Is There A Difference In?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Ah, so if they don't know they are sinning, it's not a sin? So if they commit fornication and adultery and not know it's a sin...God winks at their ignorance?

You mean Adam and eves first sin was nakedness instead of eating the forbidden fruit?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Adam and Eve were naked before God. It wasn't a sin....until they knew they were naked. What made nakedness sinful?

Compare that to jungle people who wear little or no clothing. Do they know they are naked? If they don't consider themselves naked, is it still sinful for them? And how do we teach them to dress, according to Western culture? Do you really want to tell those women that baring their breasts is a sin? Understand that they are not the ones doing so because it's sinful. And they also believe they are modest in what they are wearing, even if it's necklaces and other ornamentation that denotes who they are in their tribe and such.

God didn't make nakedness sinful. Man did.

Of course God didn't introduce sin into the world; man did. That doesn't have anything to do with whether we should NOW be clothed.

I see nothing wrong with teaching heathen cultures that they should cover their bodies. What possible damage does that cause? I don't think you approach it with "You're committing sin by exposing your breasts; cover them so you won't go to hell." I think you approach it with kindness and in the sense of educating ignorance. It is ignorance for a woman to expose her breasts and other parts of her body and be unaware of her affect on men around her. Ignorance can be repaired by educating with kindness, patience and understanding. Foolishness is being fully aware of that effect and thinking it's fine to expose oneself anyway (immodesty).

Here's a question: Do you think it's immodest for an American woman to go to another part of the world where it's considered titillating for a woman to reveal her neck, for instance, and to wear her hair up? (Being fully aware of the culture.)

Immodesty isn't passive or accidental; it's intentional. I don't believe children are immodest when they streak through the house; they are innocent. IMO, immodesty is purposely presenting oneself with the intention of provoking sexual interest (obviously that doesn't apply to one's spouse). It also involves behavior, conversation and attitudes like flamboyance and brassiness.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sasha

To me, it's just clothing. There is no scripture where clothing was ever made a big deal about except in the Law, which no longer applies.

Perhaps if we put as much emphasis on love for one another and faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel, we wouldn't need to preach about how people should dress.

Modesty, standards, living a holy life free from offense, being careful to maintain good works before the saved and the lost, obeying God's word, and not being a stumblingblock IS the best way to put an "emphasis on love for one another and faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel".

How else do we love one another if not by making certain that our behavior (which includes our appearance) is becoming of Godliness?

And since the Gospel refers first to the death of the Messiah, a death that atoned for and allows for the salvation of the world, we must ask ourselves what Paul said about "sinning against a brother [and I would add sister] for whom Christ DIED" by undertaking certain actions which cause them to offend and be led into sin by following a bad example.

All things are lawful for us, but not all things are expedient.

We are bought with a price and we are not our own.

Do you avow or disavow these truths?

If so, then how is it that these two truths don't apply to personal appearance, specifically to how we dress, especially if how we dress might cause lust or some other divisive difficulty in the Body and Her Christ we claim to love.

1 John 3:14,

14. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Part (not all) of me loving my brethren and my sisters in the Lord is by not hurting their faith with my liberty.

1 Peter 2:16,

16. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

I may be free in the presence of God to appear as I chose (even to the point of Adam or Eve's innocence in the Garden). But I cannot use such a freedom while in the presence of anyone besides God, lest in so doing, I (even inadvertently) put an occasion to fall in someone's way.

Before we were married, while courting, my wife attended Apostolic Bible Institute in St. Paul, MN. There, the male students are required everyday on campus, to wear a shirt and tie, with slacks. The shirt is required to be white only.

A seemingly over the top, ridiculous rule engendered by a Pharisaical approach to outward appearance.

But you know what I did, as a non-student, when I visited my, at the time, girlfriend on campus?

I submitted and wore a white shirt, tie, slacks, and/even a suit jacket. I wasn't required by any rule to do so. I wasn't a student. But for the sake of other men who had agreed to submit by becoming students, I dressed no differently than they in order that they wouldn't feel discouraged or upset. I also did so, so that the leadership there would not be offended at me whenever I came to the school.

Matthew 23:1-3,

1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Pharisees set the standard for life among the Jews in 1st century Palestine. And Jesus Himself commanded His followers to observe whatever standard they set before the people.

So we can cry and bemoan the Pharisees in leadership in whatever OP org you want to knock for harping so much about a clothesline standard. Or you can give serious heed to what Jesus said above, and for the sake of unity and the brother or sister next to you, submit to a higher standard than even the Lord requires of you, so those of weak faith who will get offended, don't faithlessly follow your example to their own ruination, because they assumed against their own conscience, that because you have a liberty to dress as you please, they can, too.

