Modest Dress for Women.

[MyChainsAreGone]

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?

You are wrong.

Clearly you don't understand what I was saying. Let me restate...

The Highest standard is to have no requirements which sexually objectify a woman or any of her body parts. And since any rule that focuses on a particular body part is sexually objectifying that body part, then no rule for body part coverage is OK. This is the highest standard because it places the responsibility for sinful thoughts and actions squarely on the one responsible... the one who is lusting in their heart.

Any position blames the woman and absolves the man is a very LOW standard.

You have to stop trying to jump to a final conclusion (which you have shown no capability of doing with any sort of accuracy) and open my post about that and refute the logic directly.

This methodology of trying to guess at the end and refute that is totally ineffective. You have steadfastly refused to directly attack my reasoning. Seems to me that you either are not capable of doing so, or you know deep down that you have no basis in true reason to rebut my arguments. Which is it?

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.

Oh, please...

You KNOW that you can't make ANY points about Modesty from the scriptures so you HAVE TO resort to "what most people think"!!! Are you seriously suggesting that interpreting the scriptures has anything to do with polling modern cultural mores???

That is pathetic, Jermayn.

At least you've had the courage to admit that you aren't even attempting a biblical discussion.

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

So, if the definition of "modesty" is NOT specifically spelled out in the Bible, you're more than willing to be the authoritative source on its definition?

All I can say is that you have proven yourself completely incapable and/or unwilling to use the bible to either make assertions or refute mine.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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?

As you will soon see, this is more about justifying his proclivities and lashing out because he feels it’s the fault of women he has them, and less about what is acceptable for women to wear in the name of Biblical modesty.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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.

Oh my, did we have a break through? Did we *finally* get that men should be able to control themselves and not objectify women?

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

It seems like the point has finally broken through!

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

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?

Hey, @Jermayn ...

You keep bringing up this scenario... a woman going to church naked/topless...

What part of a woman's body is so offensive to God that He would consider it a sin and unacceptable if she were to show up at a worship gathering without those parts covered?

 

[Jermayn]

Oh my, did we have a break through? Did we *finally* get that men should be able to control themselves and not objectify women?

It seems like the point has finally broken through!

Stating the logical conclusion to his arguments doesn't mean I agree with them.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Stating the logical conclusion to his arguments doesn't mean I agree with them.

No, but it does mean that you're not able to deny or pretend you aren’t getting what people are trying to tell you.

It means instead of playing dumb, all of us can now be like “ok, he knows what we are saying which means he’s choosing to be wrong, not that we aren’t communicating clearly.” So it’s not that you don’t get the point, it’s that you don’t care.

 

[Jermayn]

Oh, please...

You KNOW that you can't make ANY points about Modesty from the scriptures so you HAVE TO resort to "what most people think"!!!

That's the thing. I DID make several points about modest that were drawn directly from scripture regarding sensuality, to which you essentially responded "Well, it COULD mean that, but it doesn't. I means what I think it means." Then you go on to accuse me of being authoritative. Really? I'm more inclined to think you're bashing the Google search idea because you know what you're going to find.

You are wrong.

What part of a woman's body is so offensive to God that He would consider it a sin and unacceptable if she were to show up at a worship gathering without those parts covered?

So am I wrong or am I right? You're first statement seems to suggest you WOULD take issue with a bare-breasted woman showing up to one of your church services, then you ask me why I think that would be unacceptable? I understand why you don't like me drawing conclusions about your statements. I don't think you've thought them all the way through yourself. Nevertheless, here is why it would be considered a sin, especially in the context of the OP.

Matthew 18:6-7 (NIV) - "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"

 

[Jermayn]

No, but it does mean that you're not able to deny or pretend you aren’t getting what people are trying to tell you.

It means instead of playing dumb, all of us can now be like “ok, he knows what we are saying which means he’s choosing to be wrong, not that we aren’t communicating clearly.” So it’s not that you don’t get the point, it’s that you don’t care.

I think I've communicated pretty clearly this entire time that I think your position is not only wrong, but rediculous.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I think I've communicated pretty clearly this entire time that I think your position is not only wrong, but rediculous.

