Happinessity Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 260 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 188 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/02/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 8 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: I would like to wear that myself but the problem with that is, Arabic type clothing is so radically different than Western styles that it naturally ATTRACTS stares from others rather than deflects from them. Thereby there goes modesty if you like to remain invisible I don't have any intention of remaining invisible. That for me is not the meaning of modesty. I do respect that others may feel differently and wish to remain invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 1 minute ago, MorningGlory said: Everyone knows that topless women are not acceptable and no one looks twice at a shirtless man. Why is it worth arguing over? But why is that? Why is one filth and the other totally ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinessity Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 260 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 188 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/02/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 10 hours ago, Neighbor said: Ha! Oh my, whoa! scarry - Sorry but: I'd probably stare, glare, and wonder more at such an odd attire, that I might spend time to the point of lust because of it. -If I weren't afraid there might be a jihadist's bomb hidden under it. Be my own fault or sin of course, but that is what I might think. That would be a preconceived visual prejudice wouldn't it? And that would not be the responsibility of the woman clad in the Abaya. Keep in mind an Abaya is not a Chadri, also called, Buqa. An Abaya is a long dress and looks much like the attire that the men in biblical recreation movies wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 6 minutes ago, Running Gator said: But why is that? Why is one filth and the other totally ok? Because one is nudity and the other is not. You're always appealing to culture instead of the Bible, so that should not be a problem for you, should it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Because one is nudity and the other is not. You're always appealing to culture instead of the Bible, so that should not be a problem for you, should it? Please provide the biblical passage that states one is nudity and one is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) When it comes to modesty I think it does matter to take into account the time period. In Roman times Roman women had exposed breasts (Cisero), today that is not acceptable. On Victorian times the ankles and legs were considered most sensual and so they were covered, in fact the table cloth was invented to conceal legs of tables to not make people stumble. Today ankles and legs are exposed in shorts and beach clothing. In Jesus day a married woman covered her head, this was like wearing a wedding ring which hadn't been invented and it is for this reason Paul rebuked the women who were taking their head covering in a culture where exposed hair and earrings was the mark of a harlot. Today exposed hair of a woman's head and earrings are normal. I'm the Bible there are universal morality codes and commands like Ten Commandments, Matthew 22:36-41, and Galatians 5:20-23. Then there is what is called culture customs and morality which change, earrings and covering a woman's hair being prime examples of changing customs of the times and cultures. Edited May 4, 2017 by Fidei Defensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) Victorians weren't pagans, they were Christians. I was making the point certain ideas of what is sensual changes and so the outfits change and so forth. I am not saying nudity is proper in public or any such notion, I am saying certain customs change. Are legs not allowed to be exposed via shorts? Nay, that had changed. Obviously reproductive body parts should be concealed/covered. But breasts and how much cleavage can be shown and wither breasts are sensual have changed over the ages. The Medieval Europe and Victorian England had no issue w/cleavage, and those were Christian civilizations. Now cleavage is controversial because breasts became sensual (like Victorian ankle). Edited May 4, 2017 by Fidei Defensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2017 46 minutes ago, MorningGlory said: This thread is really unedifying for anyone reading as a guest. Can y'all just agree that a Christian KNOWS when they are being modest and when they are not and stop nailing these silly petty points to the wall? Everyone knows that topless women are not acceptable and no one looks twice at a shirtless man. Why is it worth arguing over? I agree!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky Posted May 4, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 508 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 216 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/09/1985 Share Posted May 4, 2017 1 hour ago, MorningGlory said: This thread is really unedifying for anyone reading as a guest. Can y'all just agree that a Christian KNOWS when they are being modest and when they are not and stop nailing these silly petty points to the wall? Everyone knows that topless women are not acceptable and no one looks twice at a shirtless man. Why is it worth arguing over? While it has been unedifying in some ways, at least the thread didn't turn into one man's opinion about women wearing pants, there has been able to be a more full debate on the issue of modesty, which would not have been possible in the past as the issue would have been sidetracked by the women in pants issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Running Gator said: Please provide the biblical passage that states one is nudity and one is not. I don't need to. Everyone knows what nudity is and what it is not. You're still trying to muddy the waters, because unlike me, you can't offer up a biblical argument to support your errant position. I stand with Scripture and it's position. You can stand with... whatever it is you stand with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts