PDA

View Full Version : Are Christians ignoring a law



Gabriel250
Jun 26th 2008, 10:56 PM
should Christians Girls wear head coverings because the Bible says to do so in 1 Corinthians 11: 10 need to under stand more

Whispering Grace
Jun 26th 2008, 11:05 PM
Verse 15 says a woman's hair is given for a covering.

15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.


Kind of makes me wonder why so many Christian women have short hair if long hair is a glory to her. But I guess we could all argue about what, exactly, constitutes long.

9Marksfan
Jun 26th 2008, 11:11 PM
Some women just cannot physically grow their hair long - what should they do? And isn't the main principle in that passage that it should be obvious that the women are distinct from the men and should have a sign of authority on their head? We are told to judge for ourselves what is right - but Paul pointed out that he has NO SUCH CUSTOM (ie wearing a head covering) - and neither did the other churches! Folks seem to forget this key verse!

timmyb
Jun 26th 2008, 11:52 PM
that was a very important meaning Paul was trying to tell the churches... they can do that if their convictions allowed... some cultures don't do that... and Paul was trying to say that's ok... God's not trying to change people's culture, he's trying to change their hearts....

jayne
Jun 27th 2008, 12:16 AM
Nothing that the Apostle Paul wrote was a law. The Law was written by Moses.

Let's start with the context of 1 Corinthians 11.

Verse 3
Paul says that there is an order in authority. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. The man (husband) is the head of woman (the wife). None of this implies inequality or inferiority. Just as God is the head of Christ and yet they are One, the husband is the head of the wife, yet they also, are one flesh. He is her head, not her task-master just as God is the head of Christ, not His task-master.

Verses 11-12
Paul says that the man and the woman are of equal worth in the sight of God. That while she is made for him....he could not exist without her. In the Lord, Paul says, they are nothing without each other.

Verses 4 , 7, and 14
Paul says that when a man prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that his head should be uncovered. In fact, he says that his hair should be relatively short compared to a woman's hair. Note that no particular length is specified. He is to look like a man. He is to bring glory to God in his appearance and because his head (Christ) is invisible, (note*...this is my opinion) he cannot visibly show a sign of submission to the invisible.

Verses 5, 6, and 10
Paul says that when a woman prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that her head should be covered. He mentions a head covering, but also makes note that her hair, in it's relative longer length than a man's is a covering in and of itself. He mentions "shorn" women. There were pagan temple prostitutes (both men and women) who shaved their heads. These women were notorious. Paul states that relatively longer hair (note that no specific length is mentioned) shows that a wife recognizes the headship of her husband and therefore brings glory to him. Not in a worshipful sense because she is not inferior to him or unworthy of a voice in the relationship, but in a sense of respect for him, as she is asked to do anyway. Also, (note* this is my opinion) a wife's head, the husband is visible, and therefore she can show a tangible respect of his authority with a covering or with hair at least coming to the bottom of her neck.

Paul also mentions that she should do this for the benefit of angels. The angels in heaven with God have no concept of a relationship with Him. Christ didn't die for those angels. So when a woman shows respect for her authority (not a mealy-mouthed inferior status), the angels are impressed and learn.

Why do Christian women today not wear a head covering around their husbands or in church when they pray or prophesy?

Some do. But, burkahs and long flowing robes, aren't the cultural norms anymore. However, respect for authority never goes out of style. A woman can keep relatively lengthy hair, (from a longer "bob") and lengthier and still be in tune with Paul's explanation.

Moreover, one can "dress" the part, but not believe the part in one's heart. A man could possibly have short hair and still beat his wife and treat her like the chief-cook and bottle washer. How can he have respect for his authority, Christ, if he does not obey God's command to love his wife more than his own body. Love is an action word, not an emotion. He, like Christ, is to sacrifice himself daily for her sake....in every imaginable way possible.

And a wife could have hair so long that she can sit on it and wear head covering to church all of the time and still disrespect her husband and mumble and gripe all of the time behind his back. How can she have respect for God's Word and Christ, if she doesn't treat her husband with the proper respect? She, like the church, is to deny herself daily and do whatever it takes to make her husband feel respected.

So, just as circumcision used to be an outward sign of a relationship with God and now circumcision of the heart is what is warranted, a literally cloth head covering was symbolic of a woman's respect for her husband when she prayed and prophecied, but an attitudinal "covering" of the heart goes a lot farther.

I think that it is more important to stress that a woman behaves with respect than if she shows respect with a piece of cloth, but for those women who do wear head coverings, I hold them in just as high esteem as I do myself.

theleast
Jun 27th 2008, 12:24 AM
However women do need to exercise modesty which is missed in today's culture.

16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
21The rings, and nose jewels,
22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. 26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

and...

