Modesty among clothing and other areas

TheDag · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Again modesty is about serving others. Not putting a stumbling block before other people.

Nope that is your opinion not one supported by scripture you posted to make that assertion.
Once again not putting stumbling block in others paths is not done by a blanket rule according to scripture. It is on a case by case basis. It also implies that you have spoken to people involved to let them know it is an issue for you. That is your responsibility.

Once again I ask have you plucked your eye out as instructed by the bible when you have stumbled by seeing bikinis? After all that is clear instruction compared to how you are interpreting passages.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
so your saying that you yourself know for certain what a passage means, and your personal revelation is more important than church fathers for example, or known scholarly resources? That is a very dangerous place to be. As you yourself are not an authority, do you have a doctor of divinity? If not then I am not saying that you can't be correct, I am saying that if you view is rare, or no one else also has come up with the idea, that is most likely is not accurate. Cults use this mentality, the church is wrong, they interpret it wrong, all pastors are wrong, and I am right. It's arrogant and dangerous, the Bible says "in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom." Proverbs 11:14. That means that if God is saying something, most likely you are not the only one He has said it to. And to provide commentaries is a good way to compare something that in debate, is only our opinion, or if it was also a known viewpoint among many evangelicals for example. So while yes it sounds spiritual to say that "what matters is discerning what God meant." All by yourself and trusting your own wisdom to do so, it violates the Bible as far as proverbs 11:14. So I hope that makes sense. I will address both your logic and your post, but I will do so using external evidences so you don't think I am making it up.

Wow... are you even reading anything I've written?

Where have I yet asserted ANYTHING about what any given passage means?

Where have I given any "personal revelation"?

Where have I presumed to "know better" than scholars?

The fact is that MY interpretation and YOUR interpretation and THEIR (scholars'/commentators') interpretation are ALL subject to the same sort of scrutiny for their validity (as viable and possibly accurate) interpretations...

Ask the question, "How closely does this interpretation align with what the original authors intended to communicate to the original audience?"

If My/Your/Their interpretation gets high marks on that question, then My/Your/Their understanding of a given passage is highly viable and a candidate for the true "correct" interpretation (that which God intended for us to understand). If My/Your/Their interpretation gets low marks on that question, then My/Your/Their interpretation is probably not viable to consider to be the correct interpretation.

"Hermeneutics" is the methodology by which we can discern the answer to the question relative to a passage. When I/You/They follow a sound hermeneutical process, I/You/They can have some measure of confidence in the validity of the resulting interpretation. But if My/Your/Their application of hermeneutics is flawed, then the resulting interpretation is likely flawed.

And Hermeneutics as a discipline is not about people applying their personal opinions to a passage, but it is an effort to be as absolutely objective as possible. It's much like what judges lawyers do in attempting to understand what a law means and how to apply it... the court has to discern what the actual intent of the law was (whether they like the law /meaning or not).

So... EVERY interpretation is open game to review for its hermeneutical accuracy.

That's why I have consistently and intentionally avoided asserting what any passage means.

That's why I have consistently rebuffed what YOU have asserted that a passage means... because it fails the litmus-test question above. And my comments about your position have been focused on demonstrating their weakness as a viable interpretation.

By contrast, you have utterly avoided any real effort to demonstrate that my analysis of your hemeneutics is mistaken. Instead, you have presumed positions that I have intentionally not asserted, and you have attacked me personally.

That's called "Ad Hominem" and it's literally an avoidance of true logical arguments in a debate/discussion.

If I have made hermeneutical mistakes in anything I have said, then please, apply the hermeneutical principles more accurately than I have and demonstrate my errors.

I reassert, your position on "modesty" is unbiblical... because everything that you've asserted does NOT arise out of accurately applied hermeneutics... rather, you are guilty of Eisegesis... inserting your own meaning into a passage... which is not what the original author intended.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
So your logic is that because modesty changes with culture, that God therefore does not require modesty at all? In other words we can all walk around nude? Is this really the standpoint you wish to debate?

You speak of that question as if it were a foregone conclusion.

I used to think that as well. Then I actually honestly examined the question according to God's Word... and I found that the biblical teaching that I expected to find in God's Word about nudity simply was not there!!

So, could I biblically defend that proposition? Absolutely?

Do I want to? No... certainly not with you, because you have not demonstrated that you are even slightly open to persuasion in response to careful exegesis and honest evaluation of the biblical texts.

Suffice it to say that the complete absence of a clear command in the bible that we wear clothing is an incomprehensible omission... given the fact that every human who has ever lived on the planet would need to know what God requires regarding their own nudity!

Christians today seem content to ADD a command to God's Word as if it were a divine "oversight"... that God neglected to include it. I am not willing to do so. Why would anyone do that?

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

TheDag said:
Nope that is your opinion not one supported by scripture you posted to make that assertion.
Once again not putting stumbling block in others paths is not done by a blanket rule according to scripture. It is on a case by case basis. It also implies that you have spoken to people involved to let them know it is an issue for you. That is your responsibility.

Once again I ask have you plucked your eye out as instructed by the bible when you have stumbled by seeing bikinis? After all that is clear instruction compared to how you are interpreting passages.

