# modesty?



## johnpauljudah

What exactly does this mean:

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;



What does modesty really mean? Are bathing suits modest?


Jpj:wr48:


----------



## Peter

good question.

Another: 
Shamedfaceness, whats the meaning. Whats its relation to makeup?


----------



## pastorway

Modesty emphasizes the quality of character on the inside that is evidenced on the outside.

Shamefacedness has nothing whatsoever to do with makep. The word is better transleted &quot;proper&quot; or &quot;humble&quot;. It does not mean shame or have to do with the face, so to speak.

And yes, there is such a thing as a modest swimming suit - my wife owns 2 of them! BUT most suits available at most stores today are not modest...however, the modest woman knows what to shop for!!

Immodesty is more a state of mind than outward appearance anyway. A woman can be dressed in a full length dress and even wear a veil over her face and still be immodest. That is why I said that modesty was a heart issue more than a body issue.

This verse specifically deals with focusing on the inside, not the outside! If a woman gives undue attention to her looks or undue attention to her attitudes she can quickly become immodest. But that does not mean that modesty means ugliness or lack of outward attention. The outside is not primary - the inside is...and if that is the case it will show for all to see!!

A modest woman will act and dress in a manner that she does not draw attention to herself or her body. An immodest woman will flaunt even what she does not have! :shocked2:

Phillip


----------



## johnpauljudah

*interesting..*

Please what do these modest bathing suits look like? And i hope your not talking about one peices.


Jpj:wr48:


----------



## LawrenceU

jpj,
You really should take a look at the article in this week's World magazine regarding women's swim suits and the motivation behind what is worn.

And, in my opinion, in my opinion almost all two piece bikini suits would be considered immodest. They are designed for the primary purpose of attracting attention from men in an alluring manner.

Lawrence


----------



## RICK

[quote:c9d9edbf9b]Please what do these modest bathing suits look like? And i hope your not talking about one peices. [/quote:c9d9edbf9b]

I think one-piece is what we have to settle with. I think the place and context of where the suit is worn determines alot. 
We expect to see bathing suits at the beach, but it would really turn our heads to see someone wearing one to the office, or to the supermarket. I don't think we can tell our ladies to wear full-length skirts into the water, now can we? I think that might pose a hindrance to effective swimming, as a matter of fact.


I have been thinking about this one lately. I have two daughters, both still preschoolers. Needless to say, I don't have much to worry about currently, but in about ten years I will. I want to teach them modesty, but also want them to have fun at the beach. This is a tough one.


~Rick


----------



## johnpauljudah

*ummm*

SHe can wear a wet suit..And how can something be modest for one public place but not for another? Its the same people just different setting? You mean if a girl walks in a office in a one-peices it would't be as appealing in the beach to guys? And whats the difference between a one-peice and a girl wearing a towel under her armpits letting it down like what they do when coming out of the shower? If fact a one-peice hugs the body with it tight spendex so the towel actually covers more. In the one-peice only a thin peice of cloth is protecting the body from exposure and in the towel more cloth. What is the fundemental difference??

Jpj:wr48:


----------



## RICK

I'm just saying that you expect to see bathing suits at the beach, and you are a little more prepared to guard your eyes. You know what's going to be there- that's all. Nothing to make a big deal about or anything.

Sorry- I don't know what a &quot;wet suit&quot; is, but if it's better than a one-piece, then great, I talk to my wife about it.

Blessings,



~Rick


----------



## LawrenceU

A wet suit is what divers wear. And, as a diver who has seen a lot of them, they can be immodest as well 

Modesty and immodesty in dress are, at the root, the result of the intention of the one dressing. That being said, there are some items of 'dress' that should not be worn because of their overt sexuality. The parading of skin in the name of fashion and its subsequent acceptance by Christians is one more sign of the downgrading of biblical discipleship of Chrisitians.

I have a daughter who is still very young. We made a decsion when she was born that from a very young age we would try to instill not the 'standard' of dress, but the reasoning of the standard. She is already aware of impropriety in dressing, even in the face of peer pressure.

We live in an area where beaches and beach wear are a part of everyday life. In that context you can see what the effects of a casual attitude regarding modesty. It destroys both the innocence and mystery of boys and girls.

