Sexy Christians

[Washington]

Admittedly the title is purposely provocative, but I'm trying to troll in a fair number of responses.

The subject arose during my internet travels when I happened upon the following.

Q. What the Bible Says About... Modesty
Fashion is a big part of any Christian teen's life. Yet, just as in every other part of our lives, discernment is important. Many fashion magazines promote low cut blouses and dresses alongside revealing skirts and shorts. While many Christian teens want to be fashionable, they also want to be modest. So, what advice does the Bible offer about modesty and how can it be applied to today's fashion?

A. Why Should Christian Teens Be Modest?
As a Christian your behavior sets the tone for how others see you and your faith. Being modest in your appearance is just as great a witness to those around you as your words. One issue many non-Christians have with believers is that they tend to be hypocritical. If you are preaching purity and modesty to others while wearing revealing clothes you may be seen as a hypocrite. By being modest you allow people to see your inner faith rather than your outer appearance
source
​

Because this only addressed teen dress, I decided to see what might be said about Christian post-teen dress. The first I came across was this . . .

"What does God thinks when He sees one of us running around our home in nothing but under clothes? Can you picture us doing that in heaven?
What does God thinks when He sees one of us in a swimsuit? How about in an off-the-shoulder evening gown, or a pair of shorts? Do you know where those things came from? Sure they did, they came from the prostitutes! Is that what God wants people to think of His Son's betrothed wife?
What does God thinks when He sees your little girl with a Barbie in her hand? Is that helping your little girl to grow up with a pure idea of womanhood as God intends it? "
source
​

Okay, in my estimation that's a good piece of fruit cake. I then went on to find . .

It is clear God wants us to dress in “modest apparel.” But does He leave it up to individual interpretation what "modest apparel" is? My neighbor thinks her leather mini skirts and halter tops are modest because she covers the important" areas. Does the fact that she *feels* she is being modest make it so? What about the pastor's wife who wears short dresses and sits at the front of the church playing the piano as her skirt rises higher and higher? If she has decided in her heart she is being modest, does it make it right? Is everyone supposed to decide what is modest for themselves or does God give us any guidelines at all?

Therefore we are certain that God commands Christian women to dress modestly, to dress like women in a feminine manner and to not dress as to cause our brother to stumble. We have also learned that Scripture is not up for individual interpretation. God´s Word is the final authority in all we believe, do and think. Don´t allow the world to set your standards of dress!

Dressing modestly will not get you to heaven. It will not make you a “better” person and it will not save your soul. What it will do is display obedience to the Word of God. It will reflect a heart that is submitted to Him and a desire to dress “to the glory of God!”
source
​

Of course these are fairly polarized opinions and pretty conservative views*, but they got me to wondering how the average Christian woman (at least those here at CF) dresses. So my question is: Assuming most (all?) of you normally dress modestly, as a woman are their times when you purposely dress sexy --define it anyway you want---and leave the house, or is such an idea simply against your beliefs or nature?




* Because these views seem to embody moral considerations I decided to post this in the Ethics & Morality forum.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Admittedly the title is purposely provocative, but I'm trying to troll in a fair number of responses.

The subject arose during my internet travels when I happened upon the following.

Q. What the Bible Says About... Modesty
Fashion is a big part of any Christian teen's life. Yet, just as in every other part of our lives, discernment is important. Many fashion magazines promote low cut blouses and dresses alongside revealing skirts and shorts. While many Christian teens want to be fashionable, they also want to be modest. So, what advice does the Bible offer about modesty and how can it be applied to today's fashion?

A. Why Should Christian Teens Be Modest?
As a Christian your behavior sets the tone for how others see you and your faith. Being modest in your appearance is just as great a witness to those around you as your words. One issue many non-Christians have with believers is that they tend to be hypocritical. If you are preaching purity and modesty to others while wearing revealing clothes you may be seen as a hypocrite. By being modest you allow people to see your inner faith rather than your outer appearance
source
​

Because this only addressed teen dress, I decided to see what might be said about Christian post-teen dress. The first I came across was this . . .

"What does God thinks when He sees one of us running around our home in nothing but under clothes? Can you picture us doing that in heaven?
What does God thinks when He sees one of us in a swimsuit? How about in an off-the-shoulder evening gown, or a pair of shorts? Do you know where those things came from? Sure they did, they came from the prostitutes! Is that what God wants people to think of His Son's betrothed wife?
What does God thinks when He sees your little girl with a Barbie in her hand? Is that helping your little girl to grow up with a pure idea of womanhood as God intends it? "
source
​

Okay, in my estimation that's a good piece of fruit cake. I then went on to find . .

It is clear God wants us to dress in “modest apparel.” But does He leave it up to individual interpretation what "modest apparel" is? My neighbor thinks her leather mini skirts and halter tops are modest because she covers the important" areas. Does the fact that she *feels* she is being modest make it so? What about the pastor's wife who wears short dresses and sits at the front of the church playing the piano as her skirt rises higher and higher? If she has decided in her heart she is being modest, does it make it right? Is everyone supposed to decide what is modest for themselves or does God give us any guidelines at all?