I can see your a little upset, we'll all I can say is pray and read the Bible. But I won't continue discussions when they get heated. This is something you have to work out with the Lord. I have posted a half dozen verses about loving our neighbor and serving others. It is up to you if you want to follow them.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
You speak of that question as if it were a foregone conclusion.

I used to think that as well. Then I actually honestly examined the question according to God's Word... and I found that the biblical teaching that I expected to find in God's Word about nudity simply was not there!!

So, could I biblically defend that proposition? Absolutely?

Do I want to? No... certainly not with you, because you have not demonstrated that you are even slightly open to persuasion in response to careful exegesis and honest evaluation of the biblical texts.

Suffice it to say that the complete absence of a clear command in the bible that we wear clothing is an incomprehensible omission... given the fact that every human who has ever lived on the planet would need to know what God requires regarding their own nudity!

Christians today seem content to ADD a command to God's Word as if it were a divine "oversight"... that God neglected to include it. I am not willing to do so. Why would anyone do that?

Sir so far the only source yiu quoted was from CS Lewis which I actually agreed with, other than that you have only posted your oppinion. We cannot see your personal bible study time, as we are not there, so you have to demonstrate it. And the fact that you don't want to prove that the Bible is completely silent on nudity sort of reveals you can't do it. But I could be wrong.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

Dag...

THANK YOU!! for the point by point response to my bullet points! I really appreciate that!

Now let me respond.

To start with, my assertions were not what position we should take on any of the points... but rather that the bible literally does not specify any position on ANY of the points.

Keep that in mind... and note that not once were you able to refute that assertion.

TheDag said:
What body parts must be covered from sight

Click to expand...

Yes & no. The bible does give direction to that although it does not name the specific body parts. Just like you assume that readers would be aware of games and baths you should also assume the original readers knew what it meant.

That's a really tough sell, Dag. God told his people to not sit where a menstruating woman has sat. He told them to take a shovel with them to bury their own dung. But never told people to make sure they bathed or nursed or practiced personal elimination hidden from others' view?

My comment about the games is historically demonstrable and therefore reasonable assertion. But there's absolutely no basis for assuming that all humanity holds a consensus on which body parts to cover.

Your response, however, actually confirms by assertion... that the Bible doesn't say what body parts must be covered from sight.

TheDag said:
That our unclad bodies are indecent

Click to expand...

That was never claimed so this point is irrelevant.

No, but it is the unspoken assumption behind ALL "modesty" rules... why don't we require people to cover the face? the hands? the feet? Easy... because they are not "indecent" to be exposed. But breasts and genitals? Yes... we consider them "indecent" to be exposed. No one claimed it, but as an assumption, it pervades the thread with all who promote "modesty" as a moral requirement.

And again... you could not refute my assertion that the bible never tells us our bodies are indecent.

TheDag said:
At what age a son must never again see his mother's body (or daughter/father)

At what age a mother must never again see her son's body (or father/daughter)

Click to expand...

That it's OK for spouses to see each other unclad

Click to expand...

Highly debateable. No it doesn't state it in those words but is very much implied. Unless of course you believe the bible instructs couples to only have sex when blindfolded!

My point here is this... babies boys can see their mother's breasts... even though the Bible doesn't actively permit it. We can assume that a baby boy will eventually be weaned... but the bible never tells that he can no longer view his mother's breasts when he is weaned or any other time.

And my point with the "spouse" is to point out that even where our modern scruples allow nudity, the bible does not specify those contexts.

It's much like the "doctor" point... we in our minds allow exposure to doctors, while forbidding all other non-spousal exposure. This "exemption" is likewise missing in God's Word.

The fact is that if the exemptions were actually stated, it would do a lot towards making the case that exposure to anyone else is forbidden... But instead we find that not only is body-exposure never forbidden in the Bible, so also the commonly accepted exceptions are not found in the Bible.

TheDag said:
That avoiding the sight of unclad human bodies will prevent lust

Click to expand...

First it should be clear what lust is and isn't. Lust is not sinful. What you lust after determines if it is sinful. In the passage that says whoever looks at a woman lustfully has committed adultery in his heart uses the same word as the passage where Jesus says I have earnestly desired to share the passover with you.

Fair point.

And Kudos for the accuracy of your comments about the Greek word translated "lust."

But my point about the bible never telling us that clothing will promote moral purity (prevent lust) still stands.

TheDag said:
To always wear clothing

Click to expand...

That was never claimed so this point is irrelevant

True...

But again, pointing out that the bible never says it... that was my point. And people who preach "modesty" would never go to a public place and go nude... so perhaps unstated... but definitely believed by the same. Therefore, not irrelevant.

TheDag said:
To swim with clothing

Click to expand...

The bible also does not tell us to go to the toilet. Therefore this point is irrelevant.

Actually, the bible does give some instruction about defecation... but no matter.

Again, you affirm my assertion. But is it really irrelevant? I don't think so... since the OP specifically posted pictures of his family's swimming attire to kick of the entire discussion.

TheDag said:
Yet, you hold positions on all of those points with zero biblical support... and you hold those standards as high as (perhaps higher than) you hold any other biblical/theological position.

Click to expand...