Lawrence

[Edited on 6-17-2003 by LawrenceU]


----------



## pastorway

A one peice witha cover up is just fine for modesty......if the one peice is cut right!!:tongue:

There is not a line to draw....past here it is immodest.....our wives and daughters should strive to appear modest because they ARE modest.

Phillip


----------



## RICK

What about gymnastics or swim team? Are these not options for my daughters?

This has a little bit to do with the &quot;context and place&quot; thing I was talking about before. I do think it's relevant to the discussion. 

~Rick


----------



## blhowes

Not to muddy the waters, but what guidelines to you as men use when you go (if you do) to the beach? I've been to the beach at times and was shocked to see men walking around with only a g-strap on (is that what they're called?).

Personally, when I go to the beach, I wear a pair of shorts that's just about to the knees and I prefer to find a part of the beach away from the crowds. The kids have their fun and I don't have to concern myself with seeing things that I don't want to see (or for them to see things that they don't need to see).

Bob


----------



## fredtgreco

Bob,

I pray that your obvious forethought will bear much fruit with your children!

Praise God.


----------



## RICK

[quote:b665bf7333]Not to muddy the waters, but what guidelines to you as men use when you go (if you do) to the beach?[/quote:b665bf7333]

Pretty much exactly the same as you described, Bob. Great suggestions.

I remember John Piper once saying in a seminar that we should dress in such a way that we don't draw attention to ourselves. A guy wearing a g-[i:b665bf7333]whatever[/i:b665bf7333] on the beach is obviously trying to draw attention. So is the girl in the itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-etc. 

Normal swim-shorts or a modest one-piece do not draw attention.

A wet suit would [i:b665bf7333]most definately[/i:b665bf7333] draw attention.

~Rick


----------



## blhowes

[b:0ea6f098a5]Fred wrote:[/b:0ea6f098a5]
I pray that your obvious forethought will bear much fruit with your children! 

Amen. My biggest hope/prayer as a parent is that when they leave the house someday they'll have a desire to seek and please God. That's the fruit I would love to see. 

[b:0ea6f098a5]Rick wrote:[/b:0ea6f098a5]
I remember John Piper once saying in a seminar that we should dress in such a way that we don't draw attention to ourselves. 

That sounds like good advice. 

I've gotta find out more about John Piper. The more I hear about him the more he interests me. Others on the forum have recommended books he's written and sermons he's preached. He must be pretty sharp.

Bob


----------



## LawrenceU

Check out his website:

www.desiringgod.com

It is a good taste of his ministry.


----------



## RICK

*Modesty Checklist*

http://www.pdinet.org/pdf/teaching/modesty_check.pdf

(it's for women)


----------



## johnpauljudah

*drawing attention*

Like anyone who dresses modestly they would draw attention because everyone else isn't. And please show me what these modest one-peices look like because i never seen one. 


Jpj:wr48:


----------



## RICK

Here's some ideas...

http://www.sharksuit.com/


----------



## Wannabee

A woman should be adorned with good works.



For the beach: What's wrong with shorts and a t-shirt?


----------



## johnpauljudah

*thats what i'm saying..*

Exactly whats wron gwith a shirt and shorts...?

Jpj:wr48:


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I want a shark suit.


----------



## cupotea

I personally believe that modesty is all in the person. I mean, A girl wearing jeans and a loose t-shirt could be more immodest then a girl wearing a tank top and skirt. It all depends on the way they act. Ofcourse there are certain things that go over the line. Now, I have a question: how come ear piercing is mostly exceptable and tatoos aren't? I'm not saying I want to go out and get a tatoo but I've just always been curious about that. Is there anything biblically wrong with either? 
uzzled:


----------



## ChristianasJourney

I'm just guessing here. . .

But I know that nose rings, and earring are mentioned quite frequently including Ez. 16:12 where God used them as He was &quot;dressing&quot; Judah/Israel? 

I'm not sure about tattoos. . . the closest I could come up with is: Lev 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Hope this helps. . .

(I don't have either.)


----------



## pastorway

The real question is what does the way you dress (and treat your body...piercing or tattoos) say about who you are?

What image does it send to others?

You can say that a person is modest on the inside, but if they are then you can see it in the way they dress and live!!!

