Modesty

Yes, it should have been spelled "decorous".

(And I have since edited it, with thanks to you.) :thumbsup: :type:

Outside that, no.

Although I'm not sure what part of it (that you quoted) you are talking about.

Ed

 

Yeah, Ed, it was not only "that durned woman there, it's all her fault."

It was "that durned woman that YOU gave me, Lord....

Sorta like a wife telling her husband, "well guess what YOUR child did today?"

 

you talk about weakness of the flesh, things that tempt others to sin, what about other sins then lusting/sexual sins? have you thought about the part you may play in anothers sins, prehaps without even nowing it?

 

I've received a PM that tells me I have a typo in my post # 156 that I totally missed. I gave a Scripture reference as II Tim. 3:2.

That and all similar, in that post, should be I Tim. 3:2.

Thanks for the notice, there to the one that PMed me. I shall leave who it was anonymous, unless he or she decides to mention it. Thanks, again.

Ed

 

I agree. I merely did not add this part about blaming the LORD.

That street runs both ways, as well, for I've heard the reverse as well, in my dotage.

Ed

 

so you now beleive there is no temptations that one has a weakness toward? if there is no weakness of the flesh, then no mater what women wear it should not a problem for you.

 

Like I said previously, "The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks!"

Ed

 

Nowhere have I relieved anyone of their own personal responsibility. Men are responsible and so are the women who either purposefully or carelessly engage in provocative behavior.

And nowhere again did I say this. Why would you try to construct such a straw man. What I said and what this scripture says is that one Christian has a responsibility not to tempt another.

Do you think Paul would give authority to women and especially professing Christian women to dress in ways that carelessly or purposefully provoke men to lust?

 

Does that provide and excuse to the one who would become a stumblingblock?

While what you say is true, it is also true that the other has a responsibility to dress in a way that glorifies God.

You absolutely shouldn't at all. The context in which my part of this conversation started was someone's defense of mini-skirts.

I agree with you totally.

Again, I think I was kind of at the start of this particular diversion of the thread and the context was someone who quite possibly would not be considered "modest" or careful by a discerning Christian.

 

he appears to be contradicting himself.

 

um, no, sorry, you are running in circles, contradicting yourself right and left, there is no command for that, you refuse to answer questions about your contradictions. My alst posts to you were not about modesty at all, please go back read them again and address my actual posts.

 

Gerald,
You are way off base with this one, Biblically and common sense wise. It is a given that part of the makeup of a man is an attraction to a woman. The solution is not for every female to dress like Mother Teresa that you pass, the solution is for the Holy Spirit in you to guide you into being Christ like. It is called faith. It seems to me you are way too obcessed with the subject. Since the Holy Spirit abides in all saved females also, why dont you let them and God deal with that, and you walk by faith as a Christian.

 

posted in error

 

good post :thumbs: and right on

 

When a person thinks about and lusts after what he should not then the result is GIGO.

 

a person chooses whether or not to entertain the thoughts they have, they have the power of God in the to resist thinking about it, to mentally and if need be physically run from it.

 

gerald285, I believe I address this in post #156, which is one you did not bother to answer. (Did you bother to even read it??) Actually, he didn't, in the sense you keep posting, as some have said. There is not a command dealing with "modesty" anywhere in Scripture, since it (the word 'modesty' )simply does not occur in Scripture.
As to the two times "modest" (or its root word) could be found, Paul's "command" is for the bishops; Paul's "desire" was 'for the women to be adorned in modest apparel'.

Another place you suggested the idea was that we should "repent". I agree 100%, here. Repent [change one's mind (or way of thinking) and BTW, "repent of (one's) sin(s)" cannot be found in Scripture, anywhere!!] is exactly what is needed here, IMO. Proverbs says that 'As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.' (Prov. 23:7), and calls that man a miser. And in Romans 12 Paul pens these words:

And lastly, I believe Jesus had something to say about some of these things, as well. These are the key, as I understand Scripture, not the codifying of someone's rhetoric or someone's taboos.

Frankly, I think I've wasted enough time on the subject, here. If one does not wish to hear, don't blame me. I have no intention, as of now, of participating further.

Ed