Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recommended Posts

personal convictions are pretty darn Biblical!

They just don't apply to EVERYone.

 

I hate to be dense, but I'm not understanding what you're saying. And I would like to. :) I was thinking of someone who has a very strong personal conviction, such as it's wrong for women to wear a sleeveless dress to church, it's still not Biblical.

 

Thanks,

Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that still applies, braiding hair? I'm curious because I have long unruly hair and it is so much tidier if I braid it... but I haven't done that on Sundays for fear I'd be breaking God's dress code (the church doesn't care, they're just glad I'm there).
No. I am sorry I thought that it was implied/obvious. There is nothing wrong with braiding hair, which is why it is a good example. The reason hair braiding was in the scripture is that some Christian women were taking it to excess, making it into a show or contest. Jewelry and other things like that were mentioned in contrast to the quiet and mild spirit, to show that we are not to attach undue importance to these things. And that would go both ways wouldn't it?

 

I think that is perfectly acceptable. When I was reading Myrrh's post, I was thinking the entire Christian Church, and that's where I got stumped. If individual churches were to offer some helpful guidelines, I think that would be wise and probably very timely. I guess if an individual church wants to set specific requirements, they can do that. But then again the members can look for another church, right? Probably depends on the way the church believes on authority. General helpful guidelines, okay. Rules - not going to work.

 

Oh, and why are most talks, classes, whatever on modesty always directed at women? (Glad to see the one at your church included the males.) I have a few things I could say about the men. And I know girls look - cause I have girls. I agree men are more visual, but still...

 

Janet

Yes, there was quite a bit about males, but when they are required to wear a jacket and tie for worship it is hard to think of anything else. I know that they were encouraged to not copy the styles that we see pop stars and the such wearing. We were all encouraged to take in consideration the circumstances when we dress (suit and tie not appropriate for a volunteer construction job, where we might wear jeans, workboots, etc.).

 

Okay, when I saw you say that guidelines set forth for all Catholics I assumed that it would be understood that it would not be acceptable to "find another church", because then one would have to leave Catholicism. With Jehovah's Witnesses we can find another congregation within our organization, but the guidelines will not change. (We are usually encouraged to attend to the congregation that we are assigned to, it makes it easier to take care of all when disaster strikes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I am sorry I thought that it was implied/obvious. There is nothing wrong with braiding hair, which is why it is a good example. The reason hair braiding was in the scripture is that some Christian women were taking it to excess, making it into a show or contest. Jewelry and other things like that were mentioned in contrast to the quiet and mild spirit, to show that we are not to attach undue importance to these things. And that would go both ways wouldn't it?

 

I'm still learning and I wondered what it was God had against braids... Lol, it seems silly now, but my thought was, 'why would it be mentioned specifically unless it was important?'

 

So, braiding (scripterally) is used as an example of excessive concern with appearance, not that braiding is wrong, but it could be if you paid undue attention to it?

 

I do think that too much focus on modesty could be immodest. If you're too focused on your appearance (be it flashy or wall flower) then you aren't focusing where you SHOULD be focusing (ie God).

 

Sometimes it seems like you come in and straighten out the dissaray in my head, thank you Carmen :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Okay, when I saw you say that guidelines set forth for all Catholics I assumed that it would be understood that it would not be acceptable to "find another church", because then one would have to leave Catholicism. With Jehovah's Witnesses we can find another congregation within our organization, but the guidelines will not change. (We are usually encouraged to attend to the congregation that we are assigned to, it makes it easier to take care of all when disaster strikes.)

 

I'm afraid I don't make myself very clear at times. I was thinking of non-denominational Protestants finding another church if they were unhappy with what their Pastor was teaching. My sil became very unhappy with her church and Pastor and eventually found another church to attend. That wouldn't work in the Catholic Church because the same teaching would still be there. Of course, someone can have an issue with a particular priest and might look for another parish, but the church still teaches the same thing. Traditionally Catholics have always attended the parish assigned to their area. That doesn't seem to be true much anymore, but my dh is very adamant that we attend the parish for the area we live in - so we do.

 

ETA: I think I just repeated what you said. Not enough sleep, not enough coffee. I'm putting on another pot.

 

Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there is a footnoted, scripture referenced book out right now PAGAN CHRISTIANITY by Frank Viola that talks about how, actually, we aren't supposed to have pastors, and the church, the ekklesia, has only one head, and that is Christ. It goes in depth - scripture upon scripture- about what the ekklesia is, and how Christianity as we know it now in America is a hodge podge of pagan beliefs and rituals passed down from Constantine on.

