Modest Dress for Women.

[MyChainsAreGone]

Once again, if you read the entire thread you'll see no one is arguing for a free pass. I'm not going to restate something I've already argued about 17 times.

I never said that anybody was arguing for a free pass.

But when you argue that women need to keep covered on this or that body part, you are in fact giving men a free pass to sexually objectify those body parts.

You are no longer holding the man accountable for lusting after a woman if he sees her beautiful breasts, you are simply expecting that. That is the response he is going to have. In essence, a free pass.

Why don't you ask a woman to cover her eyes? Well, because you're not prepared to give men a free pass to lust after a woman if they see her eyes.

What about her ankles? In India, they consider visible ankles to be sexually provocative. I know, I was there, and the guide for our mission asked me to make sure one of the ladies on my team kept her ankles covered.

So in America, men do not get a free pass to lust after a woman's ankles. In India, they do. Consequently, to avoid ankle lust, ankles have to be covered in India.

Whatever body part you require a woman to cover, that reveals what body parts you are sexually objectifying.

Sexually objectifying any woman or any part of her body is wrong.

Oh look. More personal accusations. Standard response when someone lacks and substantive argument. Guess the Bible verses did the trick.

What are you talking about? I made no personal accusations at all!

And for the record, one of the poorest argument techniques I've ever heard or seen anywhere is when somebody just lists a bunch of Bible references. It's lazy. And it usually is the action of someone who is trying to hide the fact that they don't really have a good biblical base for what they're asserting.

It's so happens that the best way to reply to such a strategy is to actually look up all of those passages. To talk about what they mean and what they don't mean.

But that takes work. That takes time. Time you were not willing to expend upon me evidently, but I will be happy to do it. I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

But that those verses do not mean what you presumably are expecting them to mean is quite evident to me. And it will be the evident to anyone else who actually looks up those verses and tries to apply them to the assertions I made and the arguments you're trying to make.

So I will get to it, but feel free to tell me what you think those verses you referenced actually mean.

Sorry, but the only rebuttals I've seen from you so far have been straw man and proof texting.

Please do not make any assumptions about what I believe or don't believe. I am not anyone who has spoken in this thread before, and I can pretty well assure you that I probably studied this topic more than any of the others.

My arguments are not and will not be like theirs. So do not assume that answers you've given others will also answer me. Most people I've seen on both sides of this topic are very ill-equipped to address it Biblically and logically.

 

[Jermayn]

Seriously, you're resorting to straw man again?

Why can't you just address the assertions rather than try to postulate some imaginary notion that you think that I'm saying and responding to that?

You can call it a straw man all you like. The only logical conclusion to your statement is that is that a man should be able to look at any part of a woman and feel no sexual temptation, which implies there would be no sexual desire. Based on other comments you've made, you also seem to deem any man that cannot live up to that standard as weak.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

You can call it a straw man all you like. The only logical conclusion to your statement is that is that a man should be able to look at any part of a woman and feel no sexual temptation, which implies there would be no sexual desire. Based on other comments you've made, you also seem to deem any man that cannot live up to that standard as weak.

It is a straw man.

By definition.

You restated my position in a way that I would not endorse and then you replied and responded to that instead of responding to what I actually asserted.

If you really do believe that that is the logical conclusion of my assertion, then why don't you ask me civilly how that works.

Making assumptions about what I believe is very poor form.

You're welcome to ask me for clarification on anything that strikes you as having implications that you don't think work.

When it comes to all of this kind of discussion, what we have to establish first is what is true, and only thereafter, can we formulate a way to live according to what is true.

It seems to me that you've already decided that women must keep covered, and so you are not willing to question the assumptions that you have made that bring you to that result.

I have made no assertions about how to apply the truth, but I have made lots of assertions that strike at the heart of the assumptions you make behind your commitment to the idea that women have to stay covered.