Therefore we are certain that God commands Christian women to dress modestly, to dress like women in a feminine manner and to not dress as to cause our brother to stumble. We have also learned that Scripture is not up for individual interpretation. God´s Word is the final authority in all we believe, do and think. Don´t allow the world to set your standards of dress!

Dressing modestly will not get you to heaven. It will not make you a “better” person and it will not save your soul. What it will do is display obedience to the Word of God. It will reflect a heart that is submitted to Him and a desire to dress “to the glory of God!”
source
​

Of course these are fairly polarized opinions and pretty conservative views*, but they got me to wondering how the average Christian woman (at least those here at CF) dresses. So my question is: Assuming most (all?) of you normally dress modestly, as a woman are their times when you purposely dress sexy --define it anyway you want---and leave the house, or is such an idea simply against your beliefs or nature?




* Because these views seem to embody moral considerations I decided to post this in the Ethics & Morality forum.

Women should be conservative in dress. We don't want our girls being "Girls Gone Wild".

 

[DeathMagus]

Assuming most (all?) of you normally dress modestly, as a woman are their times when you purposely dress sexy --define it anyway you want---and leave the house, or is such an idea simply against your beliefs or nature?

I have no idea what you're asking.

 

[Washington]

I have no idea what you're asking.

"Assuming most (all?) of you normally dress modestly, as a woman are their times when you purposely dress sexy --define it anyway you want---and leave the house, or is such an idea simply against your beliefs or nature?"

Or, pared to the essentials:


"As a woman are their times when you purposely dress sexy and leave the house, or is such an idea simply against your beliefs or nature?"



Granted the two parts are not grammatically equal, but it's a fairly common form of question.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Women dress how they choose. How they choose is how men respond to them. Some Muslim leaders say than women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped. So it is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As a Christian your behavior sets the tone for how others see you and your faith. Being modest in your appearance is just as great a witness to those around you as your words. One issue many non-Christians have with believers is that they tend to be hypocritical. If you are preaching purity and modesty to others while wearing revealing clothes you may be seen as a hypocrite. By being modest you allow people to see your inner faith rather than your outer appearance

Honestly, I have never thought to myself: "she's dressing in a sexy way and she's a Christian -- she must be a hypocrite".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Women should be conservative in dress.

Approximately how many years behind the respective fashion of the day would "conservative" be?

 

[cantata]

Eeeeeeeep, thighs! *hides behind the sofa*

Srsly, is God so prudish? He's seen everyone naked.

 

[quatona]

Eeeeeeeep, thighs! *hides behind the sofa*

Srsly, is God so prudish? He's seen everyone naked.

Sure, but seeing them dressed is more thrilling because it requires him to use the power of his imagination.

 

[cantata]

Sure, but seeing them dressed is more thrilling because it requires him to use the power of his imagination.

I would imagine that to God-eternal, all of time is eternally present. So a person only has to be naked once for God to be staring at their nether regions for ever.

 

[quatona]

I would imagine that to God-eternal, all of time is eternally present. So a person only has to be naked once for God to be staring at their nether regions for ever.

Good point.
Don´t even get me started on my "being eternal is being static is being dead" pet theory which blows pretty much every concept of divine activity out of the window. An eternal god can´t create anything, for starters.

 

[cantata]

Good point.
Don´t even get me started on my "being eternal is being static is being dead" pet theory which blows pretty much every concept of divine activity out of the window. An eternal god can´t create anything, for starters.

Oh, but he can!

God can create simply by willing. His will, if he is eternal, is itself eternal. So he can will that the Universe be created at x time in the temporal world, for eternity. It doesn't matter that the point at which the world was created has now passed; as far as God is concerned, he's willing it to be created at that time for the eternal present.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Approximately how many years behind the respective fashion of the day would "conservative" be?

Roughly 2000 years. Hemlines went shockingly higher in the second century.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Oh, but he can!

God can create simply by willing. His will, if he is eternal, is itself eternal. So he can will that the Universe be created at x time in the temporal world, for eternity. It doesn't matter that the point at which the world was created has now passed; as far as God is concerned, he's willing it to be created at that time for the eternal present.

Are you just being a bit rebellious this morning, dear?
How does that solve the problem of being eternal = being static?
While it does give an explanation for the idea that we perceive in terms of time that which is eternal/unchanging, it doesn´t solve the problem that to god himself everything is static. God can´t experience, god can´t encounter, god can´t act.
It´s possible that he appears as acting to those who encounter in terms of time, but what´s the actual purrpose of explaining god?
Explaining how he appears to us in our temporal world, or explaining god from within the paradigms of his existence?

 

[quatona]

Roughly 2000 years. Hemlines went shockingly higher in the second century.

So around 4000 today´s fashion will be appropriately conservative in the eyes of god?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So around 4000 today´s fashion will be appropriately conservative in the eyes of god?

