FactSeeker

I've basically been called a devil by one and told I'm lost by another (just the ones I remember) for merely asking a question.

Trying to beat me into your viewpoint with personal attacks and insults would lead me, if I allowed it, to follow man - not God. 

Do whatever you wish with this thread, I'm done with it. 

5 minutes ago, Blueyedjewel said:

They wore robes back then. Joseph was able to see that Rachel  had a waistline but thats about it.

Attractive to the carnal mind is different than those who see spiritually.

 I already explained to you what I deem modest and I agree with Kwik as well. 

I appreciate your activity in my thread.

Unrelated instances, FYI:

Gen 29:17  Leah's eyes were delicate, but Rachel was beautiful of form and appearance. 

Gen 39:6  Thus he left all that he had in Joseph's hand, and he did not know what he had except for the bread which he ate. Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. 


--------

I'm looking for biblical data I can use as proof, essentially. What you deem as modest doesn't help me tell someone else: what you're doing is evil, stop it! My opinion nor yours is important when it comes to defining morality, thus I need data.

5 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

I say ponder this.  IS it a SIN to cause others to SIN.

IS lusting after a woman a SIN.  YES

and men who wear tight clothes too , cause others to lust.

IF i go in a church wearning short shorts and no shirt.................OOPS we got problems

cause some are going to be looking etc

SAME for any woman................if she wears tight well formed clothing.............Come now.......let us not lie

all can be tempted.  SO THE POINT IS...................Cause not thy brother to sin.

Besides , when i used to wear them tank tops , or no shirt, etc.........i may have said it was more comfortable

BUT REALLY I WAS LIKEING THE ATTENTION , the lust from other women.  LETS KEEP IT REAL

GOOD THING JESUS , true GRACE changes a man or woman. SO , KEEP THE CLOTHES LONG and WELL CONCEALING>

Maybe later I'll re-write my second point for you to address. I could have stated it (perhaps much) better.

And I like that you also are consistent with saying men should cover, not just women.

7 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

I do not support your view on 1 Timothy. I do not deny any part of scripture. I take all scripture literally.

You take the English literally? Okay, we won't be able to get anywhere then. I outright deny the way you interpret, we have no common ground.

2 hours ago, Blueyedjewel said:

My definition of modesty is that people see MY FACE FIRST .  I dont want to draw attention to my body but to my face.  If I have made the effort to be modest and I am not accentuating body parts that another could lust over; I am honoring the LORD. I am not responsible for those who will lust anyways. Some just do and that is the nature of their hearts. I like what Kwik said. I agree ! 

 

As far as lust is concerned: 

I can look at a man and think he is an attractive man but the moment I allow my thoughts to start going any further than that I am lusting.  It is a very fine line and I dont cross it. If I were to  find myself crossing that fine line , I take captive my thoughts to the obedience of Christ and I ask God to forgive me. 

 

Welcome to worthy,

Blessings  

The Bible seems to approve of being attracted to a person's figure (Joseph, Rachel)

I'm not saying we should get naked and show it off, but how do we draw the line between being attractive (including our figure) but not going too far -- in either direction? (Nudity vs "loose, layered and long")

2 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings FactSeeker

      Welcome again,glad to have you here with us Brother......I understand why you do not want to discuss 1 Timothy 2:9......this had little to do with our culture as everything to do with the pagan temple prostitutes of that time,place....I think the point of being modest in apparel really has everything to do with your second addition ..."causing no one to stumble "because of what you were going to discuss,though you didn't  LUST.....

    Personally I don't thing the Adam & Eve wearing fig leaves & then covering their private parts is anything for us to consider because Adam & Ever were by themselves,they did not know shame until they ate from the tree of knowledge(good & evil)and they were ashamed & hid from God .....& yes,you did mention the guilt of their sin,I agree......God did clothe them but again I think it is irrelevent because they had only each other & their children....so we don't get much help there,do we?

