That's exactly the problem. God's law and the sins do not change over time, we are just finding more and more ways of exposing ourselves to them, when we should be guarding outselves against them.
Digit
Upvote
0
Church Dresscode
- Thread starter Digit
- Start date
- Status
That's exactly the problem. God's law and the sins do not change over time, we are just finding more and more ways of exposing ourselves to them, when we should be guarding outselves against them.
Digit
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
What you wear is a reflection of who you are, how you feel, and how you wish to present yourself.
Asking people to dress differently in church to how they would dress if they were not in church is, therefore, somewhat dubious. You are, effectively, asking people to pretend on Sunday morning to be something they are not.
Asking people to dress differently in church to how they would dress if they were not in church is, therefore, somewhat dubious. You are, effectively, asking people to pretend on Sunday morning to be something they are not.
Upvote
0
SallyNow
Blame it on the SOCK GNOMES!
I don't know about you, but I've taken my fair share of art history courses, which tells a lot about what people were wearing over the years
What many Christian conservatives call "immodest" even today were worn by the poor and the working class in Biblical times, yet it is not mentioned for them to cover what. What is mentioned? To be modest of price, of flashyness, to not make others feel bad about themselves by flaunting wealth and status. Modesty in clothing is not about what you are covering, but how you present yourself no matter what you are wearing. A truly modest person can be modest in just underwear. A truly immodest person can be immodest in a huge oversized, full-length, full-sleeved robe.
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Very well said.
If a church says that it is "come as you are," as mine does, that means what it says. It does not mean "come as you are unless some people in the church think that waht you are wearing is inappropriate."
Upvote
0
Yes but once again, that is about the person in general, it's not about them. It's about the other people around them. When you present yourself in such a way, you are setting an example to the others. The poor had no choice. They were poor, overworked etc. I seriously doubt someone can wear just underwear and present themselves as modest... >_>
Digit
Digit
Upvote
0
May I invite you all to travel to Kansas? Apparently the rest of the country, perhaps the world, is on the greased rail into hell! I've never been in a church where anyone - even teenagers - were immodestly dressed! In almost 40 years!! Is this really such a big problem?
Or are we all more likely thinking of that one person we know who wore short skirts (and we like legs)? Or that one busty woman who just could never find a top that disguised that fact (and we like breasts)?
I've been able to look at a man fully clothed in a three-piece suit and lust after him. I freely admit that it wasn't just an appreciation of something nice God made, but all out sinful lust. (yes, I repented and have turned from that particular sin)
There is a line in this issue where it is no longer my "fault" that someone sins. I can't disguise that I'm a woman nor do I want to. I dress appropriately for church. I wear dresses or pants or whatever is right for the weather and I do my thing. I have changed one thing. I used to like to wear skirts that hit me at my knee. Those are still the most attractive on me, but I don't wear them. Why? Because the chair I sit on in my class is high up enough that you can see up my skirt. I also spend the bulk of the worship service on the platform and the same problem was presented. So now my skirts are almost all mid-calf. I don't have to worry about keeping my knees exactly together or using my coat as a cover.
Or are we all more likely thinking of that one person we know who wore short skirts (and we like legs)? Or that one busty woman who just could never find a top that disguised that fact (and we like breasts)?
I've been able to look at a man fully clothed in a three-piece suit and lust after him. I freely admit that it wasn't just an appreciation of something nice God made, but all out sinful lust. (yes, I repented and have turned from that particular sin)
There is a line in this issue where it is no longer my "fault" that someone sins. I can't disguise that I'm a woman nor do I want to. I dress appropriately for church. I wear dresses or pants or whatever is right for the weather and I do my thing. I have changed one thing. I used to like to wear skirts that hit me at my knee. Those are still the most attractive on me, but I don't wear them. Why? Because the chair I sit on in my class is high up enough that you can see up my skirt. I also spend the bulk of the worship service on the platform and the same problem was presented. So now my skirts are almost all mid-calf. I don't have to worry about keeping my knees exactly together or using my coat as a cover.
Upvote
0
When we talk about sexual modesty, the culture is very relevent to how one ought to dress. The issue with sexual modesty is about not leading others into lust. If the norm in the culture is that women cover certain parts of their anatomy, then men in that culture will often view those body parts as increasingly sexualized. (and vice-versa). When a woman breaks with the norm as chooses to reveal more of these parts than is culturally accepted, then she is, intentionally but perhaps not purposely, asking men to lust after her. That's why I don't think there is a Scripture that says, "Thou shalt cover thy chest, belly, and legs down to thy calves." Often when dealing with issues of respect, the cultural norm (and culture is not defined as just the current trend) is a worthy reference point. All of this is not to say that men are off the hook for looking and lusting. That is certainly sin, as well. But is equally sinful, and perhaps equally lustful for women (or men) to intentionally dress in such a way as to encourage the opposite gender to to lust.
Upvote
0
You are right. People can lust even when not prompted to do so. I will admit that I have even been tempted by women in loose-fitting and very unsexy sweats. But, as with all sin, the issue deals mostly with whats in your heart. The truth is that there are many outfits that are designed and worn with the main goal of exciting sexual attraction. When a person puts the outfit on, they do so knowing that the outfit will make them appear sexier to the opposite gender. This cheapens the person wearing the outfit and every interaction that he or she has with the opposite sex. And to be honest, often the difference between comfortable/attractive clothing and provocative clothing is only an inch or so of exposed flesh.
