Prove me wrong: modesty/skin exposure

[blackhole]

It's amazing that, in your maturity, you dispute with the vast majority of believers over the meaning of women's modesty.

Appeal to majority.

 

[FireDragon76]

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

They live in dry climates where clothing can actually be helpful as it prevents rapid loss of moisture, increased cooling, and decreases sun exposure.

 

[Archivist]

No, he is showing no parts used in sex.

Female breasts are not sexual organs. They are secondary sexual characteristics.

Yes, of course I have...so?

As I have said several times in this thread, many women find a well-proportioned male chest to be sexually attractive. What I hear you saying is that woman can't be permitted to go topless because that might cause you and other men to sin, but if you go topless and women sin so what. Talk about a double standard.

Are you kidding?
Timothy 2:9
New International Version
I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

The only one who is apparently kidding is you. Please read the verse you quoted. It is talking about overdressing...wearing gold and jewels and expensive clothing. It says nothing about going topless.

The bible doesn't condemn a man or woman going bottomless either...yet.

Except we aren't discussing that in this thread. Your comment also ignores Genesis 3, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

If you think a woman with no top is dressed modestly, your in denial and wasting mine and your time both.

If you think think this is a waste of time, why are you debating in a thread that is specifically discussing women going topless?

 

[Archivist]

No, your point?

I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin). Apparently that is alright with you, but topless women who might cause you to sin need to be stopped. Double standard.

Do you think me should be able to go bottomless?

You will probably be arrested if you try. In any event, that isn't what we are discussing in this thread. The discussion is about women doing what men commonly do in public.

Considering the fact public nudity is illegal in the USA, if discrimination is what you choose to call it, then I have the whole country on my side.

But the thread isn't about nudity. It is about women going topless when men already go topless.

However, I don't call keeping a man from going bottomless and a woman from going topless, discrimination, just good sense.

Men and women are both prohibited from going bottomless. The discrimination comes about when men are permitted to go topless but women are not. Remember, at one time the law was equal--both men and women were prohibited from going topless in public. That is no longer the case.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin). Apparently that is alright with you, but topless women who might cause you to sin need to be stopped. Double standard.



You will probably be arrested if you try. In any event, that isn't what we are discussing in this thread. The discussion is about women doing what men commonly do in public.



But the thread isn't about nudity. It is about women going topless when men already go topless.



Men and women are both prohibited from going bottomless. The discrimination comes about when men are permitted to go topless but women are not. Remember, at one time the law was equal--both men and women were prohibited from going topless in public. That is no longer the case.

Though usually if a man has no shirt, he can be denied service at public businesses. It may be technically legal, but it's usually considered improper and transgressive of civility.

 

[Archivist]

Though usually if a man has no shirt, he can be denied service at public businesses. It may be technically legal, but it's usually considered improper and transgressive of civility.

True, but he won't face arrest or be fined or jailed as a topless woman might be.

 

[Archivist]

It's amazing that, in your maturity, you dispute with the vast majority of believers over the meaning of women's modesty.

I see, everything in Christianity depends on majority support. Fortunately there are many cases where a small minority stood up to an incorrect majority.

We have spoken in the Bible and throughout Judeo-Christian history that your position is incorrect.

No, I'm still waiting for a single Bible verse that says that women should not go topless. Just one. Why am I hearing crickets...

You claim history is on your side, yet baptisms in the early church were conducted in the nude. This was written by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome:

"At the hour in which the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry."

We are left to wonder why your small minority claims superior understanding over all of us.

Please show me where in this thread I have ever claimed superiority over anyone.

Such an attitude is not consistent with spiritual maturity. Instead, it is consistent with spiritual pride. Wisdom says: There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. (Proverbs 14:12)

I'm not the one who is being prideful here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Female breasts are not sexual organs. They are secondary sexual characteristics.

Fine...that's enough

I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin). Apparently that is alright with you, but topless women who might cause you to sin need to be stopped. Double standard.

No, having nice things is not a sin at all. The sin is in the envy of those who sit on their #%$ while someone else works hard for a better living. What an odd argument, like that's really a thing. It's as if you tried to create an argument/a problem, where there was no problem, in order to defend the, also odd point you're trying to make. But I guess that makes perfect sense, defend the odd with the odd.

