Defining Modesty

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

Absolutely! I have the most struggle with fully clothed women that I know and like.
I'm far less impacted by pictures of fully nude women (strangers.)

That said, lack of clothing makes it worse; imagine if that first group went nude.

which remains in the realm of visual stimulation

I stated that I think 1Ti 2:9, in this context, doesn't apply at all. So, are you referring to a text other than my OP?

you stated this was referring to the subject of attention and I replied in my initial post that this verse isn't about attention but rather about making oneself look pretty to be attractive to men.

a women could show up with messed up hair and a bloody nose and get attention, but I don't think that would be the attention she is looking for when she does her hair and puts on nice clothes and jewelry.

 

[Paidiske]

Although in marriage, the husband is still to be the head/leader. Logically, there's a necessity for someone to be the leader, and the reason is given; iirc: man was first, and the woman was deceived first.

As for providing, etc... I mostly agree with you. In essence, if a woman is so self-sufficient that there's nothing to be gained by you providing for her, then there's no need. However, if things go badly: the duty's on you (man), in order to be an example of christ's self-sacrifical love for his bride.

I find collaborative leadership works quite well, drawing on the strengths of each; there's no logical or practical necessity to set up hierarchy between two people. And the collaborative approach is also a picture; a picture of the Trinity in which perfect mutuality and cooperation exist.

I find these things are best worked out between each couple for themselves, rather than attempting to make each couple conform to a cookie-cutter conception of marriage.

 

[Johnny Boyd]

In Gen we find Adam and his wife naked, and unashamed.
Then we find Adam and his wife doing what God forbid them to do.
Then we find they discovered they were naked and covered themselves with an apron made from leaves.
Then we find God clothed them with animals skins.

Later we find nakedness is a shame to the one is naked, for others to see ones nakedness.
(Husband and wife together in nakedness is excepted)

We can guess what parts of the body Adam and Eve covered with leaves.
We can guess what parts of the body God covered with animal skins.

We can also know from some scriptures and personal experience; parts of people are call "private" parts, for several reason.

We also know parts of people are not private and revealed regularly, in scripture and in society.

And our faces uncovered, our arms, hands uncovered, are never called naked.

We also know from scripture, one does not need to be concerned by what clothing they put on; Key words; clothing put on

clothes, clothing, garments by their very definition are "coverings".

God clothed Adam and Eve. He covered their nakedness. He used an animal skin. Some today say THAT is taboo! Some cover their nakedness with cotton, rayon, wool, denim, etc. Again, key words; Cover their nakedness.

It is not a mystery to know IF a lack of clothing is offensive to an onlooker.
And sure enough, many men have zero complaint to see women show a lot of skin or wear seductive clothing, and they know exactly what imaginations run through their own minds.

So, I would just say; to conclude what you might think acceptable;
Picture a young adult female, provocatively dressed, in a room full of men in a bar drinking;
Now imagine that female is your daughter.

God Bless,
SBC

Yes sir, I don't support nudity. I think Gen 3 is clear.

What isn't clear is how much needs to be covered to not be considered nudity.

 

[Johnny Boyd]

I find collaborative leadership works quite well, drawing on the strengths of each; there's no logical or practical necessity to set up hierarchy between two people. And the collaborative approach is also a picture; a picture of the Trinity in which perfect mutuality and cooperation exist.

I find these things are best worked out between each couple for themselves, rather than attempting to make each couple conform to a cookie-cutter conception of marriage.

Yes, leadership that's demanding and power-mad is corrupted. Collaboration should be used. However, the husband is still the leader; he makes the final decision. If there's a disagreement that can't be resolved, the woman is to submit to the husband (excluding obvious problems).

 

[Paidiske]

That's one model, but it's not the only viable approach, even for Christians.

 

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

Yes, leadership that's demanding and power-mad is corrupted.

such leadership would be in violation of the charge to husbands in ephesians 5:25-29.

just as well, to the chagrin of the feminauti, a woman's refusal to submit to her husband is in violation of ephesians 5:22-24.

 

[SBC]

Yes sir, I don't support nudity. I think Gen 3 is clear.

What isn't clear is how much needs to be covered to not be considered nudity.

As much, and in such a fashion,
as one is not presented as a sexual eye enticement or perceived as offensive to others.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Blade]

You have to take each generation into account. The CHURCH was not what we see today. This has been going on as in talked about for.. since Jesus left to make us a home. For GOD what it comes down to is WHY are you coming.. going there? For man/woman? For ME..if one feels the need to dress up because the one they come to see is not just some man..some king of this world. Yet.. others come in reg clothes ..be nice if they had some top on lol..yet.. some are weak in the faith..on BOTH of these. They come not for me. What I personally like.. or dislike.. or you.. matters not. They come for HIM! This is a personal relationship.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I personally being an america am usually disgusted by what american women wear. EVen christian american women. Coming to church in shorts that basically just cover your butt cheeks. I'm talking beyond short. And they come in very revealing almost workout type clothes. Or the men that come in tank tops.