The inside has to match the outside.

We are also to be careful that we are not imitating the world!

Now for the specifics.....

what crowd does a tattoo identify you with?

And for the &quot;elder&quot; members of the board who have a tattoo...any of you care to testify to these younglings about why you have a tattoo and what you think about it now?


Phillip

[Edited on 6-26-03 by pastorway]


----------



## ChristianasJourney

[quote:3941c43586]
Now for the specifics.....

what crowd does a tattoo identify you with?
[/quote:3941c43586]


What about when the culture around you changes? 

For example: 15 years ago a man who wore an earring was identified with a particular type of crowd. Or as the saying in my area was &quot;Left means right, and right means wrong&quot; (gay). That no longer applies and the crowd that are currently sporting earrings are more mainstream. Same thing with tattoos. The girl at my dry cleaner has earring in her eyebrows, nose, and tongue, the girl in the fruit market had a dumbell (or whatever) in her tongue--these are not the people who I normally would walk on the otherside of the street to avoid. You [i:3941c43586]never[/i:3941c43586] saw a woman with a tattoo, now tattoos are a beautification adornment and it's not surprising to see decent middle class &quot;Christian&quot; women displaying a tattoo. (Now just so you don't get the wrong impression. I don't think this is the case at all churches. But it was the case in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church I attended with my Grandparents--the tattoos and earrings.)

How does our changing culture fit into our acceptance/rejection of these things?

[Edited on 7-5-2003 by ChristianasJourney]


----------



## cupotea

I may be old and old-fashioned, but the terms &quot;decent,&quot; &quot;beautifaction mark,&quot; and &quot;tatoo&quot; are incompatible together. I see a lot of young women with tatoos on their lower backs and they appear to be sharp young ladies and then they bend over and trash that perception. 

Why a Christian woman would get a tatoo baffles me. My daughter-in-law is covered with them. What makes one ok and multiple tatoos offensive? 

I would discourage anyone from getting branded because it sends the wrong message (yes, I was tempted to do so when I was in the Navy).

As for piercings -- some of those connote sexual activities engaged in by the wearer. 

Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and should reflect our love for God, not our love for worldly fads.


----------



## cupotea

ok, I am not interested in getting tatoos. I want to make tha clear. I was just wondering why our society (even in christain circles) view ear piercing as exceptable but not tatoos.


----------



## Wannabee

Some Christians don't.


----------



## thoughtfuldave

*call me Mr. Tattoo!*

I have spent much money on my tattoos. almost 2000 dollars!!!! They are all &quot;religeous&quot; and one on my arm even say in Hebrew &quot;God is in this temple&quot;. pretty impresive, eh?

NOPE

I no longer subscribe to the same standard I did as a Charismatic (not that all charismatics are into tattoos). I read the bible as a dispensationalist (not that all dispensationalists are into tattoos). I belived that the Law was done away with and that we followed the &quot;law of Christ&quot;. This meant that I could do anything as long as it glorified God. Christian Death Metal, Christian grafiti, Christian Tattoos, hey, man, don't get legal on me, I'm glorifying God...Not!

Since coming to reformed theology (Thankyou God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I have been thouroughly rebuked by both the scriptures and by reformed writters. boy was I out to lunch! Unfortunatly I am left with the scars of my antinomialism (sp?). Trashed hearing and a body that looks like I'm in a religeous gang. I wonder if I can still be a pastor with tattoos peeking out my shirt sleves.

God is able to use my mistakes for His Glory, but this treand in the church to allow the world and its culture into the church to atract the world into the church (?) is having a tragic effect. If you don't belive me, go to a &quot;youth meeting&quot; one night where they have a Christian band playing. It will shock you and the worst part is that the Elders of the church condone and support it becasue, &quot;hey, we had our Jesus People music, didn't we?&quot;

Maybe all those people in the 60's that cried and warned about the &quot;rock music&quot; influence in Gospel music were right. I just got stuck with the fallout. I wonder what this generation of tattooed, pierced postmodern churchgoer's children will look like? 

&quot;There is only one generation separating a society from becoming Barbarians.&quot; pray that it is not too late...