You are desperately stretching to make your point now.

 

[Archivist]

Fine...that's enough

No, big difference between a secondary sexual characteristic and a sex organ. Male chest hair is also a secondary sexual characteristic. If you go topless around women you might be showing that off (assuming you have any), but you think that is alright--it is only women who can't go topless around you.

No, having nice things is not a sin at all.

But a woman going topless is?

The sin is in the envy of those who sit on their #%$ while someone else works hard for a better living.

You are making an assumption that may or may nor be true. The person who is envious might be the harder worker. Oh, and you didn't bother with other points I raised. I guess you have no answer.

What an odd argument, like that's really a thing. It's as if you tried to create an argument/a problem, where there was no problem, in order to defend the, also odd point you're trying to make. But I guess that makes perfect sense, defend the odd with the odd. You are desperately stretching to make your point now.

This is when you know that someone has nothing to say, when they resort to name calling. I'm not desperately stretching to do anything. You are the one who has reached the point of desperation. You could end this thread right now. Just provide a verse that says that women shouldn't go topless in public. Just one.

 

[Grip Docility]

No, big difference between a secondary sexual characteristic and a sex organ. Male chest hair is also a secondary sexual characteristic. If you go topless around women you might be showing that off (assuming you have any), but you think that is alright--it is only women who can't go topless around you.



But a woman going topless is?



You are making an assumption that may or may nor be true. The person who is envious might be the harder worker. Oh, and you didn't bother with other points I raised. I guess you have no answer.



This is when you know that someone has nothing to say, when they resort to name calling. I'm not desperately stretching to do anything. You are the one who has reached the point of desperation. You could end this thread right now. Just provide a verse that says that women shouldn't go topless in public. Just one.

I would quote Paul to be a smart ellic, but I know those verses aren’t meant to be read “in the flesh”.

As for a verse that says ... and I’m flipping it... women must or should go topless... that verse would be quoted as much or more than John 3:16... if it existed.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, big difference between a secondary sexual characteristic and a sex organ. Male chest hair is also a secondary sexual characteristic. If you go topless around women you might be showing that off (assuming you have any), but you think that is alright--it is only women who can't go topless around you.



But a woman going topless is?



You are making an assumption that may or may nor be true. The person who is envious might be the harder worker. Oh, and you didn't bother with other points I raised. I guess you have no answer.



This is when you know that someone has nothing to say, when they resort to name calling. I'm not desperately stretching to do anything. You are the one who has reached the point of desperation. You could end this thread right now. Just provide a verse that says that women shouldn't go topless in public. Just one.

Making assumptions? no, I'm going on just what you told me, but now you add to that, and then say I made an assumption because I didn't consider what you never said was part of the equation? Do you even see how twisted that logic is?

"Name calling"? Where?

Didn't answer what "point"?

Now your comparing women not dressing modestly, and that alone making it not biblical to go topless, to making a good living, something that there is nothing wrong with?

So, of course a woman going topless is still sin...your comparison is based on nothing wrong.

 

[blackhole]

As for a verse that says ... and I’m flipping it... women must or should go topless...

No one in this thread is saying that women should go topless. Not even me, the OP.

I forecast a false dichotomy.

 

[Archivist]

Making assumptions? no, I'm going on just what you told me, but now you add to that, and then say I made an assumption because I didn't consider what you never said was part of the equation? Do you even see how twisted that logic is?

Here is exactly what I said earlier: "I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin)." That in no way says that those who are envious "sit on their #%$ while someone else works hard for a better living." Don't tell me you aren't making assumptions.

"Name calling"? Where?

Saying that what I am saying is "odd," which you did three times. That is name calling. Apparently your mother did not teach you manners.

Didn't answer what "point"?

Once again, here is exactly what I said earlier: "I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin)." You replied regarding envy and and said nothing about my other points.

Now your comparing women not dressing modestly, and that alone making it not biblical to go topless, to making a good living, something that there is nothing wrong with?

Except I didn't compare women going topless with people working hard to make a good living.

So, of course a woman going topless is still sin...your comparison is based on nothing wrong.

Again, show me where in Scripture it says that it is a sin for a woman to go topless. One verse, please. Providing your opinion over and over doesn't count for much.

