Topless Danes

[Nadiine]

I think it's a cultural issue. Look at the many tribes in Africa and eslewhere where all run around naked. They have done it for generations. They haven't been raised or taught that sex is dirty and body parts are bad, so nakedness doesn't effect them or the sight of it cause hormones to rage.
Looking at a boob is as normal as looking at a foot.

In Europe, it's more of equal rights. A boob is a boob, man or woman. IF men can do it, why can't women. Most lifelong residents in Europe are use to nakedness and don't go nuts at the sight of them, ect. It's now becoming a way of culture.

In America, a woman shows her boobs, cars wreck.

I think best to keep em covered. I don't mind looking at nice boobs, but most of em need to be covered. Certainly, breastfeeding should be allowed anywhere.

Here we go again with "if that culture does it, IT MAKES IT RIGHT TO DO".

The NT church in Corinth was in serious sin - if you didn't see Paul correct them in a letter, would you watch the Corinthian church & surmize "they're doing right in their church/ in their gentile culture. It's just something they do - especially since they have such a heavy focus on idolatry".

Did anyone stop to think that the cultures that go topless (the few who do) are the ones that are in the WRONG? & should get some clothes on?

Why do we leap to acceptance just becuz some places make it legal and they don't seem to care?

 

[Chajara]

The entire point is that they don't care. If they don't care, no lust right? That's what we're aiming for, right?

Or is nakedness in and of itself wrong regardless of whether it causes people to lust? Are those tribes wrong in their tradition of running naked even though not a single one of them is lusting due to it? Or do you just not believe that they're not lusting because they're used to it?

 

[Nadiine]

The entire point is that they don't care. If they don't care, no lust right? That's what we're aiming for, right?

Or is nakedness in and of itself wrong regardless of whether it causes people to lust? Are those tribes wrong in their tradition of running naked even though not a single one of them is lusting due to it? Or do you just not believe that they're not lusting because they're used to it?

BACK TO THE TRIBES. Are you in a tribe? Are the Scandinavians living in the back jungles without education or technology or clothes stores at every corner?

Amsterdam legalizes street drugs, do we copy that? They legalize prostitution, do we copy that? Again, what decides what is moral or modest, other cultures in the world? or God's word to us?

India drops babies off high balcony's while a group of people stand on the ground to catch it - do we do that too?

I have a real hard time associating "topless/half naked" with the NT teaching of "Modest".
Also, what's the motive of the reason for the toplessness? Rebellion or ignorance? Motive is judged by God - but their doctrinal beliefs decide their salvation or not. Toplesness is most likely the symptom of their spiritual condition in the first place.

Lastly, if Adam & Eve knew after they sinned that they should put clothing on, then what does that say for people who "don't care" about being naked in public? I think it's what I said in an earlier post, apathy and desensitization to sin. Not even being ashamed of showing their bodies to strangers. Even Adam and Eve knew to put clothing on.

 

[Tissue]

1) There is no Scriptural basis for an exposed breast being a sin.
2) It is not a deliverance of the conscience, as there are entire cultures that do not see it as the West does.
3) Therefore, it is nothing but a cultural fixation, which has unfortunately been applied in a religious context, so that Christian fundamentalists and their conservative cousins consider it an issue worth fighting over.

If you don't want to go naked, that's your right. No one (as far as I know) is forcing you to. But if others want to, or at least want that right, and it isn't condemned in Scripture, then leave them alone.

 

[Chajara]

So you are arguing that nakedness is wrong regardless of whether who's seeing you is lusting. Okay, I disagree, and with that we're at a standstill. You can question my and others' Christianity all you want, but there are a heck of a lot of us who disagree with you on what "modesty" truly means and also what "lust" truly means. Heck, some of us think that the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal account but a story with a point to it. If you think we're somehow not as Christian as you are because we interpret Scripture differently or that it's a symptom of a bad "spiritual condition" then so be it and have fun feeling superior.

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread, as I don't care to debate with those who can't refrain from insinuating that people who disagree with them aren't receiving the Holy Spirit or aren't Christian or are apathetic toward sin or whatever. It's making me angry and I've got better things to do.

 

[SallyNow]

Id' also add to read the bible where Paul is clear about the modest aparrel women should wear - I think we all know that women's boobs turn men on sexually, any Christian woman doing so is inviting men to lust or fantasize sexually which isn't appropriate.

God will judge all this stuff in His courts - I'll continue to do what I know is morally right.

Actually, it depends on the culture. And of course, on the individual man. Not every culture runs on the idea that nudity=sex, nor even that breasts=sex.

