The Stripping of Modesty

childofdust

Newbie
May 18, 2010
1,041
92
✟2,177.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Private
I remember when I was a teenager, going to a Christian camp where there was a river and swimming. I wasn't a Christian, I just wanted to have some fun at the camp with people I knew. As a young boy, I looked forward to the ladies in swimsuits. And I remember being particularly disappointed when I saw a few of the more lovely ladies come out wearing full-body suits and shorts - covering up all their lovely assets. And yet this difference in their swimming dress struck me rather profoundly - I knew that these women had something special to show and they were NOT doing it despite that fact. Instead, they were dressing modestly. And though I was a bit disappointed, I found deep respect for those women - respect that I never had for the ones that showed me what I wanted to see. Now I am a Christian and the entire lack of modesty in our culture is loathsome to me. And I find a video that expresses a truth that I learned from Christians before I was one - more clothing is less - modesty and decency are best.

Check out this wonderful video.
 

Cuddles333

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2011
1,103
162
65
Denver
✟30,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, I am sure that there are many others that would find the full suits to be sexually immoral even if you or I didn't.

My take on how a person might be behaving immodestly would be if a social situation called for formal dressware and someone shows up in something along the line of Lady GG. :o
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
However, Image Conscious, Praising God With Your Body is the deepest, most comprehensive book dealing with what we do with our bodies that you can find on the topic. The word modest was not originally used in connection with lust prevention but with something much more wholesome and necessary for society. The book is around 500 pages and literally covers birth to burial and even the afterlife when it comes to our bodies. It deals from head to toe, giving thought provoking insight on what we do to, with, and for our bodies. If you have Kindle Unlimited, you can read it for free. Otherwise, it is definitely worth the price and can be used as a textbook, complete with a questions for review section.

https://www.amazon.com/Image-Consci...mage+conscious+praising&qid=1587381704&sr=8-1

No customer reviews posted on Amazon so it is unfortunately impossible to see what others have thought of this book. Any reviews posted elsewhere?
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I remember when I was a teenager, going to a Christian camp where there was a river and swimming. I wasn't a Christian, I just wanted to have some fun at the camp with people I knew. As a young boy, I looked forward to the ladies in swimsuits. And I remember being particularly disappointed when I saw a few of the more lovely ladies come out wearing full-body suits and shorts - covering up all their lovely assets. And yet this difference in their swimming dress struck me rather profoundly - I knew that these women had something special to show and they were NOT doing it despite that fact. Instead, they were dressing modestly. And though I was a bit disappointed, I found deep respect for those women - respect that I never had for the ones that showed me what I wanted to see. Now I am a Christian and the entire lack of modesty in our culture is loathsome to me. And I find a video that expresses a truth that I learned from Christians before I was one - more clothing is less - modesty and decency are best.

Check out this wonderful video.
I really like your post; it reminds me about a lot of talks from a guy named Jason Evert. You should check him out, I think you'll appreciate what he says!

Could you try reposting the video? The link didn't work when I tried to watch it.

Maybe always remember that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and may we honor Him in every way!:pray:
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sadly, "modesty" teaching is not biblical.

At least the kind of "modesty" teaching that tells girls to keep their bodies covered.

What it inadvertently teaches women is that their bodies exist for the sexual appetites of men.

What it inadvertently teaches men is that women's bodies exist for the sexual consumption of men.

You would think that Christians would be wholesale on board with standing against the sexual objectification of women's bodies, but instead, they are wholesale promoting it by enforcing "modesty" rules that deem certain body parts as only sexual.

God's rules put the onus on the man to not lust. (Matthew 5:27-28)

Man's rules put the onus on the woman to attempt to prevent a man lusting after her.

But it doesn't matter how "covered" a woman is. The man with a lustful heart can still lust. That's because lust comes from within... never from outside of us. That's what Jesus clearly taught in Mark 7:14-23.

And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” (vss. 20-23)​

The church's "solution" to lust is "modesty." A solution that flies right in the face of Jesus' words.

God's solution is for a man to look at every woman--no matter her attire (or lack of it)--as a full-fledged, image-bearing, special creation of God.

David
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Sadly, "modesty" teaching is not biblical.

At least the kind of "modesty" teaching that tells girls to keep their bodies covered.

What it inadvertently teaches women is that their bodies exist for the sexual appetites of men.

What it inadvertently teaches men is that women's bodies exist for the sexual consumption of men.

You would think that Christians would be wholesale on board with standing against the sexual objectification of women's bodies, but instead, they are wholesale promoting it by enforcing "modesty" rules that deem certain body parts as only sexual.

God's rules put the onus on the man to not lust. (Matthew 5:27-28)

Man's rules put the onus on the woman to attempt to prevent a man lusting after her.

But it doesn't matter how "covered" a woman is. The man with a lustful heart can still lust. That's because lust comes from within... never from outside of us. That's what Jesus clearly taught in Mark 7:14-23.

And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” (vss. 20-23)​

The church's "solution" to lust is "modesty." A solution that flies right in the face of Jesus' words.

God's solution is for a man to look at every woman--no matter her attire (or lack of it)--as a full-fledged, image-bearing, special creation of God.

David

Thank you for your post; ideally, that would be how we could handle things. However, will live in a society with little self control, and you must also remember these words from Jesus:

"'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.". -Mark 9

Of course, this doesn't invalidate your point that men should not see women as the excuse for their own lust. But our men entirely to blame for lost brought about by strippers? We must remember that there is a biological reaction to seeing a lot of a woman that comes into play before self control does; that's just how the brain works.

I've included 2 videos here, about 10 minutes total, from people who can explain this much better than I can. Please do watch these, and tell me what you think:



May God continue to bless us all, through good conversation, through our bodies, and if you everything in this beautiful but broken world!:crossrc:
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for your post; ideally, that would be how we could handle things. However, will live in a society with little self control, and you must also remember these words from Jesus:

"'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.". -Mark 9

The word "stumble" means something very specific... and something different for different authors of the scriptures... in Mark 9, Jesus uses it for someone who causes a "little one" (a potential follower of Christ) to fail to come to faith, and thereby end up in hell. This is why the "punishment" Jesus declares is so severe. But Jesus is not talking about a person doing something that another person has a sinful response to. So this verse does not apply to "modesty."

