Jack, sadly once again, another of your "good vs. better" argument has been torpedoed by the "what abouts" and their handy list of exceptions. This is why we can't have genuine humble and helpful debate anymore. Just a bunch of petulant children dead set on having their way and stiff-arming any attempt at healthy rebuke. Don't bother to stop for a second and maybe consider you could possibly have some room to do better. Just congratulate yourself on finding the loopholes that allow you to keep doing what you want anyway. Oh, and men: you're terrible, it's 100% your problem, and women have no obligation whatsoever to help you in your faith. Nice.
Genuine and helpful debate? Is responding "Lol, ok" to someone your idea of "Genuine and helpful debate"? Myself and others brought up legitimate caveats to Jack's unfounded definition of modesty to which Jack rudely and arrogantly dismissed, refused to engage with, and still has yet to actually defend his beliefs. Nothing I brought up are "loopholes" to any "commands." They're perspectives I've gathered from humbly listening to other people's experiences and genuinely engaging and thinking through scripture and life. Also you should tell that last sentence to Jesus who said to men "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" and told them to start amputating themselves if they lacked self control.
You're correct, it is a ridiculous example. The idea of a doctor being aroused seeing his patients nude would be insane. But that simply proves my point that the human body is not inherently sexually arousing. Why should it be any different for any other context in which you're around people, who by the way are clothed, in situations such as the beach, or a park, or a wedding, which are also not sexual contexts?
Regardless, you saying "You're not seriously engaging" is absolutely laughable. All you've done is harp on one example I gave and completely ignored every other example I gave of different cultures and traditions where people exist in mixed gender settings with varying levels of covering without giving into "lust." You have not once addressed those. I responded to your reference of Genesis to which you had no response. Someone brought up the damaging effects of purity culture to which you said "lol ok." Give me a break dude. You've done nothing but ignore, dismiss, and stonewall while giving absolutely no defense of your position. I would actually love to genuinely debate this topic with you but you've refused to at every point.
Why not you try giving an actual defense to your view of modesty that is both congruent with reality and with scripture?
The "damaging effects of purity culture" are so overblown, and almost always cover for sexual license.
The cultures you've mentioned are largely unchristianized cultures, with a very different sexual ethic altogether. The more Christianized a culture becomes, the more people cover their bodies. That is not a coincidence.
Notice in Genesis that Adam and Eve made themselves loin coverings.
They're the only two people on earth, and they clothed themselves like modern beachgoers. And God came in and gave them "tunics," per BDB lexicon. Why? According to you, they were already sufficiently clothed.
So I'm not convinced the statement "The more Christianized a culture becomes, the more people cover their bodies." I suppose you could say that because the concept of "modesty equating to how much skin is showing" became ingrained early on in the overall Christian tradition that evangelized people groups were made to change their attire, but I'd say it's far more accurate to say that clothing is more a function of climate. In colder climates people tend to wear more clothes, while in a hot humid tropical climate the native peoples tended to wear very little. Additionally in desert climates people also tend to be more covered though in lighter clothes as protection from the sun. Also, there are many cultures that are not Christian at all yet dress even more "modestly" than Christian cultures, for example, some middle eastern countries.
Another point I would add is that sexual ethic has very little to do with it. Again, there are cultures in which people enjoy saunas or hot springs nude in mixed gender settings yet have varying sexual ethics. Or in contrast in America, such a concept is still very foreign to most people despite a loosening of our cultures sexual ethics. But this is again because the body is not inherently sexual and people can quite easily control themselves around others in varying degrees of dress without the situation ever being considered sexually charged. Which, that being the case, makes lust entirely a personal issue divorced from what other people are wearing which is congruent to how Jesus approached it.
You made a fair point about God making Adam and Eve tunics. But that still does not address the fact that it was the deceiver's lies and Adam and Eve's sin that gave them the concept of "nakedness" and "shame", neither of which God created or intended. The story implies that this distorted view of their own bodies was a result of their sin that they now had to deal with as opposed to God's ideal.
Lastly, with your first statement, I really wish you would show kindness and gentleness to people as are the fruits of the spirit. There are so many people who have been taught that part of their self worth was dependent on their virginity or been given such a distorted view of sex that they could hardly enjoy it in their marriage which leads to so much mental anguish. To say that these problems are "overblown" and accuse them of just wanting to do whatever they want sexually is unbelievably thoughtless, cruel, and unkind. You really ought to wait till your life shows the fruits of the spirit that you so severely lack before making yourself out to be some arbiter of truth.
As a woman, I didn't always dress modestly in the past, but it's very important to me now, honoring God with my body.
The tradition of "wearing a dress to church assembly" (tradition, not Scriptural command) has a loophole, because honestly I have worn immodest dresses and justified it because it's "a dress", and I think other women do too, same with wedding dresses and formal dresses, as you point out.
You say modesty isn’t situational (as if it’s scriptural???) and yet expect women to feel totally fine being naked in bed on the wedding night??? Purity culture is SUCH a mind game!!!
I can’t tell women not to go to the pool in their underwear or guys to go to the gym without it meaning that people won’t be comfortable to disrobe on their Honeymoon? Come on.
Yeah, actually that is entirely the case as has been the experience of so many who've grown up with this messaging. You indeed cannot tell people that the body God created them with is some shameful thing that is nothing more than a stumbling block to others and then expect them to just flip a switch and be ok with it around their spouse. It takes hardly any effort at all to find examples of how purity culture has literally ruined marriages. But then again, you do not care. You do not listen to other people. You have all the answers and can never be wrong, so you can just rudely dismiss people when they bring up legitimate objections while doing absolutely nothing to defend your own belief.
This whole concept of "modesty" always falls so flat. For one, it doesn't even exist in scripture. There isn't a single verse that spells out what exactly needs to be covered. It's also incongruent with reality.
Are physicians or surgeons sinning or prone to lust when having to examine a patient nude? Are nurses giving into lust when bathing a patient? You can ask these people and they'd probably laugh at the question.
Also concepts of acceptable attire vary so drastically in different cultures. On one hand you have some people groups where wearing very little to no clothing is the norm. These people are not given into lust anymore than us, possibly even less so. While on the other hand in some places attire acceptable in church in America isn't even acceptable, for example in some middle eastern countries where women are almost entirely covered. You also have many examples of places where being in saunas or hot springs in mixed company and around children with no clothing is common place. And yet these people show nothing but respect and self control toward others.
Lust is entirely a problem of one's self control. You can either choose to see someone's body simply as a human body, something God created and said was good, or can choose to view it as nothing more than a sex object and give into sexual fantasies about it. It's literally your choice.
Once again, simply because you do not have control over your own mind does not make it someone else's problem. People can go to lakes and beaches and comfortably swim without worrying about someone perving on them. People can dress up beautifully for their wedding day without worrying what some creep is thinking. People can dress comfortably for exercise and activity without someone leering at them lustfully. If you personally cannot handle that then you can either just avoid all such situations or work on having self control and stop sexually objectifying other people.
Doctors and nurses do what has to be done. It is not a choice. We are talking about choices.
As to different people groups, re-read the portion of the article that talks about following conventions, and then asks whether the convention for Christians should be drawn from a non-Christian, hyper-sexualized society. Your "point" was already addressed.
The point is people can handle seeing people's bodies. And you just flat out ignored the instances where it's not a choice.
Who is more hyper-sexualized? The people who view the entire human body as a sex object that leads to uncontrollable lust and demand that it be entirely covered or the people who view the human body for what it is and has no issue if whether or not they see parts of it?
Sure, considering the most comfortable way to dress for swimming is to not wear anything at all. Hence why people dress down for water activities and why clothing optional beaches exist in places.
But you're still projecting your own distorted view of the human body on other people. You assume people wearing a bikini are doing so because they want to sexually titillate other people like yourself as opposed to simply dressing for water activities or sunning. You really need to stop assuming others have bad intentions when they have none and stop objectifying other people.
What was God covering? Did he cover just their genitalia? Or did he cover their torso as well? Or was a distinction made between covering the male and female chest? Was it a full dress like covering? It says none of those things, so it can hardly be used as a standard for what is “correct” attire.
Also, were Adam and Eve not a married couple and the only people on earth? Who are they hiding their nakedness from? Or should married couples not be allowed to see one another undressed?
Lastly, when Adam and Eve were sinless and with God they did not see their bodies as anything shameful. God also made them that way and said it was very good. It wasn’t till they transgressed against God and separated themselves from his presence that they adopted a distorted view of seeing their bodies as something shameful. So why, being redeemed and made right with God and being cleansed of sin are we trying to cling to and enforce the distorted view of the body as a shameful sex object that came about because of sin? That seems counterproductive to me.
You can't even be bothered to seriously engage with anything I said. The point I'm making is that humans are entirely capable of controlling themselves around other humans in various states of dress. If all you can do is make in issue with one half of a sentence and throw the rest out you clearly have no defendable argument or position.
Jack, sadly once again, another of your "good vs. better" argument has been torpedoed by the "what abouts" and their handy list of exceptions. This is why we can't have genuine humble and helpful debate anymore. Just a bunch of petulant children dead set on having their way and stiff-arming any attempt at healthy rebuke. Don't bother to stop for a second and maybe consider you could possibly have some room to do better. Just congratulate yourself on finding the loopholes that allow you to keep doing what you want anyway. Oh, and men: you're terrible, it's 100% your problem, and women have no obligation whatsoever to help you in your faith. Nice.
Exactly. And that’s why I love the word “licentiousness” as applied to this situation. It’s exactly what they’re practicing.
Genuine and helpful debate? Is responding "Lol, ok" to someone your idea of "Genuine and helpful debate"? Myself and others brought up legitimate caveats to Jack's unfounded definition of modesty to which Jack rudely and arrogantly dismissed, refused to engage with, and still has yet to actually defend his beliefs. Nothing I brought up are "loopholes" to any "commands." They're perspectives I've gathered from humbly listening to other people's experiences and genuinely engaging and thinking through scripture and life. Also you should tell that last sentence to Jesus who said to men "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" and told them to start amputating themselves if they lacked self control.
You brought up surgery patients as defense for people who want to flaunt their bodies in public. You're not seriously engaging.
You're correct, it is a ridiculous example. The idea of a doctor being aroused seeing his patients nude would be insane. But that simply proves my point that the human body is not inherently sexually arousing. Why should it be any different for any other context in which you're around people, who by the way are clothed, in situations such as the beach, or a park, or a wedding, which are also not sexual contexts?
Regardless, you saying "You're not seriously engaging" is absolutely laughable. All you've done is harp on one example I gave and completely ignored every other example I gave of different cultures and traditions where people exist in mixed gender settings with varying levels of covering without giving into "lust." You have not once addressed those. I responded to your reference of Genesis to which you had no response. Someone brought up the damaging effects of purity culture to which you said "lol ok." Give me a break dude. You've done nothing but ignore, dismiss, and stonewall while giving absolutely no defense of your position. I would actually love to genuinely debate this topic with you but you've refused to at every point.
Why not you try giving an actual defense to your view of modesty that is both congruent with reality and with scripture?
The "damaging effects of purity culture" are so overblown, and almost always cover for sexual license.
The cultures you've mentioned are largely unchristianized cultures, with a very different sexual ethic altogether. The more Christianized a culture becomes, the more people cover their bodies. That is not a coincidence.
Notice in Genesis that Adam and Eve made themselves loin coverings.
They're the only two people on earth, and they clothed themselves like modern beachgoers. And God came in and gave them "tunics," per BDB lexicon. Why? According to you, they were already sufficiently clothed.
Finally!
So I'm not convinced the statement "The more Christianized a culture becomes, the more people cover their bodies." I suppose you could say that because the concept of "modesty equating to how much skin is showing" became ingrained early on in the overall Christian tradition that evangelized people groups were made to change their attire, but I'd say it's far more accurate to say that clothing is more a function of climate. In colder climates people tend to wear more clothes, while in a hot humid tropical climate the native peoples tended to wear very little. Additionally in desert climates people also tend to be more covered though in lighter clothes as protection from the sun. Also, there are many cultures that are not Christian at all yet dress even more "modestly" than Christian cultures, for example, some middle eastern countries.
Another point I would add is that sexual ethic has very little to do with it. Again, there are cultures in which people enjoy saunas or hot springs nude in mixed gender settings yet have varying sexual ethics. Or in contrast in America, such a concept is still very foreign to most people despite a loosening of our cultures sexual ethics. But this is again because the body is not inherently sexual and people can quite easily control themselves around others in varying degrees of dress without the situation ever being considered sexually charged. Which, that being the case, makes lust entirely a personal issue divorced from what other people are wearing which is congruent to how Jesus approached it.
You made a fair point about God making Adam and Eve tunics. But that still does not address the fact that it was the deceiver's lies and Adam and Eve's sin that gave them the concept of "nakedness" and "shame", neither of which God created or intended. The story implies that this distorted view of their own bodies was a result of their sin that they now had to deal with as opposed to God's ideal.
Lastly, with your first statement, I really wish you would show kindness and gentleness to people as are the fruits of the spirit. There are so many people who have been taught that part of their self worth was dependent on their virginity or been given such a distorted view of sex that they could hardly enjoy it in their marriage which leads to so much mental anguish. To say that these problems are "overblown" and accuse them of just wanting to do whatever they want sexually is unbelievably thoughtless, cruel, and unkind. You really ought to wait till your life shows the fruits of the spirit that you so severely lack before making yourself out to be some arbiter of truth.
In Bible days everyone had tunics to their knees-men n women had dresses to their wrists n ankles lol
There's no excuse to run around half naked christian or not
totally agree!!!!
As a woman, I didn't always dress modestly in the past, but it's very important to me now, honoring God with my body.
The tradition of "wearing a dress to church assembly" (tradition, not Scriptural command) has a loophole, because honestly I have worn immodest dresses and justified it because it's "a dress", and I think other women do too, same with wedding dresses and formal dresses, as you point out.
Well said. Without a dedication to it out of the right heart, just about anything can be made immodest.
Rebellion and inability to blush (Jer. 6:15).
You say modesty isn’t situational (as if it’s scriptural???) and yet expect women to feel totally fine being naked in bed on the wedding night??? Purity culture is SUCH a mind game!!!
I agree with saratogasummer. The title alone 🤦♀️
lol, ok.
Can't you show the least amount of respect to anyone on here?
I can’t tell women not to go to the pool in their underwear or guys to go to the gym without it meaning that people won’t be comfortable to disrobe on their Honeymoon? Come on.
“Answer a fool as his folly deserves…”
Yeah, actually that is entirely the case as has been the experience of so many who've grown up with this messaging. You indeed cannot tell people that the body God created them with is some shameful thing that is nothing more than a stumbling block to others and then expect them to just flip a switch and be ok with it around their spouse. It takes hardly any effort at all to find examples of how purity culture has literally ruined marriages. But then again, you do not care. You do not listen to other people. You have all the answers and can never be wrong, so you can just rudely dismiss people when they bring up legitimate objections while doing absolutely nothing to defend your own belief.
This whole concept of "modesty" always falls so flat. For one, it doesn't even exist in scripture. There isn't a single verse that spells out what exactly needs to be covered. It's also incongruent with reality.
Are physicians or surgeons sinning or prone to lust when having to examine a patient nude? Are nurses giving into lust when bathing a patient? You can ask these people and they'd probably laugh at the question.
Also concepts of acceptable attire vary so drastically in different cultures. On one hand you have some people groups where wearing very little to no clothing is the norm. These people are not given into lust anymore than us, possibly even less so. While on the other hand in some places attire acceptable in church in America isn't even acceptable, for example in some middle eastern countries where women are almost entirely covered. You also have many examples of places where being in saunas or hot springs in mixed company and around children with no clothing is common place. And yet these people show nothing but respect and self control toward others.
Lust is entirely a problem of one's self control. You can either choose to see someone's body simply as a human body, something God created and said was good, or can choose to view it as nothing more than a sex object and give into sexual fantasies about it. It's literally your choice.
Once again, simply because you do not have control over your own mind does not make it someone else's problem. People can go to lakes and beaches and comfortably swim without worrying about someone perving on them. People can dress up beautifully for their wedding day without worrying what some creep is thinking. People can dress comfortably for exercise and activity without someone leering at them lustfully. If you personally cannot handle that then you can either just avoid all such situations or work on having self control and stop sexually objectifying other people.
Doctors and nurses do what has to be done. It is not a choice. We are talking about choices.
As to different people groups, re-read the portion of the article that talks about following conventions, and then asks whether the convention for Christians should be drawn from a non-Christian, hyper-sexualized society. Your "point" was already addressed.
The point is people can handle seeing people's bodies. And you just flat out ignored the instances where it's not a choice.
Who is more hyper-sexualized? The people who view the entire human body as a sex object that leads to uncontrollable lust and demand that it be entirely covered or the people who view the human body for what it is and has no issue if whether or not they see parts of it?
Why do you think the bikini was invented? Comfort???
Sure, considering the most comfortable way to dress for swimming is to not wear anything at all. Hence why people dress down for water activities and why clothing optional beaches exist in places.
But you're still projecting your own distorted view of the human body on other people. You assume people wearing a bikini are doing so because they want to sexually titillate other people like yourself as opposed to simply dressing for water activities or sunning. You really need to stop assuming others have bad intentions when they have none and stop objectifying other people.
It's not "my distorted view of the human body." The precedent for covering the shame of nakedness is on page 3 of the Bible.
Ok let’s think through that.
What was God covering? Did he cover just their genitalia? Or did he cover their torso as well? Or was a distinction made between covering the male and female chest? Was it a full dress like covering? It says none of those things, so it can hardly be used as a standard for what is “correct” attire.
Also, were Adam and Eve not a married couple and the only people on earth? Who are they hiding their nakedness from? Or should married couples not be allowed to see one another undressed?
Lastly, when Adam and Eve were sinless and with God they did not see their bodies as anything shameful. God also made them that way and said it was very good. It wasn’t till they transgressed against God and separated themselves from his presence that they adopted a distorted view of seeing their bodies as something shameful. So why, being redeemed and made right with God and being cleansed of sin are we trying to cling to and enforce the distorted view of the body as a shameful sex object that came about because of sin? That seems counterproductive to me.
Drawing on surgeons proves how ridiculous your position is
You can't even be bothered to seriously engage with anything I said. The point I'm making is that humans are entirely capable of controlling themselves around other humans in various states of dress. If all you can do is make in issue with one half of a sentence and throw the rest out you clearly have no defendable argument or position.