should christian women be allowed to wear thong bathing suites at beaches that p

8oD Believe me, we are not ignorant of these
things. I know that most of the world thinks
that Americans are uneducated, but that is
a myth, for the most part.

By the way, I love your name. It brings up
very pleasant images for me.

[ August 25, 2002, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

1 Cor. 10:31
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Col. 3:17
And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

In His Grace
KayDee

 

I do believe that in all of the Boards I have even been on and of the ridiculous posts or questions, this is by far, now the grand prize winner of "you've gotta be kidding!!!" First of all, what Godly man wants his wife parading around mostly naked in front of a bunch of strange men!! secondly , what Godly woman could possibly even think of doing that????? Please anybody if you can give even one verse that can be even misiterpreted or taken out of context that says this is ok, I'd love to see it...

 

Again, lets go back to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic and we can know what Paul considered modest dress. I love the old commentators for they are not affected by our fads. As a man, I knew slit dresses were imodest from the get-go. Nothing is new under the sun for they had them in Paul's day and only children (for ease of toileting) and immodest women (for ease of access) wore them. There was also a shorter dress somewhat like our mini-dress, which by the way the woman designer stated that she designed that dress to let the world know she was ready for any man, any time, any where. Should we think that any other designer is concerned about modesty when immodesty/sex sells? I trow not! Yet, good Christian women follow the fads and wear slits, minis and sprayed on pants. None of those would fit what Paul is defining as modest.

2887 kosmios (kos'-mee-os);from 2889 (in its primary sense); orderly, i.e. decorous:
KJV-- of good behaviour, modest.

2689 katastole (kat-as-tol-ay'); from 2687; a deposit, i.e. (specially) costume: KJV-- apparel.

1 Timothy 2:9

1 Timothy 2:9

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

[In like manner also] That is, he wills or commands what follows, as he had commanded what went before.
[That women adorn themselves] Kai (grk 2532) tas (grk 3588) gunaikas (grk 1135) en (grk 1722) katastolee (grk 2689) kosmioo (grk 2887). The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of the Grecian and Roman dress. The stolee (grk 4749), stola, seems to have been originally very simple. It was a long piece of cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up on both sides, having room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out, or a slit made, through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and was girded with the zona round the body, just under the breasts. It was sometimes made with, sometimes without, sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knee, so as to discover a part of the thigh. These were termed phainomeerides, showers (discoverers) of the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them thus.
The katastolee (grk 2689) seems to have been the same as the pallium or mantle, which, being made nearly in the form of the stola, hung down to the waist, both in back and front, was gathered on the shoulder with a band or buckle, had a hole or slit at top for the head to pass through, and hung loosely over the stola, without being confined by the zona or girdle. Representations of these dresses may be seen in LEN'S Costume des Peuples de l'Antiquite, fig. 11, 12, 13, and 16. A more modest and becoming dress than the Grecian was never invented; it was, in a great measure, revived in England about the year 1805, and in it, simplicity, decency, and elegance were united; but it soon gave place to another mode, in which frippery and nonsense once more prevailed. It was too rational to last long; and too much like religious simplicity to be suffered in a land of shadows, and a world of painted outsides. (from Adam Clarke Commentary)

 

The general principle is veiled not wrapped. Hidden not exposed. I should not know the exact width of your hips or size of your breasts and certainly no upper or nether cracks should be visible.

 

If a woman "does what she wants to do as long as her husband is happy enough,"
is great advise for the privacy of a husband and wife since the marriage bed is undefiled.
When this is taken out in public this changes the picture.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that any man who is willing to go to a clothing optional beach will be "happy" to reveal his wife as well for the pleasures of other onlookers.

Husbands are exhorted to honor their wives repeatedly, and this attitude of displaying flesh publicly is not honoring to her or to God. Proverbs directs a man to drink from his own cistern. This isn't a command of wanderlust, but a directive to shore up the marriage bed and protect the springs of love which flow from the woman we chose as wife. In other words, she is not eye candy to be used or exploited to satisfy a macho "this is mine, look what I control" attitude.

Clothing is merely the symptom here of a deeper issue. We are dwelling on the externals, when it is the inside of the cup that needs cleaning.

 

AMEN, m' friend, AMEN!!!!

As are many of these other threads !!!

 

What Christian woman would wear a thong bathing suit at all? We are not to show our nakeness, period. Except to our spouses, of course.
Christians are suppose to set an example.
Good grief, what's this world coming too?

Susan

 

The very fact that this is being discussed seriously is a symptom of a very serious spiritual problem. It is a no brainer. What saved man would display his wife thusly?

[ August 27, 2002, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

AMEN!

Susan

 

Hmm, my last post on this was either censored or did not make it.

 

Maybe a man who lets her make up her own mind? You almost make it sound like a wife is a man's possession...isn't she more than that? Does she have no say in the matter?

