Modesty

Amy.G... please don't get "open-toed shoe" and sandal miXed up. I call open-toed shoes flip flops. According to the Webster 1828 dictionary...


SAN'DAL, n. [L. sandalium; Gr.]

1. A kind of shoe, consisting of a sole fastened to the foot. The Greek and Roman ladies wore sandals made of a rich stuff, ornamented with gold or silver.
No where in that text do you read that the toe part is opened. It simply states that the sole was fastened to the foot. Now, I don't want to get technical with you, they may have wornopen-toed shoes, but I guarantee you that they didn't wear them with the provocative attire worn today, and they didn't wear them to God's House.

As a matter of fact, if you'd re-read my post, you'd see that is exactly what I was talking about. Everything in that line I named was what I see at my church.

Personally, I wear flip flops and I wear sandals. I don't wear flip flops in public, but I'll wear sandals. They cover my foot with ventilation. But, you won't catch me wearing any of that to church -- that would be slouchy. You don't wear to church what you would wear at home. By doing so, you're saying that your home and your daily activities is just as important as God's House and worshiping Him.

donnA... if the woman's outline was covered, there would be nothing to look at. Wearing tight and close-fitting clothes is just as revealing as showing the breasts. Wear a loose-fitting shirt and having something wrote across the breat area is just as revealing. The reason being is because it stills draws attention to that area, and the same thought runs through the man's head. When the man lusts upon that woman, the woman is just as guilty as the man! Matthew 5:28, "...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

 

Even the King James Bible (there are others, you know) speaks of the Pharisee and the Publican. Perhaps you should read up on it.

There's a huge difference between flip flops and revealing attire. But since your post was intended to call as many people names in as short a time as possible...perhaps that was of no concern to you.

There. You've been entertained.

 

Go entertain yourself. Your false doctrine is clouding your judgment...

Why is it the KJVOs are always the most hateful people in Christianity.

 

I certainly agree a woman shouldn't wear tight clothes, and she needs to take responsibility. But a man should accept responsibility for his own actions.

 

Yeah I get your drift, your oogling women at church.

 

Posts like this make me laugh.

 

Oh My!

Oh, wow, amazing where this thread has gone, lol!!!

My husband and I believe that dressing modestly is something which an individual needs to be convicted of by the Holy Spirit.

The emphasis in Scripture is to be dressed in good works which stem from faith.

The principle is for the attention to be on another person, not on self. Phillipians 2:1 ¶ If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Really, everything we do should be done out of love for one another...not love of self.

By the way, I don't believe you can make a case based on KJV only for mandates on styles of clothing. Styles will vary according to the culture. Brother Shane, I really disagree with much of what you are saying. I am sure you mean well, but remember that the laws of God are now written on our hearts....external rules and regs did not work for the Israelites for the thousand years or so that they attempted to keep the Old Covenant laws.....this is why we must rely and trust that the Holy Spirit will convict individuals.

love,
Beth

 

Absolutely! I always wear a clean baseball cap and good "Chuck Taylors" to church! (Incidentally, I have worn just that, with a 3-piece suit!)

I save the soiled and stained ones for wearing on the farm.
>
>
>
>
(Baseball caps and "Chucks", that is. I don't ever recall wearing a suit to work on the farm.)

Ed

 

Amen donnA. As a man I agree. I live in a society that is much worse in regards to modesty than the US. (Though many American Christians are clueless to that there are parts of the world that are worse). I need to stand in the grace of God and guard my heart from sin.

 

My problem with this statement is that it leaves too much room for biased wants. For instance, one person may say that their heart tells them that a skirt slit to the thigh is too revealing, while another may say that it is innocent.

Somehow, I think God has a standard that applies to ALL of us based on His morals and not ours.

When the standard of morality is left to us humans, we tend to cross lines that God wouldnt want us to. If our heart is our measure for morality, then we will surely fail because the heart of man is naturally corrupt.

I am still the dirty rotten sinner that I was the day I was born, the nature of sin has never left me......the only difference now is that I am saved by Grace and am forgiven. However, just because I am saved and forgiven doesnt mean that I can now trust my heart for moral judements, I can only look to God and obey Him and trust in His judgements.

