Question women and dresses

Okay, I wasn't going to get involved too much in here, but I am posting a couple links that say pretty much what I believe on the matter. I am not good with words, that is why I'm posting links instead of writing something myself.

http://www.momof9splace.com/modesty3.html
http://www.momof9splace.com/talkmodesty.html

 

Tell you what, let's say turn-about's fair play. Men have gotten to wear pants for the past couple thousand years, let's have the men wear skirts for a couple of millenia and let the women wear pants.

 

Well, that doesn't make sense. There were other people on the boat, why wasn't he concerned about them seeing him naked? And it doesn't make sense to put your coat on and then jump in the water. Since this is Peter we're talking about, I kinda think that since he was going to Jesus, he put his coat on and stepped out of the boat expecting to walk over there.

 

Well, that doesn't make sense. There were other people on the boat, why wasn't he concerned about them seeing him naked? And it doesn't make sense to put your coat on and then jump in the water. Since this is Peter we're talking about, I kinda think that since he was going to Jesus, he put his coat on and stepped out of the boat expecting to walk over there. </font>[/QUOTE]There is not a shred's hint in scripture that even suggests that Peter had intentions of walking over to Jesus on the water!

 

Well, that doesn't make sense. There were other people on the boat, why wasn't he concerned about them seeing him naked? And it doesn't make sense to put your coat on and then jump in the water. Since this is Peter we're talking about, I kinda think that since he was going to Jesus, he put his coat on and stepped out of the boat expecting to walk over there. </font>[/QUOTE]There is not a shred's hint in scripture that even suggests that Peter had intentions of walking over to Jesus on the water! </font>[/QUOTE]Well, there's not a shred's hint in scripture that even suggest he was ashamed of being naked either. One person's speculation is as good as another's, therefore mines as good as yours

 

Actually, the word translated "naked" in John 21:7 is gumnos, which simply means "uncovered". Nothing more or less is implied. It does not imply any type of shame or vulnerablity as does the English "naked". It is similar to the Hebrew word Arom, which was used to describe Adam and Eve being naked without shame (Arom is not given a sinful or shameful attribute in the OT).

In fact, gumnos is where we get the word "gymnaseum" (gumnasion = "to excercize nude")

 

Is that SoCal logic or something?

Adam and Eve were uncovered/naked/without shame, until sin entered into the garden, then they were ashamed/naked still.

Anything above the knee reveals the thigh which is nakedness, according to O.T. understanding that is.

Use some common sense: ankles are pretty, calves are next, but thighs? C'mon, that's too close for, uh, morality. Even the uncovering of the upper arms is too close and considered nudity, especially the further the neck line frontwards or backwards is lowered, the closer it gets to nudity.

Society has gone too far towards the gutter and what is acceptable according to dress has eventually become too liberal.

 

Just ask the placards on the doors to the public restrooms, or do people actually belive the guy was a Christian that made those distinctions in the dress to tell people which one to use?

 

That's not what scripture says. You need to look at the Henrew:

Before the fall, the word used is "Arom", meaning simply to be without clothing (nude). Nothing more or less is implied. It is used to describe Adam and Eve in the Garden, noting that they were naked and without shame. It is also used when King Saul prophesied in the nude as well. In fact, that behavior provoked the people to believe he was one of the prophets. There is no implication that his nudity implied shame or sexuality. The word is also used regarding Isaiah, who prophesied for three years naked. Here, too, there is no implication of shame or sexuality, or that the people disapproved of it (They may not have liked his message but that's a whole other post). The word arom never appears in scripture to imply shame, sexuality, wrongdoing, or evil.

The word after the fall is "Eyrom", which means to be without clothing (nude) as well, but taken from another word 'Aram', meaning cunning in a bad sense, to make bare out of craftiness or deception. When God asks them "Who told you that you were naked" the word is 'Eyrom'. Their sudden-found knowlege left, derived from deception, them spiritually naked here. God had no problem with them being simply unclothed (arom). God had a problem with them being uncovered by deception (eyrom). This was not God's plan for them.

Where's the scriptural support for this?

****Judgmental jesture removed****

***Judgmental jesture removed***

I knew the word "liberal" would come in eventually . The problem with society is not it doesn't have a sense of modesty. The problem is that it has become socially acceptible to be immodest in attire. Big difference.

I one had a legalist usher tell me after church that my daughter's attire was inappropriate. What was her attire? A sweater and a pair of dockers. He objected to the fact that he could see the shape of "her bosoms" (which, btw, were fully covered). I told him he needs to stop checking out high school girls' bosoms. And if we were in the parking lot istead of the sanctuary, I likely would have decked that child molester.

He was eventually relieved as an usher, btw.

[ August 18, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

My husband and I were looking at the two threads here, one on legalism and this one and discussing them. He brought up an experience he had in the past which bears mentioning here. When his father was in the hospital dying, his room was shared by a man who got in a conversation with Barry (my husband now) about God and church and such. The man told Barry that he couldn't go to church. Barry asked him why. He told Barry that all the girls in short skirts and tight tops kept his mind off the service because he couldn't help noticing them. He told Barry he had had to find other ways of worshiping God.

