Male and Female Modesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incredulous

What does he define as modest? I cannot listen but am interested.

I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?

Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.

I hate to say it, no really I do not. This statement is so inane I can hardly believe it was made on this board! So, if it is permissible for women to run around naked in some cultures where it would not be tempting that is not immodest. Right! I cannot begin to express my incredulity over this statement, so I will leave it as is, besides, Jerrold Lewis has already made a more sane reply.
 
Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing! :eek: So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power. :rolleyes:
:wow: :think: Good thing Tertullian wasn't divinely inspired =D

You can read Early Church Father Tertullian on that one......


"Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the head:" the veil is their yoke.

…. who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face."

Tertullian on the Veiling of Virgins A.D. 198

This is part of the problem, most women do not know how much power they do have.
 
Michael,

this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately. :2cents:

Calgal,

We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts...

Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....

Oh Noes! Their HANDS are showing! :eek: So let me see if I understand this thought process correctly: women are tempting and men are unable to withstand the temptation of a woman's hair or eyelashes or hands or any part of her body. How nice to have that power. :rolleyes:

Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
 
This discussion reminds me of what went on after the fall. Everyone started blaming everyone else. The fact is, we are each responsible before God and for the sake of our brothers and sisters in Christ to dress and behave in a way that will not cause them to stumble. Likewise, we are also responsible to guard our eyes and our thoughts. It was Job who said that he made a covenant with his eyes that he would not look on a maid. Job 31:1

Job had the right idea.
 
Michael,

this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately. :2cents:

Calgal,

We have gotten alittle funny in this thread with extremes like the burkas.. No one is saying that hands must be hidden.. They are not listed anywhere in the scriptures along with other parts...

Those of us who support more fuller coverings are using descriptions from scripture of what should be covered... Body, Legs, head, etc....

Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
Some questions for you:
What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.

Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.

My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately? :2cents:
 
I am in trouble then sister! :eek::lol:

I dunno.. it's pretty hard to see in there... and God help you if you need glasses... then you'd have to look like this:




Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..

The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...

Board shorts + wet T-shirt = Men's modest swimwear? I guess we get to lust after the muscle bound bodies from the protection of our burkhas...... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?

Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.

I hate to say it, no really I do not. This statement is so inane I can hardly believe it was made on this board! So, if it is permissible for women to run around naked in some cultures where it would not be tempting that is not immodest. Right! I cannot begin to express my incredulity over this statement, so I will leave it as is, besides, Jerrold Lewis has already made a more sane reply.


Michael, you must have heard something that Rich did not say. How you can somehow conclude Rich was speaking about nudity? Also, you must have a thesaurus right next to you when you post. I just cannot believe what is happening lately on the board. In my comment to Michael, coram deo, I was not trying to make light of his belief on this matter, nor anyone else who follows the same path. Perhaps I am overreacting, but I am sensing a very legalistic approach to life lately from certain members cloaked under the guise of honor to God. dancing, screennames,not wearing shorts, women in full coverings, drama, pictures of oneself, polotical affiliation = believers. Do you for one second think that God is honored by this stuff? It is orthopraxy laced with orthodoxy. I sense a teaching of man having free will when it comes to morality, where man can choose the self conceived 'right' ethical path by heaping on his back rules and obligations in order to 'please' God. I read in the Talmud that" God control's everything, except Godliness" And I fear I am reading the same words here lately. Are these things the 'good works' we are created in Christ Jesus to do? Did He die on the cross, with the weight of His sheep's sins on His shoulders, to forgive men from wearing shorts or watching drama? Can sinful man, actually become moral on his own? This is infused righteousness. That somehow upon regeneration, I can actually have my own personal righteousness as a new creation that becomes inherit to me. And upon doing works, I am sanctified. Isaiah 64:6 declares "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags", this is AFTER being justified. If I believe I am doing good works, and look to them as some pleasing offering to God, this is self righteousness no matter how you slice it. My ONLY hope is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, nothing else. The RCC states: "By the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, faith co-operating with good works, they gain an increase of that righteousness which was received by the grace of Christ, and are the more justified." the thirty-second canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent says: "If any one shall say that the good works of a justified man are the gift of God in such a sense that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself, or that a justified man, by the good works which are done by him through the grace of God, and the merit of Christ, of whom he is a living member, does not truly deserve increase of grace, eternal life, and the actual possession of eternal life if he die in grace, and also an increase of glory, let him be ANATHAMA."

