Topless Danes

[TheReasoner]

I don't think it's bad at all. In some cultures, yes it would be. But not in Denmark. And I'm fairly sure that soon it won't be here either.
I don't mind though. But I do understand that some people from other cultures would

 

[Nadiine]

I don't think it's bad at all. In some cultures, yes it would be. But not in Denmark. And I'm fairly sure that soon it won't be here either.
I don't mind though. But I do understand that some people from other cultures would

I'm sure most men don't mind at all

But does it make a male lust after women or want to have sex/sexually excitable? That's the real issue.
It's an individual thing, it's not a culture thing. Just becuz Demark says it's ok in their culture, does it mean that EVERY SINGLE MALE doesn't have a boob fettish and gets turned on by women's bare racks?

Come on now.

Again are we bothering to read what GOD says about this? Or are we letting the world dictate right and wrong just becuz someone's "culture" says it's ok?

Amsterdam says street drugs and prostitution are fine too, are we to do what they do or be ok with it just becuz some people decide to indulge in something?

God told His people specifically not to do what all the gentiles around them were doing - which was pagan activity - including the tattooing & piercing and heavy jewlery trends they all did.
Not to mention their worship practices... God told them to be set apart from what they were surrounded with and what was popular.

It's not ok to just 'do what they do' (ie. "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" type of theology) becuz they do it & it's fine with them. Are we SANCTIFIED - set apart as God's children or we following the world & obeying what it does?
It's NOT OK and shouldn't be looked on as OK - we are new creations in Christ, and aren't supposed to be like the world & do what they're doing

 

[Archivist]

Well, would you walk into church topless? If not, why not?

Do men go topless in your church? The OP deals with women having the right to go topless anywhere that men have the right to go topless.

Whatever the "standard" is, it is what it is - men are sexually turned on by that

Probably because women see topless men all the time, whereas in many places men rarely see topless women. If it were commonplace the excitment favor would be greatly reduced.

In societies where it is commonplace for women to go topless, men don't give it a second thought.

As far as I can see, God covered the body after the fall. Scripture is clear about MODESTY - 1/2 nude is not modesty.

Actually the references to modesty in Scripture tend to deal with overdressing, not underdressing.

Men lust after a woman's body (boobs, butt & frontal) so is causing people to lust or look sexually ok as a Christian? no it's not.

Again, the idea of men lusting after a woman'
s breasts is societial. If women regularly went topless this would be greatly reduced.

So I think we know better than to approve of this type of stuff whether the standard is fair or not; double or not. There's lots of double standards - it still doesn't make something right on that basis alone. (ie. rebellion).

So why not go back to requiring blacks to go back to sitting in the back of the bus? Inequality is inequality.

God created us sexual beings - and most women are NOT sexually excited when they see a male naked or shirtless... men on the other hand are visually stimulated sexually.

Probably because women see topless men all the time, whereas in many places men rarely see topless women. If it were commonplace the excitment factor would be greatly reduced.

This is just simple biology 101.

No,it isn't. It is a societial thing.

Since that's so, its our job as women to comply with Godly standards regarding sexual enticement. We know what turns guys on.

First, men are responsible for their own actions.

Second, as long as women are required to cover their breasts, the breast will forever be a sexual turn-on. The way to end this is to allow women to go topless anyplace that men can go topless.

 

[Nadiine]

Just want to point out that the verse you quoted said nothing about keeping the chest under wraps. It is simply telling the husband not to take his wife for granted. The verse says nothing about any sort of objective standard for modesty.

We follow the whole of scripture in all it's parameters of meaning... this verse is very clear even tho it doesn't have to spell anything out.
1 Timothy 2:9
8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;
9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

Human nature/moral conscience dictates how the Christian is to conduct themselves - what excites men sexually & predomantly is the KEY here. The female chest has ALWAYS been a sexual focal point and we all know this by human nature.

If someone feels there's nothing wrong with it, then I suggest that if they're a female, go to a bible believing/preaching church topless and see how comfortable you feel there 1/2 naked.

Guys, if you look at that and lust, you have an issue too - I don't care what culture says or dictates... we know human nature, the conscience & reality.
We can lie to ourselves & others, but we cannot lie to God. If your conscience has become DULLED, then you have worse problems to deal with then topless debates... it goes much deeper

 

[Archivist]

I'm sure most men don't mind at all

Until recently most legislative bodies were male-dominated, so the laws prohibiting women from going topless were largely enacted by men.

But does it make a male lust after women or want to have sex/sexually excitable? That's the real issue. It's an individual thing, it's not a culture thing. Just becuz Demark says it's ok in their culture, does it mean that EVERY SINGLE MALE doesn't have a boob fettish and gets turned on by women's bare racks?

There are women who get turned on by men's chests. As you said, it is an individual thing. Yet men are allowed to go topless in public.

Come on now. Again are we bothering to read what GOD says about this? Or are we letting the world dictate right and wrong just becuz someone's "culture" says it's ok?

The issue of whether a woman's breasts should be covered is not addressed in scripture.

Amsterdam says street drugs and prostitution are fine too, are we to do what they do or be ok with it just becuz some people decide to indulge in something?

But that isn't what we are discussing here. This thread deals with a matter of equal rights.

God told His people specifically not to do what all the gentiles around them were doing - which was pagan activity - including the tattooing & piercing and heavy jewlery trends they all did. Not to mention their worship practices... God told them to be set apart from what they were surrounded with and what was popular.

But this thread isn't about tattooing and piercing.

It's not ok to just 'do what they do' (ie. "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" type of theology) becuz they do it & it's fine with them. Are we SANCTIFIED - set apart as God's children or we following the world & obeying what it does? It's NOT OK and shouldn't be looked on as OK - we are new creations in Christ, and aren't supposed to be like the world & do what they're doing

And there are Christian women in many places who go topless and it isn't given a second thought. The Ethiopian Church is one of the oldest in Christendom, yet women there commonly go topless.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm sure most men don't mind at all

But does it make a male lust after women or want to have sex/sexually excitable? That's the real issue.
It's an individual thing, it's not a culture thing. Just becuz Demark says it's ok in their culture, does it mean that EVERY SINGLE MALE doesn't have a boob fettish and gets turned on by women's bare racks?

Come on now.

Again are we bothering to read what GOD says about this? Or are we letting the world dictate right and wrong just becuz someone's "culture" says it's ok?

Amsterdam says street drugs and prostitution are fine too, are we to do what they do or be ok with it just becuz some people decide to indulge in something?

God told His people specifically not to do what all the gentiles around them were doing - which was pagan activity - including the tattooing & piercing and heavy jewlery trends they all did.
Not to mention their worship practices... God told them to be set apart from what they were surrounded with and what was popular.

It's not ok to just 'do what they do' (ie. "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" type of theology) becuz they do it & it's fine with them. Are we SANCTIFIED - set apart as God's children or we following the world & obeying what it does?
It's NOT OK and shouldn't be looked on as OK - we are new creations in Christ, and aren't supposed to be like the world & do what they're doing

Some men have leg fetishes. Some have butt fetishes. Some have hair fetishes.
Should women wear burkas just because of that?
In countries where you don't see a woman's legs they are huge turn-ons for men. Naturally, it is considered private and sexual, culturally it is a big deal. In Africa where women walk bare breasted I'm sure breast fetishes aren't very common.

 

[Archivist]

We follow the whole of scripture in all it's parameters of meaning... this verse is very clear even tho it doesn't have to spell anything out.
1 Timothy 2:9
8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;
9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

The very Scripture that you quote addresses wearing too much adornment--"not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing." It does not address whether women should go topless. Actually seeing a woman breastfeeding in public or bathing in public wasn't uncommon in Roman times.

Human nature/moral conscience dictates how the Christian is to conduct themselves - what excites men sexually & predomantly is the KEY here. The female chest has ALWAYS been a sexual focal point and we all know this by human nature.

Opinion. The fact that female breasts are not viewed sexually in many places proves otherwise.

If someone feels there's nothing wrong with it, then I suggest that if they're a female, go to a bible believing/preaching church topless and see how comfortable you feel there 1/2 naked.

You aren't paying attention to the OP. This is about women going topless anyplace that men can go topless. Do men commonly go topless in your church?

Guys, if you look at that and lust, you have an issue too - I don't care what culture says or dictates... we know human nature, the conscience & reality.
We can lie to ourselves & others, but we cannot lie to God. If your conscience has become DULLED, then you have worse problems to deal with then topless debates... it goes much deeper

Men are excited by female breasts in some places because they are hidden. In places where women go topless breasts are not viewed sexually.

 

[Nadiine]

The very Scripture that you quote addresses wearing too much adornment--"not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing." It does not address whether women should go topless. Actually seeing a woman breastfeeding in public or bathing in public wasn't uncommon in Roman times.

2 things... does it NEGATE MODESTY in APARREL? Did the Jewish women go topless in Israel???
Was it common there? No it wasn't. They covered up.
It is not ONLY speaking of jewlery and attraction - in context, it covers everything that should be done in propriety as is right for a GODLY woman.
Topless and Godly are hardly 2 things I put together as "modest" or "propriety" in apparel.
Do you put the 2 together?

Too much jewlery is even warned against, I wonder if Paul would think topless, 1/2 naked women looked best with less jewlery?
lol

Opinion. The fact that female breasts are not viewed sexually in many places proves otherwise.

It's not my opinion at all. I never said EVERY man is sexually aroused by them - MOST are however.

You aren't paying attention to the OP. This is about women going topless anyplace that men can go topless. Do men commonly go topless in your church?

My point is the conscience.

Men are excited by female breasts in some places because they are hidden. In places where women go topless breasts are not viewed sexually.

And you have proof of this statement??? I also disagree with it. God CLOTHED US for a reason - after the fall.

Anything people want to do is on them individually - but no it shouldn't be legal in CIVILIZED, modern cultures.

As I said before, people in Amsterdam are desensitized to street drugs and prostitution as normal, everyday activity - GOD says otherwise.
People are also desensitized to infanticide thru abortion mills every single day too - they even vote to protect it to continue!
God's word trumps man's desensitization to sin every time and Paul's words were clear in MODESTY for women's apparel AND Jewlery, as is right for a GODLY woman who's focus shouldn't be on materialism or showing her 1/2 naked body publically.

 

[karisma]

I'm female and I think absolutely woman should be able to go topless anywhere men are. There is almost no physical difference between male and female breasts. Why should woman have to cover them? I have seen men at the beach with breasts larger than my own... should he have to cover? What is it about female nipples that are so offensive?

BTW, I find (good-looking) shirtless men to be exciting. Should we decree that men must cover up as well?

 

[Tissue]

There is no Scripture regarding this.

It is not a sin for a man to see a woman's breasts. It is a sin if he begins to lust.

There is no objective standard for modesty.

Scripture does not speak upon this. Even if the verse were to be construed in your way, it would only be by the laws relative to each society. In Denmark, modesty would not include covering the breasts. In America, it currently. would.

 

[Nadiine]

Some men have leg fetishes. Some have butt fetishes. Some have hair fetishes.
Should women wear burkas just because of that?
In countries where you don't see a woman's legs they are huge turn-ons for men. Naturally, it is considered private and sexual, culturally it is a big deal. In Africa where women walk bare breasted I'm sure breast fetishes aren't very common.

This doesn't float either -- and using extremes like this doesn't work. (it's quite typical to go from 1/2 naked to putting someone in a "burka" as an extreme opposite) -

If you look at clothing styles from 50-100 years ago, you can see how modest they used to be decades & centuries ago tho. They understood it wasn't right long ago... these are LATER changes that came over time.
I call it rebellion, others call it "liberation".

We all have an inner conscience, and most of the world (outside pigmy tribes in the back 40 jungles) knows it's an area to be covered, again, this came LATER in time, it wasn't the norm. decades & centuries ago.
This happens as people continue to push the envelope and get more and more steeped into sin & rebellion to God.

Fetishes are on the person individually - they probly need deliverance from perversion of some sort at the root.
God has given men a natural sexual desire, when it gets into kinky fetishes, you will predominantly be able to track it back to something that needs to be dealt with or repented of.

That's not up to others to cover the entire body head to toe becuz of people's uncontrolled perversions. But we DO know what sexual organs are - and even then on beaches people are bearing their rear ends there too.

Modesty verus immodesty; we all know what it is, despite all the attempts to debate in support of topless women.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Tissue see the verses about men uncovering a womens nakedness if you dont believe the bible covers it - too many scriptures to list.

It also calls a woman being naked before others besides her husband to be shame.

 

[Nadiine]

There is no Scripture regarding this.

It is not a sin for a man to see a woman's breasts. It is a sin if he begins to lust.

There is no objective standard for modesty.

Scripture does not speak upon this. Even if the verse were to be construed in your way, it would only be by the laws relative to each society. In Denmark, modesty would not include covering the breasts. In America, it currently. would.

In Amsterdam DRUGS are good and ok.

In America, abortion - infanticide is fine and legal

Again, this doesn't hold up, and it IS in scripture - you guys just want to bypass it by ignoring what Paul is speaking of in MODEST APPAREL.
Modesty at the time he was speaking DID NOT INCLUDE WOMEN, or did it?

Did women in Israel go topless? you tell me

 

[Tissue]

Fetishes are on the person individually - they probly need deliverance from perversion of some sort at the root.
God has given men a natural sexual desire, when it gets into kinky fetishes, you will predominantly be able to track it back to something that needs to be dealt with or repented of.

Why is a fetish perversion? Didn't it come from God? If a man is turned on by a woman's hair, how is that sinful, or inferior to YOUR perfect sexual drive, or less than manly, or in some other way at fault?

Modesty verus immodesty; we all know what it is, despite all the attempts to debate in support of topless women.

I know what my culture says.

 

[Tissue]

Tissue see the verses about men uncovering a womens nakedness if you dont believe the bible covers it - too many scriptures to list.

It also calls a woman being naked before others besides her husband to be shame.

Cultural. I assume you've worn a shirt of two fabrics?

 

[Tissue]

In Amsterdam DRUGS are good and ok.

Where does God say drugs are bad?

Why is God ok with us eating Snickers bars (something that has disadvantages outweighing any nutritional advantages it may provide), but not ok with marijuana in moderation?

Again, this doesn't hold up, and it IS in scripture - you guys just want to bypass it by ignoring what Paul is speaking of in MODEST APPAREL.
Modesty at the time he was speaking DID NOT INCLUDE WOMEN, or did it?

We aren't ignoring it, we're marking it as cultural. This is, again, another instance where you interpret a verse differently than everyone else, Nadiine, and can't bother yourself enough to see if the other side has an merit in their's. You aren't an end-all-be-all Biblical scholar. You didn't write this stuff; you aren't God. You're in the same boat we are.

 

[Nadiine]

reading some posts in this thread, reminds me a whole lot of the serpent in the garden talking to Eve, "has God said?".
Has God actually said that? Or can we skirt around it?

Here's an excerpt from a webpage on the modest verses from Paul & Peter:

1. Woman are to adorn themselves in modest apparel. Though we usually use the word "modest" to refer to that which is virtuous and fully covers the body, modest has another meaning that also applies here. The second meaning is akin to our word "moderate." It refers to the avoidance of extremes, wearing clothes that are proper and decent.
This certainly applies to additional adornment of the body. Jewelry or makeup should blend with the person and not draw attention to themselves. They should not draw undue attention to the body either.

2. The adorning of women should draw attention to the inner person and not to the outer person.
The "shamefacedness and sobriety" deal with not bringing attention to self; not causing a stir by the appearance or actions. Her apparel is to be of such a modest nature so as to reveal "the hidden man of the heart...even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit." I conclude from this and from the scriptural teaching that the "light of the body is the eye" (Luke 11:34) that the appearance of a godly woman should draw attention to her face and not to any other part.

3. The adorning of women should not be costly. It is not to be "costly array." Adornment is not meant to show others that you can afford what they cannot. Expensive jewelry or clothes are not pleasing to God. You should not wear what many around you cannot afford to wear. It tends to puff you up with pride and it tends to create envy in others.

This is in line with what I was saying in reply - you can ignore what the bible is teaching as a whole on modesty in apparel by a demand that the Bible MUST "spell out" "thou shalt not go topless".
The bible DOES teach this in several ways - using modesty and "propriety", and in the meaning of modesty & not to draw undue attn. to the body but the inner person - not to lure attn. to herself physically.

These are things you learn in church by good teachers who know the bible.

 

[Tissue]

So, because someone agrees with you, your interpretation is correct?

Me and Archivist seem to agree, so now it's 2-on-2 I guess. Whoever can get the most websites to agree with them wins!

Ready, Go!

 

[Angel4Truth]

Where does God say drugs are bad?
Why is God ok with us eating Snickers bars (something that has disadvantages outweighing any nutritional advantages it may provide), but not ok with marijuana in moderation?

We aren't ignoring it, we're marking it as cultural. This is, again, another instance where you interpret a verse differently than everyone else, Nadiine, and can't bother yourself enough to see if the other side has an merit in their's. You aren't an end-all-be-all Biblical scholar. You didn't write this stuff; you aren't God. You're in the same boat we are.

Right here :
Revelation 8:21. and they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.


The word translated there as sorcery is pharmikah - the same word pharmacy or drugs comes from. If God is angered because of lack of repentance over drug use obviously there is something wrong with it.

The word of God is timeless not cultural - culteral ideals are mans ideals and God says His ways are not our ways.

Looking for ways to sin by loopholes around Gods words does not = a repentant heart by any means. Anyone who does this need be wary because the condition of the heart is not hidden from God.

 

[Tissue]

Right here :
Revelation 8:21. and they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.

The word translated there as sorcery is pharmikah - the same word pharmacy or drugs comes from. If God is angered because of lack of repentance over drug use obviously there is something wrong with it.

If memory serves, another word for sorcerers was "poisoners". A poison is cyanide. Not marijuana.

And, again, if we start calling marijuana poison, let's talk about them Baby Ruths.

Once again, another part of the Bible that is open to more than one interpretation.

The word of God is timeless not cultural - culteral ideals are mans ideals and God says His ways are not our ways.

If God's word is not cultural, then please go read Leviticus and follow each of the rules contained within. I personally believe there are cultural elements we don't need to follow, such as the clothing made from two fabrics, but if you want to draw the line there, by all means.

The word of God is a human book. It uses human language, it was written by humans (under divine inspiration), it was written to humans, it was written so that humans could understand it, it was mocked and praised by humans, and it contains errors, inaccuracies, and elements of human fault. Is it the word of God? Sure.

Looking for ways to sin by loopholes around Gods words does not = a repentant heart by any means. Anyone who does this need be wary because the condition of the heart is not hidden from God.

I'm not looking for ways to sin. I'm not personally interested in marijuana, nor am I riled up for women to go around topless. I'm more interested in the ways in which other Christians argue this point; more specifically, you and Nadiine.