And as I've said multiple times already, you've gotta get the truth right first before you talk about how to apply it.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

...The only logical conclusion to your statement is that is that a man should be able to look at any part of a woman and feel no sexual temptation, which implies there would be no sexual desire...

Let me demonstrate to you very quickly the complete falsehood of this statement.

Tell me, Jermayn,

Are you able to look at a beautiful woman's face and feel no sexual temptation?

I'm going to assume that the answer is yes, because that's something that we as men have to do every single day of our lives pretty much.

You see a woman with a beautiful, beautiful face, it might even make you think, "Wow, she's gorgeous!"

But does that mean you are feeling a sexual temptation towards that woman? I sure hope the answer to that is no.

Does that mean that you actually have no sexual desire? Again, I hope the answer to that question is no!

So, how is it that you are assuming that if a man can see some aspect of a woman's beauty without feeling sexual temptation that it must mean he has no sexual desire at all?

Your objection to my assertion is invalid.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

...Based on other comments you've made, you also seem to deem any man that cannot live up to that standard as weak.

Just to clarify what you're talking about here, I was asserting that it is possible and is the standard for men that they should not assume that they will experience sexual temptation simply because they happen to see some part or another of a woman's body.

And so, yes, I would say it is a spiritual and moral weakness for a man if he believes that about himself.

You know why this weakness is so prevalent?

Well, I can say that in my life, for a long long time I assumed that my sexual response to seeing a woman's body was simply automatic. Consequently, I focused all my efforts on trying to avoid seeing it. I didn't ever focus any effort on trying to modify my response to God's beautiful creation. It never really occurred to me that I could.

So, the primary reason that men have this weakness is for the very fact that we have assumed that they always will and we haven't even challenged them to overcome it.

And by focusing on trying to modify women's behavior, you are tacitly condoning and permitting men to stay in their weak state.

Tell me. Have you ever even tried to view the natural woman's body without having a sexual response?

The truth is, it is a lot easier than you think it is.

Go to the museum. There are paintings and sculptures all over the place displaying nude feminine beauty. It's not a sexual context, and it is not going to create this insatiable sexual desire in you.

That sexual response is not the response God wants you to have to seeing a woman's body.

God doesn't want you to be weak with reference to women and their beauty. He doesn't want you to respond sexually to the simple fact that a women have lovely curves.

God really designed us for our sexual interest to be based in relationship, not in what we see.

That's why he told us to rejoice (i.e. sexually) in the wife of our youth. She won't look anything like the lovely young woman we married when we are both in our '70s. So if our sexual interest is not founded squarely upon relationship at that point, how will we continue to rejoice in that old lady?

So if sexual interest is to be based in relationship when we're in our 70s, shouldn't it also be true when we're in our 20s?

There's a very significant lie that our culture believes, the p*** industry believes (and happily promotes!), and the church itself believes and preaches. That lie is this:

LIE: MEN ARE VISUAL ... God made men to respond sexually to the sight of a woman's body.

We have generations of men who have trained and conditioned themselves to that response, but it's a lie to claim that God made them that way or wants them that way.

And as I said, the conditioning is much easier to break than you would ever imagine.

But you'll never break that conditioning until you recognize the lie.

 

[Jermayn]

Just to clarify what you're talking about here, I was asserting that it is possible and is the standard for men that they should not assume that they will experience sexual temptation simply because they happen to see some part or another of a woman's body.

And so, yes, I would say it is a spiritual and moral weakness for a man if he believes that about himself.

You know why this weakness is so prevalent?

Well, I can say that in my life, for a long long time I assumed that my sexual response to seeing a woman's body was simply automatic. Consequently, I focused all my efforts on trying to avoid seeing it. I didn't ever focus any effort on trying to modify my response to God's beautiful creation. It never really occurred to me that I could.

So, the primary reason that men have this weakness is for the very fact that we have assumed that they always will and we haven't even challenged them to overcome it.

