Question women and dresses

?????????????????????????????????????
Bill Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

i hope we're not playing that game.

 

I think that if a person finds this bikini too sexual, the problem is with the person, and not the suit:

[ August 18, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

What game? It's a true statement. In Jesus's time, it was immodest to bare one's legs and arms. In Victorian England, ankles had such power to incense men that upright women clothed even the legs of their tables and chairs.

 

I think that if a person finds this bikini too sexual, the problem is with the person, and not the suit:

</font>[/QUOTE]That's essentially colored underwear, John.

[ August 18, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

When I was fourteen, I was diving competition. Around the house I generally wore a two piece bathing suit during the day (although the competition bathing suit was a one piece). My grandfather, trying very hard to accept that immodest attire, would refer to me as Gunga Din. I look back on that time with shame now, that I would embarrass him so. My parents did nothing to stop me, and I think they should have. I did not matter what I thought of my attire -- it mattered what my grandfather thought, as he was the one who was offended.

We are not to offend one another.

This does not have to be carried to any extreme, and I don't think anyone but a mocker would try to push it that far. But modest attire does mean your body is basically covered. It does mean that you don't advertise your sexuality, 'reasonably' or not!

 

What game? It's a true statement.</font>[/QUOTE]follow the previous posts Petrel. It seems as if JohnV is contradicting himself and playing word games as Bill Clinton did.

 

No. Bearing of genitals is an absolute that I would not cross. But, to be honest, I cannot find any scripture that requires this as a mandate. There are places in the world where a bare chest on women is not considered being naked, but a bare back is. If I were there, I would not bear my back.
</font>[/QUOTE]tell me, with those cultures/tribes where bare chests is accepted, who is their authority? when we analyze a culture and say that certain practices are ok simply because it is their custom, we are wrong. who is the authority of these jungle tribes? Paganism is. Not God. Will it take time for these certain cultures to adjust? yes! But to simply participate in their culture would be to tolerate it.

 

If you find that immodest as a rule, then the problem is with you, not the suit.

On the contrary. I've been very consistent.

Last night, I went home and discussed this with Mrs Johnv. Mind you, she's a former pentecostal calvarean. She also has a masters in Christian education with an emphasis in scriptural history and apologetics. (Clearly, I married up ) She said that the command to dress modestly is firm and unchangeing. However, she expressly pointed out that scripture does not define modesty. She said that modesty has always been defined by culture. She told me of her former college professor who did missionary trips all over the world. In parts of Ecuador, Christian women do not cover their upper bodies. Their culture defines modesty as covering your pelvic region. When you go to church, you put on a beaded necklace. That's proper attire for church. Most men and women are bare from the waist up. But you'd never be caught without your beaded necklace, because the exposed neck is considered sexual, while exposed breasts are not.

In parts of Papua New Guinea, men and women wear nothing except a rope belt and a woven sash. Immodest attire is not having your belt and sash. If you go to a Christian church in these areas, everyone's genitals are exposed, but no one would dare have a sash that is tatterred.

[ August 18, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I think that if a person finds this bikini too sexual, the problem is with the person, and not the suit: </font>[/QUOTE]It's a good discusstion John, but please refrain from putting to links to sites that may be offensive to those who hold views opposite of yours. We don't need to advertise the fashion shows of the secular world.
DHK

 

There's an excellent book called A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue that gives other examples of unusual modesty customs in other cultures in one of the early chapters. I'd definitely recommend it.

 

I remember watching a movie "The Invisible Tribe" (i might be remembering the title wrong) - it was about a south american native tribe and their struggle to keep their independence. They were all shown bare breasted and the affect was not immodest. There was a plot twist where some of the women were kidnapped and taken to be in a brothel, forced to wear red dresses. They were rescued and it was to me a fascinating psychological reverse switch to see them taking off the red dresses that made them seem to be objects of attractive desire, resuming their normal bareness and their normal modesty.

Its a cultural thing, indeed. There is a whole different level of modesty between a national geographic picture of women with bare breasts and a playboy spread with exactly the same showing.

And it is possible to be very immodest with all your clothes on.

 

here you go again. stop speaking for all these churches.

 

Prove from the Bible that your standard of dress is the only right one and then we can talk.

Right now you're trying to enforce your own arbitrary standard of dress over their equally arbitrary one.

 

Okay. But a link to a page in a JC Penney catalog (depicting a plain and unremarkable two piece bathing suit) isn't exactly scandalous. But I'm also aware that your task as moderator isn't exactly fun at times.

 

Oh yes, I forgot. It's your job to speak for all the churches.

 

Genesis 3:21 says that God covered them up. Obviously fig leaves did not do the job. Adam and Eve still found themselves naked even with fig leaves (v.10).

we can commit adultery in our hearts (Matthew 5:28) Should it not be our jobs to help avoid this? it says in Romans 14:13 dont put a stumbling block in the way. you john said that bathing suits do not cause you to commit "adultery," but for some they do.

 

Oh yes, I forgot. It's your job to speak for all the churches. </font>[/QUOTE]no it is my job to defend those you put into one big generalized pot.

 

Ooh, the irony!

Johnv was telling about an eyewitness account of several churches. Since he isn't trying to say that everywhere has the same standards for modesty, it isn't necessary that every church in the area has that style of dress. I would expect those in cities and more Westernized areas dress differently.

 

We do this by changing our hearts, not changing someone else's mode of dress to conform to our hearts.

However, I agree that if someone is dressing in a manner intended to invite someone to look at them lustfully, that person needs to be accountable for that separately, and it in no way excuses the person who looks lustfully. However, if a person is not dressing in a manner intended invite someone to look at them lustfully, then all bets are off, so to speak. It's natural and normal for a person to want to blame someone else for their sin. Adam tried to do it when he attempted to blame Eve for his eating of the fruit. Now, according to Jesus, even if Pamela Anderson came into my office and did a nude table dance on my desk, I'd be the one Jesus holds responsible for committing adultery in my heart, not her.

For some, a parka will cause a person to commit adultery of the heart.

When I attended church beachside in Maui, there was not even a hint of immodesty, immoraloty, impropriety, or persons committing adultery of the heart. None. IT was not a stumbling block to the reasonable person in that setting. You insist there must have been, yet you were not there. Now, if in your church this would be immodest, then by all means, I would never ever consider showing up at your church in board shorts and a tank tee.