9In 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;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

And yet women today adorn themselves with makeup, jewels, and all the latest fashions, with their hair curled or straightened or braided or died or any combination there of. This also adds to the sins of men who then go after them in lusting fashion. This does not excuse the men as we are to pursue those things of the spirit and not of the flesh. But I would like to see more women practicing modesty.

davidandme
Jun 27th 2008, 01:05 AM
In the time of Jesus, prostitutes had short hair. Paul is talking about clutural respect. Did you know that women couldn't even enter the Temple? Not only that, they couldn't ask their husbans a question at the Temple. A question would bring shame to their husbans. I am sure that they are many women today that are glad that they don't live in that culture.

jayne
Jun 27th 2008, 01:07 AM
However women do need to exercise modesty which is missed in today's culture.

I agree with you.



16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
21The rings, and nose jewels,
22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. 26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.



However, this passage from Isaiah 3, while using the imagery of an immodest woman is not a directive imperative to the women of Israel. This passage is a metaphoric condemnation of all of His people at the time and not directly intended to any particular people. The people understood what a brazen woman looked like, and thus the imagery.

The book of Psalms and the Song of Solomon also uses the phrase "daughters of Judah" and "daughters of Zion" calling them to rejoice over God and his Law and specifically over the ordination of Solomon. Of course, this is not literally to women only, but to all of Judah and Zion. Again, the imagery of the woman is metaphoric.




9In 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;
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.



This passage is specifically addressed to women. Note it says not with "costly" array. This means that light make-up, nice clothes, and modest jewelry are perfectly fine. Anything that brings attention to you in a bold manner (Tammy Faye Baker) or that boasts and brags of your wealth isn't modest. Women are to be more concerned with behaving in a Christ-like manner than to be overly concerned with their appearance. Unfortunately, men aren't always attracted to a Christ-like manner, but the appearance, thus the sad state of some women who dress immodestly to gain a man's favor because she feels that is her only recourse. These women are to be pitied.

Jubal
Jun 27th 2008, 01:09 AM
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. -Galatians 5:14;18

mikebr
Jun 27th 2008, 01:12 AM
should Christians Girls wear head coverings because the Bible says to do so in 1 Corinthians 11: 10 need to under stand more
I think I'll choose to ignore this one.

9Marksfan
Jun 27th 2008, 08:52 AM
Nothing that the Apostle Paul wrote was a law. The Law was written by Moses.

In many ways this is a really excellent post, but you raise one or two matters I'd like to comment upon. Do you accept that what Paul wrote were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37)?



Let's start with the context of 1 Corinthians 11.

Verse 3
Paul says that there is an order in authority. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. The man (husband) is the head of woman (the wife). None of this implies inequality or inferiority. Just as God is the head of Christ and yet they are One, the husband is the head of the wife, yet they also, are one flesh. He is her head, not her task-master just as God is the head of Christ, not His task-master.

Verses 11-12
Paul says that the man and the woman are of equal worth in the sight of God. That while she is made for him....he could not exist without her. In the Lord, Paul says, they are nothing without each other.

Verses 4 , 7, and 14
Paul says that when a man prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that his head should be uncovered. In fact, he says that his hair should be relatively short compared to a woman's hair. Note that no particular length is specified. He is to look like a man. He is to bring glory to God in his appearance and because his head (Christ) is invisible, (note*...this is my opinion) he cannot visibly show a sign of submission to the invisible.

Very interesting point, which I'd never thought of before - it has much merit!


Verses 5, 6, and 10
Paul says that when a woman prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that her head should be covered. He mentions a head covering, but also makes note that her hair, in it's relative longer length than a man's is a covering in and of itself. He mentions "shorn" women. There were pagan temple prostitutes (both men and women) who shaved their heads. These women were notorious. Paul states that relatively longer hair (note that no specific length is mentioned) shows that a wife recognizes the headship of her husband and therefore brings glory to him. Not in a worshipful sense because she is not inferior to him or unworthy of a voice in the relationship, but in a sense of respect for him, as she is asked to do anyway. Also, (note* this is my opinion) a wife's head, the husband is visible, and therefore she can show a tangible respect of his authority with a covering or with hair at least coming to the bottom of her neck.

Paul also mentions that she should do this for the benefit of angels. The angels in heaven with God have no concept of a relationship with Him.

Can we really say that? Didn't Adam and Eve have a relationship with God before the Fall? Surely what you mean is that they don't have REDEMPTIVE relationship with Him?


Christ didn't die for those angels. So when a woman shows respect for her authority (not a mealy-mouthed inferior status), the angels are impressed and learn.

This is a notoriously difficult verse but I think that what is more likely is that Paul is referring to the fallen angels who REJECTED God's authority - and it is for the WOMEN (and I guess everyoen present) to learn about God's order in things and proper submission and respect for the authoirty of THEIR head - lest some of them suffer the same fate as the angels who fell.....


Why do Christian women today not wear a head covering around their husbands or in church when they pray or prophesy?

Some do. But, burkahs and long flowing robes, aren't the cultural norms anymore. However, respect for authority never goes out of style.

Well said - excellent point! :thumbsup:


A woman can keep relatively lengthy hair, (from a longer "bob") and lengthier and still be in tune with Paul's explanation.

Moreover, one can "dress" the part, but not believe the part in one's heart. A man could possibly have short hair and still beat his wife and treat her like the chief-cook and bottle washer. How can he have respect for his authority, Christ, if he does not obey God's command to love his wife more than his own body. Love is an action word, not an emotion. He, like Christ, is to sacrifice himself daily for her sake....in every imaginable way possible.

And a wife could have hair so long that she can sit on it and wear head covering to church all of the time and still disrespect her husband and mumble and gripe all of the time behind his back. How can she have respect for God's Word and Christ, if she doesn't treat her husband with the proper respect? She, like the church, is to deny herself daily and do whatever it takes to make her husband feel respected.

Excellent and very important points.


So, just as circumcision used to be an outward sign of a relationship with God and now circumcision of the heart is what is warranted, a literally cloth head covering was symbolic of a woman's respect for her husband when she prayed and prophecied, but an attitudinal "covering" of the heart goes a lot farther.

I think that it is more important to stress that a woman behaves with respect than if she shows respect with a piece of cloth,

Absolutely - this ties in very much with Gal 6:15.


but for those women who do wear head coverings, I hold them in just as high esteem as I do myself.

Are we meant to hold ourselves in high esteem? Paul considered he was the chief of sinners - we are to humble ourselves (lit. put ourselves down) in order that God may exalt us in due time (future, btw, not present). But that's maybe the topic for another thread!

Great, insightful post - thanks! :)

jayne
Jun 27th 2008, 01:42 PM
In many ways this is a really excellent post, but you raise one or two matters I'd like to comment upon. Do you accept that what Paul wrote were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37)?

Yes.

I see Paul as saying, "You can't disagree with me on any of this because I didn't say it....God did." The directives that Paul gave throughout the New Testament do not have the same purpose as the Law of Moses. The Law was intended to show you that you were a sinner and the Law couldn't not save you.

Pauls directives were how to behave after the fact of becoming a Christian. While obeying them didn't and still doesn't save you, Paul's commandments were to show that you were a Christian.

I assumed that the original poster was coming from a legalistic standpoint of requiring Christians to base their righteousness on their works. That's why I said that what Paul wrote was not the Law.

If I do not wear a literal cloth on my head, but do wear relatively longer hair than a man and give the appearance of a woman and behave with respect, then I am just as righteous as the woman who does the same thing, yet does it with a cloth on her head.

I was trying to take away the legalistic view of headcoverings.



Can we really say that? Didn't Adam and Eve have a relationship with God before the Fall? Surely what you mean is that they don't have REDEMPTIVE relationship with Him?

Yes.....angels do not have a redemptive relationship with God. Fallen angels cannot be redeemed because they were already and literally in God's Holy Presence and were 100% consumed by His Glory when they decided to leave Him and follow satan. The promise of one day living with God in His heaven is moot for them, because they were already there. The notion of turning away from evil and turning to God for redemption is invalid for them. The angels who remained behind and stayed with God have nothing to be saved from....no evil nature to be redeemed from. They exist as they were originally created - God's obedient servants. They aren't considered sinless - only Jesus Christ is sinless. They are just created and obedient servants.





This is a notoriously difficult verse but I think that what is more likely is that Paul is referring to the fallen angels who REJECTED God's authority - and it is for the WOMEN (and I guess everyoen present) to learn about God's order in things and proper submission and respect for the authoirty of THEIR head - lest some of them suffer the same fate as the angels who fell.....

hmmmm........let me chew on that a while. :)



Are we meant to hold ourselves in high esteem? Paul considered he was the chief of sinners - we are to humble ourselves (lit. put ourselves down) in order that God may exalt us in due time (future, btw, not present). But that's maybe the topic for another thread!

I believe that a healthy self-esteem is not contradictory to humility. I'm not talking about a boastful self-promotion, but a rejoicing that God fearfully and wonderfully made me and called me to be His child and gave me gifts, talents, joys, tears, and a standard by which to live my life (His Word).

I meant that I would not look down upon a woman who insisted that a literal headcovering was indicative of righteousness (as many women of this type of thinking do).

Have a blessed day -

Sold Out
Jun 27th 2008, 02:52 PM
However women do need to exercise modesty which is missed in today's culture.

But I would like to see more women practicing modesty.

For goodness sakes yes! I have always been pretty modest and thank goodness my daughter is super-modest. I can hardly get her to wear a bathing suit (she's 13). The girls she goes to school with look like little tramps...I know that sounds harsh, but they do. And who's fault is it? Their parents! They buy them the clothes and watch them walk out the door with them on!

We would have less sexual problems in our society if women would practice more modesty. Men are driven by what they see, and women use it like a weapon (usually unknowingly). You poor guys! How hard it is to keep your mind pure!

jayne
Jun 27th 2008, 03:36 PM
For goodness sakes yes! I have always been pretty modest and thank goodness my daughter is super-modest. I can hardly get her to wear a bathing suit (she's 13). The girls she goes to school with look like little tramps...I know that sounds harsh, but they do. And who's fault is it? Their parents! They buy them the clothes and watch them walk out the door with them on!

While I agree with you that modesty is important and has been ignored lately in our culture, I take exception with you calling these young girls "little tramps".

They are only behaving the way in which they have been taught or allowed. If, as you say, this is their parents' fault - the why the name calling?

And besides, what's your name for the boys who actively pursue these little tramps?

When Johnny is wildly popular with the girls, his name is stud, hero, a man's man, and a ladie's man, and he is revered by other boys and dreamed about by the girls.

When Susie is wildly popular with the boys, her name is slut, whore, tramp, and skank. She is shunned by other girls and crudely fantasized about by the boys.


We would have less sexual problems in our society if women would practice more modesty.

Again, I agree that modesty is vitally important.

But do you really believe that the multi-billion $ on-line pornography industry would shut down and that the multi-billion $ phone sex/computer sex industry would shut down if women in our neighborhoods simply didn't bare their mid-sections or made sure that their skirts came to their knee?

What about the women in the Middle East who are raped at just the same rate as everywhere else despite the fact that they are covered literally from head to toe with a sack? What did they do wrong or immodest?

You are making the same, tired, stereotypical accusation that women are the blame for the ills of man. Do you really mean that?

Instead of focusing on the sexuality of the woman and her possibly being exploited or yes, even exploiting her own self by dressing or behaving immodestly, why not start with the demand for the exploitation? Why do Christians always seem to make the men, the source of the demand, the victims?

We can keep our skirts down and our legs crossed and our bodies decently covered, but that isn't going to alleviate the sexual sins of our society because our the sexual ills of our society don't start with our dress codes.



Men are driven by what they see, and women use it like a weapon (usually unknowingly). You poor guys! How hard it is to keep your mind pure!

Yes, men are visually stimulated.

But how can a woman use "it" like a weapon and do it unknowingly? That makes no sense. Either you are using your body to have your needs met or you are not. What about the weary young mother who is dressed in a baggy sweat suit and is trying to carry her crying 2-year-old in one arm and push a grocery buggy with the other? What if the baby pulls on the neck of her shirt and exposes her lacy bra strap and the man in the same grocery aisle begins to wonder what she would look like without that baggy sweat suit? What did she do that was immodest? What did she do that was using "it" like weapon?

Yes, there are women who use their sexuality to get ahead in life. But women have been told throughout the eons that this is our ONLY way to get anything.

It's a lie, obviously. Women are just a intelligent, able to lead in their chosen fields, and capable of decision-making as men are. But, some women fall into the trap of that lie and use their sexuality. They are to be pitied.

I don't mean to sound so much like a cyber-bully and I apologize if I offend you. This post isn't so much of a reaction to what you said as it is a reaction to years of watching us as Christians generically and blanketly make women the scape goat for what goes on in a man's heart.

Sold Out
Jun 27th 2008, 03:46 PM
I said they 'looked' like little tramps...not that they were. But I understand your point. Sorry.

I can be a cyber-bully too...ha ha. I took no offense at your post.

The multi-million dollar porn industry is a RESULT of women becoming lax with their morals (including modesty). I'm really speaking in terms of the past more than the present. What's done is done now...and there's no turning back in that respect.

My son is 18 and is just like any other guy. About a year ago his girlfriend wanted to go swimming and he asked her to wear a t-shirt over her bikini. She refused! She said she would wear what she wanted. (she's a good Christian girl by the way). He tried to explain to her that it would help HIM if she were a little more modest, but she refused, so he didn't go swimming with her. I applaud my precious son for that decision. Even when that silly girl couldn't see he was trying to have pure thoughts about her, she just wanted her way. That's kind of where I was going with that post.

jayne
Jun 27th 2008, 03:57 PM
My son is 18 and is just like any other guy. About a year ago his girlfriend wanted to go swimming and he asked her to wear a t-shirt over her bikini. She refused! She said she would wear what she wanted. (she's a good Christian girl by the way). He tried to explain to her that it would help HIM if she were a little more modest, but she refused, so he didn't go swimming with her. I applaud my precious son for that decision. Even when that silly girl couldn't see he was trying to have pure thoughts about her, she just wanted her way. That's kind of where I was going with that post.

You should be very proud of your son....he sounds like a great guy. :yes:


The multi-million dollar porn industry is a RESULT of women becoming lax with their morals (including modesty).

I still disagree with this statement, but won't banter about it anymore.

Have a great day in the LORD! :bounce:

fewarechosen
Jun 27th 2008, 04:11 PM
For goodness sakes yes! I have always been pretty modest and thank goodness my daughter is super-modest. I can hardly get her to wear a bathing suit (she's 13). The girls she goes to school with look like little tramps...I know that sounds harsh, but they do. And who's fault is it? Their parents! They buy them the clothes and watch them walk out the door with them on!

We would have less sexual problems in our society if women would practice more modesty. Men are driven by what they see, and women use it like a weapon (usually unknowingly). You poor guys! How hard it is to keep your mind pure!


wow thats refreshing to hear,

i am a man and its tough to be bombarded with every commercial and billboard and skimpy outfit. its like even if im not lusting it in my heart it feels i am being bombarded.

i think even when a woman is just thinking hey i want to wear something cute and put my hair up nice and put on a nice pair of earings -- to them it can literally be no guilty feeling at all, but its sort of like we are our brothers keeper. god said desire is to a man. and i feel its important for christian women to be a good example to eachother and non christian women.

i think brush your hair nice , put on some non revealing good clothes-- you dont need sackcloth or some old garmets :) and how about skip the earings and adornments, let the holy spirit be your adornment, and let your modesty be your adornment.

to me now in my life that is way more appreciated and gives me a good feeling inside to see such a modest woman-- i see it as here is a brother in christ who is trying to help me not tempt me.

so to all the modest women out there it is much appreciated, and by doing so you are doing gods will.

thank you :hug:

Whispering Grace
Jun 27th 2008, 04:16 PM
My son is 18 and is just like any other guy. About a year ago his girlfriend wanted to go swimming and he asked her to wear a t-shirt over her bikini. She refused! She said she would wear what she wanted. (she's a good Christian girl by the way). He tried to explain to her that it would help HIM if she were a little more modest, but she refused, so he didn't go swimming with her. I applaud my precious son for that decision. Even when that silly girl couldn't see he was trying to have pure thoughts about her, she just wanted her way. That's kind of where I was going with that post.

I'd be praying HARD that my son would find another love interest, to be quite honest. If she is that disrespectful of his authority now, it will only get worse if they marry.

I'm not sure how Christian girls think it is permissible to walk around in a bikini in the first place?

Whispering Grace
Jun 27th 2008, 04:18 PM
so to all the modest women out there it is much appreciated, and by doing so you are doing gods will.

thank you :hug:

Heh...my husband tells me I dress like a 16th century Puritan. He doesn't understand why I take it as a compliment. :cool:

Sold Out
Jun 27th 2008, 04:24 PM
I'd be praying HARD that my son would find another love interest, to be quite honest. If she is that disrespectful of his authority now, it will only get worse if they marry.

I'm not sure how Christian girls think it is permissible to walk around in a bikini in the first place?

Well, this was a year ago and she has grown immensely in her Christian walk since then. My biggest question was why her parents permitted it, because they are faithful churchgoers on fire for the Lord. It always puzzled me.

He's leaving for a year-long Christian internship program in August, which does not allow him to date or have any romantic relationships. He will have to break up her, and he told me the other day that today (Friday) he will make up his mind to do it now or wait until the day he leaves.

So this year apart will certainly prove their love for each other and whether or not they are the mates God intended for them. She really is a great girl and I didn't mean to paint her such a negative light. It was just one example that popped in my head about purity and a man's struggle with lusting with the eyes.

Sold Out
Jun 27th 2008, 04:30 PM
i am a man and its tough to be bombarded with every commercial and billboard and skimpy outfit. its like even if im not lusting it in my heart it feels i am being
to me now in my life that is way more appreciated and gives me a good feeling inside to see such a modest woman-- i see it as here is a brother in christ who is trying to help me not tempt me.

so to all the modest women out there it is much appreciated, and by doing so you are doing gods will.

thank you :hug:

All you women out there reading this...take what he has said to heart. I think too many women misunderstand the way men are 'wired' and think they are just dirty-minded and should be able to control their thoughts. This is so far from the truth.