And by focusing on trying to modify women's behavior, you are tacitly condoning and permitting men to stay in their weak state.

Tell me. Have you ever even tried to view the natural woman's body without having a sexual response?

The truth is, it is a lot easier than you think it is.

Go to the museum. There are paintings and sculptures all over the place displaying nude feminine beauty. It's not a sexual context, and it is not going to create this insatiable sexual desire in you.

That sexual response is not the response God wants you to have to seeing a woman's body.

God doesn't want you to be weak with reference to women and their beauty. He doesn't want you to respond sexually to the simple fact that a women have lovely curves.

God really designed us for our sexual interest to be based in relationship, not in what we see.

That's why he told us to rejoice (i.e. sexually) in the wife of our youth. She won't look anything like the lovely young woman we married when we are both in our '70s. So if our sexual interest is not founded squarely upon relationship at that point, how will we continue to rejoice in that old lady?

So if sexual interest is to be based in relationship when we're in our 70s, shouldn't it also be true when we're in our 20s?

There's a very significant lie that our culture believes, the p*** industry believes (and happily promotes!), and the church itself believes and preaches. That lie is this:

LIE: MEN ARE VISUAL ... God made men to respond sexually to the sight of a woman's body.

We have generations of men who have trained and conditioned themselves to that response, but it's a lie to claim that God made them that way or wants them that way.

And as I said, the conditioning is much easier to break than you would ever imagine.

But you'll never break that conditioning until you recognize the lie.

Ok, so you've presented a ton of info here. Let's just get to the heart of the question. Do you think a woman should be permitted to attend a church service naked if she wants? Why or why not?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Ok, so you've presented a ton of info here. Let's just get to the heart of the question. Do you think a woman should be permitted to attend a church service naked if she wants? Why or why not?

So, are you telling me that the basis you have for truth is not in the pursuit of truth itself, but in the result?

And if the result is unacceptable to you, you will discount all information or logic or scriptural exegesis that is offered in support of said position?

Reminds me of what the Sanhedrin said in regards to Jesus at his trial.

"Tell us plainly. Are you the son of God?" "You have said it," He replied. "What need have we for further witnesses!"

To them, the truth did not matter. Only the result. If you know the result, you don't need to know the facts, you don't need to know the evidence.

So I suspect that if I were to give you an answer, you would jump way past all of the logic and the reasoning and the biblical basis that got me there. Because you would not like my answer.

And don't jump to any conclusions about what that means either, because I am not saying I concur with your question as stated.

So, brother, how open are you to truth? How open are you to evidence? How open are you to questioning your assumptions?

It seems to me that by jumping to the question about the very end, you have conveniently decided you do not want to address any of your own assumptions to call them into question.

But you really should.

I looked at your profile. I know you're an IT guy. Turns out I am too. So I'm not assuming that I am smarter than you and I would hope for the same consideration from you.

But you should know that data analysis is part of my trade. I have to look at the data and figure out what it really is, not just what people might think it is or hope it is. If there's valid data that doesn't fit someone's conception of what the data should be, they need to adjust their perception.

That's how I approach issues like this in scripture. Whatever my personal opinion is really doesn't matter. But what can I demonstrate that is true from God's word, that's what really matters.

So, did I dodge answering your question directly? Sure did.

But you have done so with regard to everything I've challenged.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Let me demonstrate to you very quickly the complete falsehood of this statement.

Tell me, Jermayn,

Are you able to look at a beautiful woman's face and feel no sexual temptation?

I'm going to assume that the answer is yes, because that's something that we as men have to do every single day of our lives pretty much.

You see a woman with a beautiful, beautiful face, it might even make you think, "Wow, she's gorgeous!"

But does that mean you are feeling a sexual temptation towards that woman? I sure hope the answer to that is no.

Does that mean that you actually have no sexual desire? Again, I hope the answer to that question is no!

