Moderator: Moderators
.............................. 
Like I said, there is debate over whether there can be harm done. Your first comment I responded to assumed there is no harm done. If there is no harm done, then there is no reason to be morally concerned about it. I am willing to discuss whether there can be actual harm done. Someone else mentioned, and I echoed, one possible harmful consequence being the possible objectification of women by others and themselves. Do you not find that harmful?Haven wrote:I'm saying it's petty for anyone to be concerned over the sex lives of consenting adults. There's no harm being done by consensual sexual activity, so there's no reason to treat it as a moral concern.
Peter 3:1 wives be in subjection to your own husbands that if any obey not the word they also may, without the word, be won by the conduct of their wives.The Tanager wrote:I would be interested in looking at where the various holy books say that a woman is responsible for the thoughts and sins of a man, without the man having any responsibility. I'm not saying they aren't there and I'm not limiting it to the Christian scriptures, I'm just honestly curious about this. Which specific texts are you referring to?suckka wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Miles]
Some of us can't help looking sexy. We are just built that way, should we wear potato sacks and frown all day? I know guys that think if a girl SMILES at them they think it's a come on. I also know guys who simply love women, how they smell, laugh, argue. There is no length a woman can go to to stop men from thinking about them sexually. I also believe that sexual repression through religious thought crime laws can actually manifest assaults and hate towards women. Where would a guy get the idea that a woman is RESPONSIBLE for the thoughts and sins of a man? ONLY in holy books.
Why do you think this is saying that women are responsible for the thoughts and sins of men? Paul seems to me to be telling Christian wives to be a good example with their lives for their non-Christian husbands, so that they may turn to God and away from their sins.suckka wrote:Peter 3:1 wives be in subjection to your own husbands that if any obey not the word they also may, without the word, be won by the conduct of their wives.
They don't need God "without the word" the scripture says. Only the wife's conduct matters "by the CONDUCT OF THEIR WIVES" it says.The Tanager wrote:Why do you think this is saying that women are responsible for the thoughts and sins of men? Paul seems to me to be telling Christian wives to be a good example with their lives for their non-Christian husbands, so that they may turn to God and away from their sins.suckka wrote:Peter 3:1 wives be in subjection to your own husbands that if any obey not the word they also may, without the word, be won by the conduct of their wives.
This verse doesn't say the wives' good behavior gives the husband salvation, if that is what you mean. It says "so that...they MAY be won over..." by the wives' good behavior, since they are not agreeing with the preached Christian message, the word.suckka wrote:They don't need God "without the word" the scripture says. Only the wife's conduct matters "by the CONDUCT OF THEIR WIVES" it says.
Does the word "may" stop women from being responsible for their husbands fate in this scripture? No, it just means she needs to try harder.The Tanager wrote:This verse doesn't say the wives' good behavior gives the husband salvation, if that is what you mean. It says "so that...they MAY be won over..." by the wives' good behavior, since they are not agreeing with the preached Christian message, the word.suckka wrote:They don't need God "without the word" the scripture says. Only the wife's conduct matters "by the CONDUCT OF THEIR WIVES" it says.
I don't see any way this scripture has women being responsible for their fate at all. In the same way 1 Peter 2 is not saying that all Christians are responsible for the salvation of the non-Christian Gentiles in 2:12, or emperors and governors of 2:13, or slaves being responsible for the fate of their masters.suckka wrote:Does the word "may" stop women from being responsible for their husbands fate in this scripture? No, it just means she needs to try harder.
.............................. Are you suggesting then that society make sure it doesn't allow anything that might happen to tempt a person to sin?OpenYourEyes wrote:
My response:
The only thing this might conflict with Christianity on is temptation. A married man desiring a woman even just in feelings or thoughts commits a sin. We know some of the common triggers of sexual temptation, so a girl trying to be sexy would be engaged in doing something that can lead others to sin. She would be like a stumbling block in other words.
This gods commands say that a husband that has sex with his wife during her period is precisely the same kind of hell bound deviant that a homosexual is. Why do Christians always cherry pick the 'morality' they want to get all pious about? This god also commands that the near-sighted and dwarves cannot enter into the Assembly. What good is a god with such bigoted and ignorant commands? lol.puddleglum wrote:God cares about whether or not we obey him.Haven wrote: [Replying to post 3 by puddleglum]
Why would a god care about the sex lives of consenting adults? That seems like a very petty thing for an all-powerful deity to be concerned about.
God's commands apply to the whole human race, not just to believers.Also, this is the morality section. What, exactly, is immoral about normal adults being sexy? Why is this wrong? I get that it's against your religion, but why should non-believers consider it to be immoral?