Incidentally, this isn't a huge problem at my church, but surprisingly it is pretty bad at my school, which touts itself as a very conservative Catholic school.
Upvote
0
Of course it would be a problem at your school...the Catholic School Girl is the very definition of sexy.
There is one little wrinkle that I'd like to add. I live in rural/suburban Kansas. There is one WalMart in my town. That's where I buy the bulk of my clothes. Often there isn't a choice of what to buy. That's true for many of the working poor in America. I've searched high and low for jeans that didn't go down to my pubic bone back when that style was the craze. Other styles just weren't available.
I agree that there is a heart issue, but I don't think we need to bash folks for wanting to look "sexy" when they're really just trying to look fashionable or attractive to themselves. I, for one, dress for comfort for my job and overall attractiveness. Being seen as sexy isn't part of the picture even if someone, somewhere might accuse me of it.
There is one little wrinkle that I'd like to add. I live in rural/suburban Kansas. There is one WalMart in my town. That's where I buy the bulk of my clothes. Often there isn't a choice of what to buy. That's true for many of the working poor in America. I've searched high and low for jeans that didn't go down to my pubic bone back when that style was the craze. Other styles just weren't available.
I agree that there is a heart issue, but I don't think we need to bash folks for wanting to look "sexy" when they're really just trying to look fashionable or attractive to themselves. I, for one, dress for comfort for my job and overall attractiveness. Being seen as sexy isn't part of the picture even if someone, somewhere might accuse me of it.
Upvote
0
Just to clarify, I am in law school, not some prep school with uniforms and such. My school tries to tout itself as a Catholic version of BYU, Regent, or Liberty, but IMO seems to have a very liberal sense of morality compared to its Mormon and Protestant counterparts.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
They tempted you? I think you mean that you found them attractive.
I don't think I could ever bring myself to call a woman "cheap". Ladies wearing clothing which allows body parts to be on the verge of falling out might look silly but the lady is not "cheap" in my way of thinking.
Upvote
0
I guess some women are attractive no matter what they wear. I think it's safe to say that guys in general aren't always super picky about the women that we allow to tempt us into lust. I say that just to support the notion that a man's lust is not always caused by the woman's choice of clothes (or lack thereof)
It cheapens her in the minds of the people looking at her and very likely in her own mind. When guys see her as an object of sexual desire, then she is worth less to those men than if they saw her as God does. In the same way, if the image that she wants to send to men is og an object to be lusted after, she is worth less to herself than she is to God. This is not to say that she becomes objectively cheap, only that her value in her own eyes and in the eyes of others is decreased. I don't think God wants us to see ourselves or each other that way.
Upvote
0
In this we will just have to differ. For me if a woman chose to walk down the street in her sexy underwear I could still not regard her as cheap or with less value even if I thought her behaviour strange.
Upvote
0
If that is true, I would have to say that you are in a small minority of the male population (in a good way.)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Is is possible we have too loose a definition of lusting?
Is it lusting to acknowledge "Wow! He/She's beautiful/hot/handsome/whatever." No, I don't think it is.
Is it lusting to wonder (as a single person): "I wonder if that person is single and how I could meet them." I don't think so here either.
I think this would be lust: seeing an attractive person (no matter what they're wearing) then imagining having sex with them. Or imagining what you'd need to do or say to get them to have sex with you.
I can look at naked people all day and never have a lustful thought. Those thoughts are wrapped up with my husband and not sinful at all.
I just have a hard time believing that every man (and boys, I have just as revved up a sex drive as the best of you!) is drawn into sin quite so easily. Is no one in this day and age taught any kind of self control?
Is it lusting to acknowledge "Wow! He/She's beautiful/hot/handsome/whatever." No, I don't think it is.
Is it lusting to wonder (as a single person): "I wonder if that person is single and how I could meet them." I don't think so here either.
I think this would be lust: seeing an attractive person (no matter what they're wearing) then imagining having sex with them. Or imagining what you'd need to do or say to get them to have sex with you.
I can look at naked people all day and never have a lustful thought. Those thoughts are wrapped up with my husband and not sinful at all.
I just have a hard time believing that every man (and boys, I have just as revved up a sex drive as the best of you!) is drawn into sin quite so easily. Is no one in this day and age taught any kind of self control?
Upvote
0
Uphill Battle
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 47
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, we are not all so easily drawn into sin in this way, although to read some of the posts on this thread one would think that we are.
Upvote
0
I have nothing against nudity. Even babies are born naked!
My question a while ago was simply to ask if there was any line at all that a church might draw regarding who they would allow into a service and the extreem example is totally naked so I gave that as the 'most extreem example'. Going by the responses it seems that people would be fine about naked people attending church.
Naked people in church might be a bit of a distraction. So could someone dressed as a horse.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Uphill Battle
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 47
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
ok, but the way somebody is dressed shouldn't be an issue.
We often forget the purpose of the church.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