So, how is it that you are assuming that if a man can see some aspect of a woman's beauty without feeling sexual temptation that it must mean he has no sexual desire at all?

Your objection to my assertion is invalid.

Tell you what, Jermayn.

You answer the questions that I posed to you here, then I will answer the question that you posed to me.

I was assuming what your answers would be, but would you please confirm that I got them right.

Then please address the last question.

Thanks.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Asking a question in regard to 1 Timothy 2:9-10, which states:

"I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (NIV).

How would you define the "dress code", if you will, described in this excerpt?

Do you think churches should have a defined dress code, such as guidance on neckline, skirt/pant length, sleeve length, etc., or do you think the interpretation should be left up to the individual?

Would you confront a woman who you thought may be pushing the boundaries with the way they were dressing in church? What about in public in general? If so, how? (I'm speaking of a fellow believer here, not just any random woman you think is dressed inappropriate.)

If a fellow believer approached you and said a woman in your church was dressing in a manner that caused them to either fall under temptation or to sin, how would you address this situation?

I think the test should be whether a woman is afraid to sit down and the men around her are afraid to stand up.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I think the test should be whether a woman is afraid to sit down and the men around her are afraid to stand up.

I'm guessing that was a joke? If not can you please explain what you meant?

 

[Fervent]

Can you offer a single cogent rebuttal to my assertions?

I saw none in your response.

As uncomfortable as that may make you to think about, it is without any doubt the truth.

Welcome to the loony bin...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm guessing that was a joke? If not can you please explain what you meant?

It was said when mini skirts first came out in the 1960s.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

• Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:19, 1 Peter 2:11, Jude 1:4, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4, Proverbs 7:10.

These are verses from God's Word that detail the dangers of sensuality as well as link dress to said sensuality or advocate for a standard of modesty concern dress, particularly for women.

OK... here we go. Rather than post scripture references and make blanket statements about what they mean, I'm going to quote each one and we can all assess whether they rebut any of my assertions and if they support the assertion made here. Buckle up, I'll try to be concise, but there were a number of passages referenced and I need to address them all.

To start with here are the assertions I made which prompted the response above:

• D1 - The Bible does not teach modesty as typically taught in the church today (cover body parts).
• D2 - The lowest "standard" of modesty is to require complete covering; the highest standard is to have no clothing requirements at all.

The assertions made that are supported by the list of scriptures above were these:

• J1 - The bible teaches the dangers of sensuality
• J2 - The bible links sensuality to clothing

After each passage, we'll give a grade on each of my assertions (D1 & D2) to see if they are refuted by the passage. Then we'll give a grade on whether they support Jermayn's assertions. Since Jermayn was attempting to rebut my claims, he is expecting a "YES" answer to all the grading.

Galatians 5:19-21 - Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Ephesians 4:19 - and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality [a]for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Peter 2:11 - Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Jude 1:4 - For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 - For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? NO
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 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.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? NO
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Proverbs 7:10, 13, 18, 22-23 - And behold, a woman comes to meet him, Dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart. ... So she seizes him and kisses him And with a brazen face she says to him: ... “Come, let us drink our fill of love until morning; Let us delight ourselves with caresses." ... Suddenly he follows her As an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as one in fetters to the discipline of a fool, Until an arrow pierces through his liver; As a bird hastens to the snare, So he does not know that it will cost him his life.

(NOTE: I've quoted a lot more than what Jermayn referenced... since the rest of the chapter helps his case...)

• D1 - Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? ALMOST

Why "ALMOST"? Well, the adulterous woman definitely was "dressed as a harlot,", but all that really tells us is that she dressed in a way that communicated with the young man that she was sexually available.

What sort of dress was it? Skimpy with lots of body exposure? Was it some other sort of attire that signaled her intent? We can't be sure... but it's worth mentioning that when Tamar fooled Judah by acting (and dressing?) as a prostitute in Genesis 38... and she was veiled! Judah didn't even recognize her. She was his daughter-in-law! How did he not know who it was? Could the veil (i.e. more covering) have been part the harlot's attire? We don't know, but it's possible.