Please do not hear what I am not saying, I agree a believer will hate what he once loved and love what he once hated. WHat I find troubling is the lists some carry around to what they love and hate, and then seem to find pleasure in doing or refraining from the such. Titus 3:4-5, “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.” This is the grand truth of the Gospel. One that goes beyond justification into sanctification. I agree Michael and others do not adhere to these 'rules' to be declared just, but just as works are not the ground of our justification, neither are they the ground of our sanctification, if they were, then salvation is not all God.

I love what the Scots confession says:
"We willingly spoil ourselves of all honor and glory of our own salvation and redemption, as we also do of our regeneration and sanctification."

Justification by Grace alone remains the sole ground of the Christian. We are never called to think beyond this scope. Sanctification is never to be viewed as something we do in addition to what God alone has done for our justification. So instead of infused justification, we now have some infused sanctification that man somehow "works out" by adhearing to peccadillo rules.. To become obsessed and scrupulous about things that do not matter is actually condemned by Paul.
 
I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?

Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.

I hate to say it, no really I do not. This statement is so inane I can hardly believe it was made on this board! So, if it is permissible for women to run around naked in some cultures where it would not be tempting that is not immodest. Right! I cannot begin to express my incredulity over this statement, so I will leave it as is, besides, Jerrold Lewis has already made a more sane reply.

Ah, so you acknowledge that your own reply is not sane? :p
 
Michael,

this is not funny really. The amazing thing is that the coverings do NOT take all responsibility from the man and frankly you guys have just as much responsibility for YOUR reactions as we women do to dress appropriately. :2cents:

Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
Some questions for you:
What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.

Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.

My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately? :2cents:

Michael is merely seeking a Pastorate calgal.

This is a "both-and" situation as JBaldwin noted.

Wisdom demands that we treat these situations according to the issues at hand. The fact of the matter is that modesty is somewhat culturally defined. I'm not giving license to nudity but there are cultures that missionaries have gone into and the first thing they do is cover up the women as if, all along, the women should have intuitively known that they were being immodest and tempting men who were not in the least tempted by their dress.

Even a modest full length dress would be too much even today for some Arabic men unless the entire body (including the eyes) is covered. Even the form of the woman is too much for some. Simply having a full length dress would be inadequate if it didn't completely obscure every feminine feature.

Making hard and fast rules to fit all cultures everywhere is naive and does not comport with the pursuit of wisdom.

The larger principle is the desire to build up the entire body and to consider the frame of our fellow brothers and sisters - their eyes being merely one thing among many that might cause temptation to sin. It's simply silly to make a law that covers every every culture on the planet or women would, indeed, be covered from head to toe and not merely be wearing a head covering but a full body covering. Nevertheless, if women ever found themselves in a culture that did find their form, in any part, alluring, the Law would not demand of them they cover up everything but love of brother and the willingness to restrict one's own liberty for another may be called for.
 
I have a lot of questions on modesty and this issue seems to be one of the most tossed around in some circles:

So, is there a double standard for men and women? Men seem to appear more prone to lust than women. Shorts on a man seems no big deal but shorts on a woman can sometimes be a big deal. Does man's responsibility differ from woman's?

What did Jesus strip down to when he washed the disciples feet?

Also, what about same sex bathing and locker rooms? On sports teams, armies, etc is it okay for men or women to adopt lesser standards of modesty (see my post above). I.e. skinny dip to avoid needing to change clothes during a long trek.

Also, does modesty dissolve when it comes to medical situations or teaching? I.e. doctor exams or teaching using graphics of the human body. Jonathan Edwards got into a tussle about a midwifery book didn't he?

What if a man wants to shop for lingerie with his wife? Can he enter the store to help pick out his preferences or must this be only her domain (I am assuming that lingerie is permissible).

What about breastfeeding in public? The exposure of the breast is functional and not for aesthetic reasons.
 
this thread has become so strange...