Love in Christ,

David Stair

and yes, Tee Shirt and shorts at the beach. Also, I did not watch women's gymnastics on TV (as a non-Christian) for the love of the sport. Take this to consideration if you want to enroll your kids into something where they wear skimpy outfits...They WILL BE WATCHED!!!

:no::no::no::no::no::no::no::no:


----------



## Isrealite_after_the_Torah

Okay, I am new here and here are my thoughts on modesty. I surely hope that none of you will be offended in any way. 

I believe that modesty is how you think and how you dress. Modesty is showing others that you put El (hebrew for G-d... I don't like saying G-d...) first in your life and that you rather would put him first in your life than yourself. 

I believe that , as a woman of valour, I should wear long skirts with no slits, blouses that cover most of my neck and all of my arms.. except of course my hands. I do not wear pants no longer because they show the outline of my legs. Nor do I no longer wear tube tops, sleeveless, or any kind of shirt that exposes my arms. Therefore, too I no longer expose my legs. I usually wear socks at the time. I no longer too wear bathing suits of any kind. 

Really no one these days are modesty and these days have become like Sedom and Gomorrah. If we are to show that we are set-apart (quodeshim) we need to start dressing appriopriatly! (spelling?) 

Bathing suits are VERY inmodest.. one peices and all! Women, aren't we supposed to safe ourselves for our husbands?! If we are showing off our legs, arms, shoulders, and backs and such we are not saving ourselves or therefore keeping ourselves only for our husbands! We are not to be a stumbling block for our fellow brothers.

Guys, you can be just as inmodest and girls can. 

Are we not supposed to be stumbling blocks for one another but to bring eachother yup?

Well, my doing what this world does we are creating stumbling blocks for one another and I don't think El wants us to do that does he?

There our my two cents.


----------



## a mere housewife

I might as well throw in my two cents, too.

I think that the emphasis of modesty being in the attitude as PastorWay and others have said is primary. Modesty does mean an attitude of not wishing to draw attention to ones body, or ones person. That is why the women are not to &quot;dress up&quot; with all this stunning finery-- as if they are on display. We are not to dress so as to be noticed. Modesty also has a lot to do with propriety. This comes in at the beach because what is proper at the beach is improper elsewhere. What is proper at the grocery store is not proper at church. Frankly, what is proper at church is not proper at the playground. I personally hate to see little girls in dresses trying to go down slides.

I wear what I consider a modest swimsuit. It has shorts sewn onto it. You can order these from Blair, if any of you women are interested: www.blair.com. Blair also has more modest regular cut bathing suits, though I can't feel comfortable in those.

A modest woman may call attention to herself in some places, by virtue of being the only modest woman! But her whole demeanor will detract from the kind of attention an immodest woman receives. It will not be directed at her as though she is displaying herself, but exactly for the opposite reason. Also, there is enough variety in what is stylish in our culture to be modest and yet not appear strange. Al Martin has a great sermon in Phillippians on how Christians ought not to appear strange just to do so; otherwise the world will write them off and not listen to them when they have a legitimate reason to be strange.

I respect women with stricter standards than I have, primarily because they are modest in heart: but I do not feel immodest around them if my hemline happens to be shorter (though I don't wear short skirts because I think they are more suggestive than straight shorts-- for me, that draws my own attention to what I am wearing more than I want to focus on it). Immodesty is in more than my hemline.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by a mere housewife]


----------



## KayJay

preach it heidi...

I think someone said it already but I'll say it again - that outward immodesty is really only a symptom of a problem of a woman's (immodest) heart.

Even women who appear somewhat modest may have a flatterring tongue or INCESSANT giggling in order to draw attention to herself. Though perhaps she may not go as far as Proverbs seductress in her actions - her behavior demonstrates that she would like to were it not for those commands...

Many young Christian women seem to have rebellious hearts - while paying lip service to having Biblical standards, they will push the limit as far as they can without crossing the obvious line. 

It is true - women who do not play the huntress, even in the church (in my experience) do stand out a bit and often go unsupported as their culture, perhaps even their family, tells them to be forward and aggessive to pursue a man to marry.


----------



## exscentric

Somewhere way back in the thread it was asked what crowd does a tattoo identify you with. 

Well I got some and I'm at this point identified with a bunch of puritan thinking folks :bigsmile: Point well taken, however the image is changing as we speak.