To be sure, neither this passage nor any other passage in the bible links harlotry to any particular style of dress or lack thereof.

So... did any of these passages refute my assertions? No. Not even close.

Did any of these passages support Jermayn's assertions? For J1, yes, most (but not all) of the passages supported his point. However, this was not a point of contention between us, because I fully agree that the bible teaches against sensuality and sexual misconduct. So... no ground has been gained by this assertion.

The real question is whether the bible links clothing to sensuality.

And on that point, Jermayn scored a dud... only one of the passages even had a possible linkage, and that one was so indefinite (what sort of clothing was it anyway??) as to be inconclusive in supporting his assertion.

I would suppose that Jermayn is conflating nudity or body exposure with sensuality... but that's not a point I will concede, it's not an assertion that he has declared, and it's not a point that the Bible supports.

As you can see, when honestly examined, the list of scripture references did not refute my assertions and fell short of supporting Jermayn's.

Anyone see things differently?

 

[MForbes]

So, are you telling me that the basis you have for truth is not in the pursuit of truth itself, but in the result?

And if the result is unacceptable to you, you will discount all information or logic or scriptural exegesis that is offered in support of said position?

Reminds me of what the Sanhedrin said in regards to Jesus at his trial.

"Tell us plainly. Are you the son of God?" "You have said it," He replied. "What need have we for further witnesses!"

To them, the truth did not matter. Only the result. If you know the result, you don't need to know the facts, you don't need to know the evidence.

So I suspect that if I were to give you an answer, you would jump way past all of the logic and the reasoning and the biblical basis that got me there. Because you would not like my answer.

And don't jump to any conclusions about what that means either, because I am not saying I concur with your question as stated.

So, brother, how open are you to truth? How open are you to evidence? How open are you to questioning your assumptions?

It seems to me that by jumping to the question about the very end, you have conveniently decided you do not want to address any of your own assumptions to call them into question.

But you really should.

I looked at your profile. I know you're an IT guy. Turns out I am too. So I'm not assuming that I am smarter than you and I would hope for the same consideration from you.

But you should know that data analysis is part of my trade. I have to look at the data and figure out what it really is, not just what people might think it is or hope it is. If there's valid data that doesn't fit someone's conception of what the data should be, they need to adjust their perception.

That's how I approach issues like this in scripture. Whatever my personal opinion is really doesn't matter. But what can I demonstrate that is true from God's word, that's what really matters.

So, did I dodge answering your question directly? Sure did.

But you have done so with regard to everything I've challenged.

You're gonna answer his questions, and then he's gonna move the goal post (again).

He has moved from the question in the OP (should a woman dress modestly) to "Do you think a woman should be permitted to attend a church service naked", to outright accusing others of believing that a woman can go to church naked.

I've stated before, and I'll state it again.......he's taking people down a rabbit hole with this mess.

 

[Jermayn]

OK... here we go. Rather than post scripture references and make blanket statements about what they mean, I'm going to quote each one and we can all assess whether they rebut any of my assertions and if they support the assertion made here. Buckle up, I'll try to be concise, but there were a number of passages referenced and I need to address them all.

To start with here are the assertions I made which prompted the response above:

• D1 - The Bible does not teach modesty as typically taught in the church today (cover body parts).
• D2 - The lowest "standard" of modesty is to require complete covering; the highest standard is to have no clothing requirements at all.

The assertions made that are supported by the list of scriptures above were these:

• J1 - The bible teaches the dangers of sensuality
• J2 - The bible links sensuality to clothing

After each passage, we'll give a grade on each of my assertions (D1 & D2) to see if they are refuted by the passage. Then we'll give a grade on whether they support Jermayn's assertions. Since Jermayn was attempting to rebut my claims, he is expecting a "YES" answer to all the grading.

