Thighs and nakedness

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by SRoper, May 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    It's pretty sad when we've gotten so PC that we can't/are scared to/or just have such relative moralism that we refuse to say something that is immodest is immodest with certainty.
     
  2. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    My husband has always worn a coloured T-shirt when swimming.
     
  3. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    LF,
    I wasn't arguing against standards of modesty, or saying they lead to burkhas. But I will repeat that setting up a standard, and calling it a biblical norm, hence one that all people everywhere in all times must follow, will result in the very thing that you see NORMED in Islam. It's legislated in that religion. There's a common standard. In many places it is ignored, but not in traditional society. Why? Because sin is externalized. So you see it from Indonesia to Morrocco, and from there to western nations as well.

    My argument is an argument against raising the "standard of decency" to the level of moral LAW. There may be a relative range of acceptability in Christian-dominant cultures, but that's what it will always be: a *range*.

    The best form of "pressure" can be ingrained societal and cultural standards. They tend to be conservative, or tending in conservative directions anyway. OUR problem, as a society, is that we have forces at work attacking our cultural foundations, seeking to cast us adrift from history. OUR problems have a great deal to do with the elevation of the concept: "breaking rules," to the level of a philosophical first-principle. Those who are giving direction (aimless) to the culture are in a teeth-bared war with the past, with our past, especially Christianity, and with God. Only "envenomed hatred" can begin to describe the ruthlessness with which such leaders have engaged in their iconoclasm. Their goal is the humanistic religion.

    If we as Christians go to battle over women in ankle-length skirts vs. knee-length, or men swimming shirtless vs. shirted, we are only acknolwledging that we are feeling the loss of wider cultural standards. By all means, let us set our own standards. But if the church up the street--sharing our mindset--sets it a bit differently, we have to be charitable to them. For only an unofficial, non-legislated broad culture-norm that grows from our combined commitment and standards will reset the cultural bar.
     
  4. jenney

    jenney Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm with Lady Flynt in saying that women are not being made responsible for man's lust.

    We do have to take responsibility for our own behavior, though. I dress modestly in part so that I do not cause another to stumble. This is about as far as sermons on the topic ever go. In my opinion it is because most men understand the issue of male lust but do not understand the issue of female vanity.

    A primary reason for dressing modestly is because of the vanity of my own heart. When I was an unbelieving teen, if you had told me that the tank dress on my athletic young body was causing men to struggle against lust, I wouldn't have wanted to change. I'd have given you a pleased "really?" In my heart, I would have thought that was great. I would hazard most women you see out there in miniskirts, low cut shirts and tight sweaters put them on in the morning as they gaze in the mirror thinking, "Girl, you look hot." It isn't just about making men lustful. It is also about making other women covetous.

    I didn't see my own vanity until I was convicted by it years after believing, and if you'd told me before that I was vain, I would have rolled my eyes. But I was always aware of men's eyes following me in my bike shorts, and of women who might be envious. I sized up every woman in a brief glance: "How does she compare to me? Is she going to be jealous?" I believe the problem of female vanity is the complement to male lust, but it is something you won't find many websites devoted to solving (the way every church has a sermon at some point on lust) because we don't really believe that it is a widespread issue. :2cents:
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  5. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    To be more specific, our family doesn't believe in mixed swimming and when we go to the beach, we go fully dressed and play in the surf.

    About the slippery slope...about the refusal to call anything immodest. If someone feels the need to wear a burkah, let them. I personally think it's the anti-muslim sentiment that causes ppl here to consistantly bring it up. I'd rather see a muslim woman in a burkah than to have my husband and boys flashed a young ladies thong in front of them at church.

    And yes, I have been dressing more modestly. Because maternity clothes are limited, I have worn anabaptist maternity clothes. I generally sew up the slits in all my skirts (and have a few more that I need to do that to). I also wear skirts to the ankle or between ankle and calf. I don't go sleeveless. And I've been more conscious about necklines...something I've only recently have had to worry about.

    Why do I dress this way? Because my body is for my husband alone. I'm not to stumble any man in things that he already struggles with or could struggle with. That is my Christian duty to my brothers and sisters. I'm giving away or selling anything, thus I shouldn't be advertising. The last man who gave my husband a hard time about my attire, we later learned had a p0rnography problem. I'm glad I kept covered and now wish we had not been talked into that one swimming expedition where I felt naked even in what is considered a very "modest" swimsuit by today's social standards (notice I said social, not scriptural). I also cover simply out of obedience to the principals and standards laid out in Scripture.

