Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

[A_Thinker]

I would point out that the Mosaic Law made marrying competing sisters a sin, so that relationship was not blessed from the beginning.

Were the sisters competing before they married Jacob ?

 

[Archivist]

Still waiting for someone to answer the questions I posed in post 226. I presume that means that those on the other side cannot provide answers.

 

[Sam91]

How about this: as the Bible uses the term nudity in Genesis 2-3, or in any other section which shows nudity as substantially negative (shame or sin), are you able to give evidence for the viewpoint that God would consider toplessness as a form of such nudity?

To be clear: I'm not asking if you can give verses to show that toplessness is bad. I'm asking if you can give verses to show that toplessness would be considered nudity, in such circumstances.

Those verses have already been shared but were dismissed because they did not meet the criteria you wanted. There are some things that do not need to be explicitly stated. When Jesus said if a part of your body causes you to sin you should cut it off, is that not a clear enough demonstration of the danger of sin. Therefore, we ought to safeguard others from the possibility of sin through our own conduct. When in doubt we should err on the side of caution.

I'm not in doubt as to the lustful thoughts I would cause in others if I went topless. Some people would wish me to have clothes on because I offended their eyes too. If a Christian saw me I might also cause them to feel anger, bitterness, or to look down on me. Those are other sins I would cause... more stumbling blocks. I pointed out earlier what Jesus said in Matthew about that.

Non-christians would also judge me for it. It says in Peter (?) to live lives beyond approach to the secular world. It would be another way in that I have sinned. Jesus commands us to be filled with His light and that no one hides a lampstand under a bed. We need to shine Him into the world, not our political views.

I am careful in my posts here to try to not be combative, prideful and to not rouse anger in others. We should extend that to include how we dress too. It isn't about us at all, it is about God and carrying out His will.

 

[Sam91]

Still waiting for someone to answer the questions I posed in post 226. I presume that means that those on the other side cannot provide answers.

I believe I have but not directly.

 

[blackhole]

Those verses have already been shared but were dismissed because they did not meet the criteria you wanted. There are some things that do not need to be explicitly stated. When Jesus said if a part of your body causes you to sin you should cut it off, is that not a clear enough demonstration of the danger of sin. Therefore, we ought to safeguard others from the possibility of sin through our own conduct. When in doubt we should err on the side of caution.

You just jumped from whether nudity and topless are distinguishable, to lust.

Lust is a different conversation.

 

[Archivist]

I believe I have but not directly.

Then try a direct answer. See, I see a double standard—women shouldn’t go topless because it could cause men to lust but if what you own or do causes others to be envious or greedy or gluttonous that’s ok.

 

[RDKirk]

Were the sisters competing before they married Jacob ?

You are not to marry a woman and then have sexual relations with her sister as a rival when your wife is still alive. -- Leviticus 18

 

[Sam91]

@Archivist

Posts 242 and 245.

Well I would not like to directly answer because to hoard wealth while others are in need is sinful.

I am comparatively poor compared to my peers but I have a friend who can't afford a holiday. I added her onto my booking when she wished she could come while she was in the room. She has since decided she doesn't want to come afterall. Even though I didn't want her to come I did not want her to miss out and tried to convince her that she didn't need to spend any more than if she stayed at home. It's a caravan holiday not that far away. All she needed to spend would be her food if she chose to eat something different to my family. I had paid for her child's activities etc already. Did I do it because it was sinful for me not to? No I did it to love my neighbour because I had it in my means to do it. If I didn't obey the call to love my neighbour it would be sinful indeed to not have invited her. It was more about wanting to act in love rather than avoiding a sin. She can still come next week if she changes her mind.

James 4:17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them.

 

[Sam91]

You just jumped from whether nudity and topless are distinguishable, to lust.

Lust is a different conversation.

But it is linked. I also spoke of a plethora of other consequences of a Christian being underdressed.

The Bible does not speak specifically about toplessness but it does tell us how to act. When considered as a whole it refutes the OP in my opinion. (Yes, I know you said about opinions before but I need to add 'in my opinion' in order to remain meek, sounds prideful without it.)

I think I've written enough now to have given you a broad view of my thoughts on the subject. I'll bow out so you can concentrate on other's posts. It's also coming close to midnight here so goodnight too.

 

[A_Thinker]

You are not to marry a woman and then have sexual relations with her sister as a rival when your wife is still alive. -- Leviticus 18

Seems that the command has some qualifications. Do you know what "as a rival" encompasses ?

Would any marriage to sisters be a violation ?

It didn't seem to be a violation when Jacob married Leah, and then Rachel.

It seemed that the rivalry started when it became clear to Leah that Rachel continued to be favored ... and the Lord began to give her children to compensate for that. Then Rachel became alarmed because she wasn't having any children ... and they began substituting their hand-maidens ....