I read a book called 'Rekindling the Romance' by Dennis Rainey, and the first chapter is called 'Trading Places'. In a nutshell, the wife is tired and worn out from being a mother/homemaker and sex is really the last thing on her mind. She can't understand why her husband can turn it on and off. They go see a therapist and the therapist does a 'trick' to cause them to switch brains in the way they respond sexually. So the wife is walking around with her husbands sexual drive and he's walking around with hers. She finds herself lusting over the UPS driver next to them in traffic, then the street worker, and so on and so on. She basically wants to scream because her mind won't stop wandering every time she see's a 'hot' guy. They go back to the therapist a week later, who switches their brains back, and the wife has a brand new appreciation for her husband's mind!

I think if women could switch brains with a man for one day, they would see the modesty issue in a whole new light!

theleast
Jun 27th 2008, 04:57 PM
I said they 'looked' like little tramps...not that they were. But I understand your point. Sorry.

I can be a cyber-bully too...ha ha. I took no offense at your post.

The multi-million dollar porn industry is a RESULT of women becoming lax with their morals (including modesty). I'm really speaking in terms of the past more than the present. What's done is done now...and there's no turning back in that respect.

My son is 18 and is just like any other guy. About a year ago his girlfriend wanted to go swimming and he asked her to wear a t-shirt over her bikini. She refused! She said she would wear what she wanted. (she's a good Christian girl by the way). He tried to explain to her that it would help HIM if she were a little more modest, but she refused, so he didn't go swimming with her. I applaud my precious son for that decision. Even when that silly girl couldn't see he was trying to have pure thoughts about her, she just wanted her way. That's kind of where I was going with that post.

I'm so glad a woman can see where a man is coming from in this culture.

BOTH are clearly at fault was my point.

Sandusky
Jun 27th 2008, 05:07 PM
I'd be praying HARD that my son would find another love interest, to be quite honest. If she is that disrespectful of his authority now, it will only get worse if they marry.

I'm not sure how Christian girls think it is permissible to walk around in a bikini in the first place?

I agree with you here. I'd say- just guessing here- the culprits are weak parenting, weak catechesis and biblical theology, and most of all the polluted influence of secular society, mostly through the media.

Sad, but true, IMO. We need to be strong in the culture wars. Part of that is by realizing we are, in fact, in the middle of a war.

fewarechosen
Jun 27th 2008, 05:14 PM
While I agree with you that modesty is important and has been ignored lately in our culture, I take exception with you calling these young girls "little tramps".

They are only behaving the way in which they have been taught or allowed. If, as you say, this is their parents' fault - the why the name calling?

And besides, what's your name for the boys who actively pursue these little tramps?

When Johnny is wildly popular with the girls, his name is stud, hero, a man's man, and a ladie's man, and he is revered by other boys and dreamed about by the girls.

When Susie is wildly popular with the boys, her name is slut, whore, tramp, and skank. She is shunned by other girls and crudely fantasized about by the boys.



Again, I agree that modesty is vitally important.

But do you really believe that the multi-billion $ on-line pornography industry would shut down and that the multi-billion $ phone sex/computer sex industry would shut down if women in our neighborhoods simply didn't bare their mid-sections or made sure that their skirts came to their knee?

What about the women in the Middle East who are raped at just the same rate as everywhere else despite the fact that they are covered literally from head to toe with a sack? What did they do wrong or immodest?

You are making the same, tired, stereotypical accusation that women are the blame for the ills of man. Do you really mean that?

Instead of focusing on the sexuality of the woman and her possibly being exploited or yes, even exploiting her own self by dressing or behaving immodestly, why not start with the demand for the exploitation? Why do Christians always seem to make the men, the source of the demand, the victims?

We can keep our skirts down and our legs crossed and our bodies decently covered, but that isn't going to alleviate the sexual sins of our society because our the sexual ills of our society don't start with our dress codes.




Yes, men are visually stimulated.

But how can a woman use "it" like a weapon and do it unknowingly? That makes no sense. Either you are using your body to have your needs met or you are not. What about the weary young mother who is dressed in a baggy sweat suit and is trying to carry her crying 2-year-old in one arm and push a grocery buggy with the other? What if the baby pulls on the neck of her shirt and exposes her lacy bra strap and the man in the same grocery aisle begins to wonder what she would look like without that baggy sweat suit? What did she do that was immodest? What did she do that was using "it" like weapon?

Yes, there are women who use their sexuality to get ahead in life. But women have been told throughout the eons that this is our ONLY way to get anything.

It's a lie, obviously. Women are just a intelligent, able to lead in their chosen fields, and capable of decision-making as men are. But, some women fall into the trap of that lie and use their sexuality. They are to be pitied.

I don't mean to sound so much like a cyber-bully and I apologize if I offend you. This post isn't so much of a reaction to what you said as it is a reaction to years of watching us as Christians generically and blanketly make women the scape goat for what goes on in a man's heart.


now i am in agreement with many things in what you are saying so im not really trying to argue at all just bring up some points.

its like if you have a friend who was a recovering alcoholic-- and he was over for dinner.
you dont break out a bottle of wine because to you alcohol is no sin to you, so you should be able to drink it.

if you did that it is tempting your brother,
now is it his fault for being an alcoholic ---100 percent no excuse.
now is it your responsibility to help him and not tempt him --- 100 percent

now i see your point with someone labelling women tramps or whatever and boys studs
( i dont think the original posting was calling the person a tramp though)
but thats society that does that, not supposedly real christians. i say the man is just as guilty as the woman.
but realise this -- scripture says desire is to the man, now as a woman its nearly impossible to understand that drive that is god given -- he never says desire is to the woman , she does not have the same.

so now it means that men are more susceptible to it -- that is not an excuse of any sorts , if a guy lusts in his heart he is wrong to do so. but if a woman does not realise her part and her responsibility then its her fault also. we are our brothers keeper.

as far as the porn industry -- is it all womens fault absolutely not. but look at it this way the men are far hungrier than the women for sex. (again desire is to the man) but its the women in the porn that are bringing the dish.

its like if you have 100 men who are all alcoholics all banging on your door for a drink of wine-- and you give it to them -- who is more responsible ? the one person who could stop it or the 100 who couldnt control it.

all that being said i still lay more responsibility at the mens feet, but women must also be accountable and should take a christian mans word for it that it is best to cover themselves, and more so take scriptures word for it.

now i agree some woman could be covered head to toe being completely modest or even over modest if there is such a thing and guy still might rape her,
and of course she did nothing wrong-- its the guys fault it will still happen. but you never know that guys past he could have been exposed to things at a early age or whatever--- still no excuses.

i saw a mention of a skirt and crossing legs. when i was a kid in school not a christian -- what more would i want to stare at in class ? the books? the teacher? the paper?
yes all things i should have been looking at more, yet im a kid who doesnt know god, i dont know any better.
i am thinking wow the female form i wish i could see more. so if a mother would have taught her daughter about that it might not help spread the small seed of lust in a mans heart.

now what i question is why the need to wear a skirt ?
im not saying its totally wrong mind you, but hear me out. its like i will see women in cold weather wearing a skirt, its obviously just to look good, why the need to show leg at all ? its like ok i can see its hot out or something sure no problem, but even in that instance i say if your not hot or uncomfortable please dont wear a skirt. there is no need ? why would someone want to see your legs and why would you want someone to see them ? is it because hey i think this skirt looks cool, 99 percent of the time i am sure it is. but then think well i know men are lustfull creatures so why dont i put that back on the rack because who really cares if anyone sees my legs i can still be me in pants and i would not want to tempt my weak brothers. a thing god smiles upon.

now dont exaggerate this into me saying well you gotta wear the most outrageous ugly covering so us men dont lust, not at all we as men must be able to subdue and wipe it out --which for a long time can be a very hard fight -- so i implore you to help those who may still be fighting. just think modest covering -- and not well these jeans are gonna cover me but they are gonna be really tight thats not the best idea either.

the other thing i want to bring up is like makeup and jewelry. first jewelry for the most part -- not thinks like having a nice watch on or a necklace that someone gave you, but jewelry as in sparkle and things made to be looked upon by eyes pleasingly, no need for it. i personally would find a woman more attractive who thinks --how are these crude elements worthy to adorn someone who christ himself chose out of the world -- what more adornment do i need ?

same with makeup sure if you want to put some blemish stuff on cause you have a pimple or something i dont see that as some big deal(perhaps im wrong in even that) but its like when you applying it just to bring out certain features or make youself appear pleasant-- it makes it so you are objectifying yourself, thinking it is important what your body looks like. a christian shouldnt care what you look like , i dont think any of us think well heck that person is ugly so they cant be serving god. i am interested in whats in your heart and mind not what your body looks like. so think about it when you go to put makeup on , think real hard who are you making yourself look good for ? -- your eyes dont see your face. does christ or god in any way shape or form think you need makeup on or want you to have makeup on ? or are you just putting it on so you can feel better about how you look or want people to look at you in a more positive light, not all people are christians but our women do well to spread a good example of how a woman is to act.

in the end its a team effort -- if you are dressing modestly and whatever happens and your shirt gets tore off, and a guys lusts you its not your fault, dont let every thought be is my neck fully covered, is to much arm showing and so on...... us men bear our responsibility too and we have no excuse to lust even if a hundred naked women are dancing about.

but we are eachothers brothers and helpers, please do your part to help us so we can do better to help you.

so peace ladies and gents
and forgive what must be a million typos :)

and by no means am i bashing a woman for wearing a skirt or makeup or jewelry, just trying to express some of the views as to why some of that is covered in scripture. i dont judge that.