 

But hey, sounds like you have judges us as being the church that God is going to vomit. Of course, David danced naked, his wife freaked on him and he was a man afer God's own heart. So, be careful who you judge.

 

Also, your love of winking emoticons-I think you've got something in your eye.

 

 

This is a problem that I am noticing. So many Christians do not stop and think about this... there are quite a few practices, that Christians in America have adapted, that are really pagan rituals! Do some research!

 

I am a Christian, by the way, but it bothers me when there are standards that Christians are supposedly supposed to follow that just aren't biblical.

 

As far as the modesty issue, I do believe Christians are supposed to dress modestly (this can still be pretty if you pick the right stuff), but I would never judge someone who did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me? Where did I say that? I said that my friends were surprised that I had sex that often and that I was somewhat concerned for them neglecting that part of their marriage. Perhaps I should have elaborated that the friends I was referring to are all mothers of young children who are in a very exhausting and transitional season of life where they aren't getting much sleep as they meet the many physical needs of babies and toddlers. It's not that they don't like sex--it's that they are too tired to "naturally" want to do it on a regular basis. That's where the 72 hour rule comes in handy. It doesn't mean that women should force themselves to do it every 72 hours, but being educated about it can help them to put more effort into that aspect of their marriage rather than temporarily (which could set a more permanent pattern) abandoning an integral part of their marriage, which will also ultimately help them in parenthood (being a team with their spouse requires intimacy).

 

Thank you Lisa.

 

Mrs. Mungo, I've noticed a pattern of you interpreting and twisting my words to make me fit in the box that you've labeled with my worldview. Why don't you try asking for clarification before assuming?

 

Interpreting what you're saying through my own experience is not twisting your words. You may have a different view than I do of the situations you describe. I've been a mother of young children, I'm extremely busy now. Except when he's been geographically unavailable my husband and I have never gone several weeks without being intimate. Therefore, I interpret going several weeks ignoring that part of your life as a couple to mean that the aren't that crazy about sex, if they aren't making it a priority.

 

I don't recall anyone on this thread advocating for legislating modesty. The crux of the argument (or at the least the one I was focusing on) was the virtue of modesty and what that looks like in practical terms in our day and culture. There are those arguing that it cannot be defined except each person for herself--in other words, it's all relative so no one can call anyone else immodest (or modest, for that matter)--and there are those saying that obeying the Bible's teaching of modesty can be carried out through generally agreed upon (for this day and age) practical guidelines (like not wearing clothing to deliberately draw attention to our bodies/sexuality, such as deliberately baring midriff, thighs, breasts, butt, or accentuating breasts and butts with skin tight clothing).

 

Let's examine this from another perspective. In Corinthians Paul gives a lot of instruction on the behavior of women. A lot of churches take this to heart as a general directive-women may not speak in church, may not be leaders, must ask questions through their husbands, etc. However, it really was something that was culturally driven by the many mystery cults at the time. It was intended to separate Christian practices from pagan mystery cults. How do you pick which culturally driven practices to keep and toss?

 

Well, then I guess should shut up about stem cell research and specific sex acts (not detailed in Scripture), and for that matter, the trinity, since that term is not stated anywhere in the Bible.

 

The term trinity is not mentioned but there is plenty of Scripture to draw from. I don't know what you mean by specific sex acts, I don't have a problem with anything two married people do between the two of them in the privacy of their bedroom. That's exactly the sort of thing that is extra-Biblical.

 

I went ahead and put the two things I was responding to above.

 

Now, if you want generally agreed upon terms, you'll have to stick with a particular group or church. Are you hoping that an entire country can come to generally agreed upon terms without enforcement??? Because, that's never going to happen. What is modest in Maine is not modest (rather uncomfortably dressed) in Hawaii. Why? Because the climate is very different, the society is very different, the culture is very different. I think the problem with generally agreed upon terms is that they assume that everyone everywhere will agree, and is in a position to agree. Someone in Phoenix might find the modest dress of someone from New England to be laughable, due to the mid day temps.

 

Agreed. You'll find many, many sleeveless dresses, tank tops, shorts, skirts above the knee in my church. It's the norm. They're worn by the pastor's wife, the church secretary, the worship team, etc. It's hot and humid here.

 

 

Do you think that still applies, braiding hair? I'm curious because I have long unruly hair and it is so much tidier if I braid it... but I haven't done that on Sundays for fear I'd be breaking God's dress code (the church doesn't care, they're just glad I'm there).
Personally, I think this is one of those things that was culturally driven, just like all standards of modesty, excess and such.

 

The problem with trying to apply these sorts of extra-Biblical standards to *everyone* is that you never can. It will *always* cause dissent. One of the thing my pastor speaks of most frequently is that the church body should NOT allow itself to become split on matters that are not doctrine. People need to be accepting of each other's decisions on modesty, teen dating v. courting, homeschooling v. not, none of those are DOCTRINE and if you cause division and hurt feelings by trying to claim it is (or even that it is something close to doctrine) then you are not working for God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. You'll find many, many sleeveless dresses, tank tops, shorts, skirts above the knee in my church. It's the norm. They're worn by the pastor's wife, the church secretary, the worship team, etc. It's hot and humid here.

 

That's pretty well what I thought. Where heavier garments up north make sense, as well as more coverage, that just does not work everywhere.

Personally, I think this is one of those things that was culturally driven, just like all standards of modesty, excess and such.

 

The problem with trying to apply these sorts of extra-Biblical standards to *everyone* is that you never can. It will *always* cause dissent. One of the thing my pastor speaks of most frequently is that the church body should NOT allow itself to become split on matters that are not doctrine. People need to be accepting of each other's decisions on modesty, teen dating v. courting, homeschooling v. not, none of those are DOCTRINE and if you cause division and hurt feelings by trying to claim it is (or even that it is something close to doctrine) then you are not working for God.

I have been to one church where clothing was an issue. I was absolutely STUNNED to be turned away, because I was wearing jeans. I mean, I just can't see God saying, you wore jeans?!? To hell with you!

 

I always imagined God saying something more like, don't worry about what you wear, I'll take care of it... oh, wait, He DID say that, didn't he :)

 

As for whether or not non-Christians need to dress modestly... why should they? and why does it matter? I mean, wouldn't salvation of their soul trump hiding their cleavage? And, if CHRISTIAN men are leering, then WHY are we worried about the worldly girl they're leering at?!? Shouldn't we be more concerned with bringing our "brother" back to the straight and narrow?

 

Jesus didn't say the world would be molded to make our walk easy. As a matter of fact, lamb among wolves comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with trying to apply these sorts of extra-Biblical standards to *everyone* is that you never can. It will *always* cause dissent. One of the thing my pastor speaks of most frequently is that the church body should NOT allow itself to become split on matters that are not doctrine. People need to be accepting of each other's decisions on modesty, teen dating v. courting, homeschooling v. not, none of those are DOCTRINE and if you cause division and hurt feelings by trying to claim it is (or even that it is something close to doctrine) then you are not working for God.
Good point.

 

I have been to one church where clothing was an issue. I was absolutely STUNNED to be turned away, because I was wearing jeans. I mean, I just can't see God saying, you wore jeans?!? To hell with you!
Whoa! Turned away? I am stunned as well.

 

As for whether or not non-Christians need to dress modestly... why should they? and why does it matter? I mean, wouldn't salvation of their soul trump hiding their cleavage? And, if CHRISTIAN men are leering, then WHY are we worried about the worldly girl they're leering at?!? Shouldn't we be more concerned with bringing our "brother" back to the straight and narrow?

 

Jesus didn't say the world would be molded to make our walk easy. As a matter of fact, lamb among wolves comes to mind.

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa! Turned away? I am stunned as well.

 

Good point.

That church defined modesty as women in dresses or skirts, pants were not allowed. I don't hold a grudge any more (handed that over to One better equipped to handle it), but it does pop into my head whenever I read fashion police type things. I wonder if anyone considers the folks that turn away because of it, and if they do, do they think their 'rules' are worth more than the salvation of another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for whether or not non-Christians need to dress modestly... why should they? and why does it matter? I mean, wouldn't salvation of their soul trump hiding their cleavage? And, if CHRISTIAN men are leering, then WHY are we worried about the worldly girl they're leering at?!? Shouldn't we be more concerned with bringing our "brother" back to the straight and narrow?

 

Jesus didn't say the world would be molded to make our walk easy. As a matter of fact, lamb among wolves comes to mind.

 

 

I have a question about this, and it's something I've read a few times around here that I've never understood about certain groups of Christians. What difference does it make if the cleavage-shower is non-Christian? To me, it sounds like "Oh, who cares what she does...she's going to Hell anyway." Am I understanding this right? I can see how a Christian woman shouldn't or wouldn't want to dress in a provocative way because it goes against her religious beliefs. But, we still have to LOOK at the provocative dresser, no matter what her religious beliefs are. I think that's the issue here, and what the OP intended a million pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question about this, and it's something I've read a few times around here that I've never understood about certain groups of Christians. What difference does it make if the cleavage-shower is non-Christian? To me, it sounds like "Oh, who cares what she does...she's going to Hell anyway." Am I understanding this right? I can see how a Christian woman shouldn't or wouldn't want to dress in a provocative way because it goes against her religious beliefs. But, we still have to LOOK at the provocative dresser, no matter what her religious beliefs are. I think that's the issue here, and what the OP intended a million pages ago.

Actually, I'm coming from the opposite view. If they're NOT a Christian, then shouldn't the major concern be... they aren't saved!?

 

And, just FYI, we don't have to look. David did not have to ogle Bathsheba, he most certainly didn't have to find out who she was and he did not have to invite her over. He could've glanced and (saving himself so much sorrow) gone inside.

 

I cannot expect someone else to keep me from sin. I can't even expect the world to make it easier for me to keep the right path. The world is full of wolves and rather than blaming the wolves it's about time the sheep started worrying about their own well being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point.

 

Whoa! Turned away? I am stunned as well.

 

Good point.

 

There's a church here where you are not allowed in the sanctuary unless you're in a dress - women that is. Men, suit and ties. That is for their usual Sunday service. I went to a funeral there with slack and they didn't say anything about that, though.

 

Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a church here where you are not allowed in the sanctuary unless you're in a dress - women that is. Men, suit and ties. That is for their usual Sunday service. I went to a funeral there with slack and they didn't say anything about that, though.

 

Janet

 

I don't even think 99% of the men here *own* a suit or tie. I don't think there would be anyone in church. :tongue_smilie: eta: Business wear is slacks and a nice "aloha" shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even think 99% of the men here *own* a suit or tie. I don't think there would be anyone in church. :tongue_smilie: eta: Business wear is slacks and a nice "aloha" shirt.

 

My dh has a funeral/wedding suit. Our dd just got married and he didn't even wear the suit. Black jeans, black shirt and hot pink tie - just what the bride requested. Church on Sunday is just casual for us - nice jeans or slacks.

 

Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my way of thinking, rules that would keep a person from salvation would not be godly. I can't afford to go cloths shopping, thank God I found a church that's accepting of all sorts of people and only asks that you be clothed :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I'm coming from the opposite view. If they're NOT a Christian, then shouldn't the major concern be... they aren't saved!?

 

And, just FYI, we don't have to look. David did not have to ogle Bathsheba, he most certainly didn't have to find out who she was and he did not have to invite her over. He could've glanced and (saving himself so much sorrow) gone inside.

 

I cannot expect someone else to keep me from sin. I can't even expect the world to make it easier for me to keep the right path. The world is full of wolves and rather than blaming the wolves it's about time the sheep started worrying about their own well being.

 

Thanks for trying to clear that up, but I'm still a little confused. Are you saying we need to turn all the wolves into sheep first, and then the modesty thing will resolve itself on its own? Or, are you saying there are always going to be wolves out there, so we need to just work really hard (i.e. by not looking at provocative dressers) so that we don't go astray. If it's the second, then it does sound so...I don't know....like "we're better than they are, and we're going to heaven, so let's not even mess with them."

 

I do agree that there are a lot of wolves out there, and following the right course (and teaching our children to do the same) gets harder and harder all the time with so many negative influences around.

 

I'm not trying to be dense (although I do feel a little dense at the moment!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for trying to clear that up, but I'm still a little confused. Are you saying we need to turn all the wolves into sheep first, and then the modesty thing will resolve itself on its own? Or, are you saying there are always going to be wolves out there, so we need to just work really hard (i.e. by not looking at provocative dressers) so that we don't go astray. If it's the second, then it does sound so...I don't know....like "we're better than they are, and we're going to heaven, so let's not even mess with them."

 

I do agree that there are a lot of wolves out there, and following the right course (and teaching our children to do the same) gets harder and harder all the time with so many negative influences around.

 

I'm not trying to be dense (although I do feel a little dense at the moment!)

I'm not saying we're better than them, we're not, which is why, rather than expending our energies pointing at them as immodest, we should concentrate on keeping ourselves on the straight and narrow.

 

Also, why should someone who is not religious, dress to accommodate religious people? Do religious people downgrade their beliefs to make athiests more comfortable?

 

Finally, demanding that others, who are not saved, abstain from sin is pointless. Salvation leads to works. Give them salvation and yes, of course, they'll move more towards God. Attack them for their clothes and then try to lead them to God and (crazy) they'll likely tell you where you can go.

 

Oh, and... it's always been hard to lead children in the way they should go. Justifying their sin, by saying the world is darker, or they can't help it, will not help them to be righteous and upstanding, rather it will give them excuses to wallow in sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Julie.

 

Let's examine this from another perspective. In Corinthians Paul gives a lot of instruction on the behavior of women. A lot of churches take this to heart as a general directive-women may not speak in church, may not be leaders, must ask questions through their husbands, etc. However, it really was something that was culturally driven by the many mystery cults at the time. It was intended to separate Christian practices from pagan mystery cults. How do you pick which culturally driven practices to keep and toss?
You don't. When we look at something in context, that does not mean assuming it is "culturally driven", especially in the Christian Greek scriptures. Looking at a scripture in context means that we are familiar with the whole Bible and know that it also says, "The women telling the good news are a large army". Men and women are destined to be corulers with Christ in heaven. Women were the first to know about Christ's resurrection. God told Abraham to listen to his wife. The head of the woman is the man, as Christ is head of the congregation. We take the scriptures as a whole and we understand that Paul must have had a different meaning to what he was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post Julie.

 

You don't. When we look at something in context, that does not mean assuming it is "culturally driven", especially in the Christian Greek scriptures. Looking at a scripture in context means that we are familiar with the whole Bible and know that it also says, "The women telling the good news are a large army". Men and women are destined to be corulers with Christ in heaven. Women were the first to know about Christ's resurrection. God told Abraham to listen to his wife. The head of the woman is the man, as Christ is head of the congregation. We take the scriptures as a whole and we understand that Paul must have had a different meaning to what he was saying.

 

Right, I agree. However, many Christian groups use those verses to subdue women and throw out Deborah or Jael. They have Titus 2 taking care of your home groups instead of focusing on work, trade and investment as described in Proverbs 31. Many people do not look deeper or for context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, I agree. However, many Christian groups use those verses to subdue women and throw out Deborah or Jael. They have Titus 2 taking care of your home groups instead of focusing on work, trade and investment as described in Proverbs 31. Many people do not look deeper or for context.

I agree....... You know, I think the problem I have with so many of the arguments is that it is very difficult for me to do blanket statements and most of these types of posts are nothing BUT blanket statements. Mrs. Mungo, thanks for conversing, rather than saying everyone is right/wrong. Carmen, you too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying we're better than them, we're not, which is why, rather than expending our energies pointing at them as immodest, we should concentrate on keeping ourselves on the straight and narrow.

 

Also, why should someone who is not religious, dress to accommodate religious people? Do religious people downgrade their beliefs to make athiests more comfortable?

 

Finally, demanding that others, who are not saved, abstain from sin is pointless. Salvation leads to works. Give them salvation and yes, of course, they'll move more towards God. Attack them for their clothes and then try to lead them to God and (crazy) they'll likely tell you where you can go.

 

Oh, and... it's always been hard to lead children in the way they should go. Justifying their sin, by saying the world is darker, or they can't help it, will not help them to be righteous and upstanding, rather it will give them excuses to wallow in sin.

 

I'm sorry if you were feeling defensive--that wasn't my intent. I really was just asking an honest question and explaining my interpretation of what I had read. We probably run in different religious circles (I'm Catholic) and I was just trying to get a deeper understanding of another's faith since you are obviously pretty knowledgeable in yours.

 

I do agree with what you are saying. We should lead by example. Attacking people is never a good way to lead them to God. I get that. I'm certainly not one who says, "Well, if you can't beat them, join them!" and then start "wallowing" in all sorts of sin.

 

I don't think non-religious people should dress to accomodate religious people. I do think they should be made aware of the fact the provocative clothes they are wearing could be considered offensive. If they keep it up, well....that's their decision. I can't stop them. But why can't I say that I don't like it? Gee whiz...Christians are always being forced to stop doing things because our crosses, 10 Commandments, etc...might be "offensive" to others of different faiths.

