Defining Modesty

[notsolostsoul]

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, FactSeeker said:

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. 

You are not alone!!! I enjoyed your thread. It was a good question. I like Kwik's answer regarding growth or lack thereof. Even with the strife insightful information has come about.

Thank you!!!!

[LadyKay]

On 7/17/2017 at 11:43 AM, FactSeeker said:

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. 

Oh I get that all the time especially in the political forums.  

[simplejeff]

On 7/17/2017 at 10:43 AM, FactSeeker said:

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. 

I have no idea (didn't read the posts) who attacked you nor why, or who you think attacked you, nor why.

But in one of your own earlier posts, you said you rejected Scripture, and said why,

but God doesn't accept any reason for rejecting Scripture.   Jesus says whoever rejects His Word rejects Him.

Or did you turn to accept Scripture in the last day or two? (i.e. no longer reject Scripture)?

[Reinitin]

On 7/16/2017 at 5:22 PM, FactSeeker said:

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!

 

It is kinda simple for me. are you dressing youself with a haughty spirit? A arrogant spirit? a rebellious spirit? a prideful spirit? a lustful spirit? or are you dressing for your enviroment or appropriate for the activity  your paticpating in.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Not sure if I am saying the same thing that Davida is or not. I tend to think that you cannot just rule out culture though.

I think the general idea is not about how much skin shows at all, but how much skin shows could apply in different contexts.

I think it speaks to moderation, showiness, etc., and avoiding extravagance. I do not think it is saying to be unattractive, but more about not standing out. I think it is about not making someone feel lessor because they cannot afford fancy things, and I think it should not be distracting. In cultures where the norm is that a lot of skin is showing, then wearing more coverage, might be immodest, if one is over dressed.

If people come up to you, and tell you, "what a beautiful ring", or "what a stunning dress", or "wow, the bright pink hair, sets you apart", or "dude, what an awesome tattoo", then you have probably missed the boat.

What the Amish and Mennonites do, may be a little extreme in that uniformity is not necessary, but I think they may be onto something, in that they are not trying to attract, stand out, or impress anyone.

Now, I took it a bit further than 1 Tim 2:9 does, in that Paul is instructing women there not men, but I don't think there is any reason to assume immodesty is ok for me, only that Paul is probably addressing a problem. 

Let us not miss the fact though, that Paul does not just speak there to immodesty, he gives instruction on what to do instead, and the is essentially, to cloth yourself in good works!

That is my opinion, and nothing more.

[Heleadethme]

12 hours ago, simplejeff said:

I have no idea (didn't read the posts) who attacked you nor why, or who you think attacked you, nor why.

But in one of your own earlier posts, you said you rejected Scripture, and said why,

but God doesn't accept any reason for rejecting Scripture.   Jesus says whoever rejects His Word rejects Him.

Or did you turn to accept Scripture in the last day or two? (i.e. no longer reject Scripture)?

It's easy to misunderstand someone's intent in writing, happens all the time....I don't think the OP meant to reject the scripture outright, she was just rejecting how most interpreted part of it.

[Willa]

On 7/16/2017 at 1:02 PM, 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

The only thing I disagree with is that God's covering of Adam of Eve did matter.  It cost life and the shedding of blood to cover their sin.  So God's covering was prophetic of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, His life and His blood shed for our sin.  We can't do it by our own provision or effort.  Only God can cover or be the propitiation for our sin.

Different cultures have a different ideas of modesty.  Some consider a woman's ankles to to tempting.  Some think seeing her face is tempting.  Personally,  I could care less about whether a man's chest or legs or arms are are exposed; except that he could get a nasty sunburn.  But I do believe that a woman should loosely cover herself from collar bones to knees.  That constitutes modesty in my own mind.  Tight clothing and see through stuff are also immodest.  But I leave it to each person to listen to God and refuse to stand in judgement of others.   And I refuse to be caught up in the dispute.  Godly love covers a multitude of sins.

[notsolostsoul]

4 hours ago, Willa said:

Godly love covers a multitude of sins.

Lovely and meaningful!!

Thank you!!!!

[kwikphilly]

Hmmm, did I say Adam & Eves covering didnt matter or that I thought it not relevant to the subject matter and I understand what the OP is asking and why he mentioned thar.....Sis,I think you are disagreeing with something I would agree with and did not say...     With love- in Christ, Kwik

[Neighbor]

On 7/16/2017 at 6:18 PM, missmuffet said:

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

    ..."and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."