Firefighter
Jun 27th 2008, 05:16 PM
1Co 11:16

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


Paul was dealing with a custom in the church at Corinth and as someone mentioned, it was the custom that the temple prostitutes shaved thier heads to facilitate a blonde wig to emulate the goddess Aphrodite.

davidandme
Jun 27th 2008, 05:20 PM
The Law was intended to show you that you were a sinner and the Law couldn't not save you.

This is completly true, but you are leaving something out. The Law shows you sins. And sin shows the need for Jesus. That's why the Bible says that the Law points to Jesus. Christians should not keep the Law to be saved, because they won't. However a Christian will keep the Law of God because of love and because they are saved. The difference is in the motive of why we keep the commandments. God bless.

9Marksfan
Jun 27th 2008, 05:37 PM
Yes.

I see Paul as saying, "You can't disagree with me on any of this because I didn't say it....God did." The directives that Paul gave throughout the New Testament do not have the same purpose as the Law of Moses. The Law was intended to show you that you were a sinner and the Law couldn't not save you.

Pauls directives were how to behave after the fact of becoming a Christian. While obeying them didn't and still doesn't save you, Paul's commandments were to show that you were a Christian.

:agree:


I assumed that the original poster was coming from a legalistic standpoint of requiring Christians to base their righteousness on their works. That's why I said that what Paul wrote was not the Law.

A law is a commandment is a law - I don't think the OP was being legalistic.


If I do not wear a literal cloth on my head, but do wear relatively longer hair than a man and give the appearance of a woman and behave with respect, then I am just as righteous as the woman who does the same thing, yet does it with a cloth on her head.

Hmm - are any of us righteous because of what we do?


I was trying to take away the legalistic view of headcoverings.

Fair enough - and you did a great job!


Yes.....angels do not have a redemptive relationship with God. Fallen angels cannot be redeemed because they were already and literally in God's Holy Presence and were 100% consumed by His Glory when they decided to leave Him and follow satan. The promise of one day living with God in His heaven is moot for them, because they were already there. The notion of turning away from evil and turning to God for redemption is invalid for them. The angels who remained behind and stayed with God have nothing to be saved from....no evil nature to be redeemed from. They exist as they were originally created - God's obedient servants. They aren't considered sinless - only Jesus Christ is sinless. They are just created and obedient servants.

You seem to be interpreting "because of the angels" as "for the benefit of the angels". I read it as "because of what the fallen angels did".


hmmmm........let me chew on that a while. :)

What did you think?


I believe that a healthy self-esteem is not contradictory to humility. I'm not talking about a boastful self-promotion, but a rejoicing that God fearfully and wonderfully made me and called me to be His child and gave me gifts, talents, joys, tears, and a standard by which to live my life (His Word).

Agreed - but the constant temptation is to view ourselves MORE highly than we ought. How highly do you think the tax collector in the temple viewed himself? Remember he would not even lift his eyes to God because of his consciousness of his sin - and he went home justified. The Pharisee, on the other hand, had GREAT self-esteem - but he wasn't justified....


I meant that I would not look down upon a woman who insisted that a literal headcovering was indicative of righteousness (as many women of this type of thinking do).

I should certainly hope not! We are told to esteem others BETTER than ourselves - EVERYONE.......


Have a blessed day -

You too! :)

9Marksfan
Jun 27th 2008, 05:43 PM
All you women out there reading this...take what he has said to heart. I think too many women misunderstand the way men are 'wired' and think they are just dirty-minded and should be able to control their thoughts. This is so far from the truth.

I read a book called 'Rekindling the Romance' by Dennis Rainey, and the first chapter is called 'Trading Places'. In a nutshell, the wife is tired and worn out from being a mother/homemaker and sex is really the last thing on her mind. She can't understand why her husband can turn it on and off. They go see a therapist and the therapist does a 'trick' to cause them to switch brains in the way they respond sexually. So the wife is walking around with her husbands sexual drive and he's walking around with hers. She finds herself lusting over the UPS driver next to them in traffic, then the street worker, and so on and so on. She basically wants to scream because her mind won't stop wandering every time she see's a 'hot' guy. They go back to the therapist a week later, who switches their brains back, and the wife has a brand new appreciation for her husband's mind!

I think if women could switch brains with a man for one day, they would see the modesty issue in a whole new light!

Excellent! Dennis Rainey is great on marriage - I didn't know about this book, though!

9Marksfan
Jun 27th 2008, 05:46 PM
The Law was intended to show you that you were a sinner and the Law couldn't not save you.

This is completly true, but you are leaving something out. The Law shows you sins. And sin shows the need for Jesus. That's why the Bible says that the Law points to Jesus. Christians should not keep the Law to be saved, because they won't. However a Christian will keep the Law of God because of love and because they are saved. The difference is in the motive of why we keep the commandments. God bless.

EXCELLENT point - well said!