Paul used the word "stumble" differently (Romans 14). For him, it meant participating in a morally neutral activity that a "weaker" brother would join you in doing when his conscience has not yet resolved that the activity actually is neutral... so that he participates in violation of his own conscience.

In neither case is it "causing to stumble" if I do something righteously, but someone else has a sinful response to me. This is clearly seen in how Jesus lived. There were Pharisees that were SURE that Jesus shouldn't heal on the sabbath (or break any of their other rules). He knew that. He broke their rules anyway. On purpose. And it "caused" them to sin against him. Did Jesus "cause them to stumble"? No... that's not what that means.

Consequently, if a man sees a woman's body and lusts after her (even if she's not "covered" adequately according to someone's "standard"), she has not caused anyone to "stumble."

That passage about "causing to stumble" therefore does not apply.

Of course, this doesn't invalidate your point that men should not see women as the excuse for their own lust. But our men entirely to blame for lost brought about by strippers? We must remember that there is a biological reaction to seeing a lot of a woman that comes into play before self control does; that's just how the brain works.
I know that's what everyone believes--that there's a "biological reaction" to seeing a woman's form or certain body parts--but it's a lie. Yes, men respond to the visual stimulus, but that's only because it is a conditioned response. By expectation and practice, we have relegated the visible female form entirely to contexts where a sexual response is expected and sought. That's a sure-fire way to condition a person to that kind of response. For men who see the visible

Even strippers do not "cause to stumble"... although the attempt to entice another person to sin is certainly wrong. The man who does not have a lustful heart will not lust even after the stripper attempting to seduce him. She cannot cause a response... she can only reveal it. That's the inescapable conclusion we must reach in light of Christ's teaching in Mark 7.
I've included 2 videos here, about 10 minutes total, from people who can explain this much better than I can. Please do watch these, and tell me what you think:
I have not watched them yet... but I will do so and comment when I get the chance.

Thanks.

David
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I've included 2 videos here, about 10 minutes total, from people who can explain this much better than I can. Please do watch these, and tell me what you think:

Gotta say... neither of these videos did much for me. There really wasn't anything that remarkable in either one. But here are my comments...


This lady starts by saying that most people don't understand the definition of "modesty"... but then she really didn't define it that well.

Actually the definition that she started with wasn't bad... that it was much like "temperance" or self-control... but then she abandoned that definition when she talked about modesty with reference to clothing. "Modesty" has nothing to do with "veiling" certain body parts. And the Bible never commands the "veiling" of any body part.

She talked about wearing things that "draw attention to" certain body parts. I agree that that's a mistake. But that mistake is equally expressed by the dedication to keeping certain parts covered as it is by wearing clothes that accentuates those same body parts.

In other words, it sexualizes the breasts to require them to be covered... just as it sexualizes them to wear clothing that draws the eye to the breasts.

The truth is that even by her definition of "not drawing attention" to certain body parts that going completely naked is no less modest than being completely covered... and possibly more so! Why? Because by refusing to consider any body part to be "indecent" or "sexual," a woman is actually not "drawing attention" to the body part. Even the judicious covering of a body part draws attention to it!


This guy couldn't seem to get over the false notion that "this is just the way men are"... even while acknowledging that the correct response from a man is to even treat a stripper with dignity.

I think that he needs to review Pope JPII's teaching on the Theology of the Body... because I do NOT believe that he taught some sort of predisposition of men to respond to the simple sight of a woman's body. Quite the contrary, JPII refused to consider nudity in and of it self to be indecent, immoral, ungodly, or "immodest."

The very idea that men are "inherently" designed by God to respond lustfully to the simple sight of a woman's body is false. It ultimately puts the blame on God for a man's personal choices to sin. That should be a HUGE red flag about that belief! Beyond that, it puts the onus on women to keep men's minds pure. Another huge red flag! And it tells women that the most important spiritual fact about them is how effectively they can avoid the lustful gaze of men. STRIKE THREE!

This notion is one that Christians committed to God and His truth should be actively renouncing and denouncing.

David
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The word "stumble" means something very specific... and something different for different authors of the scriptures... in Mark 9, Jesus uses it for someone who causes a "little one" (a potential follower of Christ) to fail to come to faith, and thereby end up in hell. This is why the "punishment" Jesus declares is so severe. But Jesus is not talking about a person doing something that another person has a sinful response to. So this verse does not apply to "modesty."

Paul used the word "stumble" differently (Romans 14). For him, it meant participating in a morally neutral activity that a "weaker" brother would join you in doing when his conscience has not yet resolved that the activity actually is neutral... so that he participates in violation of his own conscience.

In neither case is it "causing to stumble" if I do something righteously, but someone else has a sinful response to me. This is clearly seen in how Jesus lived. There were Pharisees that were SURE that Jesus shouldn't heal on the sabbath (or break any of their other rules). He knew that. He broke their rules anyway. On purpose. And it "caused" them to sin against him. Did Jesus "cause them to stumble"? No... that's not what that means.

Consequently, if a man sees a woman's body and lusts after her (even if she's not "covered" adequately according to someone's "standard"), she has not caused anyone to "stumble."

That passage about "causing to stumble" therefore does not apply.


I know that's what everyone believes--that there's a "biological reaction" to seeing a woman's form or certain body parts--but it's a lie. Yes, men respond to the visual stimulus, but that's only because it is a conditioned response. By expectation and practice, we have relegated the visible female form entirely to contexts where a sexual response is expected and sought. That's a sure-fire way to condition a person to that kind of response. For men who see the visible

Even strippers do not "cause to stumble"... although the attempt to entice another person to sin is certainly wrong. The man who does not have a lustful heart will not lust even after the stripper attempting to seduce him. She cannot cause a response... she can only reveal it. That's the inescapable conclusion we must reach in light of Christ's teaching in Mark 7.

I have not watched them yet... but I will do so and comment when I get the chance.

Thanks.

David

Gotta say... neither of these videos did much for me. There really wasn't anything that remarkable in either one. But here are my comments...