On a side note, why do people rarely talk about men who invite women to lust upon them? There are a lot of men who encourage women to lust after them, but who have no intention of making a commitment. It's always about the women. Yet a woman who dresses appropriatly for an event is chastised...

 

[Nadiine]

Actually, it depends on the culture. And of course, on the individual man. Not every culture runs on the idea that nudity=sex, nor even that breasts=sex.

On a side note, why do people rarely talk about men who invite women to lust upon them? There are a lot of men who encourage women to lust after them, but who have no intention of making a commitment. It's always about the women. Yet a woman who dresses appropriatly for an event is chastised...

Well God has hardwired men to be visually stimulated sexually - so I can't figure out why we think partial & full nudity is fine when Adam & Eve (who weren't present around other people yet) decided to cover up - and then God covered them up.

Cultural trends (if you're going to go by that) are more along the lines of types of clothing, styles, cuts of the clothing, not nudity.

Again, at the time Paul wrote his epistle of instruction, the Jewish dress code was NOT partial nudity... so why we think modesty includes full or partial nudity is beyond my comprehension. We look at the dress code at the time it was written - since nudity was NOT in the picture, then stripping down to wearing NO shirt is not ok.

Again, we don't follow culture, we follow the Lord. God's laws trump culture and always have. It's only within the parameters of God's law (on modesty), that we then go by our culture's dress styles at the time. (are they wearing pants, long dresses, plunging necklines, etc.)
If Christians are claiming that we follow culture first, then they're going to be in serious spiritual trouble as they follow the WORLD before they follow God.

And if they all jumped off bridges, would we follow? God judged whole cultures who did evil in His sight - do we just say "that must be ok becuz their whole country is doing it"? God also told the Israelites not to do as the other heathens were doing in the cultures around them (ie. jewelry, tattooing, piercings, etc.). God set them apart FROM those around them in other cultures, so why do we think CHRISTIANS aren't "set apart" to God not to do what the world around them are doing when it violates His standards?
ie. MODESTY in moderation with propriety as is fit for a follower of Jesus Christ.

As to your Q about men - how do you claim men are luring us into lust?

 

[*Starlight*]

Well God has hardwired men to be visually stimulated sexually - so I can't figure out why we think partial & full nudity is fine when Adam & Eve (who weren't present around other people yet) decided to cover up - and then God covered them up.

Since they wanted to be covered up, then God helped them. But apparently not everyone wants to be covered up, so why should they be?

 

[Nadiine]

Since they wanted to be covered up, then God helped them. But apparently not everyone wants to be covered up, so why should they be?

oh boy --

First off, WHAT were they covered with by God? ANIMAL SKIN. That's a whole lesson on the sacrificial system that started with God - the first animal sacrifice to shed blood over their sin/covering the sin. AND covering their naked bodies once sin entered the world.

You also are missing the details of WHY THEY covered up. Sin entered and so did the knowledge of evil. They immediately knew they were naked and HID. The shame of nudity/open exposure became prevalent in their minds.

Before & After:

1. Genesis 2:25
   And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
   Genesis 2:24-25 (in Context) Genesis 2 (Whole Chapter)
2. Genesis 3:7
   Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
   Genesis 3:6-8 (in Context) Genesis 3 (Whole Chapter)
3. Genesis 3:10
   So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
   Genesis 3:9-11 (in Context) Genesis 3 (Whole Chapter)
4. Genesis 3:11
   And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

Self awareness came at the fall - open nudity is a shame, not something to be embraced and flaunted.
Do a word study on naked-ness - it is not a positive, good thing to be flaunting and open with, quite the opposite.
And since that is so, (since the beginning), we know that it's not acceptable or of God anytime after, in ANY culture.

It's linked with judgment and shame outside of proper boundaries in intimacy. It's used as punishment, reveals the poor or destitute and it's also used as spiritual metaphors (never positive).

here's exerpts of a commentary on Gen. 2 & 3 re. open nudity:

Gen. 2
e. They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed: Before the fall, Adam and Eve were both naked . . . and not ashamed. The idea of “nakedness” is far more than mere nudity. It has the sense of being totally open and exposed as a person before God and man. To be naked . . . and not ashamed means you have no sin, nothing to be rightly ashamed of, nothing to hide.
i. Adam and Eve knew they were physically naked - nude - before the fall. What they did not know was a sinful, fallen condition, because they were not in that condition before their rebellion.
ii. We often feel uncomfortable when someone stares at us. This is because we associate staring with prying, and we don’t want people to pry into our lives. We want to remain hidden and only reveal to other people what we want to reveal.
iii. When we want to be most attractive to someone else, we do the most to change our normal appearance. We have the thought, “If I really want to impress this person, I have to fix myself up.” None of this feeling was present with Adam and Eve when they were naked . . . and not ashamed.