I've not found them to be a hindrance to myself or others, I simply explain that they were aquired at a young and stupid age and that is the end of it. 

I'm not sure they have ever embarrassed me - would I rather they weren't there? Probably, but not going to go get my ears pierced to make myself feel better about myself 

Concerning modesty it seems that the inner woman should outshine the outer woman. Example: In the 70's when the mini skirt craze spread through most churches we had a lot of young women in our church - most were being fashionable with the short skirts. I found myself looking away from women quite often - not a confortable thing to do but necessary when trying to talk to someone.

There was one young woman that I hadn't noticed at all. One day I realized she was wearing the same type skirts, but had never noticed it - her countanance drew your mind to her godliness. I tried to communicate that to the other young ladies, but I'm not sure the message ever resonated.

One of the keys I see in the thread is that men are desirious of being a part in the modesty of their ladies. In the 70's one of my main points was that the problem is not only the woman's but the husbands/fathers.

Having said that, there is one other that is responsible - the looker and we often forget to mention him. I'd guess there is no dress that will cover a woman adequately to keep some from improper thoughts.


----------



## mjbee

Bob, I think you were referring to a thong. Frankly, I find them disgusting, no matter who's wearing them. 

Phillip, I don't know why you always sound so soundly reasonable to me. 

My thoughts (which usually border on insanity): Modesty comes from the heart. It doesn't mean you make yourself ugly, because your husband would then be ashamed of you, which is not good. It's the difference between Sarah and Jezebel.


----------



## lkjohnson

While it is obvious that johnpauljudah is sincere in asking this question and that it is a question that needs to be asked, it is in some ways kind of like the question the Scribe asked Jesus, &quot;Who is my neighbor?&quot; The Scribe knew what Jesus meant by 'neighbor.' He did not need it defined for him. So it is with modesty. We generally know what it means, so common sense should give us a lot of direction here.

Please, understand that I am not discounting any of the good direction given here, but we must be careful to not to draw lines like school dress codes: &quot;Skirts shall be at least . . .&quot; You get the idea. 

There are at least two very basic concepts or values to teach children here. (Notice values, not rules.) First is the issue of godly modesty. Much good about this concept has already been said in this thread. The second concept is that of living for the glory of God, from which the concept of modesty grows. Unless we teach this value, all else will be lost in the battle to fit in with the rest of the world.


----------



## polemic_turtle

http://www.wholesomewear.com/

^^My sisters wear these swimsuits.^^

In my opinion, the first impression one receives of a woman's modesty as an inward quality is from what she is wearing on the outside; you may never talk to her and be able to discern her attitude, but if you saw her in a crowd, you could at least deduce that she is decent and considerate to the men around her.

Perhaps I'm going to stick out as an over-sensitive fellow, but I believe women wearing jeans fail to differentiate themselves from men by wearing the same type of attire and thus differences that shouldn't be violated are blurred and women at least _look_ more like men, which would _seem_ to be falling short of Deuteronomy 22:5 to me.

Differing degrees of interpretation have been given to me about this verse, but ultimately I see people just ignoring the smallest degree of it and allowing sisters in the church to wear the same type of clothing and even borrow clothing from the men in some cases. :-\

It would seem to me that every possible form of a woman's body is outlined when she wears jeans, to whatever degree the pair is tight on her, whereas a skirt, if done properly, will hide the contours of her legs, thighs, and crotch area from any of the weaker brethren who often look at whatever a woman offers to their gaze before thinking of what they're doing. I don't mind saying men are wrong in this habit, but I think women often handle this red-hot brand of latent sexuality too carelessly before men.

Men have been going nuts over women ever since Adam swooned over Eve for reasons I can appreciate, if not understand, so I would ask you sisters to please reserve as much of your beauty for your husbands as you reasonably can while in public. Taliban Muslim wear would seem demonic and Jewish standards legalistic, but I have some appreciation for what I see of the latter on this website: http://www.tznius.com/

[Edited on 4-2-2006 by polemic_turtle]

[Edited on 4-2-2006 by polemic_turtle]


----------



## ~~Susita~~

I had a two-piece that I wore to go sun bathing (with sun screen), but I would never wear it out in public. Now I don't sun bathe and if I go swimming where there are other men/boys around, I wear a one piece, and often times shorts on top of that. As already stated, modesty comes from within, and that is, in my opinion, a harder battle than selecting and wearing clothes to cover up skin.