This lady starts by saying that most people don't understand the definition of "modesty"... but then she really didn't define it that well.

Actually the definition that she started with wasn't bad... that it was much like "temperance" or self-control... but then she abandoned that definition when she talked about modesty with reference to clothing. "Modesty" has nothing to do with "veiling" certain body parts. And the Bible never commands the "veiling" of any body part.

She talked about wearing things that "draw attention to" certain body parts. I agree that that's a mistake. But that mistake is equally expressed by the dedication to keeping certain parts covered as it is by wearing clothes that accentuates those same body parts.

In other words, it sexualizes the breasts to require them to be covered... just as it sexualizes them to wear clothing that draws the eye to the breasts.

The truth is that even by her definition of "not drawing attention" to certain body parts that going completely naked is no less modest than being completely covered... and possibly more so! Why? Because by refusing to consider any body part to be "indecent" or "sexual," a woman is actually not "drawing attention" to the body part. Even the judicious covering of a body part draws attention to it!



This guy couldn't seem to get over the false notion that "this is just the way men are"... even while acknowledging that the correct response from a man is to even treat a stripper with dignity.

I think that he needs to review Pope JPII's teaching on the Theology of the Body... because I do NOT believe that he taught some sort of predisposition of men to respond to the simple sight of a woman's body. Quite the contrary, JPII refused to consider nudity in and of it self to be indecent, immoral, ungodly, or "immodest."

The very idea that men are "inherently" designed by God to respond lustfully to the simple sight of a woman's body is false. It ultimately puts the blame on God for a man's personal choices to sin. That should be a HUGE red flag about that belief! Beyond that, it puts the onus on women to keep men's minds pure. Another huge red flag! And it tells women that the most important spiritual fact about them is how effectively they can avoid the lustful gaze of men. STRIKE THREE!

This notion is one that Christians committed to God and His truth should be actively renouncing and denouncing.

David
I appreciate the amount of thought you put into your posts. For now, I just want to hear your thoughts on the OP's mention of learning respect from the women who dressed modestly. Even if the lustful desire is a condition response (which I will agree with), this manner of dressing still seems to help you undo such a response, as the OP stated from his own experience.

Thank you for making this a worthwhile conversation.

May we continue to search for God's blessings in every area of our lives!:pray:
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate the amount of thought you put into your posts.
Thanks. I really appreciate that.
For now, I just want to hear your thoughts on the OP's mention of learning respect from the women who dressed modestly.
Will do... I'll get to that below.
Even if the lustful desire is a condition response (which I will agree with), this manner of dressing still seems to help you undo such a response, as the OP stated from his own experience.
Actually, "still seems to" is an incorrect conclusion. Actually, the opposite is true...

This manner of dressing (ensuring OVER-coverage) may suppress the lustful response, but it actually strengthens and affirms the lustful response rather than "undoing" it.

Here's why...

For any conditioned response, the way it is "conditioned" is to ensure that one thing is always associated with something unrelated in someone's experience. Thus, the conditioning is created by the experience of "when this, always that."

Pavlov and his dogs, remember? He rang the bell every time he was ready to feed them. Pretty soon, they started salivating when the bell rang... even when there was no food.

So it is with the sexualized response to the sight of a woman's body. We have relegated that sight to sexual contexts only. The only time the normal male in Western culture ever sees it is when he's with a woman getting ready to have sex, seeing women dressed to entice a male's sexual interest and attention, or when he's looking at inappropriate contentography with the express intent to become sexually aroused. That's THE recipe for a conditioned response.

So... the judicious covering up does not "undo" such a response... it just frustrates the expression of it. No visible skin means no conditioned sexual response. No bell ringing means no salivating for food. By extension, that only confirms that the next time the skin is visible, there will be as sexual response. And the next time the bell is rung, there will be salivation.

The ONLY way to "undo" the response is exactly the same way you'd have to do it with the dogs... ring the bell a LOT when there's no food ever coming. More and consistent exposure to the visible female form when it is not a sexual context and no sexual response is expected or desired... that will "undo" the response... nothing else will!

One more point on that... In western culture, we can see a woman's face without even a shred of a sexual response... even though that's absolutely the most beautiful part of her body. Why? Because we see it all the time with no expectation or experience of sexual arousal. But in orthodox Muslim countries, they DO consider the face to be sexual, and therefore they require it to be covered! Guess what happens when such a Muslim man sees a woman reveal her face to him? Yep. A sexual response.

Now let me comment line by line to the OP's statements.

I remember when I was a teenager, going to a Christian camp where there was a river and swimming. I wasn't a Christian, I just wanted to have some fun at the camp with people I knew. As a young boy, I looked forward to the ladies in swimsuits.
It's clear here that this young man had already very much been conditioned to derive sexual responses in the sight of women's bodies... such that the anticipation of seeing them was an exciting prospect for him.
And I remember being particularly disappointed when I saw a few of the more lovely ladies come out wearing full-body suits and shorts - covering up all their lovely assets.
Again, his sexual response to the sight of a woman's "lovely assets" was not eliminated by their cover-up, it was just suppressed. It was actually strengthened. If one of those girls had surprised everyone shown up the next day in a mini bikini, imagine how powerful his sexual response would have been! So by hiding their bodies, they literally made the young man more tuned into their bodies!
And yet this difference in their swimming dress struck me rather profoundly - I knew that these women had something special to show and they were NOT doing it despite that fact.
Is a beautiful body really "something special to show"?? Is he not sexually objectifying these women's body parts even while he says he respects them for it?

Are a woman's breasts really more "special" than her face? Seriously? The ONLY way we could even think that or act as if it were true is if we are actively sexualizing the breasts in our hearts!

So... this man is saying that it's OK (expected/normal) for him to sexualize the woman's breasts in his own heart, but he appreciates and respects a woman who decides not to indulge him with the titillation of glimpses of her "assets."
Instead, they were dressing modestly. And though I was a bit disappointed, I found deep respect for those women - respect that I never had for the ones that showed me what I wanted to see.
These women do reserve his respect for not purposefully seeking male sexual attention. But they have done nothing to change the young man's view of women's bodies.

