Who is responsible in situations like this?

[MorningGlory]

Agreed.

Yep.

Absolutely......

[MorningGlory]

Suppose a man places a woman in the position of not being able to make a choice but to sin?

Or what about a drug dealer?

What about a child?

Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?

And why wouldn't we apply the old vice laws for the sake of the vices of humanity?

Think it over...Saints.

But this was a straight up question with defined criteria......why bring other scenarios into the mix?

[winsomebulldog]

OK, now let's change the parameters. Same situation, but one of the boys/men is a Christian. He's not hanging with the others, but is in the same vicinity when the young woman goes by. He too see her and walks away. But later, the mental image of her reappears in his mind and he falls into sin. Is she not at least partially responsible for causing this Believer to stumble? My opinion is yes. What say you?

Nope!

Scripture is very clear that we can't blame God when we are tempted and if we can't blame Him when we are led away by our own lusts how can we blame this female?

Potiphers wife threw herself, half dressed, at Jospeh. However, Joseph did what was right and I'm absolutely certain it wasn't easy. Perhaps Joseph might even have felt a certain right to some enjoyment and carnal pleasure due to all that had happened to him. Yet, He put God first!

You are playing Judge where God does not.

Peace,

Dave

Agreed!

It is our responsibility to resist temptation, even when it throws itself into our face and demands our attention.

[JohnD]

Suppose a man places a woman in the position of not being able to make a choice but to sin?

Or what about a drug dealer?

What about a child?

Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?

And why wouldn't we apply the old vice laws for the sake of the vices of humanity?

Think it over...Saints.

But this was a straight up question with defined criteria......why bring other scenarios into the mix?

Because it is about the same thing. Just a different scenario. Sin is sin. Perversion is perversion. Vice is vice.

And we are far too quick to rationalize evil.

[JohnD]

There was a time when people aimed all the blame at the female in the OP scenario.

I am not doing this.

I am saying in the scenario she is the instigator.

In reality, men are the instigators of women placing such self worth on their external appearance rather than their inner beauty.

1 Peter 3:1-7 (NASB95)

1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,

2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;

6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Note that it is the male's prayers that are hindered. God is no dummy.

[Matthitjah]

Suppose a man places a woman in the position of not being able to make a choice but to sin?

Or what about a drug dealer?

What about a child?

Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?

And why wouldn't we apply the old vice laws for the sake of the vices of humanity?

Think it over...Saints.

You are talking about two different things. Apples and Oranges. Temptation and Willful Disobedience are two different subjects.

If a man forces a woman or commits murder he then is guilty just the same. The woman is not and neither the victim.

Let's be clear. He asked about giving in to temptation. He is seeking to shift the blame to the woman for the mans sin. The man sins when he gives in to the lust of his own heart.

Suppose the man finds the woman in a state of undress due to no fault of her own and then lusts after her. Who's at fault.

You see, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Peace,

Dave

[JohnD]

One of the things I dearly love about this kind of forum is that it removes the stigmas and considerations and desires of appearances or status between the posters. It puts us all on a plane that I believe God wants us to be on in public, at work, in society, in church...

An example is of the exaltation the wealthy are sometimes given in Church. Or an ugly face one female would make to another after a quick glimpse, or a woman on stage who might not have given enough thought to her dress length in the choir... panties could be seen. Yes I admit I still should not have looked I sinned. But I must say I was not expecting it there. No excuse. Just a sad commentary.

None of that is present here. And I love it and thank the Lord for this place!

[Matthitjah]

Legalism and Religion make me sick.

Let's be clear though, merely because we will sin and we will bear the guilt. It does not absolve us of trespass against man. In other words the first four commandmenst are about not tresspassing against God the next six about tresspassing against mankind or our neighbor.

That is why the Law is summed up in this;

"Love the Lord your God with all you heart, mind, and soul/strength then Love others as you do yourself."

However, just because the world decides to ignore God and unbelievers don't care. It does not absolve us of the lusts of our hearts which blossom into sin and then are followed by death.

[JohnD]

Suppose a man places a woman in the position of not being able to make a choice but to sin?

Or what about a drug dealer?

What about a child?

Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?

And why wouldn't we apply the old vice laws for the sake of the vices of humanity?

Think it over...Saints.

You are talking about two different things. Apples and Oranges. Temptation and Willful Disobedience are two different subjects.

If a man forces a woman or commits murder he then is guilty just the same. The woman is not and neither the victim.

Let's be clear. He asked about giving in to temptation. He is seeking to shift the blame to the woman for the mans sin. The man sins when he gives in to the lust of his own heart.

Suppose the man finds the woman in a state of undress due to no fault of her own and then lusts after her. Who's at fault.

You see, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Peace,

Dave

Are we agreed at least that any deviation from the divinely prescribed setting for human sex and sexuality is a perversion of that prescription?

And if we are agreed, then it is not the vast difference it is claimed to be. Just different degrees / distance down the same path.

[winsomebulldog]

Suppose a man places a woman in the position of not being able to make a choice but to sin?

Or what about a drug dealer?

What about a child?

Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?

And why wouldn't we apply the old vice laws for the sake of the vices of humanity?

Think it over...Saints.

But this was a straight up question with defined criteria......why bring other scenarios into the mix?

Because it is about the same thing. Just a different scenario. Sin is sin. Perversion is perversion. Vice is vice.

And we are far too quick to rationalize evil.

I agree wholeheartedly with these words. It is an ever growing trend that no one is willing to take responsibility for their own thought/actions/selves, but instead always seeks to put the "blame" on someone else. We (Christians) are not to live our lives based upon what those around us do. We are not to maintain our "holiness" (for lack of a better word at the moment) only when no one is around to tempt us to abandon it. It all comes right back to the old "the devil made me do it" defense. It's the coward's way out, used when the guilty person wants to alleviate their culpability for their own actions.

Every person in this scenario is responsible for their own actions, period. There are instances where universal responsibility may not apply. Namely, I do not believe a young child is in any way responsible for abuse they suffer at the hands of others, even though many abusers attempt to suggest so. (Horrific, but I know many child molesters try to claim that their victims "lured" them in.) But this is a wholly different situation than what was originally raised. And ultimately, whatever scenario one wants to come up with, personal responsibility is never "shared."

Just as another example, I in no way support the notion that those who are abused as children who then grow up to be abusers or violent themselves ought to be absolved of some of their responsibility due to their pasts. (This is a social legal issue, but it goes along with the notion of responsibility for one's own actions.)

* I should mention that I am agreeing with the notion that all sin is sin, etc. And also that I see an ever increasing tendency to "whitewash" the plain truth. IE, that our sin is no one's fault but our own. This may or may not have been the full meaning behind John's words above, but is what I believe.

I quite heartily disagree with this notion: "Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?" Again, I could be wrong, but this seems to suggest that those with an "addiction/tendency" to sin ought to in some way be "cut some slack" when they are tempted by their "addiction." Ex. - a drug addict who is tempted by a drug dealer.

Ultimately, it is the addict's responsibility to resist the temptation. The dealer is obviously wrong and bears his/her own responsibility for their actions, but they are not somehow to blame for the addict falling into sin, even if they "instigated" the situation that gave rise to the temptation.

Edited January 13, 2012 by winsomebulldog