Interesting comment for someone who has not read the entire thread. How much did you read? Is it possible that you are making assumptions about the position of createdtoworship because you have not seen all of his posts on the topic? I would be careful before making absolute statements about his views.

Yes, I admitted that I had not read everything... but my assertion (zero biblical support) is what I stand by. And I gave evidence in my post...

Does the OP author have positions on all the points I articulated? Yes.
Does the Bible articulate any position on any of those points? No.

I invited the man to prove me wrong on any of those points. He has not even attempted to do so. I appreciate your attention to the points, but you have on each point either confirmed my assertion (not in the bible) or not offered any evidence contrary to that assertion.

TheDag said:
There's only ONE verse in ALL THE BIBLE that commands "modesty," yet even that very verse does not enlighten us at all about the any of the things above (what part of the body to cover).

Click to expand...

Actually two that directly mention it but several more that talk about it indirectly

Yes, two that "mention" "modesty," but only one that "commands" it.

And the other "mention" of "modesty" is a poor translation of the text... there's literally no word in Greek for "modesty" as we typically use it in English, and the word in the second passage is not even remotely related to the one used in 1 Timothy 2:9.

Again, thanks for your attention to my points.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Sir so far the only source yiu quoted was from CS Lewis which I actually agreed with, other than that you have only posted your oppinion. We cannot see your personal bible study time, as we are not there, so you have to demonstrate it. And the fact that you don't want to prove that the Bible is completely silent on nudity sort of reveals you can't do it. But I could be wrong.

Indeed you are wrong.

First of all, I have not actually posted my opinions about any passage yet... I have only posted solid evidence that your opinions about the bible's meaning with reference to modesty are logically and exegetically indefensible. And for the record, for me to know that and to be able to accurately articulate it requires a LOT of bible study time...

I quoted C.S. Lewis for the sole purpose of requesting your opinion about his opinions. I did not present him as "the authority" on the matter, nor even as a "commentator."

You want to see some of my biblical studies?

Sure....

Rightly Dividing 1 Tim. 2:9 - a careful examination of Paul's instructions to women about "modesty"
Nakedness in the OT - a word study on the meaning of ervah (nakedness) in the Old Testament.
Squeamish Translating - Evidence that modern Bible translators have been squeamish when translating any passage that may portray nudity in common society in a neutral light
You Can't Do That! - Ways that many Christians abuse/misuse/misinterpret/misapply various passages of Scripture in an effort to control or restrict the behavior of other Christians (and yes, it includes the "stumbling" passages).

There are a number of other articles I've posted there on Scribd... so have at it.

And... feel free to read my writings at MyChainsAreGone.org and the associated blog site.

You are welcome to examine any of my writing and show my anywhere that I have not correctly applied sound exegetical/hermeneutical principles to the biblical text. Honestly... show me an error and I'll be thankful to you for helping me make my writing better!

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
Indeed you are wrong.

First of all, I have not actually posted my opinions about any passage yet... I have only posted solid evidence that your opinions about the bible's meaning with reference to modesty are logically and exegetically indefensible. And for the record, for me to know that and to be able to accurately articulate it requires a LOT of bible study time...

I quoted C.S. Lewis for the sole purpose of requesting your opinion about his opinions. I did not present him as "the authority" on the matter, nor even as a "commentator."

You want to see some of my biblical studies?

Sure....

Rightly Dividing 1 Tim. 2:9 - a careful examination of Paul's instructions to women about "modesty"
Nakedness in the OT - a word study on the meaning of ervah (nakedness) in the Old Testament.
Squeamish Translating - Evidence that modern Bible translators have been squeamish when translating any passage that may portray nudity in common society in a neutral light
You Can't Do That! - Ways that many Christians abuse/misuse/misinterpret/misapply various passages of Scripture in an effort to control or restrict the behavior of other Christians (and yes, it includes the "stumbling" passages).

There are a number of other articles I've posted there on Scribd... so have at it.

And... feel free to read my writings at MyChainsAreGone.org and the associated blog site.

You are welcome to examine any of my writing and show my anywhere that I have not correctly applied sound exegetical/hermeneutical principles to the biblical text. Honestly... show me an error and I'll be thankful to you for helping me make my writing better!

Again scribd is not the Bible. So the articles you post are not scripture itself. Like I have said you have not posted any verses reproving my interpretation of scripture, so therefore, it's just mans wisdom and not God's wisdom. So at this point I can say that this topic is done. If you wish to talk Bible by all means I am game. But opinions are just that, opinions. I have posted numerous verses about not stumbling others and recieved no reply from you two. I have posted it more than three times. Yet all you say is "your wrong" or it is my opinion or other. But you don't realize you are using your own opinion to do so. So at this point I will just resort to the scriptures, if you wish to debate scripture go ahead. If you wish to copy and past sections from those articles, by all means go ahead. But anyone can post to scribd, I think I have some articles on there as well, and I don't have a degree or anything.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Again scribd is not the Bible. So the articles you post are not scripture itself. Like I have said you have not posted any verses reproving my interpretation of scripture, so therefore, it's just mans wisdom and not God's wisdom. So at this point I can say that this topic is done. If you wish to talk Bible by all means I am game. But opinions are just that, opinions.