Gen. 3:7
2. (7) The nakedness of Adam and Eve.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
a. Then the eyes of both of them were opened: Seemingly, it was only after the sin of Adam that they knew of their sinful state. They knew they were naked, in the sense of having their shame exposed to all creation.
b. They new that they were naked: Psalm 104:2 and Matthew 17:2 suggest that light can be a garment for the righteous. It may be that Adam and Eve were previously clothed in God’s glorious light, and the immediate loss of this covering of light left them feeling exposed and naked.
i. “It is more than probable that they were clothed in light before the fall, and when they sinned the light went out.” (Barnhouse)
c. The eyes of both of them were opened: The way they saw themselves changed, but also the way they saw the entire world was now different. After the fall, everything looked worse.
i. Was it good or bad that Adam and Eve saw their nakedness and felt terrible about it? It was good, because it is good to feel guilty when you have done something wrong.
d. They sewed fig leaves together: Their own attempt to cover themselves took much ingenuity, but not much wisdom. Fig leaves are said to have a prickly quality, which would make for some pretty itchy coverings.
i. Every attempt to cover our own nakedness before God is just as foolish. We need to let Jesus cover us (Revelation 3:5, 18), and put on Jesus Himself as our covering garment (Galatians 3:27). The exhortation from Jesus is for us: Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame. (Revelation 16:15)
ii. Obviously, they covered their genital areas. In virtually all cultures, adults cover their genital areas, even though other parts of the human body may be more or less exposed from culture to culture.
iii. This is not because there is something intrinsically “dirty” in our sexuality, but because we have both received our fallenness and pass it on genetically through sexual reproduction. Because of this, God has implanted it in the minds of men that more modesty is appropriate for these areas of our body.

Can I ask where in scripture God tells us to
'FOLLOW YOUR CULTURAL SURROUNDINGS - IF THEY GO NAKED, YOU DO IT TOO"??

 

[*Starlight*]

Why would nakedness be something shameful? It's only shameful to people living in a culture where they are taught that it's shameful... but there are no natural reasons for that.

As for blood sacrifices, I don't believe in them. Many of the people who wrote the Bible probably did, but people in ancient cultures believed in a lot of weird things...

 

[Nadiine]

Why would nakedness be something shameful? It's only shameful to people living in a culture where they are taught that it's shameful... but there are no natural reasons for that.

As for blood sacrifices, I don't believe in them. Many of the people who wrote the Bible probably did, but people in ancient cultures believed in a lot of weird things...

Well, as I understand it, you also don't believe the bible is God's word to man or FROM God... so...... what's the point? You simply decide what truth is as per your opinions & feelings. (which is a whole other thread so I won't belabor that problem here).

Did you skip over the commentary piece that explains the shame of nakedness?
And if you don't feel any shame with open nudity exposed to the outside world, there's a source problem (stemming from the first paragraph issue).

I shouldn't have to (and don't need to) tell you what God put in us to feel naturally when exposed (which the knowledge of sin brought at the fall) - it's hardwired into all of us spiritually which Adam and Eve immediately understood in their spirits. It's as inherant as the sin nature - it comes with it.

Rebellion to God & His statutes causes us to lose sensitivity to what is shameful and sinful (dulling the conscience). Once the conscience is dulled or "dead" to God's Spirit working in our conscience to be sensitive to what's right and wrong, we can carry out & promote sin without feeling much of any guilt, shame, remorse or sorrow - or even brainwash ourselves that evil is good!

commentary on Rom 2:14-15 - good & evil; what we know by nature:

2. (14-16) Possession of the law is no advantage to the Jew in the Day of Judgment.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
a. Although not having the law, are a law to themselves: Paul explains why the Gentile can be condemned without the law. Their conscience (which is the work of the law written in their hearts) is enough to condemn - or, theoretically, enough to justify - them.
i. Written in their hearts: Many pagan authors of Paul’s day referred to the “unwritten law” within man. They thought of it as something that points us to the right way. Though it is not embodied in written laws, it is in many ways more important than written laws.
ii. A law to themselves does not mean that these “obedient Gentiles” made up their own law (as we use the expression “law unto himself”), but that they were obedient to conscience, the work of the law residing in themselves.
iii. “He indeed shows that ignorance is in vain pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness.” (Calvin)
b. Their thoughts accusing or else excusing them: In theory, a man might be justified (“excused”) by obeying his conscience. Unfortunately, every man has violated his conscience (God’s internal revelation to man), just as every man has violated God’s written revelation.
i. While Paul says in Romans 2:14 that a Gentile, may, by nature do the things contained in the law; he is careful to not say that a Gentile could fulfill the requirements of the law by nature.
ii. Though God has His work within every man (resulting in conscience), man can corrupt that work, so that conscience varies from person to person, and our consciences can be damaged, and even restored in Christ.
iii. If our conscience is condemning us wrongly, we can take comfort in the idea that God is greater than our heart. (1 John 3:20)
c. Their conscience also bearing witness: People who have never heard God’s word directly still have a moral compass that they are accountable to - the conscience.
i. “God is describing how He has constituted all men: there is a ‘work’ within them, making them morally conscious.” (Newell)
ii. “He is not saying that the law is written on their hearts, as people often say, but that the work of the law, what the law requires of people, is written there.” (Morris)
d. On the day when God will judge the secrets of men, no man can find refuge from God’s judgment by claiming ignorance of His written revelation; violation of God’s internal revelation is enough to condemn us all.
i. “God therefore will judge all nations according to the use and abuse they have made of this word, whether it was written in the heart, or written on tables of stone.” (Clarke)


1 Tim. 4:1-2
The Great Apostasy

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

1 Tim 4:2 commentary piece on a seared conscience

2. (2-3) The nature of their departure from the faith and embrace of the doctrines of demons.
Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
a. Speaking lies in hypocrisy: This describes those who depart from the faith. This certainly means those who willingly embrace falsehood to justify their sin or pride; but it also refers to those who claim to be teaching the Bible, while just using it as a prop for their own ideas.
b. Having their own conscience seared: Their conscience, which at one time would have convicted them of their departure from the truth, now doesn’t reply at all. It is as if the nerve endings of their conscience have been burnt over and are dead to feeling.
i. Paul here refers to the ancient practice of branding a criminal on the forehead with a distinguishing mark. For these, it was not their forehead that was branded with a hot iron, but their conscience instead.

ii. “They bear the marks of their hypocrisy as evidently and as indelibly in their conscience in the sight of God, as those who have been cauterized for their crimes do in their bodies in the sight of men.” (Clarke)

iii. Paul knew what it was to have a dead, burned conscience. Before he surrendered his life to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, he felt completely justified in his persecution of Christians and hatred of Jesus. He could feel justified because his conscience was seared and needed a wake-up call - which the Lord graciously provided.

 

[LightHorseman]

Nadiine, I read that like three times, and I really don't see anything that says unequivocally that God disaproves of nakedness... could you please, without diatribe and massive chunks of difficult font text, just quote the specific passage that makes this clear?

 

[Nadiine]

So you are arguing that nakedness is wrong regardless of whether who's seeing you is lusting. Okay, I disagree, and with that we're at a standstill. You can question my and others' Christianity all you want, but there are a heck of a lot of us who disagree with you on what "modesty" truly means and also what "lust" truly means. Heck, some of us think that the story of Adam and Eve is not a literal account but a story with a point to it. If you think we're somehow not as Christian as you are because we interpret Scripture differently or that it's a symptom of a bad "spiritual condition" then so be it and have fun feeling superior.

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread, as I don't care to debate with those who can't refrain from insinuating that people who disagree with them aren't receiving the Holy Spirit or aren't Christian or are apathetic toward sin or whatever. It's making me angry and I've got better things to do.

If Adam & Eve aren't LITERAL, then how are we all from Adam's lineage (bloodline) and inherited the sin nature they acquired???

Numbers of people who disagree w/ me at CF means NOTHING after I've read what else they support in "God's" name... ie homosexuality, abortion, porn, fornication, polygamy, claiming the Bible isn't God's word and/or full of errors along w/ all kinds of support for other immoralities.

If people reject and believe those things, why would I expect them to find this immoral?
so honestly, there's already a great divide on a spiritual level to start with. I chalk it up to a mass exodus of good bible believing Christians that did a mass exodus when this site switched to ecumenicism and opened up to widespread false teachings... once you open the floodgates, good luck closing them back up. And here we are today.