    And if you want to talk of culture...I'm in a culture where yes, this kind of dressing is common. And I was dressing this way when I was living in a culture where it was not common. I can assure you have had positive reactions in those other places that I never got before I started dressing modestly.

    Slippery slope being a fallacy? Yes, because I'm not, nor will I be in a burka. Neither will I permit my daughters to go to worship dressed more like a hooker than most hookers do (having lived near a large city, I can vouch that many hookers dress modestly compared to most ppls' daughters).
     
  6. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Bruce, I agree...there will be a range. My issue is allowing our standards of decency to ebb and flow with society. I don't believe it's right to just stay 2 steps more modest than society.

    On standards of decency becoming moral law...I don't see it that way. I do see where standards of decency can be so lax that it stomps all over moral law.

    And if women shouldn't go topless, neither should men. Trust me...women may not be as visual as men, but they are visual and many do look and talk and lust same as a man.
     
  7. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    Hi Michael,

    This thread seems to have veered off topic a little. The original intent was not to discuss if women should bare their thighs, but rather if those particular verses say baring the thigh is equal to nakedness.

    Isaiah 47:2-3 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

    With respect, I don't see the 'THEN' that you say is there. The verses don't say: 'Do this and this and this, THEN your nakedness will be exposed.' They say: 'Do this and this and this. Your nakedness will be exposed.' The nakedness might be connected to the previous clause, or it might not. But the connecting word 'THEN' that would have made the connection obvious is not there.

    As I said in my previous post, v2 does not just mention exposing the leg, it mentions uncovering the locks and passing over the rivers. Why don't people say this is nakedness as well? I do believe the bible does not say that having uncovered hair is immodest. In Gen 24 Rebekah only put on her veil after seeing Issac approach for the first time. All this time she had been with Abraham's male servant and saw no need to cover. And would Abraham's trusted servant have brought back a whore (who flaunted her nakedness in public) for his master's son? So while I do not flaunt those who chose to cover, I do not believe it can be proven from the bible that covering the hair is necessary for modesty. But if you want to use Is 47 to say uncovering the leg is nakedness, you must, to be consistent, include 'uncovering the locks' as well.
     
  8. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior


    Not to dis' on you too hard, brother, but I already gave you the proper picture.

    Strong's is not an accurate lexicon for studying the languages. In fact, it's not a lexicon at all, it's a concordance! I gave my definitions in the earlier post from the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, which is considered the standard today, along with the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, put out by Sheffield academic press. "showq" clearly emphasizes the calf (except in sacrificial settings), and "shobel" doesn't have anything to do with the leg at all - it has to do with a flowing skirt or train!

    As well, the revealing of the leg is not the nakedness of which Isaiah spoke. It is a euphemism referring to a revealing of the genitalia, and therefore has no reference to the leg in the previous passage whatsoever (but I said that all before).
     
  9. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    Excellent post! I might print that one out. Can I quote you?
     
  10. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    It's not.
     
  11. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Jenney, excellent post on vanity. That is so true. And society feeds that to young girls unless we raise them otherwise, watching for vanity when it creeps in and confront it. Men can be the same. Amoung the anabaptist, there is a trend to cover the women, but the men will go and find the tightest jeans and whatever else to "make them turn heads". Attitude does show in what we wear. That is a good reason to not feed it by immodesty.

    I have a book dealing with modesty in girls...mostly dealing with clothing. There is an entire section also dealing with modest behaviour. That is the other half of modesty. There are certain ways of doing things.
     
  12. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Mark Li, you just instill further and further in me that I should and why I should keep my head covered...thank you (and I know it was not your intent)
     
  13. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    You would be correct in feeling disconcerted, ma'am!
     
  14. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    :agree:

    I agree with Bruce and Colleen in different ways.

    I am with Colleen totally that the scriptures do lay out a standard and we would be wise to follow it and with Bruce that you can't make it LAW.

    The standard is clearly laid out in the scriptures previously stated apart from the law. The Isaiah passage isn't in the law but clearly states what is nakedness and the fact that it is shameful.

    Bruce is right that you can't make it normative in the sense that you demand it. You can point to it and say this is the principle that I am, because of conscience and conviction of the Holy Spirit, following. I also agree with what I think Bruce is saying (Bruce correct me if I am wrong here) in that you shouldn't judge a brother or sister about this type of thing not because you can't necessarily but that you shouldn't because everyones conscience has not been brought to the same place sanctification-wise yet.