    Well,if we do consider 2 Timothy 2:9 and the "reason" it is Written we do understand that these women they were referring to were enticing to men,they adorned themselves to seduce,I have no doubt that they revealed their legs by having a split in the garment & probably wore there garments in a way to accentuate their figure.....I believe this is what modesty means,not to wear anything that accentuates any particular part of the body that would be attractive to the opposite sex    I think it is that simple and I do not believe that anything about "society today" has any relevance on Gods WAYS....being Godly,pleasing & acceptable to God    

    When I was younger(& from youth),I dressed in very risque clothing,I was raised in Ny in a very "fashion conscious" family...everything was very trendy,sexy & over the top......when I really surrendered to the Lord I was not even yet aware of these things,I thought I looked just wonderful,lol  The funny thing is I NEVER thought about it or made any efforts to change,one day Holy Spirit laid it on my heart that this was not the way a woman of GOD was to look.....Hmmm,I though,okay...it hjust seemed so distasteful in my eyes with the Heart & Mind of Christ.....my point is that I don't believe we have a specific verse of Scripture or Written Instruction on what is "modest" but I do know that when we seek Him & only want to please Him because we love Him we Receive Wisdom & Understanding and see through His Eyes......I don't look frumpy by any means but I dress modestly,nothing real clingy,nothing short or low cut  and thats how a woman should dress.....the men,of course their chests should be covered & I think its just as immodest for them to were those tight top & leotard bottoms with there biceps bulging.....plus its just vanity & pride anyway(carnal minded)

    Well,I doubt I was helpful but theres my little 2 cents......to be Godly,Holy,is Represent Christ,His Body,not ours.......it does not matter what the world deems acceptable

                                                                                                                With love-in Christ,Kwik

Hey, quik! What you said about the meaning of "modest:" 

κόσμιος
From G2889 (in its primary sense); orderly, that is, decorous: - of good behaviour, modest.

This is the word translated to "modest." It's not καταστολη, which is what most people argue from. Which are you intending? I don't see how κόσμιος fits with the idea you're setting.

Also, where do you get that as being the reason 1Ti 2:9 (you said 2Ti but I assume you meant 1Ti) was written? The text itself seems to be pointing to extravagance: gold/costly array, etc. and this idea goes better with κόσμιος. Please explain more?

------

About Adam and Eve: Yes, they were alone - just the two of them at that point, no children around either. However, God would be around - and they felt shame. It seems that part of the curse involved an ontological change that intended for us to feel shame over having our bodies completely exposed. Based on Gen 3, I can't and won't argue in favor of full nudity. To clarify, I'm trying to determine not whether we need to wear clothing, but how much is needed.

I'm happy that you're consistent in saying that men should cover their chests, too. This is my biggest complaint with christendom saying women can't go topless: they don't say the same about men! And there's no biblical basis for this inconsistency, that I've seen.

------

Your experience with your conscience is important, and perhaps the spirit would do that generally with other people, too. However, I'm looking for hard rules I can lay down, which requires scripture.

Thanks!

4 hours ago, missmuffet said:

Dressing modestly is not only for Church but at all times 1 Timothy 2:9-10. It reveals the godliness of the heart and honors God.

 

Welcome to Worthy

Did you see my first point?

What is our dress standard? I was prompted to question this for a couple of reasons, and a major reason is I read that until 1937, it was illegal for men to be topless. Now, society in general and I think most of the church is okay with it.

