Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

[blackhole]

well, if you want to argue that men shouldn't be able to go out topless that's fine, but you just conceded your entire argument here.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I explained that the text shows both genders must cover their tops, if your interpretation (of apron) is correct.

 

[blackhole]

I'll also add: if men and women both must cover their chests, then there's an insane amount of inconsistency among Christians. They're willing to condemn me to hell because I believe women can go topless, but they're incredibly relaxed when talking about men going topless.

 

[Grip Docility]

I'm sure I said something, but the time to respond to it has passed

You have said it well.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Yes, their tops were covered after God further clothed them. But, not before. I already showed you this with the Strongs.

you didn't.

I said the apron can cover the top, the bottom, or both depending on how it was made so it didn't have to cover the same area if my interpretation is correct.

Also, you've made a non-sequitur. It's more likely that God further clothed them not because they were naked, but because they were wearing fig leaves (itchy) and because the world was now cursed (thorns, etc; fig leaves were insufficient protection).

there wouldn't be anything from the text to substantiate this theory. you said the apron leaves their backside open. so the LORD gave them clothes to cover that as the scriptures i gave you showed that such exposure is shameful. the fact that what the LORD gave them was of better quality then what they cobbled together on a whim is immaterial.

God commanded Isaiah to be naked

and He commanded hosea to take a harlot as a wife(hosea 1:2). the LORD did these things as examples of other nations transgressions, not as signs of approval.

 

[blackhole]

you didn't.

I said the apron can cover the top, the bottom, or both depending on how it was made so it didn't have to cover the same area if my interpretation is correct.


there wouldn't be anything from the text to substantiate this theory. you said the apron leaves their backside open. so the LORD gave them clothes to cover that as the scriptures i gave you showed that such exposure is shameful. the fact that what the LORD gave them was of better quality then what they cobbled together on a whim is immaterial.


and He commanded hosea to take a harlot as a wife(hosea 1:2). the LORD did these things as examples of other nations transgressions, not as signs of approval.

You literally quoted me, quoting the strongs - and you saying I didn't show you that.

You're ignoring my posts and setting up straw men, so we're finished.

 

[Grip Docility]

Nor does the bible say any of us should not go bottomless, making your point, pointless.

I have to admit... I’m fairly certain I could behave myself in this sort of society... but... I would be running into things a bunch, getting slapped by my beautiful wife and generally having a strong difficulty focusing on anything Valuable for personal growth.

Aha! Answer... join an Amazonian tribe... to all who want things to be this way!

 

[Grip Docility]

I believe that Scripture cannot be used to defend the West's viewpoint that it's sinful for women to be publicly topless.

I want to challenge my viewpoint, and the quality of my arguments.
Prove me wrong, using scripture or rationality that's based on Christian principles in order to do so.

The burden of proof lies with the one asserting a positive, therefore you get to argue first.

Question... what is the underlying hope of this thread?

It reminds me of an old joke...

A man was at an invention convention, as an inventor...

He proudly took the podium and began his presentation...

He said... I have revolutionized a new brazier for women. It is painless to wear, prevents any visible movement of a woman’s bosoms from being seen... and on cold days, no fabric will protrude.

The inventor was taken into a back room and beaten badly, by all the men present at the convention.

But, sincerely... what is the underlying motivation of your posit?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You literally quoted me, quoting the strongs - and you saying I didn't show you that

that's not what happened and you know that's not what happened. you're now outright being dishonest. you do understand people can go back and read this stuff right?

you quoted strongs definition for the covering they made of fig leaves. we concluded this was an apron. I said an apron can cover the top, bottom, or both depending on how it is made which means they did not have to cover the same area. the strongs definition only concludes that they made aprons, it does not conclude that they covered the same area because an apron doesn't have to cover the same area.

if you're gonna be dishonest, then we are indeed finished.

 

[blackhole]

that's not what happened and you know that's not what happened. you're now outright being dishonest. you do understand people can go back and read this stuff right?

you quoted strongs definition for the covering they made of fig leaves. we concluded this was an apron. I said an apron can cover the top, bottom, or both depending on how it is made which means they did not have to cover the same area. the strongs definition only concludes that they made aprons, it does not conclude that they covered the same area because an apron doesn't have to cover the same area.

if you're gonna be dishonest, then we are indeed finished.