Morality and modesty are not based on individual opinions, it is based on the Word of God.

AJ

 

I know this is going to cause controversy but I am going to ask it anyway.

Why? if a woman does not want to draw attention her body, would she wear a skirt with a long slit or a low cut dress?

Why? if a woman is offended by ooglers, would she wear tight clothes that show every curve she has?

I think it is very hypocritical for a woman to go out of her way to dress sexy, and then act offended when she is noticed. Or does it depend on just WHO it is that is noticing her? Maybe she is not offended by certain people that she is attracted to. After all, if she is dressing in this manner then it must be to get someone's attention.

And for the record, some men are guilty of the same thing, they can dress immodestly also, although it is not as common as with the women in today's culture.

AJ

 

Tim, I have to agree with Shane here.

From reading your posts I see that you really embrace the love and Christian compassion that the Bible teaches, and I commend you for that.

But the Bible also contains some hard teachings about what God expects out of us. You said that KJVO people are hateful. Do you know how many times the Bible uses the word hate? It gives many examples of things that God hates, and Jesus hates. It instructs us to hate the world and love the things of God. I am not saying that the Bible instructs us to express hate, I am simply trying to point out that along with the love and compassion that the Bible teaches, that it also teaches some cold hard facts and gives strict instruction for discipline.

Just because a man trys to uphold the discipline and standards that the Bible teaches and he speaks out against modern day immorality doesnt mean he is hateful......maybe he is just trying to be obedient.

I believe the church today is becoming too politically correct and less biblically correct.

AJ

 

While I am not suggesting any such "provacative attire", I find it interesting that anyone would claim to know what the footwear styles were of 2000 years ago. (Actually, maybe "judgmental" is a more descriptive and accurate term than "interesting"!)

Ow come no one on these threads actually ever advocates the clothing styles of the NT, for anyone, instead of the clothing styles of the Victorian Era, and the early 20th Century? I have yet to notice anyone even advocating the 'styles of the early 1600s. Why is that?? Were they "too provocative"? Pretty tight 'top' those days, I'd say, judging from the picture of Queen Elizabeth I, here.

Or was that "bottoms", as exemplified in this shot of Sir Walter Raleigh?
http://static.arttoday.com/thm/thm4/61F/new_world/1112528.thm.gif?new108

If memory serves, Queen Elizabeth I was secretly very enamoured with Sir Walter, and actually kept him around in her court, not letting him be the explorer he was, for some time, gave him a large number of 'pricey' gifts, including land, and tossed him and his bride in the 'clink', in a fit of jealousy, after he secretly married one of her 'ladies-in-waiting'. He sure had her attention, to say the least. Could this have actually been the attire that she found to be "hot"? I wonder. But I would hope that all this attention did go to his head to much, for he completely lost it in later years, I believe. Walter Raleigh was a Christian, BTW.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q1...g=FRQsLrP2eShfnh4SQK3CzAEAOXk&hl=en#PPA101,M1

I thought your home activities were just as important as are the public activities in a church. I don't recall any religious "double standard" in Scripture. (Would not that be hypocrisy, by definition?) In fact, I seem to recall a thing or two about just the opposite. Incidentally, I don't "go to church" to be in God's house; I take "God's house" "to church"! (Scripture from my NewKJV, unless otherwise noted.)

What part of "do all" and "whatever" is so difficult, here??

You might want to re-read Mt. 5:28. I just read it in the "Americanized" KJV, TNT, GSB, and WYC (Granted, I did not read the KJV1611 edition, for I do not have that one, and I suspect you do not either, for I have not seen any quotes from anyone from the Scripture, on this thread, that resemble those that I sometimes read from another BB poster, who does often post from his reprint of a 1611 edition.), and did not see anything about "the 'woman' being just as guilty as the man"of anything, here in that verse, at least the one who was being "eyed". But I did see that the man [or at least I assume it was 'normally' a man being talked about, but there could be an exception (Rom. 1:25-32), and my Bible does say "whoever looks at..."] was said to be guilty of "advourty" (GSB) or "lechery" (WYC). But, "confession is good for the soul", I guess!

