Legalism

You're right. However, requiring another congregation to adhere to our rules and regulations regarding qualifications for showing respect to God is legalistic.

 

Just a few comments to deal with the absurdity of Johnv's posts...

No matter how vehemently you want to deny that the Scriptures outline standards or rules for modesty...and no matter how much the flesh despises being in submission and subjection to the word of God...the bible clearly defines "nakedness." (do a simple search)

SO COVER IT UP!

And by the way...you are correct that the Bible does not use the word "gamble or gambling" nor does it call it a sin. However the sin is covetousness!

 

I'm glad we agree that nakedness is inappropriate. Now how was Johnv's post absurd?

I'm sure the people on this board who have admitted gambling for licorice whips and other trifles would be surprised to be told they're covetous!

 

Are you implying that wearing such an article of clothing as a bathing suit is not violating the scriptures standards in the area of nakedness. Surely you have read and understand the scriptures on this subject...a bathing suit does not meet the criteria.

--

No matter how insignificant the "reward" it does not change the command..."Thou shalt not covet..."

 

In Hebrew, several words are translated as "naked" or "nakedness":

Arom - literally, it means 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.

Eyrom - This 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.

Ervah - This word referrs to referrs to a primarily spiritual state of vulerability. It is used to refer to priestly attire in the temples, to distinguish them from the shrine priests who used sexual acts as part of idol worship.

The word also referrs to vulnerability, such as when Noah is naked and drunk.

I can find no scripture that defines "nakedness" in any of the above definitions as being the uncovering of specific areas of the body. In our western culture, we of course define nakedness as minimally being the uncovering of the genital or buttock region, and sometimes (but not always) the majority of the breast region for women. Different cultures have different standards. The OT Jews did not have a taboo of the breasts to the extent that we do, and uncovered breasts were an occaision, especially when breastfeeding (women in the OT breastfed frequently and often in public).

Yes, when one engages in covetaousness it is a sin. Gambling can be covetousness, but it is not always. When it is, it should be avoided. Even a game of go-fish played for licorice whips should be avoided if the player is engaging in covetaousness over licorice whips. I rarely gamble, but when I do, I refrain from coveting.

 

Exactly. God doesn't. Adam and Eve. They lived in the best environmental conditions ever. Did God make them bathing suits? Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves out of their self-righteousness. God corrected them by covering them up.

 

You still fail to make a connection between a bathing suit being immodest in all cases, and Adam and Eve.

 

No, you have failed to make the case that a bathing suit, which clearly violates the principles of modesty,(uncovered nakedness)could ever be considered modest.

Max

 

Amen!

 

Sorry, but you clearly don't know the definition of modesty. Modest attrire is attire which is free from unreasonable sexual attention, vanity, conceit. It applies to attire as a whole, not just a region of the body here and there.

Only a person with a sexually preoccupied mind would consider bathing suits immodest as a rule. There are unfortunately, many Christians who qualify.

Now, kindly tell me what was immodest about my attire, or my wife's attire, when we attended church on a Maui beach. Please cite scripture that defines my and my wife's attire as immodest.

Since you are claiming that the principles of modesty are expressly spelled out in scripture, kindly tell us all which specific parts of the body must be covered, and please refer to the scripture verses that support your claim.

 

A couple of references at this time should be sufficient...

From Genesis 2 to 3 the scriptures clearly show that in our present condition (under sin) nakedness, an uncovered body, is shameful.

Two examples of body parts that should be covered...

The loins and the thighs.

Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

The torso and chest area.

Joh 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

I hope this helps.

Max

 

The biblical use of the term "offend" referred to drawing another person into sin. If we are sticking to the norm of the modesty standards in our culture, we cannot be blamed if another person is tempted to lust and sins (if we were responsible for their thoughts even when dressed in a culturally appropriate manner, then it would be required of everyone male and female to wear burkhas). Definitely dressing immodestly is likely to cause others to sin, and we should not dress immodestly because of this.

"Offend" in the biblical sense doesn't mean to make someone feel huffy. Sometimes people get offended when we haven't done anything wrong, and then sometimes the solution is for them to get over it.

 

This is hardly prescriptive. Peter was stripped down to work and probably put his coat back on because he was about to jump into cold water, not because it was wrong for him to have it off. The Bible does not speak condemningly of him taking his coat off to work.

And as I mentioned to someone else before, it says from the loins to the thighs, not from the loins to the knees. Thighs are not no-nos.

 

The breeches that were designed were a covering of the loins and thighs...so thighs are a no-no.

As for the other passage we may disagree, but the context of the passage is Peter discouraged, backslidden and bring others with him...it may be assuming on my part, but not without some merit.

And the Genesis 2 and 3 issue is still there.

Max

 

Who at the church service in Maui was offended? No one.

I agree. No one was offended. Yet the judgements of those here, including you, are offensive to me. Why is it allowed to continue? Especially since there was nothing immoral, immodest, or sexual about the way the church service was held.

To what extent? If I put on a tie, and that offends someone, should I put on a tux? Do you see how the scriptural verses here are being perverted to support legalism?

 

Helen, I'm with you on this up to a point: How can this principle be applied when (even in the U.S.) we live in a culture which increasingly includes persons whose standards of modesty may even exceed ours as Christians who are trying to live Biblical, holy lives?

You mention even adding clothes in your statement above- in circumstances in which what you are wearing is offensive to others. Would that mean that you'd be willing to dress in a burkha when outside your home if you had a Islamic fundamentalist move in next door to you?

 

If this is indeed a biblical mandate, then why do Christians like yourself spend so much time berating women bathing suits, while at the same time saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about men at the beach wearing no shirts? They are in much greater abundance. The only answer that comes to mind is that this stems from folks having dirty minds, from which they should repent.