My goodness... you aren't bothering to listen or think at all..

Scribd.com... It's a place where anyone can post their own writings. Right.

THAT'S MY OWN WRITING THAT I POINTED YOU TO!!!

You wanted to see my bible-studies... so I pointed you to a place where you can read exactly what I have written relative to the Bible studies that I've done.

For crying out loud READ one of them!

Like why not read what I've written about Rightly Dividing 1 Tim. 2:9... something rather germane to this entire discussion!

Tell me after reading it if I have misused or avoided the use of Scripture!

createdtoworship said:
I have posted numerous verses about not stumbling others and recieved no reply from you two. I have posted it more than three times.

I DID respond to your assertions about "stumbling." Did you not read it?? See THIS POST.

Furthermore, I gave you an entire article that totally dismantles your assertions about "stumbling"...

You Can't Do That!

Go for it. Read my treatment of God's Word in that article (I wrote it myself)... tell me where I have made ANY mistake with my treatment or interpretation of the text.

createdtoworship said:
Yet all you say is "your wrong" or it is my opinion or other. But you don't realize you are using your own opinion to do so. So at this point I will just resort to the scriptures, if you wish to debate scripture go ahead. If you wish to copy and past sections from those articles, by all means go ahead. But anyone can post to scribd, I think I have some articles on there as well, and I don't have a degree or anything.

And when it comes to refuting your posts, I admit, I did not always point to scripture verses to refute you, I simply declared that you have NO SCRIPTURE to base your claims upon. Would you seriously expect me to quote the entire bible here in a post in order to demonstrate that your claims never show up at all?

If you give me a scripture supporting your interpretations about modesty, then I can refute it (and I have... again see THIS POST)

When I have declared that you have NO scriptural evidence for your position, you have failed to provide any solid biblical support for your position. When I have refuted what little you have offered biblically, you have failed to give one shred of evidence that I have been mistaken in my approach to God's Word.

That is NOT just a matter of "My opinion"... because I have backed up everything I've asserted with either scripture, or the assertion that YOU have NO Scriptural support (something that can't be "proven" without quoting the entire bible here).

You keep ranting about MY opinions, when I truly have offered very few positions about what any of these passages mean, I have focused on showing you and everyone else that the interpretations you are proposing are biblically indefensible.

You want to hear my positions? Read the articles I wrote and published on Scribd.com!!

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

@createdtoworship wanted me to give biblical proof that the Bible doesn't support his assertions about modesty.

So, by quoting the bible, let me prove it.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...
...
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
(Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 - NASB)
(omitting all passages that do not support the "modesty" teaching except for the first and last verses of the quoted passage of Scripture)

There. I'm done.

If you believe I have incorrectly omitted some passages that support your claims about modesty, then by all means point them out to me. But I've read the book from cover to cover. I've pursued a study of this exact topic. And that "modesty" thing you're teaching just isn't in the book.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
@createdtoworship wanted me to give biblical proof that the Bible doesn't support his assertions about modesty.

So, by quoting the bible, let me prove it.

There. I'm done.

If you believe I have incorrectly omitted some passages that support your claims about modesty, then by all means point them out to me. But I've read the book from cover to cover. I've pursued a study of this exact topic. And that "modesty" thing you're teaching just isn't in the book.

those verses also do not mention pepsi. Does that mean it does not exist? Further more, just because modesty is omitted in one verse does not mean it is not mentioned elsewhere. The only way you could prove the Bible does not talk about modesty is to refute modesty using the Bible, and you have not done that. So by all means quote those articles, cut and paste them, whatever you need to bring your argument out in the open, but I have not seen you quote any verses other than just now, and it obviously was not a honest quote of verses. It was dismantled in a few minutes.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
My goodness... you aren't bothering to listen or think at all..

Scribd.com... It's a place where anyone can post their own writings. Right.

THAT'S MY OWN WRITING THAT I POINTED YOU TO!!!

You wanted to see my bible-studies... so I pointed you to a place where you can read exactly what I have written relative to the Bible studies that I've done.

For crying out loud READ one of them!

Like why not read what I've written about Rightly Dividing 1 Tim. 2:9... something rather germane to this entire discussion!

Tell me after reading it if I have misused or avoided the use of Scripture!

I DID respond to your assertions about "stumbling." Did you not read it?? See THIS POST.

Furthermore, I gave you an entire article that totally dismantles your assertions about "stumbling"...

You Can't Do That!

Go for it. Read my treatment of God's Word in that article (I wrote it myself)... tell me where I have made ANY mistake with my treatment or interpretation of the text.

And when it comes to refuting your posts, I admit, I did not always point to scripture verses to refute you, I simply declared that you have NO SCRIPTURE to base your claims upon. Would you seriously expect me to quote the entire bible here in a post in order to demonstrate that your claims never show up at all?

If you give me a scripture supporting your interpretations about modesty, then I can refute it (and I have... again see THIS POST)

When I have declared that you have NO scriptural evidence for your position, you have failed to provide any solid biblical support for your position. When I have refuted what little you have offered biblically, you have failed to give one shred of evidence that I have been mistaken in my approach to God's Word.

That is NOT just a matter of "My opinion"... because I have backed up everything I've asserted with either scripture, or the assertion that YOU have NO Scriptural support (something that can't be "proven" without quoting the entire bible here).