----------



## jrminter

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> 
> Perhaps I'm going to stick out as an over-sensitive fellow, but I believe women wearing jeans fail to differentiate themselves from men by wearing the same type of attire and thus differences that shouldn't be violated are blurred and women at least _look_ more like men, which would _seem_ to be falling short of Deuteronomy 22:5 to me.
> 
> Differing degrees of interpretation have been given to me about this verse, but ultimately I see people just ignoring the smallest degree of it and allowing sisters in the church to wear the same type of clothing and even borrow clothing from the men in some cases. :-
> 
> It would seem to me that every possible form of a woman's body is outlined when she wears jeans, to whatever degree the pair is tight on her, whereas a skirt, if done properly, will hide the contours of her legs, thighs, and crotch area from any of the weaker brethren who often look at whatever a woman offers to their gaze before thinking of what they're doing. I don't mind saying men are wrong in this habit, but I think women often handle this red-hot brand of latent sexuality too carelessly before men.



I would point out that there are jeans... And then there are jeans... My wife wears modestly cut jeans on certain occasions. We are both 'lab rats' - i.e. often in chemistry labs, and these are most appropriate for the occasion. She would never be accused of trying to look like a man. 

On the other hand we have a 'pandemic' at work - young women wearing skin tight jeans, often with very short tops. These are definitely immodest. We have had young women wear these to the Chapel on occasions. In such occasions, we elders tend to speak with their fathers and exhort them to better train their daughters. If an inappropriately dressed young woman does not have a father in the assembly, we ask one of our wives to take her aside and explain what is modest and what is not and why immodest clothing is inappropriate. Most of the young women take this graciously because it is done in a gentle, loving, concerned manner. We have had youth conferences where we have had to find suitable clothing for some of the young women. We have not had occasion to speak to the young men about their dess, but would if it were required.


----------



## polemic_turtle

Well, in former ages, I would have still said you were in need of conversion, but I am now a little wiser, I hope, and will leave it to your sanctified discretion to decide what to do.

As for the inward qualities being more of a struggle, I readily admit it to be so; I feel that we all easily look better than we feel inside, for with practice, inward warfare can be masked and concealed pretty easily, which is only polite, I guess, in most situations. However, I would still caution you that anything close to an outline of the female body will almost certainly be tempting to any man with a fallen nature and natural God-given appreciation for the.. *cough*.. "finer" parts of Creation? I can only imagine that God created Eve to interest Adam in every single way possible. :-| ;-)


----------



## LadyFlynt

I believe this subject can be split into two separate discussions...both equally important...inward modesty (ie modest attitude and actions) and outward modesty (appearance and actions).

Sorry, but no one will be seeing me in even a one piece...not unless it is a private pool or beach and only women. Sorry, but one pieces are VERY revealing on both mature and younger women.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> ...I would love to do away with my nuisance of a wedding band and just tattoo my ring onto my finger so I won't lose it...



What a great idea!


----------



## CDM

Whatever a Christian women would wear to the pool she ought to feel comfortable wearing it to and in the store. My wife brought this up recently. She was trying on an old bathing suit (when we were immature babes in the faith). I said (jokingly) Yes, thats great, let's go to the store now and show it off! We both had a nice laugh and summarily tossed that costume into the trash.

And shirts/tops, too. Someone said, ..."you can't draw hard lines." Yes, I can, and I should. Can I see ANY part of a woman's breast(s) from the shirt/blouse she's wearing? This is IMMODEST and IMPROPER for a godly woman. It happens to be my observation the more godly the woman the more godly her dress. 

Why do some Christian women feel the need to display all of her legs upto about 3 inches from...you know.....? Why?! By this type of dress, I become privy to a part of a woman's body that only her husband should be. 

This dress is for the world's women. Not God's women. 

