Pants in a Can

I just did.

 

I don't worry about the next generation getting it right as long as we introduce Christ to them. That means they will have the Holy Ghost the same as we do...

Jesus Christ, the same... yesterday, today, and forever...

We don't need a list... We have the Holy Ghost to teach us.
The law is written on our hearts... as it will be the next generation.

It really sounds like you want the next generation to depend on a list handed down from us instead of relying on God...

That my friend is playing God...
Let God direct his people... They will not go wrong.

 

If this dresscode is found in scripture, then by all means, show us where.

Personally, I tend to define modesty based on how it provokes someone to lust. However, that is very subjective. That makes us uncomfortable because we worry about standards becoming different depending on age, location, trends, etc.

I'm not sure a dress code (even a merely understood one) helps. I have served in churches where people were expected to wear their Sunday best. Men would wear slacks and nice shirts or suits and ladies were wearing dresses. I have served in churches where dressing up for church was taught against. You would find people in jeans, slacks, dresses, shorts, etc. However, I dealt with more problems concerning immodesty (dressing to provoke lust) in the former.

Perhaps the real issue of immodesty is not in clothing, but in one's spiritual condition?

 

Well, yeah, pretty much. For example, back in medieval times where knights were commonplace, it was an incredible turn-on for men if the ladies revealed their wrists. THEIR WRISTS. Yet, massive cleavage showing was pretty commonplace and garments to squeeze their waists were worn to make busts seem even bigger and make their waists seem tiny, and that was perfectly acceptable. Even at that, the wrist showing was only temporary. Usually ladies dressed in such a manner that their wrists were covered, but if they were trying to attract a certain man, they would "accidentally" do something that would temporarily make their sleeve come up and reveal their wrist to this person. This type of thing was common even in relatively recent Japanese history and even got put into the movie "Memoirs of a Geisha". So, obviously a lady who would constantly expose their wrist(s) wasn't exactly considered as being modest. Such a statement would be absolutely absurd in today's culture. Modesty, and the idea of it has always been around, but for some reason the bar for being labeled as "immodest" keeps raising, or perhaps just swirls in a cloud of change.

 

There was no list of do's and don'ts promoted on this thread. It was an irrelevant statement that did not pertain to this thread, (along with an error laden Isaiah argument) but was effective in sidetracking it. This thread was an escalatory establishment of what folks consider modest and how it compares to the Word of God.

A church house should contain a fellowship of believers. They should already know how salvation works as they should be Christians. Not that this doctrine should be neglected but I pray to God that you folks are not being fed a salvation message every Sunday.

What a leader of a flock should be accountable for includes...

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine." - 2 Timothy 4:2​

How does one rebuke and exhort if he does not have God's standards to rebuke or exhort by and is unwilling to discuss these standards but will participate enough to sidetrack and derail a conversation with non-arguments and chain pulling. Then, he remains silent while a pack of whiners come to his aid.

There is more to the Christian walk than being saved. There is a thing called sanctification or becoming holy and as Christians you should be desperately seeking this santification for their is a reward to be had should you attain it.

"And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." - Acts 20:32​

If you become saved and continue or go back to loving the world then you will suffer loss.

There is no Biblical evidence to suggest that we are to be sanctified by adhering to the world's fashions however, I (and others) believe there is evidence to the contrary.

I doubt the bulk of ya'll will be disappointed but I see that this thread is not going to get back on track so I'm done with this one. Grace and peace to ya.

 

Then tell us from Scripture exactly where hemlines should be.

You tell us.

I must address this factual error...you said,

That is a misrepresentation of the facts. What was said is that there is no specific, comprehensive do's/dont's list regarding apparel & modesty in the Bible. There is a huge difference in the two statements.

 

Spandex first. Spandex may be comfortable and favorable to wind reduction, but it hugs the body as if it is the body itself. You don't see through it, but there is no need for all is there to see. However, we are covered, but I'd much rather see a woman in a "wet T-shirt".

To me modesty is not to be offensive in dress or body of both men and women, i.e. not to be offensive concerning sexual rules of civilized societies, which includes not showing too much flesh. It is possible we may know what constitutes nakedness, without even being naked when we rightly divide the Word as urged by Paul. We can do this if we divide out Exodus 20:26 along with Psalms 47:10. We shouldn't put ourselves in position to be embarrassed, or to embarrass, which will include our drinking habits. We are not to overdo certain things, and we are not to underdo certain things. This seems to be what Paul is talking about in I Timothy 2:9. We notice this applies to both men and women.