Had they (and the rest of the kids) been completely naked—and in that context also committed to treating each other just as respectfully and in a chaste manner as any Christian camp would expect of their campers—THEN the "automatic" response would have been dealt a huge blow. The "imaginations" of what a body looks like are gone. The "disappointment" in not seeing a "little more" of someone's body is irrelevant. The sexual response to the sight of a woman's form is deactivated. The anticipation of a "sexual event" because bodies are more visible is blown to bits.

And then... that young man would and could have the same level of respect for all women... not just those who cover up.
Now I am a Christian and the entire lack of modesty in our culture is loathsome to me. And I find a video that expresses a truth that I learned from Christians before I was one - more clothing is less - modesty and decency are best.

Check out this wonderful video.
I have not seen the video yet (can't open it on this computer) so I have no comment about it.
 
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

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Thanks. I really appreciate that.

Will do... I'll get to that below.

Actually, "still seems to" is an incorrect conclusion. Actually, the opposite is true...

This manner of dressing (ensuring OVER-coverage) may suppress the lustful response, but it actually strengthens and affirms the lustful response rather than "undoing" it.

Here's why...

For any conditioned response, the way it is "conditioned" is to ensure that one thing is always associated with something unrelated in someone's experience. Thus, the conditioning is created by the experience of "when this, always that."

Pavlov and his dogs, remember? He rang the bell every time he was ready to feed them. Pretty soon, they started salivating when the bell rang... even when there was no food.

So it is with the sexualized response to the sight of a woman's body. We have relegated that sight to sexual contexts only. The only time the normal male in Western culture ever sees it is when he's with a woman getting ready to have sex, seeing women dressed to entice a male's sexual interest and attention, or when he's looking at inappropriate contentography with the express intent to become sexually aroused. That's THE recipe for a conditioned response.

So... the judicious covering up does not "undo" such a response... it just frustrates the expression of it. No visible skin means no conditioned sexual response. No bell ringing means no salivating for food. By extension, that only confirms that the next time the skin is visible, there will be as sexual response. And the next time the bell is rung, there will be salivation.

The ONLY way to "undo" the response is exactly the same way you'd have to do it with the dogs... ring the bell a LOT when there's no food ever coming. More and consistent exposure to the visible female form when it is not a sexual context and no sexual response is expected or desired... that will "undo" the response... nothing else will!

One more point on that... In western culture, we can see a woman's face without even a shred of a sexual response... even though that's absolutely the most beautiful part of her body. Why? Because we see it all the time with no expectation or experience of sexual arousal. But in orthodox Muslim countries, they DO consider the face to be sexual, and therefore they require it to be covered! Guess what happens when such a Muslim man sees a woman reveal her face to him? Yep. A sexual response.

Now let me comment line by line to the OP's statements.


It's clear here that this young man had already very much been conditioned to derive sexual responses in the sight of women's bodies... such that the anticipation of seeing them was an exciting prospect for him.

Again, his sexual response to the sight of a woman's "lovely assets" was not eliminated by their cover-up, it was just suppressed. It was actually strengthened. If one of those girls had surprised everyone shown up the next day in a mini bikini, imagine how powerful his sexual response would have been! So by hiding their bodies, they literally made the young man more tuned into their bodies!

Is a beautiful body really "something special to show"?? Is he not sexually objectifying these women's body parts even while he says he respects them for it?

Are a woman's breasts really more "special" than her face? Seriously? The ONLY way we could even think that or act as if it were true is if we are actively sexualizing the breasts in our hearts!

So... this man is saying that it's OK (expected/normal) for him to sexualize the woman's breasts in his own heart, but he appreciates and respects a woman who decides not to indulge him with the titillation of glimpses of her "assets."

These women do reserve his respect for not purposefully seeking male sexual attention. But they have done nothing to change the young man's view of women's bodies.

Had they (and the rest of the kids) been completely naked—and in that context also committed to treating each other just as respectfully and in a chaste manner as any Christian camp would expect of their campers—THEN the "automatic" response would have been dealt a huge blow. The "imaginations" of what a body looks like are gone. The "disappointment" in not seeing a "little more" of someone's body is irrelevant. The sexual response to the sight of a woman's form is deactivated. The anticipation of a "sexual event" because bodies are more visible is blown to bits.

And then... that young man would and could have the same level of respect for all women... not just those who cover up.

I have not seen the video yet (can't open it on this computer) so I have no comment about it.
Very well said. I recently watched The Mission, which is a fantastic movie about the Jesuit missionaries & the European powers in South America. The reason I bring it up is in agreement with one of your points; the native Americans in this movie are often wearing little or no clothing, in a very non-sexual way. There are many movies that depict the lack of clothing on Native Americans, and I think a greater showing of these movies would really help de-condition the sexual response. Seeing the naked women in The Mission caught me by surprise at first, but I quickly lost any sort of sexual reaction, as I became more adjusted to this just being the way the tribes would dress. As you say with the female face being sexualized in some Muslim cultures, so too is the female body sexualized in modern American culture.

I have been approaching this whole conversation from a very realist perspective. I agree that the body should not be sexualized, and it is not the fault of the victim of someone else sees their body in a lustful way. What part of the body becomes sexualized is very dependent on the culture & times; I believe it wasn't until the 1920s that men were legally allowed to be shirtless in public in America, and the aforementioned Muslim countries & Native American tribes have very different ideas about the body.,

The fault for this falls on me, because I see that I have not yet clarified my position, or more specifically, what examples I'm thinking of as I discuss modesty. Nudity is not what I had in mind; what I see in my college cafeteria is what I was thinking of.

Some girls walk in, wearing a T-shirt & shorts. Nothing special. There's also an abundance of other clothing options; women's fashion is far too diverse for me to give every example. Suffice it to say that girls can still dress in very cute and feminine ways, while maintaining some modesty; do not assume that I want to restrict women at all.

Some girls have skintight leggings, especially prominent around their butt. Some cut their shirt, very high or very low. This catches my attention; even if I turn away, and pray for her as a response to my own conditioned lust, that sort of outfit still draws attention that could be avoided with a different pair of pants, or shirts that they have not cut down. None of this would be an issue if this was not a fallen world. But as long as there is a perversion in modern society, however wrong it may be (and certainly is), the ways people will react to clothing choices should be taken into account. I don't see people advocating for people to leave their cars unlocked with the keys on the seat; theft is never the fault of the owner, but in a fallen world, taking steps to avert the temptations of the spiritually weaker people is something that should be considered.

A few years ago, I had a few pairs of right black jeans. I thought I looked good in them, as did my girlfriend of the time. Sometimes, I would wear them to Church; considering my usual choice of sweat pants, nice jeans are formal enough for me to wear to Church. But that made me wonder; am I drawing attention to the right thing? I looked attractive in those uncomfortably tight jeans, but this was the house to worship God, and I was dressing for people to notice me instead. I stopped wearing those jeans altogether, along with the tighter sweat pants I wore (I never knew "skinny sweats" were a thing, but I found a pair somewhere). I knew I was drawing people's attention for the wrong reasons, but far more importantly, I knew my own priorities were off. I wanted people to notice me, like me, find me attractive, but I was going about it the wrong way. I was using my body, when I wasn't too sure if the rest of me would be accepted. This is normally said in the context of women, but I'm one of many men who has had a similar struggle (though to a very low degree). I also share this to highlight the need to never judge those who dress immodestly; perhaps focusing more on the non-visual parts of people would help resolve the deeper issue?

May God continue to bless us all & may we allow Him to transform our culture!:pray:
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have been approaching this whole conversation from a very realist perspective. I agree that the body should not be sexualized, and it is not the fault of the victim of someone else sees their body in a lustful way. What part of the body becomes sexualized is very dependent on the culture & times; I believe it wasn't until the 1920s that men were legally allowed to be shirtless in public in America, and the aforementioned Muslim countries & Native American tribes have very different ideas about the body.,

The fault for this falls on me, because I see that I have not yet clarified my position, or more specifically, what examples I'm thinking of as I discuss modesty. Nudity is not what I had in mind; what I see in my college cafeteria is what I was thinking of.

Some girls walk in, wearing a T-shirt & shorts. Nothing special. There's also an abundance of other clothing options; women's fashion is far too diverse for me to give every example. Suffice it to say that girls can still dress in very cute and feminine ways, while maintaining some modesty; do not assume that I want to restrict women at all...
I think you're on target in your thinking, Alex.

Let me clarify something...

When I talk about what the "solution" is to correcting the conditioning, I'm talking about what it takes to do so in an individual's mind and heart. And just like watching that movie that includes some non-sexual female nudity, you found that in no time at all, your "automatic" response was no longer automatic. That can and WILL happen for anyone desirous of overcoming their conditioning.

But that's a very different consideration compared to the question of "how do we respond and act in a culture that has enshrined the objectification of the female body into the very fabric of cultural values?"

I don't have a good or complete answer to that question. But for sure, the first than that must happen is that the church needs to repent of its false teaching about the body. We need a truly biblical "Theology of the Body"... and it needs to permeate the western church.

There are a couple of articles written by a friend of mine that I highly recommend to you.

Adopting God's View of Bare Anatomy

That's the version for the "lay person." There's also another more indepth and theologically profound article written for church leaders here:

Incarnational Truth about Humanity’s Sexual Nature

These articles help point the way to correcting the church's understanding of the unclad human form.

David.
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Hey, @Unofficial Reverand Alex, did you get a chance to review those articles? I'd be interested to hear your take on them.

David
Briefly. I'm finishing up my college semester, so after next Thursday remind me to read those. Next Thursday is my last final, so I'll have time after that.

Thank you for sharing those; from what I read, they seemed very good!
 
Upvote 0

TLSITD

Conservative Christian
Apr 26, 2020
315
296
40
Tennessee
✟15,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Bible teaches Christians that we are to honor God with our bodies, and discourages women wearing clothing and hairstyles that are intended to draw attention to their outward appearance.

God wants Christians to draw attention to Himself and His ways. You'd be hard pressed to make the case for how dressing the way a lot of Christian women dress is in accordance with that will. They're not dressing that way to honor or glorify God; they're dressing that way because they want to. And the fact that they want to do this is the real issue, not their sartorial choices, which are merely the symptom of the heart sickness.

Before I became a Christian, I dressed to attract the attention of men. After I got saved, I had a very different way of seeing myself and a very different motivation for living. I wasn't living to please myself and to show myself off anymore, but rather for the glory of God and to reflect and draw other people to Christ in me. God became my beauty, and dolling up the outside was a distraction from Him as well as a misrepresentation of what I knew the Scriptures taught.

Now I'm not suggesting that modest attire will automatically or necessarily make a person humble or modest, or that modest clothing is proof of humility in a person. One can be proud of one's modest dress just as one can be of one's immodest dress. But I am saying that what is true on the inside will be reflected on the outside, and that we wear our values in the way that we present ourselves to the world.

Christians who have their hearts set on themselves will err in their faith practice in all sorts of ways. Immodest dress is just one of them. People who love themselves more than they love Jesus will always have some excuse for doing what they really want to do, but not before God.

Self-love is a cancer that will invade and corrupt every part of a Christian's life. God doesn't give us grace to obey Him selectively: If we choose to compromise in one way, we'll find it much easier to do so in other ways, and it's only a matter of time before we're backsliding towards the world and the old man like a snowball rolling down a snowy slope---blind and spiritually impotent.

So to any Christian who is trying hard to justify wearing whatever they please, I encourage you to humbly and sincerely consider your ways in the light of God's word and to not quench the conviction of the Spirit any longer, to your own detriment and to God's dishonor and displeasure.

You don't win by having your own way; you lose.
 
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

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Hey, @Unofficial Reverand Alex, did you get a chance to review those articles? I'd be interested to hear your take on them.

David

The Bible teaches Christians that we are to honor God with our bodies, and discourages women wearing clothing and hairstyles that are intended to draw attention to their outward appearance.

God wants Christians to draw attention to Himself and His ways. You'd be hard pressed to make the case for how dressing the way a lot of Christian women dress is in accordance with that will. They're not dressing that way to honor or glorify God; they're dressing that way because they want to. And the fact that they want to do this is the real issue, not their sartorial choices, which are merely the symptom of the heart sickness.

Before I became a Christian, I dressed to attract the attention of men. After I got saved, I had a very different way of seeing myself and a very different motivation for living. I wasn't living to please myself and to show myself off anymore, but rather for the glory of God and to reflect and draw other people to Christ in me. God became my beauty, and dolling up the outside was a distraction from Him as well as a misrepresentation of what I knew the Scriptures taught.

Now I'm not suggesting that modest attire will automatically or necessarily make a person humble or modest, or that modest clothing is proof of humility in a person. One can be proud of one's modest dress just as one can be of one's immodest dress. But I am saying that what is true on the inside will be reflected on the outside, and that we wear our values in the way that we present ourselves to the world.

Christians who have their hearts set on themselves will err in their faith practice in all sorts of ways. Immodest dress is just one of them. People who love themselves more than they love Jesus will always have some excuse for doing what they really want to do, but not before God.

Self-love is a cancer that will invade and corrupt every part of a Christian's life. God doesn't give us grace to obey Him selectively: If we choose to compromise in one way, we'll find it much easier to do so in other ways, and it's only a matter of time before we're backsliding towards the world and the old man like a snowball rolling down a snowy slope---blind and spiritually impotent.

So to any Christian who is trying hard to justify wearing whatever they please, I encourage you to humbly and sincerely consider your ways in the light of God's word and to not quench the conviction of the Spirit any longer, to your own detriment and to God's dishonor and displeasure.

You don't win by having your own way; you lose.
I'm working on one of my final essays right now, and the question of sexuality is part of it. I think I pretty accurately conveyed my ideas, and I wanted to share this section of it here. Since I'm writing this from a Catholic perspective, I want to mention that every Catholic church has a tabernacle where some consecrated Eucharistic hosts are stored (think of the Holy of Holies). The Real Presence of the Eucharist is something treated with much reverence, which is why people who aren't in full communion with the Church (by heresy, mortal sin, or even a lack of forgiving someone) are not permitted to take the Eucharist. For this post, I'm not asking you to accept or deny any of these views, but this becomes an important part of what I wrote for my class, so I wanted to clarify before confusion ensued.


This reality of the body as a deep part of a person, something designed by God to point to something higher than this world, is part of how the body can rightly be considered sacramental. To a certain degree, people can do what they want with their body, but taking this attitude too far contradicts the sacramentality of the body. Our bodies are not our own, as St. Paul writes, but temples of the Holy Spirit who resides within us (1 Cor. 6:19). As such, a deep reverence for the body must be carried out. Just like any building that functions as a temple, some things can be done reverently for the body, while other things should be avoided. Decorations are fine, and can enhance the temple when used appropriately. The way the temple is decorated sends a message about how it should be treated. Decorations with reverence for the temple’s purpose reflect a reverence for what is inside. A cathedral where the consecrated hosts sit out in the open is no way to treat a temple; this is the most intimate part of the temple, and should be veiled with reverence, lest the beauty and importance of the Eucharist be defiled. Likewise, the most intimate parts of the body should be veiled with reverence, lest the eyes and intentions of a inappropriate contentographic culture defile those, as well.

A reverence for the body is often displayed in art, such as the Sistine Chapel’s famous ceiling. In the proper environment with right-minded people, the whole body can be seen without incurring any feeling of shame (cf. Gen. 2:25). After all, the body is inherently good, an exceptionally beautiful part of God’s great Creation. Yet clothing choices that barely conceal the most intimate parts of the body, or an exposure to anyone who may see, would be comparable to a church passing out the Eucharist to anyone on the street. This is immensely good, created by God to be so, but when the reverence is lost and anyone can partake without commitment, something beautiful has lost its meaning. In the world before the Fall, this would not be an issue; this world is unfortunately far below God’s perfection. Adam and Eve never built a church, because they were so constantly in God’s presence, it would be redundant; after the Fall is when temples were necessary. Similarly, they needed no clothing before the Fall, but when they allowed themselves to separate from God, the body had to be treated differently. It is to the shame of our modern culture that the body is seen as inherently inappropriate contentographic, even dirty, when God made it so good. Writing about the necessity of veiling the body is hard, because it’s only necessary due to humanity’s failures. The necessity of veiling the Eucharist is also something that should not have to be, but because of humanity’s failures, this Real Presence of God is too rejected in too many areas of life for the Eucharist to be treated without external veiling; external efforts must be employed to maintain an attitude of reverence when a society fails to hold reverence on its own.
 
Upvote 0

TLSITD

Conservative Christian
Apr 26, 2020
315
296
40
Tennessee
✟15,274.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm working on one of my final essays right now, and the question of sexuality is part of it. I think I pretty accurately conveyed my ideas, and I wanted to share this section of it here. Since I'm writing this from a Catholic perspective, I want to mention that every Catholic church has a tabernacle where some consecrated Eucharistic hosts are stored (think of the Holy of Holies). The Real Presence of the Eucharist is something treated with much reverence, which is why people who aren't in full communion with the Church (by heresy, mortal sin, or even a lack of forgiving someone) are not permitted to take the Eucharist. For this post, I'm not asking you to accept or deny any of these views, but this becomes an important part of what I wrote for my class, so I wanted to clarify before confusion ensued.


This reality of the body as a deep part of a person, something designed by God to point to something higher than this world, is part of how the body can rightly be considered sacramental. To a certain degree, people can do what they want with their body, but taking this attitude too far contradicts the sacramentality of the body. Our bodies are not our own, as St. Paul writes, but temples of the Holy Spirit who resides within us (1 Cor. 6:19). As such, a deep reverence for the body must be carried out. Just like any building that functions as a temple, some things can be done reverently for the body, while other things should be avoided. Decorations are fine, and can enhance the temple when used appropriately. The way the temple is decorated sends a message about how it should be treated. Decorations with reverence for the temple’s purpose reflect a reverence for what is inside. A cathedral where the consecrated hosts sit out in the open is no way to treat a temple; this is the most intimate part of the temple, and should be veiled with reverence, lest the beauty and importance of the Eucharist be defiled. Likewise, the most intimate parts of the body should be veiled with reverence, lest the eyes and intentions of a inappropriate contentographic culture defile those, as well.