Shame on the men that leave there wives and daughters to the groping eyes and minds of sinners.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Whatever a Christian women would wear to the pool she ought to feel comfortable wearing it to and in the store. My wife brought this up recently. She was trying on an old bathing suit (when we were immature babes in the faith). I said (jokingly) Yes, thats great, let's go to the store now and show it off! We both had a nice laugh and summarily tossed that costume into the trash.
> 
> And shirts/tops, too. Someone said, ..."you can't draw hard lines." Yes, I can, and I should. Can I see ANY part of a woman's breast(s) from the shirt/blouse she's wearing? This is IMMODEST and IMPROPER for a godly woman. It happens to be my observation the more godly the woman the more godly her dress.
> 
> Why do some Christian women feel the need to display all of her legs upto about 3 inches from...you know.....? Why?! By this type of dress, I become privy to a part of a woman's body that only her husband should be.
> 
> This dress is for the world's women. Not God's women.
> 
> Shame on the men that leave there wives and daughters to the groping eyes and minds of sinners.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Modesty is something I hold to be very important but something I rarely if EVER see on a girl. Our culture is disgusting, deceptive, and twisted.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Modesty is something I hold to be very important but something I rarely if EVER see on a girl. Our culture is disgusting, deceptive, and twisted.





But the culture has an excuse, so to speak, they are what they are - God mocking blasphemers.

But what about the Christian culture at large? There are not too many subjects to me more infuriating than this. 

These Christian parents are inciting young men to sin against there very own daughters (and wives)! How asinine! By letting their children "walk according to this world" watching trashy TV shows and movies, hanging out with rank unbelievers, etc, etc. 

So I can't stand to hear these same parents lament, "Woe is me...why is Suzie playing the whore....why is she involved in sexual activity...God help us..."



He has helped you. It's called his Word. Disregard it at you and your family's peril.


----------



## py3ak

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but are you saying that a woman is supposed to dress in such a way that I can't tell she has breasts? Or legs, or any body part other than a head? What if someone has Angelina lips? Should she cover those too?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> I don't mean to be rude or anything, but are you saying that a woman is supposed to dress in such a way that I can't tell she has breasts? Or legs, or any body part other than a head? What if someone has Angelina lips? Should she cover those too?



I think he was meaning showing the skin of the cleavage and the parts that can stick out on larger women in sleeveless tops from the sides. Women cannot completely "hide" that part of being a woman...but they needn't expose it either or draw added attention to it (overtly tight tops, lettering across the chest of a shirt, etc).


----------



## py3ak

Well, that certainly sounds a lot more reasonable....


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Modesty is something I hold to be very important but something I rarely if EVER see on a girl. Our culture is disgusting, deceptive, and twisted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the culture has an excuse, so to speak, they are what they are - God mocking blasphemers.
> 
> But what about the Christian culture at large? There are not too many subjects to me more infuriating than this.
> 
> These Christian parents are inciting young men to sin against there very own daughters (and wives)! How asinine! By letting their children "walk according to this world" watching trashy TV shows and movies, hanging out with rank unbelievers, etc, etc.
> 
> So I can't stand to hear these same parents lament, "Woe is me...why is Suzie playing the whore....why is she involved in sexual activity...God help us..."
> 
> 
> 
> He has helped you. It's called his Word. Disregard it at you and your family's peril.
Click to expand...


----------



## ~~Susita~~

Yeesh, I'll be wearing pants when I go swimming now. Thanks, fellas. Really!