Galatians 5:19-21 - Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Ephesians 4:19 - and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality [a]for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Peter 2:11 - Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Jude 1:4 - For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 - For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? NO
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 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.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? NO
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Proverbs 7:10, 13, 18, 22-23 - And behold, a woman comes to meet him, Dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart. ... So she seizes him and kisses him And with a brazen face she says to him: ... “Come, let us drink our fill of love until morning; Let us delight ourselves with caresses." ... Suddenly he follows her As an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as one in fetters to the discipline of a fool, Until an arrow pierces through his liver; As a bird hastens to the snare, So he does not know that it will cost him his life.

(NOTE: I've quoted a lot more than what Jermayn referenced... since the rest of the chapter helps his case...)

• D1 - Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? ALMOST

Why "ALMOST"? Well, the adulterous woman definitely was "dressed as a harlot,", but all that really tells us is that she dressed in a way that communicated with the young man that she was sexually available.

What sort of dress was it? Skimpy with lots of body exposure? Was it some other sort of attire that signaled her intent? We can't be sure... but it's worth mentioning that when Tamar fooled Judah by acting (and dressing?) as a prostitute in Genesis 38... and she was veiled! Judah didn't even recognize her. She was his daughter-in-law! How did he not know who it was? Could the veil (i.e. more covering) have been part the harlot's attire? We don't know, but it's possible.

To be sure, neither this passage nor any other passage in the bible links harlotry to any particular style of dress or lack thereof.

So... did any of these passages refute my assertions? No. Not even close.

Did any of these passages support Jermayn's assertions? For J1, yes, most (but not all) of the passages supported his point. However, this was not a point of contention between us, because I fully agree that the bible teaches against sensuality and sexual misconduct. So... no ground has been gained by this assertion.

The real question is whether the bible links clothing to sensuality.

And on that point, Jermayn scored a dud... only one of the passages even had a possible linkage, and that one was so indefinite (what sort of clothing was it anyway??) as to be inconclusive in supporting his assertion.

I would suppose that Jermayn is conflating nudity or body exposure with sensuality... but that's not a point I will concede, it's not an assertion that he has declared, and it's not a point that the Bible supports.

As you can see, when honestly examined, the list of scripture references did not refute my assertions and fell short of supporting Jermayn's.

Anyone see things differently?

Literally your entire wall of text can be refuted by simply defining two words.

Sensuality: the enjoyment, expression, or pursuit of physical, especially sexual, pleasure.
Can sexual expression come in the form of the clothing you choose to wear. Yes. So change all your J2's to Yes.

Modesty: behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency.
Can you wear certain clothing that gives you an appearance of impropriety or indecency? Yes. There's your D1 and D2's changed to Yes.

As far as your claims that less clothing = more modest, go google "modest clothing" and "indecent clothing" and see what results you get in the images. If you truly believe that, you are living in an alternate reality.

 

[WolfGate]

OK... here we go. Rather than post scripture references and make blanket statements about what they mean, I'm going to quote each one and we can all assess whether they rebut any of my assertions and if they support the assertion made here. Buckle up, I'll try to be concise, but there were a number of passages referenced and I need to address them all.

To start with here are the assertions I made which prompted the response above:

• D1 - The Bible does not teach modesty as typically taught in the church today (cover body parts).
• D2 - The lowest "standard" of modesty is to require complete covering; the highest standard is to have no clothing requirements at all.

The assertions made that are supported by the list of scriptures above were these:

• J1 - The bible teaches the dangers of sensuality
• J2 - The bible links sensuality to clothing

After each passage, we'll give a grade on each of my assertions (D1 & D2) to see if they are refuted by the passage. Then we'll give a grade on whether they support Jermayn's assertions. Since Jermayn was attempting to rebut my claims, he is expecting a "YES" answer to all the grading.

