Originally posted by Salamander:
Is that SoCal logic or something?
Adam and Eve were uncovered/naked/without shame, until sin entered into the garden, then they were ashamed/naked still.
That's not what scripture says. You need to look at the Henrew:
Before the fall, the word used is "Arom", meaning simply to be without clothing (nude). Nothing more or less is implied. It is used to describe Adam and Eve in the Garden, noting that they were naked and without shame. It is also used when King Saul prophesied in the nude as well. In fact, that behavior provoked the people to believe he was one of the prophets. There is no implication that his nudity implied shame or sexuality. The word is also used regarding Isaiah, who prophesied for three years naked. Here, too, there is no implication of shame or sexuality, or that the people disapproved of it (They may not have liked his message but that's a whole other post). The word arom never appears in scripture to imply shame, sexuality, wrongdoing, or evil.
The word after the fall is "Eyrom", which means to be without clothing (nude) as well, but taken from another word 'Aram', meaning cunning in a bad sense, to make bare out of craftiness or deception. When God asks them "Who told you that you were naked" the word is 'Eyrom'. Their sudden-found knowlege left, derived from deception, them spiritually naked here. God had no problem with them being simply unclothed (arom). God had a problem with them being uncovered by deception (eyrom). This was not God's plan for them.
Anything above the knee reveals the thigh which is nakedness, according to O.T. understanding that is.
Where's the scriptural support for this?
Use some common sense: ankles are pretty, calves are next, but thighs? C'mon
****Judgmental jesture removed****
Even the uncovering of the upper arms is too close and considered nudity, especially the further the neck line frontwards or backwards is lowered, the closer it gets to nudity.
***Judgmental jesture removed***
Society has gone too far towards the gutter and what is acceptable according to dress has eventually become too liberal.
I knew the word "liberal" would come in eventually

. The problem with society is not it doesn't have a sense of modesty. The problem is that it has become socially acceptible to be immodest in attire. Big difference.
I one had a legalist usher tell me after church that my daughter's attire was inappropriate. What was her attire? A sweater and a pair of dockers. He objected to the fact that he could see the shape of "her bosoms" (which, btw, were fully covered). I told him he needs to stop checking out high school girls' bosoms. And if we were in the parking lot istead of the sanctuary, I likely would have decked that child molester.
He was eventually relieved as an usher, btw.
[ August 18, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]