Call this man a weak Christian if you like, and then remember Paul's admonition regarding weak brothers and sisters in the Lord -- we are to respect and not judge them and not act or speak in such a way to offend or tempt them. (1 Cor. 8 and others)

It does not matter what is 'legal.' It does not matter what the 'cultural norm' is. What matters is people.

This man could not deal with going to church because of the way the females dressed. That is a very, very strong condemnation of some of what we consider normal dress!

 

What if this man had a thing for women wearing their hair up? Or eyeglasses? High heels?

The problem in this situation is not what the women were wearing, but the individual. I'm not judging him, but his problem is between him and the Lord, not the dress of the women in the church. This is taking the responsibility off the man and putting it squarely on the shoulders of the young women and giving the man an excuse not to worship God in church. It sounds like he is trying to put the blame elsewhere instead of on himself and getting his life right. Sin is sin, lust is lust.

 

Salamander: Adam and Eve were uncovered/naked/without shame, until sin entered into the garden, then they were ashamed/naked still.

Sal, there's more to it than just that. There were no other people to have seen them naked. They'd seen each other naked from the gitgo, so they weren't ashamed of each other. Besides what Johnv wrote, they now had knowledge of right and wrong; they KNEW they'd sinned and they knew it was inappropriate to go around naked all the time.

Anything above the knee reveals the thigh which is nakedness, according to O.T. understanding that is.

OT SCRIPTURE, please?

Use some common sense: ankles are pretty, calves are next, but thighs? C'mon, that's too close for, uh, morality. Even the uncovering of the upper arms is too close and considered nudity, especially the further the neck line frontwards or backwards is lowered, the closer it gets to nudity.

You're either nude or you're not. "Close" is not nude. As for thighs...When JESUS returns, He will have some writing on His thigh.

Society has gone too far towards the gutter and what is acceptable according to dress has eventually become too liberal.

Not really...there's no Scriptural basis for such a statement. However, if for YOU, it's sin to wear a sleevless shirt or no shirt, or to wear short pants, then by all means, don't do it. But there's simply NO "one-size-fits-all" answer to the question. What's acceptable for ONE society or era of that society may NOT be acceptable for another society for whose members Jesus died for, same as He did for the first society.

 

Salamander: Just ask the placards on the doors to the public restrooms,


or do people actually belive the guy was a Christian that made those distinctions in the dress to tell people which one to use?

He could be just as faithful a Christian as YOU are, or be could be a worshipper of a neon sign.

The placards are meaningless to many people today, but they were made with a target viewership in mind.

As I said, there's no "one size fits all" answer. I suggest you go with what God has given YOU, and not criticize what He's given someone else.

 

Dear Helen:

I agree with what Webdog said. Your hubby was faced with a man who was making excuses NOT to go to church. While my wife is my earthly soulmate and an attractive lady herself, I'm not blind, and I see other attractive women every day, including in church. But God expects me and everyone else to control our libidos, and that, plus the fact that I go to church to hear the WOG preached, keeps me focused upon the pastor's message.

That man reminds me of people who make excuses tot to be baptized. While there ARE valid reasons to not be baptized, JESUS knows the validity of these reasons. It was that man who had the problem and not the women.

My wife believes in "dressing up" to go to church because she goes to HONOR, PRAISE, & WORSHIP GOD. She believes in looking her best for Him, even though it doesn't really matter to GOD. She believes that's part of GIVING OF HER BEST to God, and that looking her best sets an example to others to present their best to GOD.

And, yes, when the weather is bitter cold, she DOES wear pants.

 

Amen to wanting to look good for God even though it doesn't matter to him. Wish more people had that kind of reverance

 

It is not so!

Rufus

 

Well, that doesn't make sense. There were other people on the boat, why wasn't he concerned about them seeing him naked? And it doesn't make sense to put your coat on and then jump in the water. Since this is Peter we're talking about, I kinda think that since he was going to Jesus, he put his coat on and stepped out of the boat expecting to walk over there. </font>[/QUOTE]Peter was stripped down to an undergarment. He was not nude. You need to know a little about the manners and custom of the time.

 

To address the topic. The local body should decide what and when is appropriate as reguard to dress.

 

Your answer is an excuse, non sequitor, and hardly worth answering to. How many men get "turned on" by eye glasses or high heels?" What a ridiculous question? Send a young lady by a constructions site wearing a long coat that covers every part of her body, but wearing eyeglasses, and see the reaction of the construction workers.
And then send the same young lady scantily clothed with most of her legs showing, a lot of cleavage, and no glasses. What will the reaction of the construction workers be then? You know as well as I do what the difference will be? The way a female dresses has a definite effect on a man. Why do they use scantily and sexually appealing women doing most of the advertising for most products on TV? Hardly a commercial goes by where there is more sex advertised than there is product?

Not true. The problem is with women obeying the Word of God. God did not put in the Bible a command for women to be modest for no reason at all. Are we to ignore the plain teachings of the Bible and blame men for what God has plainly taught in His Word. I would rather believe God than the rationalization of man.

According to the Bible the problem is the dress of the women in the church. Dress in a modest manner. How plain can it be.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 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.

Your right. It is taking the blame off the man, and so it should. There should be no distractions in the church, by women and otherwise, to take the focus of those who have come to hear the preaching of the Word of God. To this end Spurgeon would not even allow the playing of an organ. But that is a different subject.
DHK