    I think ideally they will be brought there but for now whatever is not of faith is sin, right? If you demand things, even things like this where a principle is clearly laid out, you could cause a brother or sister to sin because they may do it from a wrong place heart-wise and conscience-wise and not because of faith. Faith that God's ways are perfect and that that is our goal, to be like Him. The goal is for people to be convicted by the Holy Spirit to do these things and then do them out of a spirit of faith and obedience to God and not to men. Not out of a spirit of legalism.

    I hope that makes sense. :2cents:
     
  15. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    Our families are so similiar in so many ways.. And I can say Amen to this post with all my heart....

    If we ever go to the beach (Mosty off season due to snakes on the beach, snakes is what my wife's family calls woman dressed immodest). We go fully clothed, same with playing in the surf. The last time we went to the beach we left at 3:30 in the morning and arrived just in time for the sun to rise. Dolphins jumping in the water and wild ponies within 5 feet of us. Beautiful and breath taking. We had the entire beach to ourselves until 11:00 am, when others started to come we left....

    I also agree with you regarding your comments on burkahs and also rather see that then bare legs, especially in church... :)

    I also have asked my wife to cover more up to her neckline for modesty sake..

    Hold fast Ladyflynt to your beliefs, and pray other young ladies will come to such convictions...

    Michael


     
  16. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    I do believe the veiling to be a modesty issue especially in regards to verse 2...

    Woman should cover their heads also..

    Michael


     
  17. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    Fair enough... But was Rebekah being immodest by not covering until meeting Issac?

     
  18. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Actually, I do agree with Bruce in that we can't make it LAW...I have lived under that before (covering must be made of suchandsuch a material, be white, have so many pleats...no more no less...don't forget the belt on your dress...print can't be bigger than a quarter...Tom A will know exactly what I'm refering to). And that we can't always judge another for it. However, it should be taught. The church is very neglectful in this matter. I've been fortunate to find one Reformed church where a pastor is not afraid to mention it from the pulpit. Not in decrees of length, etc. But rather in principals. Our congregation ranges...but you can tell that they all strive for that which is good.
     
  19. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    Sorry Archlute, I disagree with you, and what modern books might say on this issue, they are coming from a immodest culture to say the least...

    I will stick the saints of the ages on this...

    I have a quote from John Calvin on the issue. John Bunyan, the puritans also have something on this passage..

    Also 1800 years of church history of woman wearing dresses down to their ankles and heads covered testifies to this also....

    Michael


     
  20. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    :ditto:
     
  21. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Is Nakedness shameful?

    Somebody said, that there is no mention, because, they were all wearing long robes....in Africa? In Egypt? Would not Paul be evangelizing cultures that were wearing all kinds of stuff.....why not some verses, saying, get out of that loin cloth Ethiopian, Get out of that Battle Skirt Roman Soldier, that's a sin!" I'm just going by movies, but did the Scotts wear long leggings under the Kilts....they didn't in Braveheart!;) Boy this sure does seem one of the reasons why missionaries got bad raps, cruising around Africa, telling the boys and girls, how it's "shameful" to wear the cloths they do.......

    I just think, like sex, the medieval culture, Roman if you will, has put a hyped up connotation to nakedness...I mean, we all know, the Victoria Secret commercials or images like that are not healthy for the mind, for women, or for men...but to put a calf, or an ankle, or a guy swimming without a shirt, or a girl in normal shorts into that category...I'm sorry, I think, some have jumped a bit in their thinking......now, if it's biblical fine, but in this thread, unless I'm reading it wrong, the only scriptures are very debatable........

    I think we read too much into every man is lusting over every single body part, can we not give the New Creation in Christ some credit....I think it's a bit like the "Better not drink, you might become a drunkard argument." And like I said earlier, a tie in to sex, and how it became a "Better just do it for kids, cuz don't want to feed those sinful desires." Just a warping of biblical principles into something they are not.

    I'm just throwing it out there as I see it....not having studied it much.....just my :2cents:

    I am biased, because I have a swimming pool, and surf (which I do wear a shirt for due to comfort) and I have three girls, and a boy, and I grew up running around half naked in the AZ desert, with a pool at every house. And I know many men, from cold climates and/or rigid households, that have wayyyyy more issue with the female form than I do...so I just don't see that the exposure to some "flesh" is going to wreck your walk and scar you....or that it is a sin.....so there's my empirical study on it!:D
     
  22. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Yes, the Scots wore briachs. The kilts at the time that you are thinking of were long pieces of cloth that they wrapped around them...for war. They could sleep in it and discard it, fighting or hiding naked when neccesary. For this reason the Scots were considered barbarians like the NA Indians. War was for men, not women. In common life, briachs were worn.