What I'm reading stems from other liberastic worldviews where scripture means little and is not only MISinterpreted severely, but is also REinterpreted to mean whatever people claim it means to them. (relativism/subjectivsm).
That's at the core in all these threads. So that's the basis from where I say what I said earlier, I don't care if every one of you claimed I was wrong, it means little at CF anymore.

So again, it doesn't matter to me how many here might say going topless is fine - I know what "modest" means in Greek AND English - I know what modesty was interpreted as in the NT church when Paul wrote the guideline (and according to current culture in his time) and it does not include 1/2 naked.

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, I read that like three times, and I really don't see anything that says unequivocally that God disaproves of nakedness... could you please, without diatribe and massive chunks of difficult font text, just quote the specific passage that makes this clear?

No. Why don't YOU GUYS SUPPORT YOUR OWN BELIEFS WITH THE BIBLE?

All I see is you guys forcing us to quote it all for you then you attempt to tear it all to ribbons. (flimsily I mite add).
How about YOU show me all the biblical examples of public nudity/toplessness that Paul was specifying was "modest in moderation" and "in propriety". Where was any nudity condoned for public display?

Why don't YOU give me all the scriptures where going nude is not only acceptable, but promoted and taught as "GOOD".
Until YOU cough those up for ME, I will continue on my present belief.
Burden of proof lies with you as well - you cannot simply try to tear apart our scriptures and think that's a "SUPPORT" for something.
Even IF you tore it apart, it does NOT mean it condones or teaches the very opposite of it!
That is the error you guys are in in alot of these moral issues. LACK OF specificity or denial of meaning, doesn't automatically give license to something else (its opposite).

So show me where women going topless (1/2 naked or naked) is some customary dress code for the Christian woman of the NT. OR, where the Bible plainly tells us public nudity of any kind is acceptable.

& As I've asked MANY times over, also please provide me with all the prominant Christian church Pastors, teachers, Theologians, historians or apologists who teach Christian toplessness for women.
I'd like to see what the majority of Christian leadership is teaching about dress code becuz if they teach it as a majority, then I should be willing to take a 2nd look at my stance on this.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Therefore we, as a people, are without excuse.
It is mere open rebellion period. And for those who claim it is the "norm" in their country
so it does not arouse the men. To that I say PULEEZE. lol

Well, as I understand it, you also don't believe the bible is God's word to man or FROM God... so...... what's the point? You simply decide what truth is as per your opinions & feelings. (which is a whole other thread so I won't belabor that problem here).

Did you skip over the commentary piece that explains the shame of nakedness?
And if you don't feel any shame with open nudity exposed to the outside world, there's a source problem (stemming from the first paragraph issue).

I shouldn't have to (and don't need to) tell you what God put in us to feel naturally when exposed (which the knowledge of sin brought at the fall) - it's hardwired into all of us spiritually which Adam and Eve immediately understood in their spirits. It's as inherant as the sin nature - it comes with it.

Rebellion to God & His statutes causes us to lose sensitivity to what is shameful and sinful (dulling the conscience). Once the conscience is dulled or "dead" to God's Spirit working in our conscience to be sensitive to what's right and wrong, we can carry out & promote sin without feeling much of any guilt, shame, remorse or sorrow - or even brainwash ourselves that evil is good!

commentary on Rom 2:14-15 - good & evil; what we know by nature:

2. (14-16) Possession of the law is no advantage to the Jew in the Day of Judgment.
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
a. Although not having the law, are a law to themselves: Paul explains why the Gentile can be condemned without the law. Their conscience (which is the work of the law written in their hearts) is enough to condemn - or, theoretically, enough to justify - them.
i. Written in their hearts: Many pagan authors of Paul’s day referred to the “unwritten law” within man. They thought of it as something that points us to the right way. Though it is not embodied in written laws, it is in many ways more important than written laws.
ii. A law to themselves does not mean that these “obedient Gentiles” made up their own law (as we use the expression “law unto himself&#8221, but that they were obedient to conscience, the work of the law residing in themselves.
iii. “He indeed shows that ignorance is in vain pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that they have some rule of righteousness.” (Calvin)
b. Their thoughts accusing or else excusing them: In theory, a man might be justified (“excused&#8221 by obeying his conscience. Unfortunately, every man has violated his conscience (God’s internal revelation to man), just as every man has violated God’s written revelation.
i. While Paul says in Romans 2:14 that a Gentile, may, by nature do the things contained in the law; he is careful to not say that a Gentile could fulfill the requirements of the law by nature.
ii. Though God has His work within every man (resulting in conscience), man can corrupt that work, so that conscience varies from person to person, and our consciences can be damaged, and even restored in Christ.
iii. If our conscience is condemning us wrongly, we can take comfort in the idea that God is greater than our heart. (1 John 3:20)
c. Their conscience also bearing witness: People who have never heard God’s word directly still have a moral compass that they are accountable to - the conscience.
i. “God is describing how He has constituted all men: there is a ‘work’ within them, making them morally conscious.” (Newell)
ii. “He is not saying that the law is written on their hearts, as people often say, but that the work of the law, what the law requires of people, is written there.” (Morris)
d. On the day when God will judge the secrets of men, no man can find refuge from God’s judgment by claiming ignorance of His written revelation; violation of God’s internal revelation is enough to condemn us all.
i. “God therefore will judge all nations according to the use and abuse they have made of this word, whether it was written in the heart, or written on tables of stone.” (Clarke)