By Gods grace I was delivered from a legalistic, cult-like, sect of fundamentalists. I must say that I find this entire debate over how xn men & women should try to out cover the moslems, strange to say the least.

The fault is clearly on the one who "looks with lust" in the teaching of our Lord. How this can be transposed to this burka-gospel, I simply do not understand. To me "do not look..." seems so clear. How someone could change that to mean do not wear this, or that seems as great a perversion of the words of the scripture as possible.
 
Coram Deo: By the way, I want to mention one more time how much I appreciate your care in all issues. We should never rest with the easy answers and you really do search out these issues.
 
this thread has become so strange...

By Gods grace I was delivered from a legalistic, cult-like, sect of fundamentalists. I must say that I find this entire debate over how xn men & women should try to out cover the moslems, strange to say the least.

The fault is clearly on the one who "looks with lust" in the teaching of our Lord. How this can be transposed to this burka-gospel, I simply do not understand. To me "do not look..." seems so clear. How someone could change that to mean do not wear this, or that seems as great a perversion of the words of the scripture as possible.

Kevin,

I don't want to dismiss the concern. There are some parallels with other things where liberty of conscience should rule.

I agree that what has been manifest by some in this thread is akin to a form of legalism that has a parallel to the way some treat alchohol.

The desire to be modest for the sake of another cannot be turned into Talmud as if the Gospel doesn't even control our motivation in that sphere. Those that seek to create a rule book for such things miss the very spirit of Romans 12-16 that governs our reasonable service in response to the Gospel.

As I said previously, we ought to be training one another in what that reasonable service is. I completely agree that men have a responsibility to guard their eyes. Women may also be motivated by a love for a struggling brother to consider what she wears that may cause temptation. In that case, however, the motivation is no longer the "thou shall not" but the end of the law, which is love and concern for the man in your midst who is a fellow heir.
 
This is how I feel. I honestly in my heart do not want to cause my brothers in Christ to stumble so I take care in choosing my clothing. But there are some things I am honestly not convicted of, like skirts or dresses the touch the knee, wear 3/4 sleeves, showing my hair, wearing jewelry, putting on make-up, and wearing shoes with heels (not too high though 3" at the most for me). My conscience bears no witness against me when I do these things. And I honestly feel that I can honor the Lord with my attire.

Now if i were around a brother in Christ who I knew had a hard time dealing with say some fettish with women's calfs or forarms, I would honor his conviction and forfit what I would usually wear to accommodate my weaker brother, just as I would not drink with a brother in Christ who had a past or present drinking problem.

But the thing is... I don't know every man's struggle, and honestly I couldn't keep up with it and accommodate every single man's lustful problem - one man would have a problem lusting after a woman's calfs, another after her lips.. another after her eyes, another after her hands, and so on and so forth and I'd end up in a berka with the glasses in front of my veil. But, I want to follow the spirit of God's law and so I think to myself what is the ultimate purpose of modesty? Am I trying to flaunt my body in this outfit? Am I purposefully trying to cause men to look at me in a lustful way by drawing attention to the obvious coutours of the female body? When I can answer no, my conscience is clear, and I feel that I have the liberty to buy that piece of clothing and give all praise and thanks and honor and glory to God. :2cents:


this thread has become so strange...

By Gods grace I was delivered from a legalistic, cult-like, sect of fundamentalists. I must say that I find this entire debate over how xn men & women should try to out cover the moslems, strange to say the least.

The fault is clearly on the one who "looks with lust" in the teaching of our Lord. How this can be transposed to this burka-gospel, I simply do not understand. To me "do not look..." seems so clear. How someone could change that to mean do not wear this, or that seems as great a perversion of the words of the scripture as possible.

Kevin,

I don't want to dismiss the concern. There are some parallels with other things where liberty of conscience should rule.

I agree that what has been manifest by some in this thread is akin to a form of legalism that has a parallel to the way some treat alchohol.

The desire to be modest for the sake of another cannot be turned into Talmud as if the Gospel doesn't even control our motivation in that sphere. Those that seek to create a rule book for such things miss the very spirit of Romans 12-16 that governs our reasonable service in response to the Gospel.