Its why I love my wife whos not from america. She wears not only underwear but shorts underneath her clothes, especially if its a dress. Shes very modest. She doesn't really even show clevage. MAYBE you can see a small, whats the word, like split where the cleavage may start. I'm talking like 1/10th of an inch....if that.

Problem is people often use modern clothing to think its ok to dress certain ways instead of going by what modesty means at the time the bible was written. Am I saying women should wear long dresses, cover their heads and all that stuff? No. Thats legalistic stuff. My feeling is you dress like you would if you were in front of Jesus. Would a woman wear a tiny skirt that shows her naked butt cheek skin bounce around when she walks? Would she wear a colorful tiny bra and a lacy white tshirt in front of Jesus? No.

And yes I apply this stuff to men to. I always wear something to cover up. Even at home I wear a tank top. I also wear boxer shorts at home. I'd never wear some of the tiny bath trunks men wear. Or have no shirt on.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I find collaborative leadership works quite well, drawing on the strengths of each; there's no logical or practical necessity to set up hierarchy between two people. And the collaborative approach is also a picture; a picture of the Trinity in which perfect mutuality and cooperation exist.

I find these things are best worked out between each couple for themselves, rather than attempting to make each couple conform to a cookie-cutter conception of marriage.

This amounts to a type of gender dysphoria. It's not the norm but a deviation from it. God create man and woman. He made these distinctions, and sin and rebellion have denied and/or distorted His creation, just as in other areas of life. And, just as in other areas of life, Christians are to conform themselves to His will and design regardless of how we feel.

Rather than see that culture is to be obeyed, i.e., we are formed by it. We ought to take are cues from God's revealed will. Culture and society will gladly confirm us in any and all sin, error, and even perversion. Life against the grain of a culture which has wholly rebelled against its Creator is the norm for a Christian. A "city on a hill". . .

 

[Paidiske]

This amounts to a type of gender dysphoria. It's not the norm but a deviation from it. God create man and woman. He made these distinctions, and sin and rebellion have denied and/or distorted His creation, just as in other areas of life. And, just as in other areas of life, Christians are to conform themselves to His will and design regardless of how we feel.

Nope, no dysphoria (distress, anxiety etc) here.

Yes, God created male and female. To be partners in life and mission. That is the will and design to which we ought to be conformed, not to indulge a sinful desire to dominate or control.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Nope, no dysphoria (distress, anxiety etc) here.

Yes, God created male and female. To be partners in life and mission. That is the will and design to which we ought to be conformed, not to indulge a sinful desire to dominate or control.

I haven't seen the words, "dominate" or "control" in this thread. You sound as if you have an axe to grind.

Aslo, people who are not in their God-given gender roles are by definition confused, at the very least. They are like a drunk who says he's got it under control, but they are the least qualified to judge that. They need a "mirror", as we all do. The Christian's mirror is His Word.

 

[Paidiske]

I haven't seen the words, "dominate" or "control" in this thread. You sound as if you have an axe to grind.

Aslo, people who are not in their God-given gender roles are by definition confused, at the very least. They are like a drunk who says he's got it under control, but they are the least qualified to judge that. They need a "mirror", as we all do. The Christian's mirror is His Word.

I do have an axe to grind. Demands for submission are all about domination and control. And that's not healthy. (It's also totally unrelated to the topic of this thread, but since we've gone there...)

There are very few roles which need to be apportioned by gender, and they end up being so by virtue of physiology. (Mother and father would be the most obvious of those). For the rest, there is freedom to use our gifts and follow the longings God places within our hearts.

 

[Marked.]

We had a dress code at our last church too...apparently. I was in the foyer when I heard an elder's wife say;"Oh my God, will you look at that. ". Looking out the doors I could see a woman who looked like a 'lady of the night' walking in. She was alone and looking a bit apprehensive. Everyone gave her a harlot's distance. My heart broke for her so I went up to welcome her and talk...briefly ( to my shame). The eyes were now on US and not just her. She never came back. I'm sure she'll feel more comfortable in hell with those who 'looked their Sunday best' on the one day they had the courage to step into our world....never seeing Jesus, but only to feel the 'love bites' of religion.

I for one think the church should stop being judgemental and focus on winning the war against the evil forces of this world.
Apparently, the lady who walked in was a first timer. Imagine if everyone hadn't cast judgemental glances at her and welcomed her warmly instead, she would have visited again right? Who knows she could even become a member and then the process of change begins to set in.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Demands for submission are all about domination and control.

Where has anyone has made such demands in this thread? I must have missed it.

Trying to live outside of God's design is not freedom. It's slavery. Freedom comes from denying lessor desires in favor of greater/superior desires.

 

[Paidiske]

Posts 44 and 46 were heading that way. Men opining about how women need to submit.

And I'm not talking about living outside God's design. I'm talking about living it out to the full.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I agree.On the beach we expect to see skin.Not at church though.

Or, at a business meeting. . . funeral home. . .

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Posts 44 and 46 were heading that way. Men opining about how women need to submit.

Key word: Wives. Not "women".

 

[Paidiske]

Last time I checked, jimmy, all wives were women...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Last time I checked, jimmy, all wives were women...

Not all women are wives.