1 Tim. 4:1-2
The Great Apostasy

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

1 Tim 4:2 commentary piece on a seared conscience

2. (2-3) The nature of their departure from the faith and embrace of the doctrines of demons.
Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
a. Speaking lies in hypocrisy: This describes those who depart from the faith. This certainly means those who willingly embrace falsehood to justify their sin or pride; but it also refers to those who claim to be teaching the Bible, while just using it as a prop for their own ideas.
b. Having their own conscience seared: Their conscience, which at one time would have convicted them of their departure from the truth, now doesn’t reply at all. It is as if the nerve endings of their conscience have been burnt over and are dead to feeling.
i. Paul here refers to the ancient practice of branding a criminal on the forehead with a distinguishing mark. For these, it was not their forehead that was branded with a hot iron, but their conscience instead.

ii. “They bear the marks of their hypocrisy as evidently and as indelibly in their conscience in the sight of God, as those who have been cauterized for their crimes do in their bodies in the sight of men.” (Clarke)

iii. Paul knew what it was to have a dead, burned conscience. Before he surrendered his life to Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, he felt completely justified in his persecution of Christians and hatred of Jesus. He could feel justified because his conscience was seared and needed a wake-up call - which the Lord graciously provided.

 

[TheReasoner]

No. Why don't YOU GUYS SUPPORT YOUR OWN BELIEFS WITH THE BIBLE?

All I see is you guys forcing us to quote it all for you then you attempt to tear it all to ribbons. (flimsily I mite add).
How about YOU show me all the biblical examples of public nudity/toplessness that Paul was specifying was "modest in moderation" and "in propriety". Where was any nudity condoned for public display?

Why don't YOU give me all the scriptures where going nude is not only acceptable, but promoted and taught as "GOOD".
Until YOU cough those up for ME, I will continue on my present belief.
Burden of proof lies with you as well - you cannot simply try to tear apart our scriptures and think that's a "SUPPORT" for something.
Even IF you tore it apart, it does NOT mean it condones or teaches the very opposite of it!
That is the error you guys are in in alot of these moral issues. LACK OF specificity or denial of meaning, doesn't automatically give license to something else (its opposite).

So show me where women going topless (1/2 naked or naked) is some customary dress code for the Christian woman of the NT. OR, where the Bible plainly tells us public nudity of any kind is acceptable.

& As I've asked MANY times over, also please provide me with all the prominant Christian church Pastors, teachers, Theologians, historians or apologists who teach Christian toplessness for women.
I'd like to see what the majority of Christian leadership is teaching about dress code becuz if they teach it as a majority, then I should be willing to take a 2nd look at my stance on this.

Hey now. You're starting to sound like ol' Shield Of Faith here...

He said the exact same thing while defending genocide with the bible.
Like him, Nadiine, you're failing to provide any evidence that's even halfway to conclusive. What's more, and I guess you don't like hearing this, the bible must be read with a certain cultural filter. You must understand that it was written in another time and another culture. This does change a few things the bible is very clear on. For example that women should cover their heads while praying, or that men shouldn't shave. Or that men can't have long hair and so on and so forth.
It must be - in part - read with an understanding of who wrote it, when, to whom it was written and why.

Your issue is that women shouldn't tempt men. I agree. Women shouldn't tempt men, or dress in ways that are provocative.
But not wearing clothes can be less tempting than wearing the right clothes the right way. I will not search and post images for examples. But if you surf around the web you're sure to have seen certain ads for dating sites and whatnot, often with dressed women in challenging poses and with a very dirty look in their eyes. I don't care if they're wearing a burqa when they do that - it's a lot more tempting and alluring than seeing completely naked women in national geographic.