 

Maybe a little less finger shaking next time. It keeps people from asking honest questions if they feel they're going to get lectured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry if you were feeling defensive--that wasn't my intent. I really was just asking an honest question and explaining my interpretation of what I had read. We probably run in different religious circles (I'm Catholic) and I was just trying to get a deeper understanding of another's faith since you are obviously pretty knowledgeable in yours.

 

I do agree with what you are saying. We should lead by example. Attacking people is never a good way to lead them to God. I get that. I'm certainly not one who says, "Well, if you can't beat them, join them!" and then start "wallowing" in all sorts of sin.

 

I don't think non-religious people should dress to accomodate religious people. I do think they should be made aware of the fact the provocative clothes they are wearing could be considered offensive. If they keep it up, well....that's their decision. I can't stop them. But why can't I say that I don't like it? Gee whiz...Christians are always being forced to stop doing things because our crosses, 10 Commandments, etc...might be "offensive" to others of different faiths.

 

Maybe a little less finger shaking next time. It keeps people from asking honest questions if they feel they're going to get lectured.

?

 

I was answering you. I'm surprised you took it in such a negative light. As for the finger wagging, :lol:, I mean, c'mon now! You were joking, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry if you were feeling defensive--that wasn't my intent.

.......

Maybe a little less finger shaking next time. It keeps people from asking honest questions if they feel they're going to get lectured.

What? You asked a question, you got an answer. :001_huh:I really don't understand this reaction.

 

Right, I agree. However, many Christian groups use those verses to subdue women and throw out Deborah or Jael. They have Titus 2 taking care of your home groups instead of focusing on work, trade and investment as described in Proverbs 31. Many people do not look deeper or for context.
Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel that some scriptural guidelines apply. The point of the modesty scriptures was not to go into excess. (braiding of hair, etc.)

 

agreed. But what is "excessive" for one person may be minimal for another. Drinking alcohol and eating different foods are perfect examples.

 

Their are also many guidelines for dress of God's people under the Mosaic Law. I would think that deciding that since we don't live under the law, then pajama pants, ripped jeans and bunny slippers are acceptable to wear for times or places of worship would be ignoring the principle behind those guidelines.

Yes. But the principle behind THOSE guidelines was NOT necessarily something we as Christians want to be striving for. Again: personal conviction.

I would further think that God's people whether under the Law or Christian are to be set apart as a special people for his name and they wouldn't copy every unwholesome trend that Satan's world comes up with.

 

what Christian A considers "unwholesome" may look comPLETEly different from what Christian B considers unwholesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to be dense, but I'm not understanding what you're saying. And I would like to. :) I was thinking of someone who has a very strong personal conviction, such as it's wrong for women to wear a sleeveless dress to church, it's still not Biblical.

 

 

Personal convictions simply mean that it's ok for different people to have different standards as long as it is not something explicitly forbidden.

 

They are PERSONAL convictions because they apply to ONE person [or one person's immediate family].

 

sleeveless dresses:

if a woman is convicted to not wear a sleeveless dress to church, then she shouldn't wear a sleeveless dress to church. She should not be pressured into wearing one or judged as one with "weak faith" or "strong faith" -- she should simply be adored as a Child of God :)

 

if a woman loves wearing sleeveless dresses to church, she should continue wearing sleeveless dresses to church. She should not be pressured into wearing longer sleeves or judged as one with "weak faith" or "strong faith" -- she should simply be adored as a Child of God :)

 

It is Biblical that there will be differences among Christians. Personal convictions should be respected and honored. We are still called to be ready to "give an accounting" of our faith [including personal convictions], but that by no means has to look like some sort of inquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the Space Center Houston, homeschool (only)day yesterday.

 

Very little cleavage was seen. ;):001_smile::001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of just have cleavage. It's not like you sign up for it. You just get it. (Or buy it, but in my case I came with it.) ;)

 

I don't usually show cleavage, but I live in Miami where it is inhumanly hot in winter and simply uninhabitable in summer. When I wear a t-shirt with a U-neck (as opposed to a man's t-shirt that goes up to the neck), I show a little bit of cleavage.

 

I'm not willing to wear high necklines in summer, or even winter, for that matter. If people mind a little cleavage, they must avert their gaze!:D I'm not going to give myself heat stroke and people are always free to use brain bleach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at the Space Center Houston, homeschool (only)day yesterday.

 

Very little cleavage was seen. ;):001_smile::001_smile:

 

ditto with most homeschool conventions ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's not forget the vertical wrinkles I get in the morning: Faux Cleavage. Let's call it Fleavage.

