The deteriorating perception of nudity

[missmuffet]

 

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Can you imagine if the Lord commanded someone to do this today?  Also, this is a post-Eden time period wherin a prophet is commanded to minister naked.  Not even a loin cloth.  Therefore, nakedness in itself is not always a sin and is not always immodest.

 

Saul got his kit off too.

 

 

 

He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:24)

 

And David,

 

 

 

2 Samuel 6:14: "And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." 

 

An ephod, by the way, is pretty much a loin cloth.  

 

And here we have another naked prophet.

 

 

 

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked"

 

 

The Bible does not seem to imply that all these were sinning in their immodesty.  Perhaps the deterioration in the perception of nudity is in that we perceive the nudity itself to be sinful rather than our reaction to it?

 

 

These are, dare I say it (lol) provocative points. Interesting verses.

 

 

Thank you Alpha.     I would also venture to point out that the raciest book on the Bible, the Song of Solomon, gives me the impression that finding the opposite sex attractive is not a sin.  I think that it becomes lust the moment we contemplate acting on that attraction inappropriately.  And it becomes immodesty the moment that we intend to stir thoughts of intercourse with us in others.  Clothing alone doesn't make such invitations - body language, and vocal tones can be far more suggestive.

 

Yes,clothing alone does make such invitiations.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Can you imagine if the Lord commanded someone to do this today?  Also, this is a post-Eden time period wherin a prophet is commanded to minister naked.  Not even a loin cloth.  Therefore, nakedness in itself is not always a sin and is not always immodest.

 

Saul got his kit off too.

 

 

 

He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:24)

 

And David,

 

 

 

2 Samuel 6:14: "And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." 

 

An ephod, by the way, is pretty much a loin cloth.  

 

And here we have another naked prophet.

 

 

 

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked"

 

 

The Bible does not seem to imply that all these were sinning in their immodesty.  Perhaps the deterioration in the perception of nudity is in that we perceive the nudity itself to be sinful rather than our reaction to it?

 

 

These are, dare I say it (lol) provocative points. Interesting verses.

 

 

Thank you Alpha.     I would also venture to point out that the raciest book on the Bible, the Song of Solomon, gives me the impression that finding the opposite sex attractive is not a sin.  I think that it becomes lust the moment we contemplate acting on that attraction inappropriately.  And it becomes immodesty the moment that we intend to stir thoughts of intercourse with us in others.  Clothing alone doesn't make such invitations - body language, and vocal tones can be far more suggestive.

 

Yes,clothing alone does make such invitiations.

 

 

What I mean is I don't think that clothing is the only thing that makes such invitations.  

[missmuffet]

 

 

 

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Can you imagine if the Lord commanded someone to do this today?  Also, this is a post-Eden time period wherin a prophet is commanded to minister naked.  Not even a loin cloth.  Therefore, nakedness in itself is not always a sin and is not always immodest.

 

Saul got his kit off too.

 

 

 

He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:24)

 

And David,

 

 

 

2 Samuel 6:14: "And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." 

 

An ephod, by the way, is pretty much a loin cloth.  

 

And here we have another naked prophet.

 

 

 

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked"

 

 

The Bible does not seem to imply that all these were sinning in their immodesty.  Perhaps the deterioration in the perception of nudity is in that we perceive the nudity itself to be sinful rather than our reaction to it?

 

 

These are, dare I say it (lol) provocative points. Interesting verses.

 

 

Thank you Alpha.     I would also venture to point out that the raciest book on the Bible, the Song of Solomon, gives me the impression that finding the opposite sex attractive is not a sin.  I think that it becomes lust the moment we contemplate acting on that attraction inappropriately.  And it becomes immodesty the moment that we intend to stir thoughts of intercourse with us in others.  Clothing alone doesn't make such invitations - body language, and vocal tones can be far more suggestive.

 

Yes,clothing alone does make such invitiations.

 

 

What I mean is I don't think that clothing is the only thing that makes such invitations.  

 

Yes,clothing is probably #1 but their are some other flirtatious gestures that can lure a man.The problem is the many,many women who are walking around everywhere you go with inappropriate apparel.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Can you imagine if the Lord commanded someone to do this today?  Also, this is a post-Eden time period wherin a prophet is commanded to minister naked.  Not even a loin cloth.  Therefore, nakedness in itself is not always a sin and is not always immodest.

 

Saul got his kit off too.

 

 

 

He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:24)

 

And David,

 

 

 

2 Samuel 6:14: "And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." 

 

An ephod, by the way, is pretty much a loin cloth.  

 

And here we have another naked prophet.

 

 

 

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked"

 

 

The Bible does not seem to imply that all these were sinning in their immodesty.  Perhaps the deterioration in the perception of nudity is in that we perceive the nudity itself to be sinful rather than our reaction to it?

 

 

These are, dare I say it (lol) provocative points. Interesting verses.

 

 

Thank you Alpha.     I would also venture to point out that the raciest book on the Bible, the Song of Solomon, gives me the impression that finding the opposite sex attractive is not a sin.  I think that it becomes lust the moment we contemplate acting on that attraction inappropriately.  And it becomes immodesty the moment that we intend to stir thoughts of intercourse with us in others.  Clothing alone doesn't make such invitations - body language, and vocal tones can be far more suggestive.

