Bible Modesty - Part 1

[Herb Evans]

That's because the church doesn't see there is a heart problem.

My Bible says that the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? -- Herb Evans

 

[saturneptune]

My Bible says that the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it? -- Herb Evans

Your Bible???? How does that differ from the ones everyone else owns??

 

[Herb Evans]

Is it just me or does this "modesty" issue and KJVO go hand in hand?

Are you trying to change the subject and cause the thread to go off topic? -- Hreb Evans

 

[donnA]

In this sexually driven culture Christian men do have problems controlling themselves. Thus, they try to remove these images from their minds and avoid these temptations. How are you helping a brother, dear sister, if you dress to advertise or support those who do?

Ah, I see, culture, we blame our sin on culture now. Thats a good one, although, not very original. Why bow to culture? Take responsability for yourself, seek God's Holy Spirit for selfcontrol, which as you knwo is a fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Herb Evans]

Who cares what the lost world thinks? Letting your daughters dress like the lost world is a heart problem. You ought to care more about your children than the lost world cares about theirs.

The problem, as I see it, even in my own church is that the children are calling the shots and running the parents and not vice versa. -- Herb Evans

 

[Rufus_1611]

Your Bible???? How does that differ from the ones everyone else owns??

Does your Bible say that?

 

[donnA]

This whole thread just makes you want to go---hmmmmmm.

Bro Tony

hmmmmmm is not what it makes me want to do.

 

[Herb Evans]

I agree with most of what you say. There is a distinct difference between what you are saying and the group of Newman, Herb, and Rufus.

ooops! Divide and conquer! -- Herb Evans

 

[Scarlett O.]

Then if this is the case, then these men would be equally safe in a nudist colony as long as their atitudes were right. -- Herb Evans

Safe from what? Once again, you equate a woman's body with being the entire root of the problem............

Herb, I never advocated nudity.

And I never said that women could wear whatever they wanted to without discretion or self-respect or respect for others.

I simply said that your post, not in it's intent, but in it's delivery, was hurtful.

I understand that you feel that a woman is immodest in pants. But why did you not address the modesty of men's attire?

Pants, in and of themselves, are not the epitome of modesty. Come to my town and see some of the men who go to church in their too-tight Sunday blue jeans. I must confess, when some of them get in my line of vision, I have to start singing under my breath, "Bringing in the sheaves....bringing in the sheaves....we shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves!!!" Some cause me to sing under my breath out of feelings that I should not be thinking about and some cause me to sing under my breathe to keep from throwing up.

Modesty is a two-way street.

Modesty, whether you wish to embrace it or not, is sometimes subjective. There is no recipe for what looks appropriate on every human being. Sure...there is common sense and decency and reverence for the Lord, but Herb, it can STILL be subjective.

All I wanted you to understand was that the tone of your original post was harsh and one-sided.

I don't totally disagree with you.

 

[saturneptune]

Does your Bible say that?

The Bible, the Word of God, says the heart is desperatly wicked. It is not Herb's Bible and Rufus' Bible.

 

[donnA]

Rufus_1611, let me share with you why I feel Herb's post is not phenomenal.

It's not that he feels that women should wear dresses all of the time.....I can deal with people who have those opinions and have dear friends who share those opinions and I would NEVER argue with them.

It's his attitude and tone of voice that bothers me the most.

I don't know if you understand how demeaning it is to a christian women to read posts like this from christian men, but it hurts.

Consider his following references to women who wear slacks:

• "sin"...."encouraging sin"......"sinning against Christ"
• "abomination"......"moral abomination"....."abomination that disgusts the Lord"
• "deviant"
• "evil"...."giving the appearance of evil"
• "tranvestism"....."so close to homosexuality"...."attractive to lesbians"
• promotes "mass fornication"

He concludes that scripturally speaking, women wearing jeans or slacks is in the same context as:

• "incest"
• "rape"
• "adultery"
• "apathy"
• "laziness"

Most of puzzling of all was his correlation between Isaiah 20:4; 47:3-4 and women's:

• "buttocks"
• "breasts"
• "crotches"
• "delicately formed thighs"

I couldn't find anything in the bible about women's "delicately formed thighs". Isaiah 20:4 is about a particular king being naked and humiliated and Isaiah 47:3-4 is not a reference to a human being at all, but to Babylon. Babylon is referred to as a woman who is going to be degraded and humililated.

In his list of offensive body parts of women, he, himself, has exploited a woman's worth (or worthlessness) into the sum of her body parts.

Rufus, I am not going to argue with anyone who believes that women should always wear dresses.

But I will be hanged if I will not address a post where the constant use of exclamation points, extra-biblical commentaries mixed with scripture, and the verbal slander of women makes me feel like trash when I read it.

I know that was not his intent and I know that you don't feel like that, but it's how it comes across......to me, anyway.

It wouldn't be the first time people have come here trying to degrade women and make us trash by calling us lesbians and similar junk.
This guy has a real problem is he focuses on breast, crotches, buttocks and thighs. His focus needs to be on the Lord, and when thses ideas come to him, run from them to God.
But a lass, it isn't his fault if this is his focus in life.

 

[saturneptune]

It wouldn't be the first time people have come here trying to degrade women and make us trash by calling us lesbians and similar junk.
This guy has a real problem is he focuses on breast, crotches, buttocks and thighs. His focus needs to be on the Lord, and when thses ideas come to him, run from them to God.
But a lass, it isn't his fault if this is his focus in life.

Donna,
I wouldnt give this guy a second thought. He has many legalistic and theological problems to conquer.

 

[swaimj]

Rufus asked

What are the terms you would recommend he use that would accurately depict the parts of the anatomy, which women are advertising, while still maintaining modest verbiage?

If women are displaying parts in public that are immodest, then it is inherently immodest to use terms in public that identify those parts. Herb knows this, Rufus. That is why he asked forgiveness for using the terms in his post. Unfortunately, he asked forgiveness and then used them anyway! If Herb preaches and uses these terms very often, I imagine that he is attracting quite a crowd, because people come to hear him and they "get off" on the graphic descriptions that he is using. Yet they can hide their false motives because, after all, they are in church. If Herb speaks this way often in his church he is deceiving himself if he thinks he is helping people to increase in holiness in their thought life.

 

[Herb Evans]

Yup it sure seems to go hand in hand. When you decide to major on minors it impacts all of your thoughts.

How about majoring on the thread at hand? You got on the thread! Why not another? -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Bro Tony]It really shows the difference in how we think Herb, I see nothing consistent about associating a women wearing slacks designed for women and men dressed in drag.

Well, when someone designs dresses for men, you will be able to say the same thing. --Herb Evans

I am really glad that my understanding of Scripture is not dependent on your thinking, and I am equally sure you are glad that your's is not dependant on mine.

Bro Tony

Well, now there is a point of agreement. -- herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

They would not heed for Moses was most definitely a legalist.

Yeah! But Moses sure knew what was going on and had a clue about the birds and the bees. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

So, pants are sinful and lust provoking. What would an appropriate dress look like? Rufus said something about a long flowing skirt and loose blouse. Is that what your wife wears while she's cleaning the toilet?

When my wife, a former Roman Catholic, got saved she got rid of her pants and her shorts. My daughter does not wear them either. My grand daughter, who just bore my great grand baby never had a pair on in her life. My grandson will not go without a shirt or go bare legged. What thiis has to do with cleaning a toilet, I will never know. --Herb Evans

 

[J. Jump]

Ah, I see, culture, we blame our sin on culture now. Thats a good one, although, not very original. Why bow to culture? Take responsability for yourself, seek God's Holy Spirit for selfcontrol, which as you knwo is a fruit of the Spirit.

See here is the other side of the problem with this debate. We have those that say no slacks for women. Then we have the polar opposite that says I have no repsonsibility to my Christian brother or sister.

Donna while we are all supposed to seek self-control in our areas of struggle, I don't think the attitude of that's your problem so I can do as I please is Biblical either.

If wearing a skirt that barley covers your gludious maximus (to church even) causes men to stumble (which it does some men) then you need to care enough for your brothers in Christ not to wear such material whether you think it is appropriate or not.

It's extremely arrogant to think that we have no responsibility to each other. Again with this type of mindset it is no wonder Christendom is in the sad shape that it is.

 

[Herb Evans]

Your Bible???? How does that differ from the ones everyone else owns??

You tell me; I am minding mine. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Safe from what? Once again, you equate a woman's body with being the entire root of the problem............

Herb, I never advocated nudity.

And I never said that women could wear whatever they wanted to without discretion or self-respect or respect for others.

I simply said that your post, not in it's intent, but in it's delivery, was hurtful.

I understand that you feel that a woman is immodest in pants. But why did you not address the modesty of men's attire?

Pants, in and of themselves, are not the epitome of modesty. Come to my town and see some of the men who go to church in their too-tight Sunday blue jeans. I must confess, when some of them get in my line of vision, I have to start singing under my breath, "Bringing in the sheaves....bringing in the sheaves....we shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves!!!" Some cause me to sing under my breath out of feelings that I should not be thinking about and some cause me to sing under my breathe to keep from throwing up.

Modesty is a two-way street.

Modesty, whether you wish to embrace it or not, is sometimes subjective. There is no recipe for what looks appropriate on every human being. Sure...there is common sense and decency and reverence for the Lord, but Herb, it can STILL be subjective.

All I wanted you to understand was that the tone of your original post was harsh and one-sided.

I don't totally disagree with you.

I never said you advocated anything. I was demonstrating worse case conditions and working backwards. People are going to do what they want to do, regardless of my article or what anyone says. We are living in a day when men do what is right in their own eyes.

Men are equally at fault takeing off their shirts and doning colored underware and wearing shorts. They should be covered as well as women. One need only here women talking about men's anatomies to know that is also a problem. Peter felt he was naked without his fisher's coat. -- Hreb Evans-- Herb Evans