My point is, if you are going to use the bible, you must also be able and willing to take other factors relevant to the specific passage/chapter/book into consideration. And you must also - and this is critical - be open to that you might actually be wrong. Humility is pretty important according to the bible.

 

[LJSGM]

A topless woman goes up to a man on the beach and she starts telling him about Jesus...... need I say more?

You guys are so focused on your "freedoms" that you have left what is right behind, That is, what God has called you to do, which is to serve God in everything.

But this really isn't a christian's focus anymore is it? It's how much fun can I have, and how much can I get away with, and how close can I get to that line without crossing over it. Not, "would this please God" "am I serving him" and "do people see Jesus in me" or "am I loving others"?

 

[TheReasoner]

A topless woman goes up to a man on the beach and she starts telling him about Jesus...... need I say more?

Yes, you do. Because not long ago you might have substituted topless for 'in a swimsuit'. And not long before that "in short trousers" - before that "in trousers" and before that you could simply say "A woman goes up to a man on the beach and she starts telling him about Jesus...... need I say more?"
Besides, it is completely dependent on the culture. In the US it is highly inappropriate, yes. In Norway it's not as OK as it is in Denmark or Sweden, but it's not unthinkable. Though in general it is often a good idea to let men minister to men and women to women. Can save us a lot of heartache.

You guys are so focused on your "freedoms" that you have left what is right behind, That is, what God has called you to do, which is to serve God in everything.

That's your opinion. I can understand why you think this is so, but I am happy to tell you that you're wrong. At least as far as I am concerned. I can't speak for everyone here, of course. We are to serve God in everything. Absolutely! Are you telling me that women in tribes native to the Amazon cannot minister to others in their community because they are topless and have been for more generations than we can count?

But this really isn't a christian's focus anymore is it? It's how much fun can I have, and how much can I get away with, and how close can I get to that line without crossing over it. Not, "would this please God" "am I serving him" and "do people see Jesus in me" or "am I loving others"?

Aren't you forgetting this and substituting it for legalism? We're not advocating looseness. Or edging close to the edge. We're trying to help you understand that the world does not end at your doorstep. It's huge! And while wearing a bikini on US beaches is OK, it is highly inappropriate in the middle east. And while wearing nothing on your torso is bad in the US, it is quite alright in many other places in the world. It doesn't mean there's excessive focus on sex. It doesn't mean there's rampant lust and fornication. It does not mean that the people who don't wear anything to cover their breasts are any worse or less Christians than you are. I can understand that you - if you are an American who have not seen other cultures - can say these things. BUt I would encourage you as a brother in Christ to open your eyes and see the world we are in. Not to make you think immorality is OK. But that you may see that your own perception of reality is limited by being a human being and limited further by your lack of intercultural experience.

 

[IamRedeemed]

You agree with Nadiine, that women should not provoke men to lust and then you say that "but not wearing clothes can be less tempting than wearing the right clothes the right way".

Well, being attractive with your clothes on and worn in a non-provoking manner is not a sin. You cannot help it if you are doing the right thing and someone chooses still to lust after you, (assuming it is more than just an acknowledgment that a person is attractive), that is then on them, and up to them to deal with. But to make it relativistic is absolute nonsense, because chances are that if someone is "nasty" in your opinion nude, they will probably still be "nasty" with their clothes on in your opinion.

On the flipside, how many men with lust problem will undress with their eyes attractive women who are dressed appropriately? Again those that do have to deal with that, but there is no excuse or relative theory that makes it not sin, for women to provoke men to lust.

As far as the ads you speak about, there is no argument that someone could be dressed in a burqa and still allure and tempt with her facial features. Such a person is no less guilty of provoking a man to lust if she does that, than a person who has their cleavage exposed from the top to the bottom or wears a dress with the bottom cut out. I mean please. But let's not try to justify sin, with relativistic theories.

All of the scenarios are sinful, except for the woman who is dressed appropriately and has not tempted
any man willfully and you know it as well as we do.

Hey now. You're starting to sound like ol' Shield Of Faith here...

He said the exact same thing while defending genocide with the bible.
Like him, Nadiine, you're failing to provide any evidence that's even halfway to conclusive. What's more, and I guess you don't like hearing this, the bible must be read with a certain cultural filter. You must understand that it was written in another time and another culture. This does change a few things the bible is very clear on. For example that women should cover their heads while praying, or that men shouldn't shave. Or that men can't have long hair and so on and so forth.
It must be - in part - read with an understanding of who wrote it, when, to whom it was written and why.