Galatians 5:19-21 - Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Ephesians 4:19 - and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality [a]for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Peter 2:11 - Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Jude 1:4 - For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 - For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? NO
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 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.

• D1- Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? NO
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? NO

Proverbs 7:10, 13, 18, 22-23 - And behold, a woman comes to meet him, Dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart. ... So she seizes him and kisses him And with a brazen face she says to him: ... “Come, let us drink our fill of love until morning; Let us delight ourselves with caresses." ... Suddenly he follows her As an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as one in fetters to the discipline of a fool, Until an arrow pierces through his liver; As a bird hastens to the snare, So he does not know that it will cost him his life.

(NOTE: I've quoted a lot more than what Jermayn referenced... since the rest of the chapter helps his case...)

• D1 - Does it teach "modesty" as in covering body parts? NO
• D2 - Does it indicate that covering the body is a "high" modesty standard? NO
  
  
• J1 - Does it teach the danger of sensuality? YES
• J2 - Does it link sensuality to clothing? ALMOST

Why "ALMOST"? Well, the adulterous woman definitely was "dressed as a harlot,", but all that really tells us is that she dressed in a way that communicated with the young man that she was sexually available.

What sort of dress was it? Skimpy with lots of body exposure? Was it some other sort of attire that signaled her intent? We can't be sure... but it's worth mentioning that when Tamar fooled Judah by acting (and dressing?) as a prostitute in Genesis 38... and she was veiled! Judah didn't even recognize her. She was his daughter-in-law! How did he not know who it was? Could the veil (i.e. more covering) have been part the harlot's attire? We don't know, but it's possible.

To be sure, neither this passage nor any other passage in the bible links harlotry to any particular style of dress or lack thereof.

So... did any of these passages refute my assertions? No. Not even close.

Did any of these passages support Jermayn's assertions? For J1, yes, most (but not all) of the passages supported his point. However, this was not a point of contention between us, because I fully agree that the bible teaches against sensuality and sexual misconduct. So... no ground has been gained by this assertion.

The real question is whether the bible links clothing to sensuality.

And on that point, Jermayn scored a dud... only one of the passages even had a possible linkage, and that one was so indefinite (what sort of clothing was it anyway??) as to be inconclusive in supporting his assertion.

I would suppose that Jermayn is conflating nudity or body exposure with sensuality... but that's not a point I will concede, it's not an assertion that he has declared, and it's not a point that the Bible supports.

As you can see, when honestly examined, the list of scripture references did not refute my assertions and fell short of supporting Jermayn's.

Anyone see things differently?

Obviously this is well thought out and covered context and appropriate nuances.

Save yourself the effort of trying to do too much more. If you go back and read the prior responses of the OP, you'll see a theme of responses similar to the one you just got. I can't speak to the OP's actual state of mind and thought process, but their responses throughout this thread give the impression of someone who is obtuse at best, and disingenuous at worst.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Sensuality: the enjoyment, expression, or pursuit of physical, especially sexual, pleasure.
Can sexual expression come in the form of the clothing you choose to wear. Yes. So change all your J2's to Yes.

Your claim was that these passages linked clothing to sensuality. Your claim here that clothing CAN be a sexual/sensual expression... that's true enough... but you made a positive claim that the link was there... and a link that CAN be is not the same as a link that is positively declared.

Sensuality CAN also be expressed when eating... when recreating... when doing ANYTHING. So... does the bible connect sensuality to eating and recreation, too?

No. That link is NOT IN THE INSPIRED TEXT!

You only have your imaginative surmisal.

Strike one.

Modesty: behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency.
Can you wear certain clothing that gives you an appearance of impropriety or indecency? Yes. There's your D1 and D2's changed to Yes.

Again... CAN this be? Sure. Does the text declare it so? No.

Strike two.

As far as your claims that less clothing = more modest, go google "modest clothing" and "indecent clothing" and see what results you get in the images. If you truly believe that, you are living in an alternate reality.

