The Christian Naturist response

[Maverick]

I see "freedom" in quotation marks. I think Mav is simply pointing out that people think they have sexual "freedom," which, of course is subjective. Everyone's degree of sexual "freedom" is measured differently, and that for millennia as has been pointed out.

I have sexual freedom (not in quotes) with my one and only wife. No others pop into my mind or heart, and this under the Lordship of Christ in our lives. Others, without Christ, have sexual "freedom" under the lordship of the world, perhaps.

But all in all, I know that we all agree here that harassment and "freedom" are not of the Kingdom. Good men reject these and greater and nobler men rise to fight these. And we are the latter men, here in the village.

Pretty much what my thoughts were.

dv8: By the word "today," I meant compared to, say, centuries ago in America. I also noted that it's nothing new, but is evidently more rampant in our far more Godless 21st-century society. Formerly, at least in our country, sexual immorality was looked down upon by and large if not outlawed, but today it is the "new normal" and celebrated as "sexual freedom." Maybe also in decades past men harassed women less (I don't have stats, just going off of what I've heard from those older than me) because they might find themselves at the wrong end of a gun barrel held by the woman's father/brother/boyfriend/husband. I could be wrong, though, and if I am please correct me.

I do agree with your thoughts that it's driven by a sense of entitlement.

[JimShedd112]

I can't speak from experience, except what i heard while growing up but the term "shotgun wedding" was pretty common when I was a youngster and girls "went away" to have illegitimate children.

Jim

[jdb]

Maverick starts this out by saying

men are out to conquer women

. God tells men to conquer, subdue, have dominion. That is never any clearer than in relationship to our wives. To win her heart is the biggest and most rewarding challenge men can have.
Exodus 22:16, If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed. Entice, win her heart.... Capture her. Not by forcing her, that's despicable.
And to think we are aiding politians, with a slush fund or aiding anyone else tells me these men are not men of honor but barbarians.

John

[balaam]

Maverick starts this out by saying

men are out to conquer women

. God tells men to conquer, subdue, have dominion.

Does it say that?

Straight after saying:

male and female created he them

God says:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Notice God is talking to them. God is not talking to just men, but to the man and woman. There is no having dominion over women here.

[naturaldon]

Just to be clear here, I think Maverick is citing the "both sides" of the side that excuses away the treatment of women, that is, one of the bad guys says men are out to conquer women and the other bad guy says women are asking for it. I noticed that Mav qualified the behavior of noble men, like here in the Village, when he said right after that, "...but I think we tend to be more well-reasoned than how most men are stereotyped." His context is accurate.

Also just to be clear again, the quote in the previous response looks like Mav said, "God tells men to conquer, subdue, have dominion." He didn't. I myself am still learning the fine art of how to quote my fine friends here in the Village and how to read the quotes, so I am partially at fault in looking at that quote box and saying, "Huh?"

Balaam, you are right in the context of God telling man, which equals male and female. Yet I still lean a bit on the man holding the higher office over women. My wife and I are equal but ultimately, leadership is up to me in our marriage, with my wife contributing her womanly and Godly wisdom to our life together. As for the church, I have had to sort out more problems created by women as a result of their having exercised authority where they shouldn't have. I've found myself leaning more right in this issue but I do not dominate or act any other way than the way Jesus - or Paul - treated women (at least I try). This is probably another subject altogether from what Mav started.

[dv8]

....dv8: By the word "today," I meant compared to, say, centuries ago in America. I also noted that it's nothing new, but is evidently more rampant in our far more Godless 21st-century society. Formerly, at least in our country, sexual immorality was looked down upon by and large if not outlawed, but today it is the "new normal" and celebrated as "sexual freedom." Maybe also in decades past men harassed women less (I don't have stats, just going off of what I've heard from those older than me) because they might find themselves at the wrong end of a gun barrel held by the woman's father/brother/boyfriend/husband. I could be wrong, though, and if I am please correct me.

I do agree with your thoughts that it's driven by a sense of entitlement.

I see your point more clearly - that the sense of moral behavior was previously more dominant in our culture,

Funnily enough, though, even as we are moving toward a more and more "Godless," amoral society, Our culture's sense of individual rights has arguably increased, so that the egregious behavior in question is no more acceptable today in any sector than it ever has been. If only we could benefit from both a more compassionate care for the individual AND a greater faith in the gospel of Truth!

[natman]

Going back to the OP....