It was the strongs definition for the word translated as "apron," showing that it did not cover the top.

Yes, let's finish. This is stupid.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

H2290
חֲגֹרָה חֲגוֹרָה חֲגֹר חֲגוֹר
chăgôr chăgôr chăgôrâh chăgôrâh
(1,2) khag-ore', (3,4) khag-o-raw'
From H2296; a belt (for the waist): - apron, armour, gird (-le).
Total KJV occurrences: 7

It was the strongs definition for the word translated as "apron," showing that it did not cover the top.

Yes, let's finish. This is stupid.

a belt, an apron, armour, gird.

 

[blackhole]

a belt, an apron, armour, gird.

You've actually never used the strongs?

The part you emphasized merely shows one of the ways it's translated into the KJV.

This is the important part:
From H2296; a belt (for the waist):

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You've actually never used the strongs?

The part you emphasized merely shows one of the ways it's translated into the KJV.

This is the important part:
From H2296; a belt (for the waist):

a belt covers nothing but the waist, leaving everything else exposed, including genitals.

it shows that apron is an accurate rendering. that's all that matters.

at this point you're just trying to salvage your ego so this will, in fact, be my last reply on this subject. feel free to have the last word.

 

[blackhole]

it shows that apron is an accurate rendering. that's all that matters.

Gill

and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons; not to cover their whole bodies, but only those parts which, ever since, mankind have been ashamed to expose to public view, and which they studiously conceal from sight: the reason of which perhaps is, because by those members the original corruption of human nature has been from the beginning, and still is propagated from parents to children. The leaves of the fig tree were pitched upon because of the largeness of them; the leaves of the common fig tree are very large, as everyone knows; and perhaps those in the eastern countries, and especially in paradise, were much larger than ours. Pliny (m) says of the fig tree, that its leaf is the largest, and the most shady. Some think the Indian fig tree is meant; so John Temporarius, as Drusius relates; and so our Milton (n); and according to Pliny (o), the breadth of the leaves of this tree has the shape of an Amazonian shield. And when they are said to sew these together, it is not to be supposed that they sewed them as tailors sew their garments together, since they cannot be thought to be furnished with proper instruments, or that they tacked them together with some sort of thorns, or made use of them instead of needles; but they took the tender branches of the fig tree with leaves on them, as the word signifies, see Neh_8:15 and twisted them round their waists; which served for "girdles", as some render the word (p), and the broad leaves hanging down served for aprons; but these, whatever covering they may be thought to have been to their bodies, which yet seem to be but a slender one, they could be none to their souls, or be of any service to hide their sin and shame from the all seeing eye of God; and of as little use are the poor and mean services of men, or their best works of righteousness, to shelter them from the wrath of God, and the vengeance of divine justice.
​

Guzik

d. They sewed fig leaves together: Their own attempt to cover themselves took much ingenuity, but not much wisdom. Fig leaves are said to have a prickly quality, which would make for some pretty itchy coverings.
i. Every attempt to cover our own nakedness before God is just as foolish. We need to let Jesus cover us (Rev_3:5; Rev_3:18), and put on Jesus Himself as our covering garment (Gal_3:27). The exhortation from Jesus is for us: Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame. (Rev_16:15)
ii. Obviously, they covered their genital areas. In virtually all cultures, adults cover their genital areas, even though other parts of the human body may be more or less exposed from culture to culture.
iii. This is not because there is something intrinsically “dirty” in our sexuality, but because we have both received our fallenness and pass it on genetically through sexual reproduction. Because of this, God has implanted it in the minds of men that more modesty is appropriate for these areas of our body.
​