 

Yes,clothing alone does make such invitiations.

 

 

What I mean is I don't think that clothing is the only thing that makes such invitations.  

 

Yes,clothing is probably #1 but their are some other flirtatious gestures that can lure a man.The problem is the many,many women who are walking around everywhere you go with inappropriate apparel.

 

Inappropriate to you . Again, I don't think you should assume a woman is *trying* to 'catch men' or cause problems based on their clothing. It's just something to think about.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isaiah 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

 

 

Can you imagine if the Lord commanded someone to do this today?  Also, this is a post-Eden time period wherin a prophet is commanded to minister naked.  Not even a loin cloth.  Therefore, nakedness in itself is not always a sin and is not always immodest.

 

Saul got his kit off too.

 

 

 

He stripped off his robes and also prophesied in Samuel's presence. He lay that way all that day and night. This is why people say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Samuel 19:24)

 

And David,

 

 

 

2 Samuel 6:14: "And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod." 

 

An ephod, by the way, is pretty much a loin cloth.  

 

And here we have another naked prophet.

 

 

 

Micah 1:8: "Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked"

 

 

The Bible does not seem to imply that all these were sinning in their immodesty.  Perhaps the deterioration in the perception of nudity is in that we perceive the nudity itself to be sinful rather than our reaction to it?

 

 

These are, dare I say it (lol) provocative points. Interesting verses.

 

 

Thank you Alpha.     I would also venture to point out that the raciest book on the Bible, the Song of Solomon, gives me the impression that finding the opposite sex attractive is not a sin.  I think that it becomes lust the moment we contemplate acting on that attraction inappropriately.  And it becomes immodesty the moment that we intend to stir thoughts of intercourse with us in others.  Clothing alone doesn't make such invitations - body language, and vocal tones can be far more suggestive.

 

Yes,clothing alone does make such invitiations.

 

 

What I mean is I don't think that clothing is the only thing that makes such invitations.  

 

Yes,clothing is probably #1 but their are some other flirtatious gestures that can lure a man.The problem is the many,many women who are walking around everywhere you go with inappropriate apparel.

 

Inappropriate to you . Again, I don't think you should assume a woman is *trying* to 'catch men' or cause problems based on their clothing. It's just something to think about.

 

I don't think that clothing is #1.  It's usually just incidental.  Unless it's sexy lengere, because that sure isn't designed for comfort.  Why do these conversations always end up being about women's clothing?  There appears to be three verses in the Bible that directly address modesty, and two of them are talking about jewelry, adornment, gold, pearl, costly array, the kinds of things that would be stupidly expensive in those days.

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:9 - 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;

 

 

 

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 

 

 

 

 

Proverbs 11:22 - [As] a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, [so is] a fair woman which is without discretion.

 

It appears to me that if there is a culture where it is the norm for women to wear only a loin cloth and breast wrap, or no breast wrap at all, and a woman comes among them clothed from head to toe in silk and jewels so not a lick of skin is showing and she holds her head high and rebukes the other women for being immodest then she is actually the immodest one.  In an Amish village a woman wearing jeans and t-shirt would be immodest.  A NASA Space suit can be made immodest in the wrong context!

 

 

This verse also uses the word modesty but I'm quite sure that applying it to clothing guidelines would be grossly out of context.

 

1 Corinthians 12

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

[alphaparticle]

Tsukino, Those are good points. I don't know why it's always about women's clothing. It bothers me that the interest isn't primarily in ourselves and our own hearts, and rather about obsessing about how horrid those ladies are and how much it offends us.

[nebula]

'dressing provocatively' suggests bad intent and foreknowledge she's doing that.... ....

Yes and no. I know many girls who "dress for attention" - which is in the form of short short shorts, short short skirts, tight pants, tight top, very low cut top, exposed midriff, and the like.

They may not think they are trying to "provoke" guys, but they know/believe such attire will draw attention from guys, and so they dress this way.

But there are also those who dress this way because "everyone" dresses this way, and anyone who doesn't is a nerd.

 

Tsukino, Those are good points. I don't know why it's always about women's clothing.

OK, let's talk about the boys and young men who wear their pants as if they are falling of and exposing their drawers!

 

It bothers me that the interest isn't primarily in ourselves and our own hearts, and rather about obsessing about how horrid those ladies are and how much it offends us.

My concern actually is not about being "better than you", but rather about a culture that teaches women their value is in their looks, their sexuality, outdoing the next girl in "attractiveness", and so forth.

[nebula]

To Tsukino, alpha, and JD -

 

Just for perspective, what are your opinions on Janet Jackson's so-called "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl some years ago and about Miley Cyrus's latest performance?

[JDavis]

To Tsukino, alpha, and JD -

 

Just for perspective, what are your opinions on Janet Jackson's so-called "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl some years ago and about Miley Cyrus's latest performance?

 

I view both as provocative and immodest, though the latter much more so than the former.

 

Though I do have friends from Australia that could not see the big deal about Janet Jackson at all, to them there was nothing to be upset about.  And it is very likely had I been born and raised with them I would feel the same way.

[JDavis]

 

My concern actually is not about being "better than you", but rather about a culture that teaches women their value is in their looks, their sexuality, outdoing the next girl in "attractiveness", and so forth.

 

 

are we not a culture that does this with everything?  not just looks but possession, jobs, education, etc.