Ed

 

I can remember the day when my grandmother told me that it was not proper for a woman to show her ankles. Every woman wore a dress and woman's shoes too. Where does that place every woman today?

 

Whatever we wear or don't wear is a fashion statement.

Of course some would advocate what the FLDS wear while others would advocate what Adam and Eve wore.

 

IMO, they should make us :tear:

Ed

 

Amen!! raying:

 

Quite frankly Bro. Shane, when you come to the BB and air your complaints about women and their dress, you are preaching to the choir.
All the women I've met on the BB (including myself) would not wear any of the type clothing that you described in public, much less in church. We all agree that we should dress modestly.

If this is such a problem in your church, you would do well to take your complaints to the pastor and the elders.

 

donnaA... if I failed to make the point that I don't stare at the women and enjoy their nakedness or in your terms "ogle".. I'm very sorry. I thought I made that extremely clear in my disgust about the issue. Yes, I see the women but I turn my head. A man's heart that is right with God can't sit there and stare at the women with desire. If you think that I can't possibly notice the women's nakedness without ogling, then you need to be informed of a scenario.

I sit on the very first row at church, and a couple Sunday's ago was "Mother's Day." First, when the youngest mother of, I mean at the church that day (who needless-to-say didn't come back that night) got up to accept her flower, the whole congregation got to see her all of her legs and that trash bag of a dress she was wearing that hugged every corner of her. I turned my head immediately and did not clap for that woman (not a lady) while she made her way back to her seat.

Then, all the children had to come to the front (where we were sitting) of the church to pass out small flowers to the rest of the mothers standing. Within seconds, a small girl stands in front of our seat with no back to her shirt. Was that supposed to be cute? Yes, I turned my head and pitied the mother.

Now, rethink this whole thing over and then try and tell me I sat there and "ogled" at those girls. When you get that right, think had the girls been dressed to start with, an innocent man wouldn't have been alleged "ogling" at a naked women.

C4K... Good to see you! Warm southern greetings from the southlands! No sir, I ain't saying that by no means. Let me put it this way...we should always dress modestly. But, you better believe that those two hours I set aside by Jesus Christ my Saviour and strictly for Him, I'm going to be dressed to the best of my ability showing respect and reverence to Him. Same thing when you go to a wedding or funeral... you dress up for that occasion and you show respect. I don't want God thinking that the way I dress for everyone else is the way I dress for Him because he's not anymore important.

I am still covered when I'm home, but when I enter the church house, I am going to be dressed up to the max like I'm going to see the King that day. After all, I am going to His House and going to worship Him. Putting on the same thing you wear for your family and wear to the grocery store and ballpark sure doesn't sound like the place you're going to is any more important. I hope you understand that I'm not being hypocritical as my clothes still display the modesty standard, yet a different style of clothing for my Saviour.

Beth... modesty isn't a style, it's a rule set forth for us to follow. If our external appearance didn't matter, then God wouldn't have set forth ways for us to dress. (1 Timothy 2:9-10) The Ten Commandments are in the old testament... does that mean we should go out and kill someone too and they are no longer there for us to go by? Never!

Indeed we are no longer under the law, but what can you say about God in the new testament days... the same God who set forth modesty and defined it in the old testament?

Malachi 3:6 - "For I am the LORD, I change not."

Since no where in the new testament do we see Him changing the laws of modesty, we must conclude He still considers nakedness an abomination!

Ed... I skipped over your queen junk because I could care less. I know what's modest and I know what's not, OK? I don't need a queen to tell me how to dress... I need that Bible. Now, go back and read my post to C4K (if you already haven't) and see why I dress different at home. You can't call me a hypocrite for dressing modestly in both places. And FYI, I don't do "modern theology". From now on, and you see to be the type I'll have to do this to, if I don't address something you said, it's because I skipped over it. That queen has nothing to do with modesty.

Amy.G...I aired my complains about modesty in the modesty thread, thank you ma'am and I believe I had every right to. The examples from my church weren't for me to sit here and hound on (nor to lead you to believe I'm "ogling" over the women and I do apologize); just simply to show you how nakedness has even made it's way into the church today and is widely accepted. I hope that's clear up now...