 

[Archivist]

Posts 242 and 245.

Well I would not like to directly answer because to hoard wealth while others are in need is sinful.

I am comparatively poor compared to my peers but I have a friend who can't afford a holiday. I added her onto my booking when she wished she could come while she was in the room. She has since decided she doesn't want to come afterall. Even though I didn't want her to come I did not want her to miss out and tried to convince her that she didn't need to spend any more than if she stayed at home. It's a caravan holiday not that far away. All she needed to spend would be her food if she chose to eat something different to my family. I had paid for her child's activities etc already. Did I do it because it was sinful for me not to? No I did it to love my neighbour because I had it in my means to do it. If I didn't obey the call to love my neighbour it would be sinful indeed to not have invited her. It was more about wanting to act in love rather than avoiding a sin. She can still come next week if she changes her mind.

James 4:17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn't do it, it is sin for them.

Not sure why this was directed at me, because it did not answer anything that I posted. The post I would like answered is my post 226.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The vast majority of missionaries? Interesting, because we had a senior pastor who recently passed away who served on Africa as a missionary many years ago, and he believed that certain aspects of their culture, including going topless, were better off before the Europeans arrived.

And?

Does that change anything I said? And forget the "sin" part for a moment, how are they better off going topless?

 

[blackhole]

how are they better off going topless?

If there's shade: cooling. Even a light shirt can make life much more unpleasant.

Same for nursing: baby under a blanket on a hot day = bad.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If their culture accepts it as normal (thus, no perception of evil), are you suggesting that the entire culture should change their otherwise not-sinful (assumed, for the sake of argument) attire because of one missionary (or even a few)?

There are plenty in the world that accept sleeping around for instance, as normal. They had no idea it was wrong until they got it from the bible. It's often that way with some new Christians, and it's not a good reason to continue to allow it, even if they think it's completely innocent as they would.

 

[Archivist]

And?

Does that change anything I said? And forget the "sin" part for a moment, how are they better off going topless?

How are they better off? To begin with many of them live in a very hot climate. Going topless is much more comfortable. They also don’t have men (other than perhaps the missionaries) staring at them because breasts aren’t considered sexual.

And you have not shown in any way shape or form that it is a sin to go topless.

 

[RDKirk]

Seems that the command has some qualifications. Do you know what "as a rival" encompasses ?

Would any marriage to sisters be a violation ?

It didn't seem to be a violation when Jacob married Leah, and then Rachel.

It seemed that the rivalry started when it became clear to Leah that Rachel continued to be favored ... and the Lord began to give her children to compensate for that. Then Rachel became alarmed because she wasn't having any children ... and they began substituting their hand-maidens ....

It became a rivalry the moment Jacob realized he had a woman he didn't want. There was no way to pretend they were on equal footing when Jacob had already declared he preferred one over the other.

 

[Archivist]

There are plenty in the world that accept sleeping around for instance, as normal. They had no idea it was wrong until they got it from the bible. It's often that way with some new Christians, and it's not a good reason to continue to allow it, even if they think it's completely innocent as they would.

You are seriously comparing sleeping around to exposed female breasts? Really?

Oh, and I would love to get an answer to you to the questions I posed in post 226.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If there's shade: cooling. Even a light shirt can make life much more unpleasant.

Same for nursing: baby under a blanket on a hot day = bad.

Wouldn't their men also be better off going butt naked? Yet many don't do that.

And BTW, why aren't you speaking up for full nudity being ok for Christians? There's nothing in the bible that says it isn't ok, and it gets awful hot in the Summer, at least in the USA, so we'd all be "better off".

 

[RDKirk]

If there's shade: cooling. Even a light shirt can make life much more unpleasant.

Not true. There is a reason Arabs and cowboys keep themselves fully covered.

 

[blackhole]

Wouldn't their men also be better off going butt naked? Yet many don't do that.

And BTW, why aren't you speaking up for full nudity being ok for Christians? There's nothing in the bible that says it isn't ok, and it gets awful hot in the Summer, at least in the USA, so we'd all be "better off".

I did, but that's far more disputable.

Gen 3 calls full nudity (genitals) shameful. There is perhaps the implication of it being sinful. There are texts in Revelation which hint at this, but don't state it.

On the contrary, however: I believe that Gen 2-3 shows us that toplessness is not wrong; Adam and Eve continued to be topless after they became ashamed and hid their nakedness. Some point in the future, their tops were also covered. But, it wasn't related to shame (shameful exposure was already dealt with).


Perhaps more directly related to my motive, we have equality when it comes to genital exposure. We don't have equality when it comes to chest exposure.