As I said previously, we ought to be training one another in what that reasonable service is. I completely agree that men have a responsibility to guard their eyes. Women may also be motivated by a love for a struggling brother to consider what she wears that may cause temptation. In that case, however, the motivation is no longer the "thou shall not" but the end of the law, which is love and concern for the man in your midst who is a fellow heir.
 
Here's a bit of cultural trivia for you: women in 'old' China used to be covered from a high mandarin collar down to just about the ankles in traditional dresses, and to the wrists with their sleeves. However, they had their feet bound (in which the arch of the foot is broken over a stone/simply wrapped over and bound) in order to make their feet tiny and their steps small and dainty. The feet were mostly covered by the dress so it was not so much an issue of allurement there (though the tiny feet were considered attractive as well, but were not showcased quite so publically). Instead, it was the gait of the steps themselves. The short shuffle was what was thought to be erotic (according to a couple of sources I have read; it may have changed with certain dynasties). But this was a cultural institution, in which young girls were forced to take part in order to someday be married. Total covering and modest behavior were enforced 100%. But a simple walk down a hallway could be thus immodest...

Beta ARs are made from new Gore-Tex® Pro Shell fabric and offer improved protection, breathability, durability and suppleness

Could they not have used another word?!?! Especially when talking about specifically modest clothing...
 
Wow, What a way to start a morning... :lol: Where do I start...... (and I have not even had my coffee yet)...

First, no one is saying we should add our own rules or write a collection of extra biblical talmudic law. Nor is anyone trying to be a Pharisee, one who adds to the laws of God or one who believes they are justified by keeping laws. As for Sanctification, all I will say is, "Be Holy for I am Holy" saith the Lord. We are called to be Holy and to grow in Holiness everyday.

Secondly, no one was saying we cover "just" for the stumbling of brothers or to out do the muslim covering. Early in the thread I posted a list of Scripture passages with regard to modesty... I see in Genesis a Tunic that according to some bible scholars came down past the knee and to other bible scholars came down to the ankles... I see the head covered for modesty.. I see the in Isaiah 47:2 that God is using an analogy of modesty which says if the head is uncovered or the leg made bare you are showing your nakedness.. I see a woman or man is not to wear what pertains to the other sex and I see a command to wear modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, in addition to the inward commands of modesty. So I see body, legs, and head to be covered.

Now I know that some of you do not accept the interpretation of some of these passages but I do and many others do to. But this is far from Adding to Scripture or being a Pharisee and it certainly is not legalistic.. What it boils down to is interpretation of scriptures and not adding to it scripture.. I see a list in scripture and I am not the first person and I am not the last person to see them. ECF, Reformers, Puritans, and Moderns have all seen the same list... We may disagree to the list but try not to judge the motives of those who hold to a stricter list for modesty.... I do it out of Love for God and to Grow Holier everyday... "Fear God, and Keep His Commandments" is the whole duty of man.

And Remember "Be Holy, For I am Holy"


"Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." (Genesis 3:21)

"And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she [had] said unto the servant, What man [is] this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant [had] said, It [is] my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself." (Genesis 24:64,65)

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. " (Deuteronomy 22:5)

"‘And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse." (Numbers 5:16-18)

“The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.” (Song of Solomon 5:7)

"Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:" (Isaiah 3:16)

“Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy veil, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.” (Isaiah 47:2-3)

"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; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart" (1 Peter 3:3-4)
 
Pergy, I will try to briefly answer your questions...


I have a lot of questions on modesty and this issue seems to be one of the most tossed around in some circles:

So, is there a double standard for men and women? Men seem to appear more prone to lust than women. Shorts on a man seems no big deal but shorts on a woman can sometimes be a big deal. Does man's responsibility differ from woman's?

No doubt Standard... I think I proved that about me already in the thread...

What did Jesus strip down to when he washed the disciples feet?

Not sure, I would have to look this up.. Most likely he just removed part of his outer garment which he was still covered by a inner garment of the times...

Also, what about same sex bathing and locker rooms? On sports teams, armies, etc is it okay for men or women to adopt lesser standards of modesty (see my post above). I.e. skinny dip to avoid needing to change clothes during a long trek.

