Quote# 101882

[Tim responds to a satirical article titled "When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ" that ridicules the idea that women are responsible for men lusting after them when they wear "immodest" clothing.]

As it says at the bottom, the article is satire. So right away, we know that suits don't even have to be reconsidered. But I have to wonder: has the author of that article read Luke 17? How can any follower of Christ trivialize something that Jesus says is "millstone around your neck" level of seriousness? If something is a big deal to Jesus, shouldn't it be a big deal to us? But let's talk about how we would respond if this was a serious article:

1. We find out if any other girls have this problem (I haven't heard of any)
2. If it is a common problem, then we ditch the suits (this is why I swim with a shirt on).
3. If it is not a common problem. then we counsel this woman since her lust is completely out of control. We teach her a biblical theology of sexuality, put her on an intense bible reading plan so that her mind can be renewed, and suggest major lifestyle changes to get her out of bondage (such as not watching TV and movies for a while).

The article's snide conceit is derived from the (relatively common) belief that no one would ever stop wearing (commonly accepted article of clothing) because it is a stumbling block to others. They're wrong. Millions of Christians do that very thing on a daily basis. And why wouldn't we (hypothetically) give up suits?

Does not holiness (being set apart) mean that we have to actually be different from the world?
Does caring for our brothers and sisters (for whom Christ died) not demand that we make sacrifices on their behalf?
Does a biblical worldview leave any room for unfettered individual autonomy as the highest good? (as opposed to submission to God)
Does "take up your cross" not require us to live differently on a day-to-day basis because God's Word demands it?

The answer to all of these questions is of course. Articles like this one are only written in America, because Americans are so pampered that we've lost any sense of proportion. We are so free and so wealthy that we treat the smallest inconveniences as major hardships.

Timothy Dukeman, Deeper than Sound-Bites 18 Comments [7/5/2014 6:04:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 17
Username:
Comment:



1 | bottom

Morningstar

Suppress women's right to dress how they want part 973. Bash America part 542. yawn

Also, Firsties!

7/5/2014 6:08:37 PM

pete

So. I guess we are forced to conclude that Tim is all in favor of government run "reeducation camps"?

7/5/2014 6:13:05 PM

wintermute

"We are so free and so wealthy that we treat the smallest inconveniences as major hardships."

Nice to see that she understands the Christian persecution complex.

7/5/2014 6:34:33 PM

Goomy pls

I really don't think a satirist like this person would care what you are saying, except to lampoon it. Deservedly, I might add.

7/5/2014 8:10:52 PM

freako104

Tim Dukeman still not getting any

7/5/2014 8:56:11 PM

Jen

Does not your ability to give up commonly worn clothing make you a martyr and far far better than anyone around you? Does it not provide you with status in your community? Does it not allow you to ignore the suffering of others while still feeling you are a good person?

7/5/2014 9:25:38 PM

Professor von SCIENCE!!!

Christians are hard core fashion snobs I guess.

7/5/2014 10:00:11 PM

solomongrundy

. Articles like this one are only written in America, because Americans are so pampered that we've lost any sense of proportion.

If the USA (which isn't 'America') is so wonderful how come it's the only developed world country I can think of with tent cities? In the face of government indifference if only there were some private organisations with the priorities of feeding, housing and clothing the poor. But I suppose the mega-church pastors in their private jets would decry that as 'socialism' and justify doing nothing as 'tough love' for losers.

7/6/2014 2:53:33 AM

Mech610

"2. If it is a common problem, then we ditch the suits (this is why I swim with a shirt on)."

Really? Are you sure it's not because you have either moobs or a really creepy looking chest?

7/6/2014 4:51:15 AM



@Mech610

Seconded. I've seen pictures of Tim, and he's incredibly lanky. Nothing wrong with being thin, but he needs to stop acting like he's covering himself up to stop women from lusting after him. It's just one part of his holier-than-thou attitude.

7/6/2014 6:25:21 AM

Frank

" I'm too sexy for my shirt
Too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts"

Thank you Right Said Fred.

7/6/2014 6:59:03 AM



There is no way in hell you'd really put the kind of restrctions and on men that you do on women. You'd instead blame the women for their own sinful thoughts and instruct men to continue doing whatever the hell they want.

@ mech610
Yep.



7/6/2014 7:04:44 AM

Goomy pls

@Frank

Nice reference. b(^_^)d

7/6/2014 9:02:18 AM



The verse you speak about doesn't speak about inmodest clothes. It speaks about opportunists that corrupt too impresionable children, because they're too young. For full grown men, Mark says clear that they're fully responsable and that if your eye males you sin, pluck it out

7/6/2014 9:57:05 AM

Old Viking

Go easy with the Bible-reading plan. It's known to render victims comatose.

7/6/2014 11:02:41 AM



"Does a biblical worldview leave any room for unfettered individual autonomy as the highest good?
...
The answer to all of these questions is of course."

Oops! Way to negate your point, there, Dukeman. Maybe proofread next time?

7/6/2014 11:21:55 AM

Pip

I guess the reference to the article being satirical is a requirement where fundies abound.

7/6/2014 1:06:30 PM

Insult to Rocks

"If something is a big deal to Jesus, shouldn't it be a big deal to us?"
The Roman occupation of the Levant was a big deal to Jesus. I don't see anyone protesting against it right now. Why do you think that is?

7/6/2014 9:49:24 PM

1 | top: comments page