 

I flaunt my fleavage. If my fleavage is lacking, I can always walk around trying to touch my elbows together at my bellybutton, thus creating Temporary Cleavage. Teavage.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I am ROFL while my kids are gathered around me saying What? What? WHAT???!!!! (they want to know what's so funny)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, I remember some rocks stars in the late 70s/early 80s that wore jeans so tight you could take their pulse from 10' away IYKWIM. It was pretty darn hard to look away but I was much younger then. Raging hormones and all that. :tongue_smilie:

 

LOL When I read this post initially I figured that you were probably talking about David Lee Roth and his butt-cut-out pants, but I couldn't resist putting this up here for you. I figured it would make you smile. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Large breasts are a pain. One of the nuisances is how the natural movement of walking, reaching and doing can somehow undo blouse buttons. I'm not so sure how this works, but I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-button certain very necessary buttons. In desperation, I've even sewn the front of some of my shirts shut.

 

There's two sides to the "OMG doesn't she know she looks like a tramp?" issue. Being large up top isn't something most of us asked for, and finding shirts can be a pain. Bimbo costumes are the style right now. Shirts are fitted, and very short. To make things worse, the pants are low cut on the hips. I don't want to dress like a tramp, but finding decent clothes is a hassle. Yes I sew, but not because I like to. Sometimes sewing is my only option.

 

:iagree:

 

I haven't read all these replies, but sometimes the cleavage is accidental. As someone who just had reduction surgery 6 months ago, I can attest to that. It's much easier to keep them covered now. Before, I could NEVER find a bathing suit that didn't force me to have serious cleavage issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL When I read this post initially I figured that you were probably talking about David Lee Roth and his butt-cut-out pants, but I couldn't resist putting this up here for you. I figured it would make you smile. :)

 

 

 

 

:tongue_smilie: I forgot about the codpieces. Check out some of the old Steve Perry with early Journey and Billy Squire for a few examples of what I was talking about. Their pants had to have been painted on. And just recently I was watching 17 Again with my teeny-boppers. In the beginning montage, Zac Ephron is were nothing but basketball shorts. If he was a girl people would have been screaming foul left and right. But eye candy for the ladies, even extremely young ladies? No porblem, no questions asked. Weird culture we live in I tell ya. Thanks though. I am all about the smiles this week. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:tongue_smilie: I forgot about the codpieces. Check out some of the old Steve Perry with early Journey and Billy Squire for a few examples of what I was talking about. Their pants had to have been painted on. And just recently I was watching 17 Again with my teeny-boppers. In the beginning montage, Zac Ephron is were nothing but basketball shorts. If he was a girl people would have been screaming foul left and right. But eye candy for the ladies, even extremely young ladies? No porblem, no questions asked. Weird culture we live in I tell ya. Thanks though. I am all about the smiles this week. :)

You know, dh and I were talking about it and he mentioned Cher. I don't think I've seen anyone lately who is even close to the things Cher used to wear. Dh says we've all forgotten, because her gigantic hair made it so hard to see her clothes (or lack thereof). :lol:

 

:p I've been having a smiley fest all week too ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, dh and I were talking about it and he mentioned Cher. I don't think I've seen anyone lately who is even close to the things Cher used to wear. Dh says we've all forgotten, because her gigantic hair made it so hard to see her clothes (or lack thereof). :lol:

 

:p I've been having a smiley fest all week too ;)

 

That's true!! Gosh Cher! What was up with her in the 80's?? lol Remeber the Jack Lalanne commercials she did with the big spikey hair? :lol: I agree with you, with the exception of Madonna walking down the street nekkid I can't think of anybody else who could touch Cher in the scantily clad dept. ;) :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true!! Gosh Cher! What was up with her in the 80's?? lol Remeber the Jack Lalanne commercials she did with the big spikey hair? :lol: I agree with you, with the exception of Madonna walking down the street nekkid I can't think of anybody else who could touch Cher in the scantily clad dept. ;) :p

Madonna, though, wore complete underwear. I remember Cher wearing things that looked like nothing but one long strap that just (JUST) covered her hoohoos and her haha. Oh, but the hair, holy cow you couldn't hardly see HER past the hair :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madonna, though, wore complete underwear. I remember Cher wearing things that looked like nothing but one long strap that just (JUST) covered her hoohoos and her haha. Oh, but the hair, holy cow you couldn't hardly see HER past the hair :rofl:

 

Yes I agree! Although I do remember some Madonna stunt where she literally walked down the street completely naked through traffic with her thumb up like she was hitch hiking. :rolleyes: IIRC nobody offered her a ride either. :tongue_smilie:

 

yeah Cher's fashions certainly changed over time. **Warning** Icky Cher pics inside. Do not open if you don't want to be assaulted by bad fashion. :tongue_smilie:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tomkarr.com/images/SONNY__CHERa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tomkarr.com/concert.html&usg=__6uZ4fQxYmrTiqDnVPHOd_BhE2_Y=&h=372&w=286&sz=28&hl=en&start=38&tbnid=erRu1PNkXX27eM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsonny%2Band%2BCher%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36

 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Cher-Photograph-C12142223.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D105x7391724&usg=__6jhRxLogRFOB3r_mSzqzlpd8tZg=&h=450&w=362&sz=33&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=Udxl3T8kXuRUwM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCher%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I agree! Although I do remember some Madonna stunt where she literally walked down the street completely naked through traffic with her thumb up like she was hitch hiking. :rolleyes: IIRC nobody offered her a ride either. :tongue_smilie:

 

yeah Cher's fashions certainly changed over time. **Warning** Icky Cher pics inside. Do not open if you don't want to be assaulted by bad fashion. :tongue_smilie:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tomkarr.com/images/SONNY__CHERa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tomkarr.com/concert.html&usg=__6uZ4fQxYmrTiqDnVPHOd_BhE2_Y=&h=372&w=286&sz=28&hl=en&start=38&tbnid=erRu1PNkXX27eM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsonny%2Band%2BCher%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36

 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Cher-Photograph-C12142223.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D105x7391724&usg=__6jhRxLogRFOB3r_mSzqzlpd8tZg=&h=450&w=362&sz=33&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=Udxl3T8kXuRUwM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCher%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

:001_huh: Those fashions are truly timeless. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:w00t:

 

At the grocery store, at church ... and not just a little!!

 

 

:001_huh:

 

Naturally, it would be legalistic to keep your items to yourself.:D (see legalism thread!) But seriously, it is bizarre to be checking your child into Sunday School and the helper is bending over signing them in spilling all their goods. It has happened to me repeatedly at many different churches. It's a systemic problem. I have told a few of them that their top was open and they just looked at me like I had two heads. I mean, spilling books is like spinach in my teeth--I want to know! Not these people. So, there's my husband and my 15 year old standing there having to practice eye-bouncing techniques in church. Women today are just selfish. They wear what they want to w/o regard to stumbling husbands and pubescent (sp) boys. Pretty gross if you asked me. Modesty is outdated I guess. See legalism.....obedience, the new legalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought this thread had died. :) But since it didn't, I wanted to share something I saw a couple of days ago while driving down the street: an SUV with the license plate

 

IM DBL D

 

You can imagine how eager I was to check out the driver's assets. But when I pulled up beside the SUV - it was a man! His car must've been in the shop and he had to borrow his wife's, perhaps?

 

Anyway, I thought of this thread, and also thought, "Only in Orange County!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Bossy unbuttoned my shirt at church once. The female youth minister told me about it. She said, "Please don't flash me wearing a plain pink bra. Leather and chains, I might be interested in, though." I was just glad that she told me.

 

Ten years earlier, Mr. Clever did the same thing to me. The male Senior Warden said, "I think we will get a lot of donations with that outfit, but probably not for the right reasons."

 

I guess that goes under the category of accidental exhibitionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tried to catch up on all the comments but it's not going to happen, so I guess I'll try the 60 second reply:

 

(start out serious): Legalism is indeed worse than indiscretion. (rapidly digress into sarcasm): Let's just walk around naked, since even if we cover every inch our bodies, there will be men who lust after us. There's no way we can not cause others to stumble, so that portion of Scripture which tells us to be sensitive to other people's weaknesses is just there for the rare spirit led moment, not every day living. And verses about modesty (as well as it being modeled throughout the Bible) really have no practical application today because of cultural irrelevance and the danger of any "effort" (actual acts of discerning and choosing) becoming legalism. (suddenly break out into song): Shake your booty, yeah, awhaw, I like it. (and finally, close with Shakespeare): Thou (of bare breast) doth protest.

 

:p

 

What she said. Effort would be like sweating drops of blood which is SO New Testament....unthinkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...