You keep ranting about MY opinions, when I truly have offered very few positions about what any of these passages mean, I have focused on showing you and everyone else that the interpretations you are proposing are biblically indefensible.

You want to hear my positions? Read the articles I wrote and published on Scribd.com!!

copy them here, or upload them to google drive and share a link so we can download and read them. I would love to do a study that way, but I don't have scribd.

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
copy them here, or upload them to google drive and share a link so we can download and read them. I would love to do a study that way, but I don't have scribd.

I'm sorry... I thought anyone could read them that way.

They are a bit too long and detailed for a post within this thread. Let me see if I can figure out how to post them somewhere for you. Meanwhile, you could read the articles at MyChainsAreGone.org... and I challenge you to really reevaluate the view you hold about the human body.

I like to say it this way...

People sinfully view the human body (inappropriate content) because they have a sinful view of the human body.

Sadly, the church has been teaching the sinful view of the body for hundreds of years. The true path to freedom from inappropriate content is freedom from that inappropriate contentographic view of the body... and for the record, it is the inappropriate contentographic view of the body which empowers the false "modesty" standards that the church has been proclaiming for years.

And you are welcome to challenge any of the biblical assertions made on that site here... even if I didn't write it myself.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
I'm sorry... I thought anyone could read them that way.

They are a bit too long and detailed for a post within this thread. Let me see if I can figure out how to post them somewhere for you. Meanwhile, you could read the articles at MyChainsAreGone.org... and I challenge you to really reevaluate the view you hold about the human body.

I like to say it this way...

People sinfully view the human body (inappropriate content) because they have a sinful view of the human body.

Sadly, the church has been teaching the sinful view of the body for hundreds of years. The true path to freedom from inappropriate content is freedom from that inappropriate contentographic view of the body... and for the record, it is the inappropriate contentographic view of the body which empowers the false "modesty" standards that the church has been proclaiming for years.

And you are welcome to challenge any of the biblical assertions made on that site here... even if I didn't write it myself.

inappropriate contentography does not come from viewing the body sinfully, that is not biblical. inappropriate contentography comes from lust, lust comes from seeing things we desire and furthermore lust comes from seeing scantily clad women ( for me). One is correct that clothing them does not cure lust because it is a sin problem. One thing I disagree with your articles is that I didn't see a lot of verses on the website, nor did I see the articles you mention unless they are webpages not downloads but the one I read said that victory comes from body acceptance and sewing the body God's way. No that's not how it happens victory happens from repentance. Yes addictions are tricky and one need to feed his mind tactics to overcome inappropriate content. But those are readily available on you tube if you just search. I have some links that may help your ministry. But let's tackle the articles first. I assume I could not access because I didn't have an account but I will again later.

Hazelelponi · Jan 9, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Usually, not always. But usually if someone is judging me. There is some truth to it. For example everyone at work makes fun of how slow I am. They don't tell me outright. But they mock and make little jokes about it. My wife has mentioned it. I know it is the case. But when they mention it, I know it. And if there is something I can do to fix it. I do. But in this case it is part of my personality. Yes I can and do go faster, but I don't believe it's God's will for me to be anxious. God has provided a job where I can use brain work. Work smarter not harder. And I choose to do that. But I do not say that others are judging me. Because there is truth to what is being said. They may not say it in the kindest way, but I accept the criticism. How does this apply to people judging women on attire. Well what we wear does say something about our heart. When I was in high school I went to the gym every day, and I got fairly fit. And I would buy these fitness tank tops with huge arm holes and neck holes, I mean you could see my chest fully through the sides. I was an on fire christian in youth leadership. But at the same time I had purity problems. Fast forward twenty years. I had been dieting and I lost about sixty pounds and started feeling sexier. I was thinking, I can go to the gym again and get ripped. But I was not doing it so my wife would think I am attractive, I was doing it for others, people at work or church to think I was attractive. I did it for a few weeks. Then I realized my heart was stumbling. I was thinking unpure thoughts towards my sisters in Christ. I realized it was the gym. I was fine before going to the gym. So I stopped it. I didn't stop all excersize just the muscle building. Those unpure thoughts went away almost instantly. I was humbling myself, realizing that that was all just vanity. Now there is nothing wrong with fitness, if you can do it for the glory of God and to be a witness, like tim tebow and others. That is great. But I was not mentally mature enough to do it. I was thinking about unpure motives. So I just stopped it and the temptation stopped. Sometimes we have to discipline our bodies into subjection 1 Corinthians 9:27. Discipline is an interesting concept. Since I have dieted I have seen myself lose more weight than others at the gym. I am not saying that that is the correct method for everyone. You can do both. But hitting the gym, running, doing all the cardio will not help you if you are eating poorly due to lack of discipline. The bible talks about gluttony. It's covetousness. now we can reward ourselves and have treats every once in awhile, thanksgiving, christmas, newyears. Birthday parties, etc. But if we lack discipline in our eating, it does not matter how much we excersize our caloric intake is not burned off. I realized that in forsaking the gym I thought I was sacrificing for God, and I was. But I realized that God developed in me a discipline. When in full swing I can lose 2 pounds a week, any week I want to. So during christmas I gain five pounds, then I just hit my diet and it's gone in a month. So I have freedom now. I don't have to go hours and lift weights, I have energy. IF I want extra cardio, I have an eliptical. I realize that small weight lifting is good if you wish to keep your muscle. But for me heavy weights is a temptation. My mind is not in it. But I just wanted to share that when you give something to God, He blesses your effort. I noticed that from family pictures, there is not a whole lot of difference from my high school pictures from having bulked muscle and today. Sure I am a little skinnier. But who cares. It does not really matter what we sacrifice for God, it could be financial, it could be our eating (fasting), it could be an activity (going to the gym), it could be fasting from too much TV and reading the Bible instead, it could be turning off the secular music for a while and listening to worship. Whatever you offer to the Lord He will accept that offering as sweet smelling aroma in His presence. And he will pay extraordinary high rewards as a result.

I absolutely 100% believe in fitness for our best possible health. If we can't manage to get off the couch then how are we witnessing for the Lord? I think God gave us these bodies to use to the best of our abilities for His glory..

Now I'm disabled, but even still, being in the best possible health I can be is still something I see as very important - the better health I can be in, the more I believe God can use me in His service.

That said, modesty varies person to person. Prior to becoming a saved, Spirit filled believer modesty was extremely important to me - so much so my daughter at one point as a teenager went into a complete rebellion, and there came a day she had borrowed clothing from a friend and tried sneaking out of the house in it one morning for school.

I actually caught her and found myself forcefully dragging her back in the house - and Lord only knows how many times she changed after getting inside the schoolhouse..

Now that I'm a saved Christian I think modesty is important, but modesty is also something that comes from within, not just without..

I feel there is a freedom in Christianity for a balance in dress, one can still be reasonably modern while still holding to a modest ideal and extremes in modesty are unnecessary.

So I think most important is to find that balance between modesty and modern, and not go to such extremes that our children get lost some where in an abundance of rules, because they really can...

But modest dress is something I see as important.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
I absolutely 100% believe in fitness for our best possible health. If we can't manage to get off the couch then how are we witnessing for the Lord? I think God gave us these bodies to use to the best of our abilities for His glory..

Now I'm disabled, but even still, being in the best possible health I can be is still something I see as very important - the better health I can be in, the more I believe God can use me in His service.

That said, modesty varies person to person. Prior to becoming a saved, Spirit filled believer modesty was extremely important to me - so much so my daughter at one point as a teenager went into a complete rebellion, and there came a day she had borrowed clothing from a friend and tried sneaking out of the house in it one morning for school.

I actually caught her and found myself forcefully dragging her back in the house - and Lord only knows how many times she changed after getting inside the schoolhouse..

Now that I'm a saved Christian I think modesty is important, but modesty is also something that comes from within, not just without..

I feel there is a freedom in Christianity for a balance in dress, one can still be reasonably modern while still holding to a modest ideal and extremes in modesty are unnecessary.

So I think most important is to find that balance between modesty and modern, and not go to such extremes that our children get lost some where in an abundance of rules, because they really can...

But modest dress is something I see as important.

I agree, there is a balancertain somewhere. If you kids feel you are overbearing with religion and don't stress the personal relationship.with Jesus then yes they will rebel. Kids do much better in college when they don't just have religion but have a relationship with Jesus.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
You are welcome to debate anything I've asserted. And please note, I have NOT said that something was good to do or to be encouraged simply because the bible does not forbid it, so please respond to what I actually said.

I said that the bible doesn't direct us to wear clothing while swimming. That statement is incontrovertibly true. Or can you demonstrate otherwise?

I never said that a parent should "expose" themselves to children. I only said that the Bible doesn't tell us when it's no longer permitted for a son to see his mother's breasts... I'm making the assumption that you would allow a baby boy to see his mother's breasts in order to nurse! I'm also assuming that it would be OK for a non-nursing toddler to see a baby sibling nurse at his mother's breasts. My point is that the bible never tells us when a toddler is too old to ever see his mother's breasts anymore. That too is incontrovertibly true.

What this means, of course, is that any assertion you might want to make on these points is NOT truly biblical. I did NOT say what our position on these matters should be in light of that fact, but before we come to ANY position about a moral issue/absolute, we must first acknowledge what is NOT in the bible. Are you willing to do that and concede my point?

If you look at exactly what Paul said, he does not prescribe clothing at all... (just acknowledging what's NOT there)... He only prescribes "good works." Paul does forbid certain kinds of attire, however.

But there's something else... the root word in Greek that is here translated "modest" is "kosmos"... a word that means "order" and is almost always translated as "world" in the NT (in the noun form). As an adjective, it means "ordered" or "organized" or perhaps "appropriate" or "purposeful." What it certainly does NOT mean is "adequately covered."

For the record, the NASB translates the word as "proper" rather than "modest." This certainly suggests that the Greek "kosmios" (adj) doesn't mean "modest" as we think of it in English.

Shortly after this passage, Paul uses the same Greek word as an adjective in 1 Timothy 3:2 ... there it is translated as "good behavior" (KJV) or "respectable" (NASB).