First, I won’t accept 1Ti 2:9 because of the context, and the greek. Regarding the context: “modesty” is defined in the same verse: not with gold, pearls, etc. It’s not about the amount of skin showing, but about excessiveness. The argument for clothing could go both ways, if we use this verse. First, dressing with too much on (relative to who/what’s around) could be immodest because it draws attention to us (i.e. if you don’t show enough skin at the beach.) However, it could also be argued that showing too much (shorts that are very short at walmart) is immodest. In any regard, that’s not the primary context of this verse. Second, the greek word that people argue from is not translated as modest, but as apparel (of course, I’m not going to argue from what the translators did.) Apparel is the word καταστολη, and the standard argument is that the prefix κατα on στολη means long/cast down/flowing. Perhaps it does in general, I don’t know greek that well. But first, what would that mean? The στολη was already long, so this serves no purpose to the argument that our clothing must be long (and well-covering.) More importantly, though: καταστολη didn’t have the meaning they make it to. Καταστολη was a specific article of clothing, worn over the στολη, and it only came down about to the waist (see Clark’s commentary, I believe he’s the one that addressed this.)

Second, causing others to stumble … This is a reasonable argument, but I don’t think it applies. Of course, we’re not to sin and teach others to do the same. We’re also not to tempt another to sin against his conscience by his seeing us do the very thing he thinks is wrong. However, I don’t think this extends to dress standard. For comparison: if I buy a Gallardo Lamborghini and then invite my brother to ride with me, have I tempted him to stumble and am I guilty for doing so? Because, of course – he’s likely to be jealous. Now, if my goal is to incite that – my heart is evil. But, if I’m merely sharing this beautiful creation with him, as I would if I invited him to visit the grand canyon with me during a sunset, I haven’t sinned even though I know he’ll be tempted to covet.

Third, Genesis 3 … This is the strongest argument, in my opinion. Adam and Eve ate, and then they knew they were naked and they made themselves loin cloths. So, their initial (now ontological, you might say) reaction was to cover their genitals. However, after making these loin cloths, they still considered themselves naked (the reason they hid from God.) In addition, God clothed them with both tops and bottoms. I don’t see the tops being required as clear-enough, because there are other possibilities still. They covered themselves with fig leaves, and it’s possible (even probable, I imagine) they weren’t very well covered. I’ve seen videos of primitive people who cover their genitals with similar things, and if they bend forward -it’s not a pretty sight (this correlates well with the priests who had to wear relatively long bottoms so the people underneath them wouldn’t look up and see their genitals.) They may have seen themselves as still being in a relative state of nudity; as Saul was naked because he wasn’t in his kingly attire, or Isaiah because he was in his underwear (supposedly.) Also, God’s making tops for them may have related to the curse: now there would be thorns to cut them, etc. In any case, these counter arguments relate ONLY TO WHETHER A TOP IS REQUIRED. I think this verse is very clear that the genitals must be covered (and considering the priests wore long bottoms *in order to* hide the genitals shows that this region is either solely sinful to expose, or especially sinful to expose, in my opinion. I’m not sure which of those two, though) and I think that Rev 3:18 (I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.) implies that full nudity is not merely shameful, but also sinful. However, I acknowledge that it’s an implication and I might be stretching. In closing on this point, I’m not stating that Gen 3 is insufficient to prove tops must be required, but I’m throwing out ideas I’d like to have challenged. Right now, I’m not bold on this section one way or the other – and I’d like to be. Help me to understand it rightly.

Note: I’ve seen no justification for men to be allowed topless and not women. I’m fine with whatever the scriptures teach, I’m fine with banning both men and women from being topless, but none of my studying has shown discrepancy to be allowed here. Either both men and women need to cover their chests, or neither do. Some people quote verses about breasts, but they’ve always been non-sequiturs. Or, they’re taken entirely out of context: a woman’s breasts are fondled and they use that to prove they shouldn’t be displayed.

Second note: Please do not take our culture into account. That is: don’t tell me that men should be allowed to go topless in our culture but not in a more modest one because it offends the sensibilities of that culture. That may be true, and it may be a correct answer: but it’s not what I’m trying to learn. I’m trying to learn whether the scripture has a minimum standard that applies to all cultures, and what that standard is.

I was also going to ask about defining lust, but I realized my post is very long. I hope to address that another time, in another OP.