Yes, because it requires self-examination and accountability for your actions. We have established you prefer the framework that disregards personal accountability and self improvement in favor of indulging weakness and giving over personal control to others, allowing them to manage you vs people simply managing themselves.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

That's the thing. I DID make several points about modest that were drawn directly from scripture regarding sensuality, to which you essentially responded "Well, it COULD mean that, but it doesn't. I means what I think it means." Then you go on to accuse me of being authoritative. Really? I'm more inclined to think you're bashing the Google search idea because you know what you're going to find.

That didn’t happen.

So am I wrong or am I right? Your first statement seems to suggest you WOULD take issue with a bare-breasted woman showing up to one of your church services, then you ask me why I think that would be unacceptable?

He did not.

I understand why you don't like me drawing conclusions about your statements. I don't think you've thought them all the way through yourself.

I think he knows better what he thinks than you do. Maybe defer to him on what his thoughts are instead of projecting your biases onto him.

Nevertheless, here is why it would be considered a sin, especially in the context of the OP.

Matthew 18:6-7 (NIV) - "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"

Somebody has already explained this passage to you.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

So am I wrong or am I right? You're first statement seems to suggest you WOULD take issue with a bare-breasted woman showing up to one of your church services, then you ask me why I think that would be unacceptable? I understand why you don't like me drawing conclusions about your statements. I don't think you've thought them all the way through yourself. Nevertheless, here is why it would be considered a sin, especially in the context of the OP.

Matthew 18:6-7 (NIV) - "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"

At least you're consistent!

Once again, you misquoted me and then responded to your mis-characterization rather than what I actually said!

You're making straw man an art form!

Let me ask the question again...

What part of a woman's body is so offensive to God that He would consider it a sin and unacceptable if she were to show up at a worship gathering without those parts covered?

I did not ask you why YOU would find it unacceptable. I asked you to name the body parts that GOD is offended by... such that HE would consider it sin and unacceptable.

Your answer needs to start with something like...

• God is offended by a woman's breasts... or
• God considered human genitals to be unclean and indecent... or
• God's design of the woman's body is intended by God to arouse sexual desire in men, and that makes her dangerous to the sexual purity of men when she doesn't cover it... or
• Whatever your answer really is.

So, please try again. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here... these are just sample answers to show you what it might look like if you answered what I asked instead of something I didn't ask.

Honestly, I truly don't know what body parts of a woman you believe God considers to be offensive or sinful or unacceptable or indecent or dangerous or lust-inducing or perverse or sensuous...I don't even which descriptor(s) you would use!

Maybe if you could articulate WHICH body part God doesn't like, we could then learn WHY you believe that. Then you could tell us which scriptures lead you to that conclusion.

I have to assume that you believe your position to be biblical and not just the opinions of a man, or else you would not hold to them so strongly.

Here's your chance to make it clear.

Which body parts?

Which scriptures?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Keep thinking about this scene from one of my favorite movies with one of my favorite characters (Ms Flax) played by one of my favorite people (Cher).

Made me LOL then, makes me LOL now.

 

[Jermayn]

At least you're consistent!

Once again, you misquoted me and then responded to your mis-characterization rather than what I actually said!

You're making straw man an art form!

Let me ask the question again...

What part of a woman's body is so offensive to God that He would consider it a sin and unacceptable if she were to show up at a worship gathering without those parts covered?

I did not ask you why YOU would find it unacceptable. I asked you to name the body parts that GOD is offended by... such that HE would consider it sin and unacceptable.

Your answer needs to start with something like...

• God is offended by a woman's breasts... or
• God considered human genitals to be unclean and indecent... or
• God's design of the woman's body is intended by God to arouse sexual desire in men, and that makes her dangerous to the sexual purity of men when she doesn't cover it... or
• Whatever your answer really is.

So, please try again. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here... these are just sample answers to show you what it might look like if you answered what I asked instead of something I didn't ask.

Honestly, I truly don't know what body parts of a woman you believe God considers to be offensive or sinful or unacceptable or indecent or dangerous or lust-inducing or perverse or sensuous...I don't even which descriptor(s) you would use!

Maybe if you could articulate WHICH body part God doesn't like, we could then learn WHY you believe that. Then you could tell us which scriptures lead you to that conclusion.

I have to assume that you believe your position to be biblical and not just the opinions of a man, or else you would not hold to them so strongly.

Here's your chance to make it clear.

Which body parts?

Which scriptures?

Answer this question first. Why does God hate sensuality?

 

[Jermayn]

Keep thinking about this scene from one of my favorite movies with one of my favorite characters (Ms Flax) played by one of my favorite people (Cher).

Made me LOL then, makes me LOL now.

View attachment 341421

At least we're being honest now.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Answer this question first. Why does God hate sensuality?

Define sensuality.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

At least we're being honest now.

The daughter, Charlotte, is a performative Catholic who understands nothing about the faith and a prude who is harshly critical of her mother, who she feels she is better than, despite she herself being hyper-sexual.

The mother, Rachel, is an immature woman who enjoys goading her daughter because of her daughter’s false superiority.

Rachel is wearing something perfectly acceptable and on her way out on a date, which Charlotte doesn’t support. Rachel asked a question to hype herself up for the date, Charlotte answered in a way deliberately insulting of her mother. Her mother, used to these little barbs, brushes them off by saying the above and going on her date.

In short, what Cher is wearing is objectively fine, the daughter was being a brat who’s baiting a reaction out of her in order to justify her false morality and camouflage her own proclivities, and Cher reacted as all people who are being petty people should act… By blowing them off.

By the end of the movie, the daughter realized that her hyper-sexuality is something she had to be accountable for and she had to stop hiding behind performative religion and blaming her mother to make changes. The mother realizes the impact of her being a person with high walls and a fear of being too emotionally open and makes changes to become a better person as well, which heals both of their relationships.

Again, in short, the moral is your impulses are your problem to manage, not somebody else’s fault. Be an accountable grown up, make changes, and you will grow as a person.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Answer this question first. Why does God hate sensuality?

He doesn’t.

 

[Jermayn]

Define sensuality.

Koine Greek: ἀσέλγεια (aselgeia). This word is often translated into English as "sensuality," "licentiousness," or "lasciviousness." It refers to a lack of self-control, indulgence in sexual excess, or unrestrained immoral behavior.

English: "Sensuality" generally refers to the enjoyment, expression, or pursuit of physical, especially sexual, pleasure. It is often associated with a heightened sensitivity to sensual or aesthetic pleasure, which includes not just sexual activities but also enjoyment derived from the senses, such as touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

 

[Jermayn]

The daughter, Charlotte, is a performative Catholic who understands nothing about the faith and a prude who is harshly critical of her mother, who she feels she is better than, despite she herself being hyper-sexual.

The mother, Rachel, is an immature woman who enjoys goading her daughter because of her daughter’s false superiority.

Rachel is wearing something perfectly acceptable and on her way out on a date, which Charlotte doesn’t support. Rachel asked a question to hype herself up for the date, Charlotte answered in a way deliberately insulting of her mother. Her mother, used to these little barbs, brushes them off by saying the above and going on her date.

In short, what Cher is wearing is objectively fine, the daughter was being a brat who’s baiting a reaction out of her in order to justify her false morality and camouflage her own proclivities, and Cher reacted as all people who are being petty people should act… By blowing them off.

By the end of the movie, the daughter realized that her hyper-sexuality is something she had to be accountable for and she had to stop hiding behind performative religion and blaming her mother to make changes. The mother realizes the impact of her being a person with high walls and a fear of being too emotionally open and makes changes to become a better person as well, which heals both of their relationships.

Again, in short, the moral is your impulses are your problem to manage, not somebody else’s fault. Be an accountable grown up, make changes, and you will grow as a person.

The movie is about a serial adulteress with a daughter who decides to leave Catholicism to become a Greek pagan at the end. The only moral in that story is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

He doesn’t.

Not sure whether to laugh or be sad. Maybe you should try READING all those verses I posted on sensuality.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Not sure whether to laugh or be sad. Maybe you should try READING all those verses I posted on sensuality.

Maybe you should give them a gander. You copy and paste them, but don’t don’t seem to understand them.

The movie is about a serial adulteress with a daughter who decides to leave Catholicism to become a Greek pagan at the end. The only moral in that story is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Not surprised you don’t get the movie… It’s about women.

She was not an adulteress, serial or otherwise. She found out a person she was dating was married at the beginning and promptly dumped him. She wasn’t married and neither was Lou.

Charlotte was not Catholic, nor did she become a “Greek pagan.” She was Jewish for the entirety of the movie, pretending to be devout Catholic when she clearly was not.

Not sure whether to laugh or be sad. Maybe you should try READING all those verses I posted on sensuality.

Are you married?