What does this mean? Well, I'm not asserting a position... I'm just observing facts about the passage. And these facts do NOT support your assertion that the bible teaches "modesty" as you have defined it... since this is the ONLY verse in ALL the bible that even remotely supports a biblical teaching about "modesty."

Can you acknowledge the accuracy of these assertions?

I read that verse and I don't see what you say that it says.

And you, O desolate one, what will you do?
Although you dress in scarlet,
Although you decorate yourself with ornaments of gold,
Although you enlarge your eyes with paint,
In vain you make yourself beautiful.
Your lovers despise you;
They seek your life. (NASB)
That makes no assertion about what harlots wear. The word "harlot" or anything like it does not appear in this verse nor in the context.

Granted. But that says absolutely nothing about what a woman does or does not wear.

You MIGHT attempt to make a case that a discrete woman should always be dressed and dressed "modestly"... but this verse does NOT assert that. You can't assume your point when you're trying to prove your point.

No, that's not what that verse says...

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (NASB)

And by Paul's definition of "stumbling block," causing someone to "stumble" means that they JOIN you in doing an activity (that's not truly wrong) that they still--in their weakness their knowledge as a Christian--believe is wrong, and in so doing, they violate their conscience.

To use "skinny dipping" as an illustration, it goes like this...

I decide to go skinny dipping, because I know that God doesn't forbid it and I know that it's not morally wrong.

You are my brother, and you are still "weak" in your faith because you still believe that this activity actually IS wrong in your own heart and mind...

But, you reason within yourself and seeing me gleefully splashing in the water sans clothing, you decide that, "Well, since David is doing it, it must be OK... cuz he's such a "strong" Christian.

So, not having fully resolved the question biblically in your own heart, you decide to strip down and go skinny dipping with me.

CONCLUSION: I have just caused to you "stumble" because you violated your conscience to skinny dip.

Read the passage carefully... you'll see that's precisely the application of Romans 14.

But as soon as you invoke "causing a brother to stumble," you are actually admitting that the actual activity in question is NOT morally wrong by itself! Because, if something IS actually morally wrong, then this passage would NOT apply at all! If skinny dipping is just wrong, then it literally doesn't matter what you think about it, and it doesn't mean that you are "weak"... it means that I'm just plain wrong to do it!

This doesn't support your assertion that the bible teaches modesty at all... because it assumes the point you're trying to prove.

So... you have to first demonstrate that the bible teaches that "immodesty" is "evil" before you can apply this verse. But you don't even need this verse if you can demonstrate that immodesty is evil by means of some other passages.

SUMMARY:

The use of 1 Timothy 2:9 is woefully inadequate to support the idea that the bible teaches "modesty" as you have defined it, for the verse itself doesn't prescribe any sort of clothing, and the Greek word translated "modest" simply does NOT mean what we mean by "modest" today.

The Jeremiah 30:4 -- verse does not assert what you claimed it asserted.

The Proverbs 11:22 -- verse does not speak at all to attire or "modesty," but to "discretion."

Galatian 5:13 -- you misquoted it.

Romans 14 can only be applied to activities that are NOT morally wrong.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 can only be invoked for something demonstrably "evil"... which you have not demonstrated with reference to "modesty."

You are welcome to show how I am mistaken on any of these points.

I have bookmarked this and will adress this sometime over the weekend while I have time. Thanks for a dressing the verses, I disagree on almost all of it, but I desire to quote external resources and not my oppinion on the matter.

createdtoworship · Jan 9, 2020

TheDag said:
And whose definition of immodesty are you using? Lets look at what the bible says. In 1 Timothy 2 & 1 Peter 3 It says not to dress with braided hair or gold but with good deeds. If we take that literally then it means women should go naked. After all it does not tell them to dress with clothes. So obviously it is not meant to be taken literally. Rather the meaning is don't dress with the intention to show off. Let people admire you because of the good works you do.

You can not make up your own christian definition of immodesty. you need to look at how the bible defines it.

Personally I am far more likely to look at a woman in a ankle length skirt with patterns than a short plain black mini skirt. However other guys would look at mini skirt. It is impossible for women to dress in a way that guarantees no man will be attracted to the way they dress. Some women have larger breasts. With clothing they generally have the option to wear clothing that will cover them but will be tight around the breasts or not be tight around the breasts but show more. Once again some guys would prefer tighter clothing while others would prefer seeing actual flesh. Which is more immodest? Depends on who is looking. So women should dress for comfort not how they think they will look best.

So what does the bible say for men? It says if your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out! So if you can't control your thoughts around women then the problem is you and the bible says take radical actions to prevent yourself from sinning. i find it interesting that so often in the church we focus on what women should do but this is ignored. This passage clearly puts the onus on the one struggling with sin to stop it. By all means they could ask for help from women around them. But they have no right to demand it.

I wanted to revisit this post. Again men already have a command to not lust, but does that mean a woman can wear whatever she wants in public or to church? BTW, say a woman wears a PVC miniskirt dress to the club on friday. Then to church she wears an "appropriate" dress, longer but still form fitting in a way. She is still pretty, but the difference is appropriateness. See modesty in Timothy actually means literally "appropriate." So a PVC miniskirt is not appropriate for church. A french bikini or micro kini.....is not appropriate for a church function at the beach or for a baptism. So we must ask ourselves if we are modset at church, why not be modest on the town?