They'll be dressing like "Madonna".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

Are you just being a bit rebellious this morning, dear?

Little Miss Contrary, that's me!

You love it really.

How does that solve the problem of being eternal = being static?
While it does give an explanation for the idea that we perceive in terms of time that which is eternal/unchanging, it doesn´t solve the problem that to god himself everything is static. God can´t experience, god can´t encounter, god can´t act.

Well, you said that God can't create if he's eternal. I argued that he could be responsible for the existence of the world, even if being eternal means that he's static. God can do anything that doesn't require the passage of time to be done. He can know; he can approve or disapprove of things; he can will. It's just that everything that he knows, approves/disapproves of, and wills, he knows, approves/disapproves of, and wills in the eternal present. And, if things can happen just because he wills them (which seems to be the way he goes about creating in Genesis 1, incidentally), it would appear that he is able to be the generating force behind the existence of the Universe.

It´s possible that he appears as acting to those who encounter in terms of time, but what´s the actual purrpose of explaining god?

Well, because people care about God and what he's like, I suppose. I myself find him philosophically interesting.

Explaining how he appears to us in our temporal world, or explaining god from within the paradigms of his existence?

Well, both of those points of view are interesting.

As far as we are concerned, God is ever-present; that is, he exists simultaneously with everything that we do. As far as God is concerned, everything that we do is simultaneously eternally present to him. There's no absolute simultaneity, as general relativity reveals. So these two views need not be incompatible.

I just wrote an essay about eternity, so that's probably why I'm more amused by this problem than I should be.

 

[quatona]

Little Miss Contrary, that's me!

You love it really.

Sure do.

Last thing first:

Well, both of those points of view are interesting.

As far as we are concerned, God is ever-present; that is, he exists simultaneously with everything that we do. As far as God is concerned, everything that we do is simultaneously eternally present to him. There's no absolute simultaneity, as general relativity reveals. So these two views need not be incompatible.

Well, apart from the fact that "simultaneity" doesn´t even have meaning to an atemporal being, I do agree.

We seem to focus on different aspects, though.
I am trying to wrap my mind around what it is being like to be eternal. I mean, that´s what Christians ask me to do all the time ("think outside the box", "don´t try to understand god from within our temporal/spacial existence, but on god´s own terms" etc.).
Revisiting the initial issue: For god, people would not only be eternally naked, but they would also eternally be dressed, and they´d even wear eternally every single piece of garment they (from our temporal perspective) have ever worn at any point in time. So for god I am naked and dressed in multiple ways, eternally.

Well, you said that God can't create if he's eternal.

Let me put it differently: If we consider god on the premise that he is eternal we can´t arrive at the conclusion that he did anything.
If we work from our paradigms (time and space) god can appear to be creating, to act, to change. However if it´s the "true" way of looking at it is that god is eternal, then saying "he created" is not reconcilable with this "true" way of looking at things. It may, however, appear that way from the very pov that is actually declared "flawed".

IOW: God cannot perceive/encounter/experience himself as creating (by any definition that a verb can possibly have).

I argued that he could be responsible for the existence of the world, even if being eternal means that he's static.

I see.
I´m not sure I agree, though. I´m not sure what "responsible for" means in this context.
From within the perspective that god is eternal it must follow that everything else is eternal, too. I guess what I am expecting is a consistently applied perspective.

God can do anything that doesn't require the passage of time to be done.

Methinks there lies the rub: It seems to require major redefinition efforts to make the term "doing" applicable to something that doesn´t require the passage of time. I don´t know what an action is in the absence of time.

He can know;

Ok.

he can approve or disapprove of things;

Ok.

he can will. It's just that everything that he knows, approves/disapproves of, and wills, he knows, approves/disapproves of, and wills in the eternal present.

I´m not sure I understand what "will" might possibly mean in the absence of time. It´s one of those words that seem to imply dynamics, action, change.
What is there to will if everything possible and willable is there eternally, anyway?
Let me put it that way: Can god hope? Can god desire?

And, if things can happen just because he wills them (which seems to be the way he goes about creating in Genesis 1, incidentally), it would appear that he is able to be the generating force behind the existence of the Universe.

In view of his eternity he would be eternally creating the Universe.
In any case, it seems that god can not perceive himself as being the generating force behind the Universe. "Generating" isn´t even a meaningful term from the perspective of an eternal being. For god, there´s the universe, eternally.
And maybe the absence of a universe as well, eternally too. Just like us being naked as well as dressed eternally.

 

[Steezie]

Women dress how they choose. How they choose is how men respond to them. Some Muslim leaders say than women who dress provocatively are asking to be raped. So it is.

Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

So if someone's being a tool, and I beat the crap out of them, can I then say that "they were asking for it"?

 

[DeathMagus]

Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

So if someone's being a tool, and I beat the crap out of them, can I then say that "they were asking for it"?

Exactly. Now, a woman who takes unnecessary risks, such as displaying her body on a bad side of town, must shoulder some of the responsibility if she is raped. But regardless, the rapist is never justified in their actions.