A reverence for the body is often displayed in art, such as the Sistine Chapel’s famous ceiling. In the proper environment with right-minded people, the whole body can be seen without incurring any feeling of shame (cf. Gen. 2:25). After all, the body is inherently good, an exceptionally beautiful part of God’s great Creation. Yet clothing choices that barely conceal the most intimate parts of the body, or an exposure to anyone who may see, would be comparable to a church passing out the Eucharist to anyone on the street. This is immensely good, created by God to be so, but when the reverence is lost and anyone can partake without commitment, something beautiful has lost its meaning. In the world before the Fall, this would not be an issue; this world is unfortunately far below God’s perfection. Adam and Eve never built a church, because they were so constantly in God’s presence, it would be redundant; after the Fall is when temples were necessary. Similarly, they needed no clothing before the Fall, but when they allowed themselves to separate from God, the body had to be treated differently. It is to the shame of our modern culture that the body is seen as inherently inappropriate contentographic, even dirty, when God made it so good. Writing about the necessity of veiling the body is hard, because it’s only necessary due to humanity’s failures. The necessity of veiling the Eucharist is also something that should not have to be, but because of humanity’s failures, this Real Presence of God is too rejected in too many areas of life for the Eucharist to be treated without external veiling; external efforts must be employed to maintain an attitude of reverence when a society fails to hold reverence on its own.

Well that's an interesting perspective and I think that the essential points of your post would be more appropriate if the covenant that Christians are under was the old one, under which ritual, ceremony and physical temples were the manner of the religion, their spiritual significance included.

But Christianity isn't like Judaism. Judaism was intended to be a temporary religion that would ultimately be replaced by its perfection, Christianity. The book of Hebrews explains all of this in detail. God doesn't want temples built by men's hands; He wants to dwell in human beings. And He wants to be the glory and beauty of those temples---not what is esteemed in the eyes of man but what God sees and esteems: What is of Himself, in the heart.

He doesn't want symbols and rituals anymore; He gave us the true form of what He gave the Jews in symbol and in part in Judaism.

The Lord's supper---the only ritual that Christians are given---was never intended to be reduced to a ceremony of taking a bit of wine and a wafer. It was an actual meal, shared among the brothers. The sharing of the wine and the bread was a part of that meal, as it was at the end of the original supper that the Lord shared with His disciples.

If there is any question or doubt about God's desire or intentions for the appearance of His representatives on earth, the supreme example is Jesus Christ Himself, whose earthly appearance was of no account, on purpose. Neither He, nor any of His apostles, dressed regally, like the OT priests. If that were what God wanted for Christians, Jesus would have certainly been clothed that way.

God will glorify our bodies at Christ's return, when the beauty of the inside will be revealed on the outside.
 
Upvote 0

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Alex, I really appreciate a lot of what you had to say. I see a LOT of JPII's Theology of the Body concepts articulated there.

But I would like to challenge this statement: "Yet clothing choices that barely conceal the most intimate parts of the body, or an exposure to anyone who may see, would be comparable to a church passing out the Eucharist to anyone on the street."

The analogy is not apt... because "partaking" and just observing (visually) are not the same thing. To make the analogy more analogous, you might say one of the following:
  • Letting just anyone have sex with you would be comparable to a church passing out the Eucharist to anyone on the street."
    • The analogy lines up correctly, and the implications are fitting.
  • Clothing choices that barely conceal the most intimate parts of the body, or an exposure to anyone who may see, would be comparable to the church allowing non-Christians into the church where they might visually observe the wine and bread used for the Eucharist.
    • The analogy lines up correctly, but we do not treat the simple sight of the elements to be the reserved only for the believers. Participation is what is reserved for believers.
My point is this... in our culture today, we have defined the simple sight of certain body parts to be equivalent to experiencing that person sexually. But we do not treat the simple observation of the Eucharist to be equivalent to partaking of the body and blood of Christ.

You are absolutely correct when you say, " It is to the shame of our modern culture that the body is seen as inherently inappropriate contentographic, even dirty, when God made it so good."

But do you not see that when you treat any body part as if the simple observation of it is "partaking" of that person sexually... that that is indeed treating the body as "inherently inappropriate contentographic"?

We are to reserve the act of sexual union for the husband/wife. We are never told in the Bible to treat the simple sight of the body the same way.

Similarly, they needed no clothing before the Fall, but when they allowed themselves to separate from God, the body had to be treated differently.
I don't believe this statement--"the body had to be treated differently"--is biblically defensible. It most certainly is the "assumed" position for most Christians, but it's not based on biblical declaration.

Writing about the necessity of veiling the body is hard, because it’s only necessary due to humanity’s failures. The necessity of veiling the Eucharist is also something that should not have to be, but because of humanity’s failures, this Real Presence of God is too rejected in too many areas of life for the Eucharist to be treated without external veiling; external efforts must be employed to maintain an attitude of reverence when a society fails to hold reverence on its own.
Again this is not God's intent... to conceal Christs' work of redemption... rather, it is God's intent to reveal that which was formerly hidden. This not just in spite of humanity's failures... but because of humanity's failures!

Even though rejected, God still wants his "real presence" to be manifest among unbelievers... that's exactly what the incarnation of Christ was all about!! God made Flesh! Dwelling among US!! And yes... that presence was rejected by many. God put it all out there anyway.

My point is this, Alex... you're trying to make a theological case for "concealing" certain body parts, but I don't think that case can be made. Nowhere is it articulated in the Scriptures. And the analogy to the Eucharist requires us to equate "seeing" with "partaking"... which is not reality... either at the altar nor with the body.

David
 
Upvote 0

Unofficial Reverand Alex

Pray in silence...God speaks softly
Supporter
Dec 22, 2017
2,355
2,915
The Mystical Lands of Rural Indiana
Visit site
✟526,763.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Alex, I really appreciate a lot of what you had to say. I see a LOT of JPII's Theology of the Body concepts articulated there.

But I would like to challenge this statement: "Yet clothing choices that barely conceal the most intimate parts of the body, or an exposure to anyone who may see, would be comparable to a church passing out the Eucharist to anyone on the street."