    I was raised in shorts, jeans, swimsuits...I don't base how I was raised on my decisions now. In fact, there are many things that my parents approved of that I don't. I know parents that will hand their kids condoms, doens't mean I will.

    Nakedness is not what is shameful...in the proper context. Public displays of nakedness and immodesty are.
     
  23. calgal

    calgal Puritan Board Graduate

    Amen! And discussion of clothing is appropriate for husbands, mothers, fathers and the elders and should be handled lovingly.
     
  24. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    Trevor, what the missionaries got a bad rap for was not in instilling modesty...but insisting that WESTERN clothing was the on acceptable modest clothing.
     
  25. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    I guess, at the end of my contribution:

    1) I think that both genders should be advised to dress modestly, although its clear that women have the greater onus (and I thought jenny's point about also stoking jealousy in other women was especially insightful);

    2) I think that its a good thing, actually, that we de-sexualize the "more presentable" members of the body (1 Cor. 12:24);

    3) and lastly that we apply as much "corrective energy" as we do telling one set of persons to "dress right," to addressing those (in this case, the onus is on MEN) who allow themselves to be ensnared by glimpses of skin, or even a woman's SHAPE--and tell them that they need to bridle themselves, and get their inclinations under control, because that's on them. The moslem men are infantile in this respect, when they make women "cover up", even to the point of wearing a shapless BAG, so they can "control themselves." That's for spiritual kindergarten, and it holds true in Christian circles as well.
     
  26. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    I agree totally that it should be taught. The principle should be taught and that in our modern culture In my humble opinion a lot of Pastors drop the ball on this because like you said in an earlier post, they refuse to make a call on what is immodest and what isn't.

    Everything has slowly gotten so out of hand that people have forgotten what is modest and no one has the guts to reign it in. It is up to Pastors to restore the standards and not us. All we can do is follow our conscience and give a reason why to those that ask.

    Trouble is that people naturally get up in arms because to hold a certain position automatically means that you think others should also. Therein is the rub. :banghead:
     
  27. MrMerlin777

    MrMerlin777 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    :up:
     
  28. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Good quote....

    Nakedness is not what is shameful...in the proper context. Public displays of nakedness and immodesty are.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, that sounds better...I'm not saying, because I lived it, it's right, but, that, the argument, that somehow, having kids swimming with other kids, in bathing suits, is going to ruin them.....

    My issues.....If scripture, clearly teaches it....I'm there.

    But....
    Scripture has been debatable...if not silent...for full coverage...yes, modesty, and non-sexual attire is an obvious biblical president.

    Other Arguments for ankle to neck coverage.

    A. "Makes men lust."
    Answer: Well, so could reading the Song of Solomon, obviously not wrong to read it.

    B. It'll breed bad things. Or somehow really mess you and your kids up, to be around it.
    Answer: My upbringing, and many others, and their lives as we speak, where they dress modestly, strive to not cause others to stumble, but still swim together, and wear work-out clothes, and go to the beach with the public....and they are not falling apart, they are Godly men and women, and children, that can somehow make it in a world with this stuff going on, and dress modestly, but not head to toe....and they are doing fine and growing in the Lord, along with seeing arms and legs of the opposite sex without stumbling. Not to mention, the African, Asian, HI, etc. cultures, that, are now filled with Christians, who dress..."shamefully".

    And in fact, we could look at the opposite, how many kids raised in extra biblical rules and regulations households, have problems in their adult walk as Christians? (Hypothetically, that it's extra-biblical):book2:
     
  29. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    :agree:

    I think where the muslims goof up on the covering thing is that yes 1 Cor. 11 gives us instructions that we should cover in worship to show the created order which God has established. The thing that is missed by alot of people is that in that passage God also tells us what our natural covering is outside of worship, and that is our hair. This is why I don't worry about covering outside of worship. I have the natural covering that God gave me for everyday and what the muslims do is redundant In my humble opinion.
     
  30. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    In reference to the bolded section of your comments. How do you know they are holding it together? What about their thought life that you don't see. What about their inner struggles with lust etc. that you don't see. It will be worse for them or they will be blinded by the culture from seeing the extent of their sin in that area. Thus they may never grow in grace in that area is what we are all striving for, right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page