Your issue is that women shouldn't tempt men. I agree. Women shouldn't tempt men, or dress in ways that are provocative.
But not wearing clothes can be less tempting than wearing the right clothes the right way. I will not search and post images for examples. But if you surf around the web you're sure to have seen certain ads for dating sites and whatnot, often with dressed women in challenging poses and with a very dirty look in their eyes. I don't care if they're wearing a burqa when they do that - it's a lot more tempting and alluring than seeing completely naked women in national geographic.

My point is, if you are going to use the bible, you must also be able and willing to take other factors relevant to the specific passage/chapter/book into consideration. And you must also - and this is critical - be open to that you might actually be wrong. Humility is pretty important according to the bible.

 

[Nadiine]

Hey now. You're starting to sound like ol' Shield Of Faith here...

He said the exact same thing while defending genocide with the bible.
Like him, Nadiine, you're failing to provide any evidence that's even halfway to conclusive. What's more, and I guess you don't like hearing this, the bible must be read with a certain cultural filter. You must understand that it was written in another time and another culture. This does change a few things the bible is very clear on. For example that women should cover their heads while praying, or that men shouldn't shave. Or that men can't have long hair and so on and so forth.
It must be - in part - read with an understanding of who wrote it, when, to whom it was written and why.

Your issue is that women shouldn't tempt men. I agree. Women shouldn't tempt men, or dress in ways that are provocative.
But not wearing clothes can be less tempting than wearing the right clothes the right way. I will not search and post images for examples. But if you surf around the web you're sure to have seen certain ads for dating sites and whatnot, often with dressed women in challenging poses and with a very dirty look in their eyes. I don't care if they're wearing a burqa when they do that - it's a lot more tempting and alluring than seeing completely naked women in national geographic.

My point is, if you are going to use the bible, you must also be able and willing to take other factors relevant to the specific passage/chapter/book into consideration. And you must also - and this is critical - be open to that you might actually be wrong. Humility is pretty important according to the bible.

Alot of what you mention I have agreed about in previous posts - yes, you can wear a burlap sack and be enticing to men by suggestive body gestures of any kind, eye contact or words - but the MOTIVE there is obvious and it's key becuz it's based in flesh or Spirit.

As for a debate on head coverings - that doesn't "allow" for deeming toplessness as a decent moral dress code for a Christian. If they're told to even cover the head, I HARDLY think we can surmize that Paul's call for "modesty" can also mean taking off women's tops to go bare chested in public.
If anything, that leads to an argument towards how LITTLE we should be revealing with our clothing, not how much we can take off.
(I hope you get what I'm driving at with the logic & reasoning of that discrepancy - I do know what you're relaying, I'm simply saying that even in that discrepancy, it doesn't lend to taking MORE off, but just the opposite).

Outside of "the Bible", we have general revelation of God, by God of right and wrong. And I find it an interesting coincidence in what bible believing Christians have believed and supported all thru their existance, and what the world accepts & promotes morally. (ie. immorally).
The pattern & trend right there shows the distinct difference in moral behaviour and worldviews of the 2 groups. So for people who claim Christianity to support female nudity of any kind, I kinda see a conflict there.

This is why I ask for some teachings of prominant Christian professionals over the centuries up to today; what is the predominance of the CHRISTIAN message on dress code and morality?
It's certainly not partial & full nudity - it's to cover up due to the male's hardwiring of visual sexual stimulation of the female body.
This is just a general fact that we should ALL be taking into account; ie. common sense!

Just the biblical point of "stumbling another into sin or temptation" is enough right there to claim that it's wrong due to male [visual] hardwiring.

I don't care if 2 out of 2000 [hetero] men aren't "breast men"... the other 1998 ARE. How is she to know which ones they were in her "audience"? I also know that young males moving into puberty are extremely visually oriented and it takes them much less to be aroused than the normal male who's regularly engaging in sex for "release". What of the younger boys who see them on the beach at the pool/spas?

Further, the more of her body she's exposing in being even 1/2 nude, the more men see of her to draw attn. to her nude body and further entice them to think more sexually.

This is just common sense observation; nevermind the Bible even tho that's clear enough and the examples we have from it don't relay any type of nudity as acceptable for Christians.

The WORLD can live how they will, but it doesn't make it acceptable in God's eyes and I don't see anywhere where God tells us to judge right and wrong by how other cultures behave.

I don't see the validity of this argument on several levels; secular or Christian. (and I might add that many non christians are against female toplessness as well; it's not only a Christian position).