Not sure about same sex situations but personally I will not use and have abstained from using public locker rooms because of modesty.. Additionally I will not use stand up wall unit in restrooms and always go to the closed door stalls for bodily functions...

Also, does modesty dissolve when it comes to medical situations or teaching? I.e. doctor exams or teaching using graphics of the human body. Jonathan Edwards got into a tussle about a midwifery book didn't he?

My wife will not see any doctor unless the doctor is female for examinations or checkups.. She has a special midwife for gyn functions who is female. All my doctors have always been male...

What if a man wants to shop for lingerie with his wife? Can he enter the store to help pick out his preferences or must this be only her domain (I am assuming that lingerie is permissible).

HAHA, Shop On line for those things.. But if a man is brave enough to venture into the lingerie department which I have never been able to do (In Todays Cultural Climate, man would get to many stirs by people thinking the wrong think about the man) then more power to him.....

What about breastfeeding in public? The exposure of the breast is functional and not for aesthetic reasons.

My wife has always has found a private place to breastfeed and covers with a blanket as does all the other woman I have seen around me who breastfeed their babies... You do not need to reveal the body part to breastfeed...

Hope this helps...
 
Also, what about same sex bathing and locker rooms? On sports teams, armies, etc is it okay for men or women to adopt lesser standards of modesty (see my post above). I.e. skinny dip to avoid needing to change clothes during a long trek.

"4 Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, do you have any fish?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea." John 21:4-7

Obviously, men back in the day were undressed around each other to work.

David was "immodest" when he was dancing because of the return of the ark. Whether he was in the right or the wrong is for another time and place, but he was never condemned by God.

When you live in a college dorm, you are always around, um, undressed guys. It just happens. Showers are together, rooms are small and lack privacy from roommates...

My wife will not see any doctor unless the doctor is female for examinations or checkups.. She has a special midwife for gyn functions who is female. All my doctors have always been male...

My wife(if and when I get married) will only see female doctors, ect., also.

What if a man wants to shop for lingerie with his wife? Can he enter the store to help pick out his preferences or must this be only her domain (I am assuming that lingerie is permissible).

If it is permissible: Who in the heck wants that stuff? When you get married, you can finally enjoy your wife naked. No need to buy more clothes...
 
ServantofGod,

Notice that it says OUTER garment.. There were inner garments of the day...

When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea."


If it is permissible: Who in the heck wants that stuff? When you get married, you can finally enjoy your wife naked. No need to buy more clothes...

Haha, I concur.......
 
Corem Deo - Loved your swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)

To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.

Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!
 
Last edited:
I think that should be obvious. Do you know immodesty when you see it?

Exactly! But who is you. Immodesty is actually somewhat cultural so it isn't a question that is immaterial. There are certain cultures where it does not tempt men to see women clad in a manner that would be very tempting to Western males.

Though in my culture, Christian women should dress in a way that does not cause men (in my culture) to lust.


Daniel, you are absolutely right. The way women dress today is far different than just a few years ago. I believe that the downward spiral of our western culture has affected dress in both men and women. If a woman is dressed where breasts are exposed and you can see her behind I think that would certainly be classified as immodest. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. A Christian woman should look somewhat different from the average girl on the street that resembles a harlot more than a woman. The way a woman dresses says alot about her character. The thing that attracted me to my wife the first time I met her was the way she dressed. She was not unkept as some fundamentalists think a woman should look, but she dressed like a lady. I have always found immodest and sloppy dressed women a real turn off.
 
Coram Deo;


HAHA, Shop On line for those things.. But if a man is brave enough to venture into the lingerie department which I have never been able to do (In Todays Cultural Climate, man would get to many stirs by people thinking the wrong think about the man) then more power to him...

I'm curious why do you think men 'get many stirs by people if they go into such a store'? Most people don't think anything negative of a man going into such a store shopping with his wife..or even alone for that matter.

When I see men shopping with their wives in such stores I actually praise God that these women are still seeking to please their husbands in such a way, especially given the divorce rate today.

I guess if I seen men in such stores alone, I could assume the worst of them, and think they are somehow there for vile purposes, but I don't.
 
Not much to say here, but typical. I have never met a man or female who honestly espouses a true view of modest that would argue against the fact that men have a huge responsibility. Frankly, the world does not need your help in making us stumble. Frankly, from my perspective a good deal of women and I mean Christian women so called love to flaunt it just about as much as the world and they do not mind tell you so by exposing all kinds of body parts that ought to be covered and/or wearing clothing that reveals the rest.
Some questions for you:
What is modest for a man or a woman? Is it wearing certain things or acting a certain way? How are the modest folks to influence the less modest ones? Is there a sanction for the modesty impaired? Serious question.

Next thought: I attended Calvary Chapel for a while and they tended to go to the opposite extreme. I was somewhat bemused to see a young lady in a bikini lying on a lounge chair outside the sanctuary listening to the sermon. Their logic is that anyone is welcome. I do not agree with them but do not think it appropriate to be the clothing nazi. The immodestly dressed man or woman could be a new Christian and may need a friendly and gentle introduction to dressing and acting like a gentleman or a lady.

My question to you pastor is this: how can you welcome someone with less than modest dress and gently and lovingly teach them to value themselves more highly and dress appropriately? :2cents:

Michael is merely seeking a Pastorate calgal.

This is a "both-and" situation as JBaldwin noted.

Wisdom demands that we treat these situations according to the issues at hand. The fact of the matter is that modesty is somewhat culturally defined. I'm not giving license to nudity but there are cultures that missionaries have gone into and the first thing they do is cover up the women as if, all along, the women should have intuitively known that they were being immodest and tempting men who were not in the least tempted by their dress.

Even a modest full length dress would be too much even today for some Arabic men unless the entire body (including the eyes) is covered. Even the form of the woman is too much for some. Simply having a full length dress would be inadequate if it didn't completely obscure every feminine feature.

Making hard and fast rules to fit all cultures everywhere is naive and does not comport with the pursuit of wisdom.

The larger principle is the desire to build up the entire body and to consider the frame of our fellow brothers and sisters - their eyes being merely one thing among many that might cause temptation to sin. It's simply silly to make a law that covers every every culture on the planet or women would, indeed, be covered from head to toe and not merely be wearing a head covering but a full body covering. Nevertheless, if women ever found themselves in a culture that did find their form, in any part, alluring, the Law would not demand of them they cover up everything but love of brother and the willingness to restrict one's own liberty for another may be called for.

Thanks, brother. I was looking for someone who would give us permission to start a Christian nudist club. I think we should get back to nature :lol:
 
Corem Deo - Loved the swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)

To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.

Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!

To be honest, I didn't get that from anyone on this thread. What I have seen is a "standards" vs. "heart attitude" discussion.

As it has already been said many times, modest dress is important (from both men and women), but heart attitude is just as important, and I would say THE most important. If our hearts are in the right place, our standards will fall in line. To be honest, I lived as a legalistic pharisee for many years. Frankly, my dress today is not a whole lot different than it was back then. I still carefully cover up. The difference? I don't worry about my dress, I worry about my attitude before the Lord. I make my decisions about clothing based on my love for the Lord and what pleases Him. Oddly enough, I end up making about the same choices as I did when I only cared what the rules were.
 
BJclark,

I was referring to Men in the lingerie department alone... I have seen men by themselves in the department.. Of course I did not think badly about them but I show other people snickering and whispering near by "Oh, he must like ___________" You can fill in the blanks.... So it does happen because of todays cultural climate... Personally I find that online shopping for the wife is better and she can be there to help pick out... But ServantofGod had a good point too... "What is the point in more clothing once married" :lol:


Coram Deo;


HAHA, Shop On line for those things.. But if a man is brave enough to venture into the lingerie department which I have never been able to do (In Todays Cultural Climate, man would get to many stirs by people thinking the wrong think about the man) then more power to him...

I'm curious why do you think men 'get many stirs by people if they go into such a store'? Most people don't think anything negative of a man going into such a store shopping with his wife..or even alone for that matter.

When I see men shopping with their wives in such stores I actually praise God that these women are still seeking to please their husbands in such a way, especially given the divorce rate today.

I guess if I seen men in such stores alone, I could assume the worst of them, and think they are somehow there for vile purposes, but I don't.
 