In the wake of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape allegations levied against big shots and household names, I am curious as to the Village's thoughts about how we as Christian naturists should respond to this. There are strong opinions and vitriol coming from what I guess are "both sides" of this issue, one that says that men are out to conquer women and the other that says that women are asking for it. This is a male-dominated community, of course, but I think we tend to be more well-reasoned than how most men are stereotyped.

So, how do you think should we respond? What views and attitudes should we have?

As "Christians" and particularly as "Christian-naturtists" I would tend to think that we SHOULD be trained to look at others as being EQUALLY valuable to God, considering that we are ALL created in His "image and likeness" and for His glory exclusively. This should be first and foremost in our minds at all times. Our view should be that, regardless of a person's gender, income, need or attire, we would NOT attempt to take undue advantage over anyone else. That which God has not given someone, they should not touch... period.

As to the plethora of accusations recently, I would assume that many of them are true. I also suspect that several have been thrown out for purely political reasons, particularly those that are coming out DECADES after the fact and with no real, verifiable evidence and even some "fabricated" evidence.

Those who have used their positions of power to prey on the less fortunate will answer, if not in court, to God Himself. And those who are making false accusations will answer likewise.

[jochanaan]

1. While I hate false accusations as much as anyone, our first reaction to stories of abuse must not be denial or dismissal. It costs people something to accuse, so their stories should be investigated.

2. There seems to be a scale of offenses. Some things that would have been laughed off even by women in the past are now considered creepy. But that does not lessen the seriousness of the accusations against people like Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore and yes, our current President.

3. We are on the cusp of a sea change. Nearly every woman I've known well enough to talk with about such things has said "Me too." The #metoo hashtag has gone absolutely viral worldwide, suggesting that sexual violence against women is nearly universal. (Not that nearly all men do it, or anything like all men; but enough of us do it to multiple women that the thing might as well be universal.) Our response will determine many things about our health and survival as humans.

4. What would Jesus do?

[jude700]

Jesus did forgive the woman at the well. He healed lepers and blind, sick and infirm, hemorrhaging, thieves and murderers. Jesus loved the broken-hearted and reached out to all, even the pharisees.

Starting from the beginning of history until today and into the future God will forgive if we just ask and amend, change our ways.

[NudeDude92]

This is in the "Christianity and Ethics" category, but if it's better suited somewhere else, by all means please let it be moved.

In the wake of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape allegations levied against big shots and household names, I am curious as to the Village's thoughts about how we as Christian naturists should respond to this. There are strong opinions and vitriol coming from what I guess are "both sides" of this issue, one that says that men are out to conquer women and the other that says that women are asking for it. This is a male-dominated community, of course, but I think we tend to be more well-reasoned than how most men are stereotyped.

So, how do you think should we respond? What views and attitudes should we have?

These are just my two cents on the matter. The key word I see here is "allegations". The first response is to seek truth. If the allegation is true, then consequences according to the law are in order. If however it is false, then consequences must come to the false accuser. This is fair. I do have sympathy for an actual victim, but as this as played out over the duration of this strip, it looks like now just the mere accusation = guilt. The response I see as being the right one is to justly apply the law to the guilty party, whichever side of the situation it happens to be. Also, the accused shouldn't lose their livelihood unless proven guilty! All too often so far this has been the case.

[natman]

The response I see as being the right one is to justly apply the law to the guilty party, whichever side of the situation it happens to be. Also, the accused shouldn't lose their livelihood unless proven guilty! All too often so far this has been the case.

[Englishman]

All very laudable & in an ideal world it might happen like that. As you are all aware, life is not always ideal. I don't know how it works on the other side of the pond but we also have trial, usually followed by vilification, by the media; printed & online which often creates an environment where the innocent are punished for crimes they did not commit.

On the other hand, the guilty sometimes go free. All in all, one has to recall God's frequent railing, through His prophets, against injustice in all its forms. Sadly, justice is now doled to those with the deepest pockets. As a Christian naturist, I struggle with this, for all sorts of reasons.

[NudeDude92]

All very laudable & in an ideal world it might happen like that. As you are all aware, life is not always ideal. I don't know how it works on the other side of the pond but we also have trial, usually followed by vilification, by the media; printed & online which often creates an environment where the innocent are punished for crimes they did not commit.

On the other hand, the guilty sometimes go free. All in all, one has to recall God's frequent railing, through His prophets, against injustice in all its forms. Sadly, justice is now doled to those with the deepest pockets. As a Christian naturist, I struggle with this, for all sorts of reasons.

Hate to tell you this, but it's the same on both sides of the pond. Trial by impartial jury is probably now impossible in this age of instant information. Bill Cosby was just convicted of his allegations. I wonder how much of that conviction was based on evidence not emotion.