TheReasoner
Atheist. Former Christian.
- Mar 14, 2005
- 10,294
- 684
- Country
- Norway
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
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).
AGAIN, your argument is flawed because it assumes that all cultures are the same. They are not. In a culture where breasts are not commonly seen, then they should be covered. In a culture, such as tribal cultures in remote areas, where breasts are seen, and have been seen for thousands of years it is not a factor.
Paul's call to modesty does not mean you should go bare breasted in a culture where that is not socially acceptable. BUT in a culture where it is the norm, deviating too far from that norm can actually become indecent. I know this is hard for a person without much intercultural experience to understand, so I guess you'll have to take my word for it.
Upvote
0