Helen's comment is insightful - think of what she is saying - a barely clothed woman will not stand out on a clothes-optional beach - only a covered-up one. If you want to raise eyebrows and cause people to question your behavior on a beach like that then wear lots of clothes. If you want to blend in then dress (undress) like everyone else. Men who go to look at women's bodies will be spoilt for choice. What's one more woman? It's crazy to think that they'd all home in on one man's wife. But if you want to make people curious about your behavior, so they'll ask questions, then you could go covered up. Who knows - God could use that as a witness. But on the other hand, He could also use conversations that begin between two people who look the same on the outside, but one turns out to be different on the inside. Maybe that's the only way some of the people on that beach will meet and talk with a Christian. Who knows...

(And I expect you know by now that, yes, I like to be provocative in what I say... )

AITB

 

I think you may be on to something here lady. Maybe we could set up some sort of nude beach ministry. After all, didn't Paul say he became all things to all men? i think maybe a Christian porn ministry would be good too. The videos would have XXX material for the first 20 minutes and then maybe the plan of salvation for the last 5 minutes. Or how about we set up a Christian drug abuse ministry. We could go out and get doped up with the drug heads and then witness to them. After all, that may be the only opportunity they have to hear the gospel. Or how about a Christian prostitution ministry? After all, don't prostitutes need the gospel? We could set it up to where after the services have been rendered the prostitute will see that there is something different on the inside and will ask questions. you never know, that may be the only opportunity the prostitute has to hear the gospel. I think there are unlimited possibilities here.

 

I'm thorry, I don't thinks thongs are tho thwell.

 

I think you may be on to something here lady. Maybe we could set up some sort of nude beach ministry. After all, didn't Paul say he became all things to all men? i think maybe a Christian porn ministry would be good too. The videos would have XXX material for the first 20 minutes and then maybe the plan of salvation for the last 5 minutes. Or how about we set up a Christian drug abuse ministry. We could go out and get doped up with the drug heads and then witness to them. After all, that may be the only opportunity they have to hear the gospel. Or how about a Christian prostitution ministry? After all, don't prostitutes need the gospel? We could set it up to where after the services have been rendered the prostitute will see that there is something different on the inside and will ask questions. you never know, that may be the only opportunity the prostitute has to hear the gospel. I think there are unlimited possibilities here.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Then...go for it!

AITB

 

I don't think the issue is as much nakedness as it is lustful nakedness. If you wnet and bought the most conservative bathing suit on the market today (male and female), you could go back 200 years and STILL be seen as a flaunter, because you'd be giving the average person the opportunity to look at you in a lustful manner.

Now, if you went to a country where everyone was wearing thongs and the average person didn't care, that would be one thing. But I think we're talking about the average person at a typical pool, lake, or beach in the US. If you're giving the average person an opportunity to look at you lustfully, then ya might want to rethink yer attire. I'd say that rule woule apply to both men and women.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I think you may be on to something here lady. Maybe we could set up some sort of nude beach ministry. After all, didn't Paul say he became all things to all men? i think maybe a Christian porn ministry would be good too. The videos would have XXX material for the first 20 minutes and then maybe the plan of salvation for the last 5 minutes. Or how about we set up a Christian drug abuse ministry. We could go out and get doped up with the drug heads and then witness to them. After all, that may be the only opportunity they have to hear the gospel. Or how about a Christian prostitution ministry? After all, don't prostitutes need the gospel? We could set it up to where after the services have been rendered the prostitute will see that there is something different on the inside and will ask questions. you never know, that may be the only opportunity the prostitute has to hear the gospel. I think there are unlimited possibilities here.[/QB][/QUOTE]

HEE Hee hee hee hee, I just love it!
That is almost side splitting, except for the fact that some would really go so far as to do some of that.

Pitiful but true

 

Actually, there are groups of Christian nudists that believe that we are set free from the law and the curse (yet they still die) so their church services are nude and they rent out bowling lanes and such and cover the windows so that they can bowl nude. When I asked one of the leaders if he ever lusted after some sweet young thing in the group he responded that he only responded to that special look in his wife's eyes. Man, ya hate to call someone a liar, but my guess is a lie detector machine would have popped a fuse at that one.

You also had the Ranters that practiced all sorts of wild stuff because the flesh was dead and it did not matter what they did.

Then you had the Oneidas (of silverware fame) that had the first commune in America, which believed that in the group every man was every woman's husband and every woman was every man's wife since they were all "one in God." Hence, wife swapping or whatever was their drawing card.

You can use the Word to do anything you want if you do not want to use a literal historical-grammatical interpetation or don't believe in verbal-plenary inspiration of the Word allowing you to have Paul be a self-interested sexist rather a mouthpiece of God and everything you dislike be a cultural thing not applied to you.

 

One should be allowed to do what is in accord with the law! But why would a christian woman want to do it?

[ August 29, 2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Bob Alkire ]