Romans 14:23b,

23. ...whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You mean Adam and eves first sin was nakedness instead of eating the forbidden fruit?

no

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

no

Then don't you agree with the poster that said that nakedness only became wrong after adam and eve became aware that they were naked?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Ah, so if they don't know they are sinning, it's not a sin? So if they commit fornication and adultery and not know it's a sin...God winks at their ignorance?

You didn't answer the question.

What makes nakedness a sin? And what is it? How is it defined?

Private parts are nakedness? What private parts?

And who defines it? It appears to me we cover less skin than they did for thousands of years in the Bible, both men and women alike. Are we sinning because we show more? If so, does God wink at our ignorance or are we going to split hell wide open?

And stop comparing nakedness to fornication and adultery. Those are never compared in the Bible and aren't comparable now. It's just like people who compare those who don't follow standards to be dressing like people on the beach and street walkers.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes. God made coats for them

Gen 3:21 And for Adam and his wife Jehovah God made coats of skins, and clothed them.

Same word for

Gen 37:3 And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a tunic reaching to the soles of his feet.

It was by no means a pair of thongs



It ties into what you asked me about MODESTY and the Bible. Did you read through it? We weren't discussing "other than to be modest"...odd

We weren't discussing how it equates to Holiness.

I don't know what you mean by 'we', but from the first post, this thread has been about holiness and how it equates. That's how I read it anyway.

So, living in SD, do you wear a coat to cover yourself in public?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Of course God didn't introduce sin into the world; man did. That doesn't have anything to do with whether we should NOW be clothed.

I see nothing wrong with teaching heathen cultures that they should cover their bodies. What possible damage does that cause? I don't think you approach it with "You're committing sin by exposing your breasts; cover them so you won't go to hell." I think you approach it with kindness and in the sense of educating ignorance. It is ignorance for a woman to expose her breasts and other parts of her body and be unaware of her affect on men around her. Ignorance can be repaired by educating with kindness, patience and understanding. Foolishness is being fully aware of that effect and thinking it's fine to expose oneself anyway (immodesty).

Here's a question: Do you think it's immodest for an American woman to go to another part of the world where it's considered titillating for a woman to reveal her neck, for instance, and to wear her hair up? (Being fully aware of the culture.)

Immodesty isn't passive or accidental; it's intentional. I don't believe children are immodest when they streak through the house; they are innocent. IMO, immodesty is purposely presenting oneself with the intention of provoking sexual interest (obviously that doesn't apply to one's spouse). It also involves behavior, conversation and attitudes like flamboyance and brassiness.

Do you think it's...what's the word...well, can't think of it. Let me put it this way. Muslim women think you expose yourself too much. Would it be ok with you if they came to your 'village' to teach you how to dress 'modestly' so you stop exposing too much of your nakedness?

The jungle people aren't coming here to tell us it's ok to walk around naked. They don't share that definition with the rest of the world in the same manner. They don't believe they are naked when certain areas are covered.

I do like your last sentence, however. The jungle people aren't exposing themselves in an effort to attract sexual interest. If you have ever watched Nat Geo, you will see that the men don't seem to notice that women are hardly dressed. It's completely normal for them to be exposed that way.

You are right. Immodesty is intentional. That definition, like modesty, is also subjective. We have all kinds of extremes in this world, but just because our culture and society defines it a certain way doesn't mean the rest of the world should follow suit, nor does it mean that those who see it differently are sinning.

And Prax, unlike nakedness, fornication and adultery definitions are absolute.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Then don't you agree with the poster that said that nakedness only became wrong after adam and eve became aware that they were naked?

Thank you. LOL!

[votivesoul]

I have a second cousin who is a retired teacher, who worked in Arizona (or New Mexico, I can't recall) who used to deal with Native American children stealing from the classroom and their classmates (from tables and desks and etc.).

When caught, the Native American students would say "It's not stealing. They left it behind so they obviously didn't want it, which means it's now mine".

My cousin came to understand that the tribe in question had a culturally different view and definition of stealing. He tried to accommodate the difference in his classroom, but could only do so much.

So I ask you, if someone went through your personal belongings, removed an item and refused to return it, then claimed, it's not stealing, would you say "You're right, according to your cultural view of things, it's not stealing and therefore, I won't seek my personal item from you."? Would you consider what they did a sin before God, seeing how no thief will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)?

Cultural norms, no matter how normal they seem to the people who participate in the culture, are not how God defines morality. His definitions and His alone, are acceptable to Him. All else misses the mark.

The chief, primary feature of God's morality is this: do unto others as you would have done unto you. It branches off from there.

If you would like to be free from having to view, in your eyes, an excessive amount of human skin and body parts, because it causes you some level of lust or other temptation, then you yield and do not do the same. You cover yourself up. Not because anyone is commanding it of you, but so you don't become a hypocritical do as I say, but not as I do believer in Jesus.

You realize your standard (there's the word again!) of dress and appearance isn't based on your culture. It's based on the morality instituted by God for all humankind, no matter where they live, jungle or not.