 

[Grip Docility]

No one in this thread is saying that women should go topless. Not even me, the OP.

I forecast a false dichotomy.

I’ve been asking what the point of the thread is. At the end of the day... some countries show toplessness as normal and other countries freak out if a wardrobe malfunction happens at the super bowel.

Some countries kill woman for showing their faces. This was my question.

Why is this imperative to argue?

 

[blackhole]

Why is this imperative to argue?

1) Facts. Truth.
2) So that people would stop shaming women for being "immodest.' This happens even when they're not topless.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here is exactly what I said earlier: "I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin)." That in no way says that those who are envious "sit on their #%$ while someone else works hard for a better living." Don't tell me you aren't making assumptions.

It's no assumption, if people work hard, get their own mice things, they have nothing to be envious of.

Saying that what I am saying is "odd," which you did three times. That is name calling. Apparently your mother did not teach you manners.

"Odd" is a description of your comments, not a name. Odd ball would be a name.

So, IOW, no name calling at all as you accused me of.

Once again, here is exactly what I said earlier: "I have asked several times in this thread (without answer) about people who have nice houses or clothing or cars causing others to be envious (which is a sin), about those serving good food causing others to be gluttonous (which is a sin), about those having money causing others to be greedy (which is a sin)." You replied regarding envy and and said nothing about my other points.

And I commented on that. You'll need to be specific on what points I didn't comment on. But it seems I showed some of your points were not viable or actual real points at all so for those there is nothing to comment on. again be specific on exactly what i didn't comment on and I'll try to help you get what you need.

Except I didn't compare women going topless with people working hard to make a good living

Of course you did.

Again, show me where in Scripture it says that it is a sin for a woman to go topless. One verse, please. Providing your opinion over and over doesn't count for much.

I did, and it wasn't opinion. See the scripture below where women should dress modestly, and know topless is close to about as immodest as it gets. Next are a link of some ideas of what I'd dare say the vast majority consider modest dress/attire, just look at the first pictures at the link and the bust line....there really isn't one, and that's because "modest" means they don't want you looking at their boobs, much less go around topless.

modest dresses - Google Search

A definition from Websters Dictionary:

3 : observing the proprieties of dress and behavior : decent

Now go ask 100 people what dressing decent means, and you'll have your answer, and it ain't women going topless.

Here's the scripture, and if you don't get it after all this, you refuse to see the clear truth.

◄ 1 Timothy 2:9 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

decent
adjective
de·cent | \ ˈdē-sᵊnt

\
Definition of decent
1 : marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill hard-working and decent folks it's very decent of them to help
2a : conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality decent behavior
b : modestly clothed

 

[blackhole]

It's no assumption, if people work hard, get their own mice things, they have nothing to be envious of.



Here's the scripture, and if you don't get it after all this, you refuse to see the clear truth.

◄ 1 Timothy 2:9 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

decent
adjective
de·cent | \ ˈdē-sᵊnt

\
Definition of decent
1 : marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill hard-working and decent folks it's very decent of them to help
2a : conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality decent behavior
b : modestly clothed

1) If I work hard, I can get a girl that's better looking than whomever I might happen to see without a top. Women love high-status men.

2) You're seriously using an english dictionary to define a translated word? Use the strongs, like I did earlier.

 

[Grip Docility]

1) Facts. Truth.
2) So that people would stop shaming women for being "immodest.' This happens even when they're not topless.

People either shame women out of Carnal Judgment... jealousy... Envy or Desire.

Biblically proving a gal can go topples won’t stop that.

There will always be men that demand women do such and such... to be acceptable. Satan obviously founded shame and is its proprietor.

That should be enough to know and understand.

When we were Around God, in the Garden, we were O’Natural and unashamed. Once Satan deceived Eve... shame entered into the picture.

Just explain to people that Islam shames women for being beautiful, or exposed, while Christianity focuses on inner beauty and demands a judgment free attitude.

 

[blackhole]

That image. Rofl!

 

[fhansen]

The only major problem I have is with our declaration of which areas must be hidden.

It depends on which areas a given society are most ashamed of or lusts the most over I guess. Modesty is a subjective and relative concept.