Jbaldwin,

Over the years, I have seen the reverse... Where woman or man are only concerned for the heart attitude and it never ever affects the outward person... I Agree both are important and both are to be held in balance but I always see the one end and not much the other end or balanced. Many times are standards will not fall in line... Both must be held up diligently

..

Corem Deo - Loved the swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)

To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.

Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!

To be honest, I didn't get that from anyone on this thread. What I have seen is a "standards" vs. "heart attitude" discussion.

As it has already been said many times, modest dress is important (from both men and women), but heart attitude is just as important, and I would say THE most important. If our hearts are in the right place, our standards will fall in line. To be honest, I lived as a legalistic pharisee for many years. Frankly, my dress today is not a whole lot different than it was back then. I still carefully cover up. The difference? I don't worry about my dress, I worry about my attitude before the Lord. I make my decisions about clothing based on my love for the Lord and what pleases Him. Oddly enough, I end up making about the same choices as I did when I only cared what the rules were.
 
Well, I am taking a short break from this thread... I am going to try to enjoy some of the outdoors... I will try to catch back up tonight if there is not another 3 or 4 pages to read through.... :lol::lol::lol:
 
Jbaldwin,

Over the years, I have seen the reverse... Where woman or man are only concerned for the heart attitude and it never ever affects the outward person... I Agree both are important and both are to be held in balance but I always see the one end and not much the other end or balanced. Many times are standards will not fall in line... Both must be held up diligently

..

Corem Deo - Loved the swimwear. It's nice to see that spandex is making a comeback. (Ah, The days when I was in a hair band!)

To all. We all know what modesty is. Nobody can deny that the Bible calls for it. Anybody who tries to say it's ok for women to dress like sluts is wrong. plain wrong. Just go to the mall and look around. Teens dress very immodest. Parent's that give it their blessing and buy the clothes for them are corrupting their children. Even on Nickelodeon Channel the kids are dressed like whores.

Anybody who says women can wear whatever they want to, well, we can see through the lines. Very obviously too!

To be honest, I didn't get that from anyone on this thread. What I have seen is a "standards" vs. "heart attitude" discussion.

As it has already been said many times, modest dress is important (from both men and women), but heart attitude is just as important, and I would say THE most important. If our hearts are in the right place, our standards will fall in line. To be honest, I lived as a legalistic pharisee for many years. Frankly, my dress today is not a whole lot different than it was back then. I still carefully cover up. The difference? I don't worry about my dress, I worry about my attitude before the Lord. I make my decisions about clothing based on my love for the Lord and what pleases Him. Oddly enough, I end up making about the same choices as I did when I only cared what the rules were.

What I am saying is that if people are genuinely concerned about their hearts before the Lord, and they have His Spirit living in them, they WILL do what is right.

The longer I walk with the Lord, the more I realize that there are many "tares" in the church. Our job is not to flush them out, but to walk before the Lord as holy and pray for them.

One of the most painful (and also freeing) areas of sanctification in my life has been in the area of judging others and what they do. It is so easy to point fingers, to criticize the others around us, to try to "sanctify" our neighbors, to look at the moat in our brother's eye and all the while fail to see the beam in our own. The fact is, we have to look at our own relationship before the Lord and compare OUR lives to His. If we do that, we see our wretched sinfulness, and the sins of others somehow seem minor in comparision to our own.
 
Here is what I would wear... It is lightweight and does not hold water.

Beta ARs are made from new Gore-Tex® Pro Shell fabric and offer improved protection, breathability, durability and suppleness


1025891.jpg




Could you please provide a link for men's modest swimwear as well?? I'd like to see what it looks like..

The only things I could find are with lycra wetsuits which is pretty much skin tight on men, or jeans and a t-shirt and well, men with wet t-shirts clinging to their muscle bound bodies can cause women to lust as well...

When I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida I liked to go occassionaly to the beach to read and relax. I would always wear modest swim shorts and a short sleeve tee-shirt. I burn easily so I do not like to be exposed to the sun, but I was usually the most modestly dressed person at the beach. Ft. Lauderdale beach had a dress code they enforced until about ten years ago, and now people dress with very little. The men wear less than some women. How times have changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top