The analogy is not apt... because "partaking" and just observing (visually) are not the same thing. To make the analogy more analogous, you might say one of the following:
  • Letting just anyone have sex with you would be comparable to a church passing out the Eucharist to anyone on the street."
    • The analogy lines up correctly, and the implications are fitting.
  • Clothing choices that barely conceal the most intimate parts of the body, or an exposure to anyone who may see, would be comparable to the church allowing non-Christians into the church where they might visually observe the wine and bread used for the Eucharist.
    • The analogy lines up correctly, but we do not treat the simple sight of the elements to be the reserved only for the believers. Participation is what is reserved for believers.
My point is this... in our culture today, we have defined the simple sight of certain body parts to be equivalent to experiencing that person sexually. But we do not treat the simple observation of the Eucharist to be equivalent to partaking of the body and blood of Christ.

You are absolutely correct when you say, " It is to the shame of our modern culture that the body is seen as inherently inappropriate contentographic, even dirty, when God made it so good."

But do you not see that when you treat any body part as if the simple observation of it is "partaking" of that person sexually... that that is indeed treating the body as "inherently inappropriate contentographic"?

We are to reserve the act of sexual union for the husband/wife. We are never told in the Bible to treat the simple sight of the body the same way.


I don't believe this statement--"the body had to be treated differently"--is biblically defensible. It most certainly is the "assumed" position for most Christians, but it's not based on biblical declaration.


Again this is not God's intent... to conceal Christs' work of redemption... rather, it is God's intent to reveal that which was formerly hidden. This not just in spite of humanity's failures... but because of humanity's failures!

Even though rejected, God still wants his "real presence" to be manifest among unbelievers... that's exactly what the incarnation of Christ was all about!! God made Flesh! Dwelling among US!! And yes... that presence was rejected by many. God put it all out there anyway.

My point is this, Alex... you're trying to make a theological case for "concealing" certain body parts, but I don't think that case can be made. Nowhere is it articulated in the Scriptures. And the analogy to the Eucharist requires us to equate "seeing" with "partaking"... which is not reality... either at the altar nor with the body.

David
I appreciate your input. Some of what you said is more of what I was trying to say, even if it didn't quite come out.The rest of it I think it's built in my general view point of being very realist, not just with this, but with everything. I don't so much go after what is ideal, but more after how to operate when things aren't ideal.

You have given me more to think about, I'll have to think it over for a time before I respond further. Also, I just finished my last final, so I can get to reading your articles. That should give us a better basis for further conversation.basis

Peace & all good things,
Alex
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
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

MyChainsAreGone

Image Bearer
Apr 18, 2009
690
510
Visit site
✟36,686.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate your input. Some of what you said is more of what I was trying to say, even if it didn't quite come out.The rest of it I think it's built in my general view point of being very realist, not just with this, but with everything. I don't so much go after what is ideal, but more after how to operate when things aren't ideal.

You have given me more to think about, I'll have to think it over for a time before I respond further. Also, I just finished my last final, so I can get to reading your articles. That should give us a better basis for further conversation.basis

Peace & all good things,
Alex
Thanks, Alex. I look forward to our continued discussion.

I appreciate being "realistic," but there is a very important place for pondering the "ideal" even in a messed-up world!

If we don't know what the ideal actually is, how can we make any good decisions about realistically pursuing the ideal in a less-than-ideal world?

We all know that humankind lost a lot at the fall, but the "pre-fall" reality is still the "after-the-fall" ideal. Think about it...
  • Before the fall, we (humans) lives in perfect relationship with God. That's the ideal that we were created for. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to live in relationship with God anyway... pursuing that "ideal" with all our hearts. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.
  • Before the fall, we lived in perfect harmony with other humans, and most highly expressed in the marriage relationship. That's the ideal God intended for human relationships and marriage. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to live in harmony with others anyway, particularly in the marriage relationship. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.
  • Before the fall, we lived "naked and unashamed"... that's a perfect relationship with ourselves. That's the ideal we were created to be. That was broken at the fall. But we can and should seek to have the capacity to live naked and unashamed anyway. That is still God's will for us... His ideal.
Oddly enough, however, that notion on the third point is so foreign to most Christians today as to evoke a quick and urgent reminder that we can never be "naked and unashamed" now because, "WE CAN'T GO BACK TO EDEN!!" and "IT'S AFTER THE FALL NOW... SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!"

But those same two objections apply equally to the first two points. No... we'll never regain it to the very level of pre-fall Eden, but shouldn't we still TRY???

Should we ever just "accept" the results of the fall and the curse and make no effort to combat those difficulties they brought to us?
  • Should we tell women that because God cursed childbirth with pain, that they just have to deal with it? No epidurals, sorry. The pain is "God's Will" for you!
  • Should we tell farmers that because God cursed the ground, they shouldn't attempt to irrigate or weed their gardens? Do NOT use week-killer! Why? Because thorns and thistles are now "God's Will" for you!
  • Should we tell everyone that because disease and death are just part of the curse, that they are going to die someday, so if they get sick, it's just God telling them that "You're Time's up." You just have to live--and die--with the curse exactly as God handed it down to us all.
NO! We actively fight and use every means at our disposal to overcome and compensate for those curses... and we still try to make post-fall life as much as possible like pre-fall life. We actively seek to stave off death (an enemy) as long as we possibly can.

The pre-fall reality is still the post-fall ideal. Jesus even affirmed this when asked about marriage and divorce by the Pharisees... and He literally quoted Genesis 2:24 (pre-fall) as the answer to their post-fall question about marriage.

And that begs the question... would Jesus affirm pre-fall Genesis 2:24 as the ideal for a post-fall world, but reject pre-fall Genesis 2:25 (naked and unashamed) for the post-fall world? I don't think He would!

But, hey... we're talking "ideals" here rather than "realistic." I get that. But if we are going to make decisions about how to live in a post-fall world, shouldn't we first acknowledge what the "ideal" is that we need to pursue? We may not hit the target in the middle, but if we don't even know which direction to shoot, we will always miss it... and not just by a little.

David
 
Upvote 0