Have to be honest for what is more desirable than a normal man to look at the flesh of a woman, and the more the better, and they know this. I don't believer there are any innocent among them. And we men know normal women are not averse to admiring our bodies. We are human, but are not to dwell too long on such things, until we met that one which we become one with. These usually see the body beautiful after their eyes meet and love of exact sameness is identified.

A persons right of space ends at my nose, and a woman should keep herself properly clothed for if she doesn't mind eyes discerning her body, there is a very good chance she may wish to windup nose to nose.

 

Depends on what color you get. Black is much less revealing than white. Also, since you mentioned wind resistance, I can only assume you're talking about cycling, and with cycling, you wear spandex that has a thick padded liner which is alot more concealing than the spandex that you would pick up out of a department store. Also, wind resistance is just the beginning of the benefits, as they are worn for compression purposes for your thighs. Anyway, I'm just saying that cycling shorts do have a positive usage, and that a tight pair of blue jeans can be much more revealing than them. When I see a group of nearly 200 spandex-clad riders in the Tour de France on TV, the absolute last word that would go through my head is "immodest", it's not like that at all.

 

Maybe if I were in the Tour de France competition I might want to take advantage of every little bitty faction of wind resistance, but to ride around town in… spandex...well… that’s just...gay! :laugh: Compression purposes for the thighs...what kind of sissified rhetoric is that!!! that’s not even natural~ It’s a bike ride for exercise; nobodies making up any valuable time wearing that garb, that’s all about vanity and how to “look” like and feel “special”, immodesty at it’s prime. I mountain bike in my Carhart carpenter jeans/shorts, a t-shirt, and if I even wear a helmet it’s because I’m planning on getting bold … and then it isn’t one of those nerdy looking pointed things…give me a break…it’s round… ya know… like the shape of my head! Those spandex cycle boys… if they think that immodest sissy garb is going to help them beat me in a race… they’re kidding themselves...the only advantage it might give them is if it gets me laughing at them. If one wants to be serious and fast, pump some iron, build up your heart and lungs, train hard and regularly, eat right and give up the fashion show…be a man!

:laugh:

 

That's great and all, and I know where you're coming from from a freeride perspective, but unfortunately if you want to go to fast for extended periods of time, as in all-out as hard as you can go for at least 2 or 3 hours straight, possibly much longer, then you're talking about utilizing them slow twitch muscles and cranking out 90-100 rpm's worth of spinning for extended periods of time. I can't hardly stand doing this even with baggy cycling specific shorts much less scruffy Carhartt jeans. I can almost guarantee you that doing this in Carhart carpenter jeans wouldn't exactly fall under the category of "comfortable", "efficient", or much of anything. Anybody who says their choice of attire is Carhart carpenter jeans while spinning this fast for so long either isn't going as hard as they want to think they are, they're just insecure about themselves, or they're just making a lame attempt at being what they think is cool. Maybe all of the above. Besides for compression and wind resistance, those Carhartt jeans would be rubbing up against you like crazy and would add unnecessary weight, and why? There's no reason other than you're trying to be cool and make a statement. For cross country and road riding, you just can't beat the typical spandex looking cycling shorts. When I'm riding crazy mess in Colorado or Southern Illinois I'll wear thicker more protective garb but otherwise there's really no reason to choose otherwise. Even then I've got my tight shorts underneath the thicker protective garb. The only reason you would avoid these things altogether is to avoid looking "gay", as you have already stated... which only goes back to being insecure. Typically I wear baggy freeride shorts though, they at least help a little with minor scuffs:

***Picture withdrawn----cannot be larger than BB logo on top of page***

As for the laughing about the black vs. white statement... let's just say that there's a reason why solid white spandex is avoided for the most part. Pictures of dudes in white spandex is nothing but an incredibly funny joke, it's insanely revealing.

 

Okay, fun looking picture buy the way. But wasn’t that you that was repulsed by the exposed backside tattoo because it was too revealing? I was just messing with you about the spandex, but aren’t these things being revealing a matter of the mind either way and a fair comparison? Because it is a sport doesn’t change the exposure. It gets hot here in AZ and people don’t wear much in the summer. I travel down a very popular road for cyclist every day to and from my home and find what many wear very revealing; in truth it really doesn’t bother me, except for this 60ish year old man who does about a hundred miles a day and wears what I would call a thong whom we have nicknamed “hot pants” you would think he was naked while coming up on him.

 

I've seen pictures online of women who had painted-on clothes, and it was difficult to tell that they weren't real from the pictures. I have no idea how they looked up close. With a man, though, it would be apparent very soon that his painted on pants or shorts aren't real for an obvious reason. I also saw a man with painted on shorts that looked real until I saw him from the front and thought, "I don't think shorts come with one of those on them.":laugh: