted adverse effect of how some people view Christianity.

Jesus didn't act on blame. He told people how they had to change to introduce more positive influences in their lives.

Stop feeling shame for sexual desires, but at the same time, develop a conscious relationship to it, to minimize the discomfort you put on your wife (when you are looking at other women) and the discomfort of having females exposed to long staring. At the same time, for women, if you are often experiencing uncomfortable situations due to being sexy, step aside or put on more clothes. Be pragmatic.

 

[AbortMission]

If indeed a topless man can be a stumbling block to a woman, then I'm all in favor of men being sensitive to this and not going topless. I realize we can go to extremes at this, but our responsibility to not be a stumbling block to fellow believers is supposed to carry more importance than our own pleasure.

Why is this supposed responsibility supposed to carry more importance than your own pleasure?

Second, it is a battle of stumbling blocks. We are not just talking about your OWN pleasure, we are also talking about allowing others the freedom to experience pleasure, versus fascist-like imposed tip-toeing to respect the extreme views of faith.

If this was a principle indeed, society would be like a prison. This is not how I interpret Jesus, and if this was his way, I wouldn't be with God.

Your principles are bogus.

 

[Test All Things2]

This thread is exposing a real key issue in ones walk with the Lord.

The last two few comments have brought forth a distinction of WHERE YOUR EYES ARE POINTING AND ARE YOU ALLOWING THEM TO DRINK IN SEXUAL IMAGES (that are next allowed as thoughts)?

YOU are the one in CONTROL of your eyes and WHAT they are doing.

King David's error began with allowing that process to begin. Had he listened closer to his conscience he should have turned his eyes away from Bathsheba. She WAS NOT his to admire. Admiring her beauty was the start of what lead to an extremely sinful episode in his life.

In fact, King David's life would bear the consequence of his sin for the remainder of his life. He fell from God's grace even though he was "a man after God's own heart." Are we any more special than King David?

This story very well illustrates the concept of sin even in a believers life. There WILL BE CONSEQUENCES for sin whether you are saved or not. Read and see all the suffering and heartbreaking things that happened to David BECAUSE of his sin. A great example for us to learn from.

We (christians) are not to behave as the rest of the (pagan) world does when it comes to our morality. God has clearly defined in the New Testament the concept of HOLY behaviour for christians. I can lay a barage of scripture on this subject if it is necessary. Oggling women (or women oggling men) is not proper behaviour for ANY CHRISTIAN! That is worldly behaviour and is quite normal in those that are unsaved.

But if one considers his or herslf christian...this is a whole differnt matter. Submission and obedience to God and his Word should have a CHANGING EFFECT on that otherwise WORLDLY behaviour.

Don't take my word for this either! Go to God in earnest prayer and ask him yourself. Listen carefully for the still small voice of truth and see what you come up with. God will never go against his written word.

Be careful you are not hearing your own flesh leading you to a more liberal (and sinful position) about these types of behaviours much like what happened to King David. He must have reasoned in his own mind that finding out more about Bathsheba was okay.

He listened to the wrong voice. That voice WAS NOT the Holy Spirit! It was his own flesh impersonating and misleading him into sin and error (that had severe CONSEQUENCES).

I know this is a stinging (and convicting) concept for some. But my brothers and sisters we all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ someday. Wouldn't you rather hear him say:

Well done my good and faithful servant?