MyChainsAreGone · Jan 10, 2020

createdtoworship said:
lust comes from seeing scantily clad women ( for me).

Let me reply to just this...

What IF...

You could reach the point that you would NOT lust... no matter how much of a woman's body you see?
A woman's visible body parts had no more impact on your libido than her visible face?
You did not have to consider every woman to be a potential threat to your moral purity... just because she has female body parts?
You were never distracted by a woman's attire so that you failed to honor her as a person rather than consider her a temptation?
Your sexual arousal was triggered by relationship rather than by sight... so that when you sense the heightening of sexual tension in your body, you naturally gravitated to the one whom God gave you with whom to experience sexual unity?

IF those things were true...

inappropriate contentography would lose its appeal
Your wife would know that she was not in any competition with airbrushed images for your sexual interest.
Your sex life would improve! (my personal testimony)
You would not have to be all worried about "modesty" standards (which are not from the bible anyway).
Your sexual purity would NOT be dependent on the women around you covering up enough that you no longer lust after them.

God did NOT make men "visual." That's a culturally conditioned response.

This is why I say that people sinfully view the human form because they have a sinful view of the human form.

You say that "repentance" is the path to freedom... but repentance from what?

We need to repent from the sinful way we perceive the human form... and replace our old way of thinking with a biblical way of thinking about the human form.

THAT repentance leads to freedom, for even if a man never actually views inappropriate content, but he still views every woman as a collection of dangerous body parts, he is not yet free.

Jesus said that when we know the truth, the truth will make us free (John 8:32).

Paul said that we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). "Renewing of the mind" means changing the way one thinks... replacing falsehoods with truth.

This is why I say that people sinfully view the human form because they have a sinful view of the human form.

They will never be free of the sin until the eradicate the lies upon which their sin bondage is based.

createdtoworship · Jan 10, 2020

MyChainsAreGone said:
Let me reply to just this...

What IF...

You could reach the point that you would NOT lust... no matter how much of a woman's body you see?

A woman's visible body parts had no more impact on your libido than her visible face?

You did not have to consider every woman to be a potential threat to your moral purity... just because she has female body parts?

You were never distracted by a woman's attire so that you failed to honor her as a person rather than consider her a temptation?

Your sexual arousal was triggered by relationship rather than by sight... so that when you sense the heightening of sexual tension in your body, you naturally gravitated to the one whom God gave you with whom to experience sexual unity?

IF those things were true...

inappropriate contentography would lose its appeal

Your wife would know that she was not in any competition with airbrushed images for your sexual interest.

Your sex life would improve! (my personal testimony)

You would not have to be all worried about "modesty" standards (which are not from the bible anyway).

Your sexual purity would NOT be dependent on the women around you covering up enough that you no longer lust after them.

God did NOT make men "visual." That's a culturally conditioned response.

This is why I say that people sinfully view the human form because they have a sinful view of the human form.

You say that "repentance" is the path to freedom... but repentance from what?

We need to repent from the sinful way we perceive the human form... and replace our old way of thinking with a biblical way of thinking about the human form.

THAT repentance leads to freedom, for even if a man never actually views inappropriate content, but he still views every woman as a collection of dangerous body parts, he is not yet free.

Jesus said that when we know the truth, the truth will make us free (John 8:32).

Paul said that we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). "Renewing of the mind" means changing the way one thinks... replacing falsehoods with truth.

This is why I say that people sinfully view the human form because they have a sinful view of the human form.

They will never be free of the sin until the eradicate the lies upon which their sin bondage is based.

can you prove the assertion that God did not make man visual. I am just asking, because I can probably pull half a dozen medical journals proving that men have a mental disposition to that. And further more if you can prove through medical journals that you can remove the ability for men to be visual, then I may listen more to your vein of thought. But honestly it just looks like you are an entrapauer and trying to either make a name for yourself, or sell books, or subscriptions or some other service. So I debate you sparingly, because nothing can compete with earnings. I mean that if your website, and your articles are free for now, but eventually you desire to become a business or something. Then there is bias here. I have a website as well, but I don't post it here for one it's against the rules and secondly, I don't desire to use my own sources for debates, as I am imperfect and I have a lot to learn. So I use external sources. But my site is to help investors learn investing. But I do it for free, as a ministry. I honestly don't desire to make a living off of it, although eventually I probably could. I have a decent job and i like what I do, but I would rather be part of a para church ministry, angel investors or other type of ministry. I am not saying business is not good, but it's important to know what your motives are for debate, are you debating to fine tune your skills to eventually sell something? There is nothing wrong with that, but it may bring bias, as most people already know the topic of the book they want to sell, and they debate for more information to support it. But their view could be proven wrong but they would not take is as a proof of wrong, but rather buckle down harder on their side, because again money is talking to them, not facts.

Modesty among clothing and other areas

I don't like titles

Image Bearer

Image Bearer

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Image Bearer

Image Bearer

In the grip of grace

Image Bearer

Image Bearer

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Image Bearer

In the grip of grace

:sighing:

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Image Bearer

In the grip of grace

Similar threads