- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,110
- 19,005
- 43
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Granted. But it's splitting hairs. The problem of domination and control remains.
Upvote
0
My community pool requires women to wear a one piece bathing suit. Some women did not know about the rule. They wanted to get tanned. People need sunlight for vitamin D. Since the rules are not posted on the wall, they are not followed.
A woman was attending a banquet where the attire was business casual. She was wearing a revealing short dress. Someone called her a prostitute. People can be cruel.
Someone told me he went to participate in an athletic event and noticed everyone was wearing white athletic shoes. He went and bought white athletic shoes.
What if a visitor shows up wearing something not allowed I your dress code? Sounds pretty insular to me.I agree.On the beach we expect to see skin.Not at church though.
You may get vitamin D, omega 3's, protein, and vitamin B-12 from fish. There are also PCB's and mercury in fish. I have seen studies recommending 1000 IU/day vitamin D capsules for adults. Vitamin D is used to help the body process calcium and may help prevent osteoporosis.Just FYI, we can get D without sunlight. D3 supplements apparently work well, though there's a major study being conducted right now to compare the effectiveness. It should be finished.. this year?
IIRC, some societies don't get much sun exposure, but they get their D from fish.
You may get vitamin D, omega 3's, protein, and vitamin B-12 from fish. There are also PCB's and mercury in fish. I have seen studies recommending 1000 IU/day vitamin D capsules for adults. Vitamin D is used to help the body process calcium and may help prevent osteoporosis.
Studies also showed that those who take vitamin E or vitamin A tablets were less healthy than those who did not. There are many types of carotenoids. Theoretically, artificial vitamin A blocks the absorption of other important similar nutrients. Vitamin A tablets are not a good substitute for greens and vegetables.
Not everyone wants to get their vitamins from pills. I am in favor of allowing sunbathing, even though some people may blame those who sunbath for encouraging lust when they do not want lust, but only sunshine. Lust originates in the minds of sinners. One should not blame the dress code for immoral behavior.
Modesty is an attitude of the heart. Adam and Eve knew they were naked even with their fig leaves sewn over body parts, because they cut themselves off from God's righteousness. The animal that God slew to cover them with skin foretold of the blood covering that would come from the promised Messiah in Genesis 3:15. It was not the animal skin that restored their modesty, but faith in restoration by God to come. The skin reminded them of that promise. But the reminder was forgotten just as looking at a rainbow does not remind anyone that God promised to never flood the world again.This is the strongest argument, in my opinion. Adam and Eve ate, and then they knew they were naked and they made themselves loin cloths. So, their initial (now ontological, you might say) reaction was to cover their genitals. However, after making these loin cloths, they still considered themselves naked (the reason they hid from God.)
We've had visitors straight from the street dressed in dirty clothes,too short clothes, e.t.c..but those were *visitors* not *regular* members. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a dress code in place at the church. We wouldn't turn people away for how they come dressed but after they've been there a while or maybe joined then they'd have to tighten up .What if a visitor shows up wearing something not allowed I your dress code? Sounds pretty insular to me.
These days when looking at a rainbow or seeing it posted somewhere as a sign...it doesn't exactly bring to mind our Lord's promise..Modesty is an attitude of the heart. Adam and Eve knew they were naked even with their fig leaves sewn over body parts, because they cut themselves off from God's righteousness. The animal that God slew to cover them with skin foretold of the blood covering that would come from the promised Messiah in Genesis 3:15. It was not the animal skin that restored their modesty, but faith in restoration by God to come. The skin reminded them of that promise. But the reminder was forgotten just as looking at a rainbow does not remind anyone that God promised to never flood the world again.
So a man or woman whose confidence is in the Lord, their modesty comes from God. Of course for Adam and Eve initially there were no other people. But as the population grew, modesty became an issue in not causing another to stumble by temptation into sin. And so it shall remain untll we are given glorified bodies -whether clothed or not I don't know - where it will no longer be an issue. We will have no more consciousness of such things just as animals today do not consider themselves naked.
Granted. But it's splitting hairs. The problem of domination and control remains.
These days when looking at a rainbow or seeing it posted somewhere as a sign...it doesn't exactly bring to mind our Lord's promise..
Sorry for slipping off topic but I just had to add that.
Prove that God killed an animal.The animal that God slew to cover them with skin foretold of the blood covering
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove what God only knows. I believe this to be the case because of what I know about the need for the sacrificial blood of Jesus. I believe Adam and Eve understood what was meant in Genesis 3:15 which is why their third son Seth was named "appointed." It was God who destroyed the Earth with the flood and all the animals upon it. It is possible that Adam had to slay the animal for the skins just as Noah and Israel had to slay the sacrificial animals, too. But I make my assumption on the verse:Prove that God killed an animal.
How do you know He did not just make leather garments appear?
Is not the idea that it was a "blood covering" an addition from after the fact?
Elaborate a bit here. I''ve never heard this and Seth wasn't born until the 4th chapter and his name means "substitued" according to Strong's, so I'm not sure what you're saying.I believe Adam and Eve understood what was meant in Genesis 3:15 which is why their third son Seth was named "appointed."
...this correlates well with the priests who had to wear relatively long bottoms so the people underneath them wouldn’t look up and see their genitals...and considering the priests wore long bottoms *in order to* hide the genitals shows that this region is either solely sinful to expose, or especially sinful to expose, in my opinion.
Elaborate a bit here. I''ve never heard this and Seth wasn't born until the 4th chapter and his name means "substitued" according to Strong's, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
I wasn't interested in 'arguing these points'. But I did find your answer interesting enough to even give you an 'informative' rating. But whether it is true or not, it's really not a point worth arguing about anyway IMO.I have no interest in arguing these points. This is just to show that this has been believed by many others. This commentary was written in the 19 century.
Agreed. I apologize for being somewhat defensive. Another person demanded I prove my position, of which there really can be no proof, only reasons for believing a position.I wasn't interested in 'arguing these points'. But I did find your answer interesting enough to even give you an 'informative' rating. But whether it is true or not, it's really not a point worth arguing about anyway IMO.