Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: chajin
And thus you go down the Burqa road...

BTW, Straw Man on your part.

How can you prove that she is trying to entice men?

Only God can see the heart, and if God tells her that her shorts are long enough, then who are you to tell her (or him) otherwise? You were never be called to be the Spirit that she or any other person walks in so that they will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

And no circular reasoning, either: “If she were truly hearing from God she wouldn't wear shorts, because...”

Can't have women wear that which is enticing to men, can we!?

But who decides what is enticing...or isn't? God alone.

To you, seeing a woman's hair isn't enticing, but to many Muslim men it is. Christians taking the same path that Muslims take isn't a good road to trod.

We don't need to go down that road...

21 posted on 06/09/2014 11:56:29 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Laissez-faire capitalist

“Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes.”

Thus saith Proverbs 6.

According to a sweeping application of the “weaker brother” principle....women should cover their eyes, because enticing with the eyes will cause men to sin. Especially (!) if that is all that she has left to show.

Obviously the weaker brother principle is applicable and it is Biblical and we can’t ignore it. But I think there is a point when church leadership can appropriately tell Christian men to grow up and to quit being the weaker brother (which might mean, quit lusting after women who allow some curves to be discerned, for example).

I do think that the main purveyors of modesty culture (Gothard and Doug Phillips) have learned over time to treat women as objects, and it appears that at least these two “conservative Christian leaders” acted out on their implicit beliefs that women are basically objects for men to rule over and dominate. I think they would be better off in Islam.


30 posted on 06/09/2014 12:05:17 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
How can you prove that she is trying to entice men?

I can't; that's between her spirit and the Holy Spirit. But when my 17yo lovely-legged daughter discusses with her father the issue of displaying her lovely legs, I tell her the same two things I told you: first, that she should ask herself whether any part of her motivation is that she wants men to be looking at her as a sex object, and second, that she should realize that the more thigh she shows, the more men are going to think of her sexually, when Jesus proclaimed that looking at a woman with porneia in one's heart is the equivalent of committing adultery. It then becomes an issue, spiritually speaking, between her and God. Eventually, when she leaves home, it will be her own choice.

And thus you go down the Burqa road...

In Edo-era Japan, a woman was covered from her neck to her feet in a kimono; men were enticed to sexual thoughts by seeing the nape of a woman's neck, which was all he could see. Fighting lust, whether sexual or otherwise, is always a rearguard action; this is why the grace of God is so vast, because our sin is so vast.

35 posted on 06/09/2014 12:15:25 PM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson