Originally posted by Helen:
Johnv, God dressed Adam and Eve to hide their nakedness better than they could do with fig leaves. Bathing suits reveal nakedness and therefore are HIGHLY inappropriate at church, no matter where you are.
Okay, so you're telling me that my wife and I were dressing inappropriately.
As far as those who went to church off the beach in Hawaii, how considerate of them to take an hour off from their vacation for the sake of saying they went to church while in Hawaii!
I'm a bit at a loss. It sounds like you're accusing them (and me) of being pretentious. We did not attend church for the sake of saying we went to church. We attended church on our vacation because we wanted to thank God for allowing us the privilege of enjoying what he created in Hawaii. And for that, I get the judgemental finger from you. How dare you.
In our culture, here in America, bathing suits are not considered either to hide nakedness or to show honor and respect in church.
Then you acknowlege that culture plays a part. I was taking part in the local culture of a small church in Maui. And for that you are unrigheously judging me and all the others who attended.
Excuse me, but what is REASONABLE attention in a sexual manner?
God created us as sexual beings. Reasonable attention is that which is non-lustful. And yes, it's possible to be appropriately sexual without being lustful or carnal. For example, a woman who wears her hair nicely is not being unreasonable in the sexual attention brought to her.
Certainly, covering one's body with a muu muu is not unheard of in Hawaii!
No, it's not unheard of. It's also not required. In fact, the last time I was in Hawaii, I regularly attended a church in Oahu. Their summer choir wore mumus. The mumus were sleeveless (Some here will argue that bare shoulders are inappropriate). And what did I wear then? A hula shirt and shorts. Were my shorts inappropriate? Most fo the women in my travellling party likewise wore shorts and sleeveless aloha tops. Were they being immodest?
BTW, does the mumu have to cover the ankles for it to be modest?
John, you seem to find excuses for all manner of worldly attitudes and activities and still call them OK for Christians.
I do? Examples please. On the contrary. It seems that the legalistic Christian world looks for excuses to condemn any attitude and activity they don't approve of and label it "worldly". Unfortunately, it's easier to be a legalistic Christian than it is to defend oneself from the legalists.
If what your'e saying were true, I'd be saying it's okay to wear a bathing suit in St Patrick's Cathedral. Clearly, I'm not saying that at all.
Aren't we supposed to be CALLED OUT from the world?
We're called out from the inside, not from the outside. Many dress their bodies, but not their hearts. Many also judge others' hearts based on what's on the outside.
If we don't hold a simple standard of holiness up, who will ever ask the questions that we are told to have an answer for?
I don't debate that. I only debate that some apply unholiness to something which is nothing of the sort.
When someone who calls themselves a Christian acts and talks just like any ordinary non-Christian, who is going to ask them questions?
Good question, but it does not excuse legalism and self-righteous judging.
Words don't cut it. Words come cheap. It's the way we live that the world sees. The way we behave. The way we respect and honor God. The way we show HIS holiness in our lives.
No arguement there. That's not the issue. The issue is one of those who decide what qualifies as holiness for others. Legalism is one of the results of that. There was nothing offensive, sexually immoral, immodest, or unscriptural about how people were dressed at the beachside service in Hawaii. I was there, you weren't. Yet you are making a judgement over something you did not witness.