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by jrminter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> 
> Perhaps I'm going to stick out as an over-sensitive fellow, but I believe women wearing jeans fail to differentiate themselves from men by wearing the same type of attire and thus differences that shouldn't be violated are blurred and women at least _look_ more like men, which would _seem_ to be falling short of Deuteronomy 22:5 to me.
> 
> Differing degrees of interpretation have been given to me about this verse, but ultimately I see people just ignoring the smallest degree of it and allowing sisters in the church to wear the same type of clothing and even borrow clothing from the men in some cases. :-
> 
> It would seem to me that every possible form of a woman's body is outlined when she wears jeans, to whatever degree the pair is tight on her, whereas a skirt, if done properly, will hide the contours of her legs, thighs, and crotch area from any of the weaker brethren who often look at whatever a woman offers to their gaze before thinking of what they're doing. I don't mind saying men are wrong in this habit, but I think women often handle this red-hot brand of latent sexuality too carelessly before men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would point out that there are jeans... And then there are jeans... My wife wears modestly cut jeans on certain occasions. We are both 'lab rats' - i.e. often in chemistry labs, and these are most appropriate for the occasion. She would never be accused of trying to look like a man.
> 
> On the other hand we have a 'pandemic' at work - young women wearing skin tight jeans, often with very short tops. These are definitely immodest. We have had young women wear these to the Chapel on occasions. In such occasions, we elders tend to speak with their fathers and exhort them to better train their daughters. If an inappropriately dressed young woman does not have a father in the assembly, we ask one of our wives to take her aside and explain what is modest and what is not and why immodest clothing is inappropriate. Most of the young women take this graciously because it is done in a gentle, loving, concerned manner. We have had youth conferences where we have had to find suitable clothing for some of the young women. We have not had occasion to speak to the young men about their dess, but would if it were required.
Click to expand...


I understand the concerns about how many a times pants can reveal much more of a woman's form than is suitable, especially in certain postures. However, i think those who try to play the deut 22:5 card to forbid pants completely are guilty of reading too much of culture back into the bible. Trying to impose such man made restrictions on others is, i think, ultimately not benefical as it taints by association all christians calling for modesty with the craziness of the no pants crowd.


----------



## RamistThomist

That, and to appeal to Dt 22:25 sounds too much like theonomy!


----------



## LadyFlynt

Well, then just call me crazy...


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Well, then just call me crazy...



Hi Colleen,

Prehaps i should have chosen different words. Let me say i have nothing against those who simply feel that dresses are more feminine or more appropriate, or simply look better. In fact, in many ways i agree. Or against those who avoid pants because they feel they are immodest. That said, i still feel those who say it is a absolutely a sin for a woman to wear pants are going way beyond scripture in a manner similar to those who categorically condemn all alcohol use. No doubt there are many good people in that group with noble intentions, but they are still trying to prove something that scripture will not support.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Gotcha...just wanted to make certain you weren't going overboard in your emotions towards those of us in the "no pants" crowd


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Well, then just call me crazy...



Mine was tongue-in-cheek. Somebody on another thread had castigated theonomists for x,y, and z and on this thread, with a straight face, assumed the validity of a case law in the Old Testament. From there he assumes the theonomic position in this thread and denies it in the other. I just thought that was odd.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Well, then just call me crazy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mine was tongue-in-cheek. Somebody on another thread had castigated theonomists for x,y, and z and on this thread, with a straight face, assumed the validity of a case law in the Old Testament. From there he assumes the theonomic position in this thread and denies it in the other. I just thought that was odd.
Click to expand...


I don't see how it would be, since dressing is a matter of private behavior of each christian and is, at least in the context of this thread, not connected at all to the running of a nation.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Well, then just call me crazy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mine was tongue-in-cheek. Somebody on another thread had castigated theonomists for x,y, and z and on this thread, with a straight face, assumed the validity of a case law in the Old Testament. From there he assumes the theonomic position in this thread and denies it in the other. I just thought that was odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it would be, since dressing is a matter of private behavior of each christian and is, at least in the context of this thread, not connected at all to the running of a nation.
Click to expand...


Theonomic hermeneutics applies to the individual as well as the nation.


----------



## polemic_turtle

Are you referring.. to me?? 

Is it theonomic to take things out of the OT that express God's feelings about specific issues and apply them to believers? If so, I must be one, because I'm a big fan of the 10 commandments and think they contribute a lot toward guidance in what one should do. No more of those "to kill or not to kill? maybe I'll just steal..." dilemmas. ;-)

I'm of the persuation that when a nation develops cultural fashions so far that it would be impossible for a man to dress in a way in which a woman couldn't exactly copy it we've moved beyond diffentiating men and women's clothes as distinct, unique, or even different one from the other.

It would seem there used to be a difference, but it was eradicated by Riveter Rosie; did she sin in so doing? If so, would time reduce this trespass? If so, how long does it take to remove things from "sinful" to "normal"? Does this make sense? Does it matter at 12:57PM? It would seem more logical than my "temprance" arguments I used to make! ;-)

[Edited on 4-7-2006 by polemic_turtle]


----------