K&D

חֲגֹרֹת, περιζώματα, are aprons, worn round the hips. It was here that the consciousness of nakedness first suggested the need of covering, not because the fruit had poisoned the fountain of human life, and through some inherent quality had immediately corrupted the reproductive powers of the body (as Hoffmann and Baumgarten suppose), nor because any physical change ensued in consequence of the fall; but because, with the destruction of the normal connection between soul and body through sin, the body ceased to be the pure abode of a spirit in fellowship with God, and in the purely natural state of the body the consciousness was produced not merely of the distinction of the sexes, but still more of the worthlessness of the flesh; so that the man and woman stood ashamed in each other's presence, and endeavoured to hide the disgrace of their spiritual nakedness, by covering those parts of the body through which the impurities of nature are removed. That the natural feeling of shame, the origin of which is recorded here, had its root, not in sensuality or any physical corruption, but in the consciousness of guilt or shame before God, and consequently that it was the conscience which was really at work, is evident from the fact that the man and his wife hid themselves from Jehovah God among the trees of the garden, as soon as they heard the sound of His footsteps.​

 

[Archivist]

are you claiming there's no such thing as bestiality?

I said no such thing.

the point is that people have sexual attractions and fetishes towards all sorts of things.

Yes, and as I said most women are attracted to a well-proportioned male chest.

they're also attracted to a nice haircut and a perfectly symmetrical face and defined jawline. i wouldn't argue that all men should wear hats and masks though.

Then why should women have to cover their breasts?

that would be how scripture describes mammories(proverbs 5:18-19, Ezekiel 23:19-21) , though "sex organ" may be the wrong word. instruments for sexual pleasure would be a better description(along with feeding babies).

Scripture doesn’t call breasts sex organs, nor are they considered such in medical literature.

the point to the thread is whether or not its sin for women to be topless in public.

It is not.

 

[Peter J Barban]

This is what people do when they cannot address what was said in a post—they just falsely claim that it is irrelevant. What I wrote is perfectly relevant to both your post and the OP. Of course I noticed that you couldn’t bother responding to the reasoning I offered. What I offered is not the only reason, but fear of arrest is certainly a reason why more women don’t go topless.

One data point is all you offered. That is one case out of billions who don't go topless. I offer billions of cases and you dispute with one. That is why your post was less than trivial.

 

[Peter J Barban]

2) That's (positively) asserting a negative. The only way to prove it is to literally quote the entire Bible to you. I can't do that; I can't prove a negative.

Sure though, I should have worded things differently.

True enough.

And the second weakness is setting yourself as worthy to judge the rightness of everyone else's arguments, even when you will eventually disregard those you, a priori, disagree with.

 

[Sketcher]

I don't follow the point you're making. If it's about the dress used, then neither do we currently wear a stola, which is what 1Ti 2 mentions specifically (katastolj).

It's not the dress used, it's the contexts themselves in which your examples took place. Saul was an earthly king. Most Christians are not kings. The priestly garments were Old Covenant ministry, which Christ made obsolete. However, every Christian is in the church. And 1 Timothy 2:9-10 addresses how the women are to live regularly, not just at Sunday worship. To clothe one's self with good deeds means to make it part of your day to day life, not just to be good on Sunday. Furthermore, if you're mostly agreeing with what I said about modesty/immodesty earlier, then I would expect that with that, you're agreeing that modesty is necessary for peace between people, or at least that immodesty is bad for it. Since peace between the brothers and sisters in Christ is of high importance, and since the Early Church had a strong element of community life which was more than just gathering on Sundays to worship, this would also necessitate modesty in the day-to-day lives of these Christian women. Which means not showing off. Which very often will mean not going topless.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Mature believers know that women should dress modestly and have a clear idea of how to do that. Any believer who disagrees is showing their spiritual immaturity/rebellion.

Rather than challenge your elders, you should respect them and learn from them.

1 Peter 5:5
5In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”

 

[blackhole]

However, every Christian is in the church. And 1 Timothy 2:9-10 addresses how the women are to live regularly, not just at Sunday worship. To clothe one's self with good deeds means to make it part of your day to day life, not just to be good on Sunday.

1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The woman is to be in silence.

1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

But not at home.

Thus, 1Ti 2:8-12 is speaking about conduct while at a church service.

 

[blackhole]

Since peace between the brothers and sisters in Christ is of high importance, and since the Early Church had a strong element of community life which was more than just gathering on Sundays to worship, this would also necessitate modesty in the day-to-day lives of these Christian women. Which means not showing off. Which very often will mean not going topless.

"very often." So then, you don't disagree with my premise; you merely have qualms about its proper application. Fair enough, and I think we have a lot of agreement.