An internet image search is your authoritative source for truth and biblical hermaneutics?

Sheesh... I thought this was to be a biblical discussion.

Swing and a miss... STRIKE THREE.

You're out.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Exactly what makes a standard of dress a "high" or "low" standard?

If someone thinks that you must cover every part of the female anatomy, is that then a "higher standard"?

If so, then you could declare that the orthodox Muslims have the highest standards of modesty. "Higher" must be better, right? So why don't we promote covering female bodies absolutely and completely?

But that's actually not a better standard, is it?

Why not? Well, because it sexually objectifies the woman in her entirety. There is literally no part of her body which is free from sexual objectification, therefore none of her body is safe to be seen without being sexually objectified and without her being sexually mistreated.

So that standard is not truly a higher standard, rather it is a bad and dehumanizing standard.

So, what does that mean?

How do you know if a standard of dress is sexually objectifying some part of a woman's anatomy?

It turns out that it's really easy to tell. Whatever part of a woman's body you require for her to cover, that's a part that you have decided must be treated as a sexual object.

Said another way, that's the body part that you sexually objectify.

Think about it... There's only one reason that a woman has to keep some particular body part covered, right?

But tell me, is it acceptable to sexually objectify ANY part of a woman? She IS her body. If you sexually objectify ANY part of her, you are sexually objectifying HER!

When an ethical male doctor performs a full body examination of a female patient, he sees every inch of her body. Is she being immodest? When he sees her breasts, does he sexually objectify them? No, and no.

But how can that be? If a woman's body parts are intended to be treated sexually, how then can there be ANY context where a man could view them and not respond sexually?

But that scenario is real, and it's TRUE!

There is no part of a woman's body that we should require them to cover because no woman deserves to be sexually objectified, and no part of her body should be sexually objectified.

So the truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what you might have thought...

The HIGHEST standard for dress is when no body parts are specifically required to be covered, for only in the absence of any such requirement can we claim to oppose ALL sexual objectification of a woman or her body.

The LOWEST standard? Requiring her to cover ALL off her body.

As uncomfortable as that may make you to think about, it is without any doubt the truth.

Hey @Jermayn,

Rather than suggest that I do some sort of internet image search, why don't you show me where and how my reasoning is flawed in this post?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

As far as your claims that less clothing = more modest, ...

Are you intentionally lying about what I said?

I'm really getting tired of you restating my position inaccurately so that you can try to shoot it down.

 

[Jermayn]

Are you intentionally lying about what I said?

I'm really getting tired of you restating my position inaccurately so that you can try to shoot it down.

The HIGHEST standard for dress is when no body parts are specifically required to be covered

Did you make this comment, or did someone hack your account? You're essentially saying the highest standard is no standard, which means a woman can walk into your congregation bare breasted and no one should have a problem with it. Am I right?

Rather than suggest that I do some sort of internet image search, why don't you show me where and how my reasoning is flawed in this post?

An internet image search is your authoritative source for truth and biblical hermaneutics?

Sheesh... I thought this was to be a biblical discussion.

I'm sorry that you're not in favor of utilizing the extensive and rich resource known as 'The Internet' for gathering information. Feel free to visit your local library and spend 3 months searching through encyclopedias. You'll eventually find that you're reasoning is flawed because the VAST majority of human beings consider less cloths less modest. This isn't even a biblical discussion at this point. It's common sense.

Your claim here that clothing CAN be a sexual/sensual expression... that's true enough

Great. Based on your previous post, it was a hard NO. Now, it's possible. We're making progress.

Sensuality CAN also be expressed when eating... when recreating... when doing ANYTHING. So... does the bible connect sensuality to eating and recreation, too?

Just like dressing yourself, if you do those things with a sensual intent, that would be sin, so yes.

Again... CAN this be? Sure. Does the text declare it so? No.

So, the definition of "modesty" has to be specifically spelled out for you in the Bible or you aren't will to accept it?