Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christian ladies should be modest. There's no reason not to. I don't want to look at another woman's boobs that are hanging out of her dress. Good grief, have some decency and feminine modesty about yourself.
I am not of the school that thinks women should not wear make-up or pants; but I DO believe women should be classy about their dress and not expose themselves the way so many do these days.
If they do so, that's their choice but it is unattractive, IMHO.
If you have to show off your goods to get attention, then that just proves you are not that attractive anyway.....
Men shouldn't wear tight shirts to show their muscle. It can cause a woman to stumble. Some women struggle with lust too, not just men.
I am by no means an apologist for women who dress like fill in the blank at your leisures, but the man can control his thoughts as well as his actions. That's right! You can control your thoughts, and even your feelings, when/if you really want to. Some thoughts/feelings have to be dismissed more than once, but it's perfectly doable if your thoughts in general are pure.
There is certainly no excuse for a woman dressing improperly. But she has caused no one to "sin". To my understanding, brief passing thoughts are not sins. You cross into the realm of wrongdoing when you actually choose to entertain impure thoughts with either more thoughts or actions.
Two things that I do not get:
One is, if being covered up in hot, cumbersome clothing is so good for women, how come the men don't dress like that also? It really pisses me off to see a religious woman dressed like that on a hot day while the husband is in shorts and tee shirt.
Two, it seems to me that women who cover up must have a VERY low opinion of the males in their social groups, if they think they will be the constant targets of lust.
Now, a religion that bars fat women in leggings would be totally acceptable.
Two things that I do not get:
One is, if being covered up in hot, cumbersome clothing is so good for women, how come the men don't dress like that also? It really pisses me off to see a religious woman dressed like that on a hot day while the husband is in shorts and tee shirt.
Agreed. T-shirts and shorts should be acceptable by the same standards for both men and women. Can't speak for those you're directing this question to, but IMO, you can stay cool and still reasonably unrevealing in your attire. It's not all that difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
Two, it seems to me that women who cover up must have a VERY low opinion of the males in their social groups, if they think they will be the constant targets of lust.
Depends on how you define "covering up", I guess. I do believe men are somewhat programmed to be aroused by certain sights. What they do with that arousal is still on them, however. People aren't targeted by lust, IMO. More like, lust comes along and people choose to either embrace it or let it mosy on to the next potential customer. It's a fleeting emotion, not a rabid dog
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
Now, a religion that bars fat women in leggings would be totally acceptable.
Having to see that part of an obese woman in leggings is your price for getting to see the alternatives. What can I tell you.
What one person quantifies as decent, another may quantify as indecent. What we see as decent is based very much on cultural acceptance and norms. So who is really to judge an individual on their level of decency, when there is certainly nothing set that would define decency vs indecency, accept maybe the most extreme of examples.
People need to control their own lusts, and not blame someone else for their struggle with temptation.
So because men won't take 'personal responsibility' for controlling their own animal rutting urges, it's easier to blame women and try to control them instead?
This sounds like you think men are less 'spiritually' evolved than women.
Sorry it sounds that way to you because that is not what I meant. God gives a way of escape, so the man has plenty of the blame on him. I was just saying 'if you put dog food in the bowl don't be surprised if the dog eats'.
Just for the fun of it, let me bring in another possible and somewhat controversial perspective. After a bit of study, I think there may in fact a middle point between our traditional idea of lust as a sin and the obsessive rapest idea of lust that needs to be considered and its
The word for lust in Greek is "Epithumia" which is actually the word for "covet" as seen in the septuagint. If you think about it from a Hebrew cultural standpoint, when they heard the word Covet, they thought of the 10th commandment which says:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
As you can see, is the primary focus of the 10th commandment which may even imply a desire to steal from your neighbor since I doubt it was illegal to want something that was forsale ;p Interestingly, Epithumia by itself is just meaning a great desire and Jesus even used this word for his own desire for the last supper (Luke 22:15) so the word itself does not always imply a negative sinful connotation. If you read the Torah law, Adultery was also a very specific action in the old Testament and involve having sexual relations your neighbors wife perhaps temporarily. To the Husband of that wife, this was consider a form of theft and an attempt to polute his lineage and Adultery always resulted in the punishment of death.
When Jesus talked about lust (coveting) in Matthew 5:28, I don't believe he was teaching anything new necessarily, rather he might have been correcting a flawed understanding of the the intention of the 7th and 10th commandments. Not only does he use the word Epithumia, but he also uses the word "Gyne" for Women. From a cultural standpoint, a Gyne was any Woman who has been married at least once or currently married or no longer a physical virgin. This distinguished them from a "Parthenos" (virgin) because they no longer had dowry value the same way as a virgin since they may not be providing a pure lineage.
So in other words, based on the wording of Matthew 5:28 using the word Adultery and the other aspects I've mentioned, there is a fairly good chance Jesus was referring to Obsessing over the wife of another man and not just any woman. The Tydale bible and a few of the earliest bibles even translated it that way which makes me a bit suspicious of the future translation motives. It may seem to weaken the scope of lust, but it also might make a little more sense considering the natural sex drive and fantasy ability of a normal person.
Therefore, if a woman wants to be viewed sexually to some degree and dress as such (within reason of course), there may not necessarily be a problem with that depending on the situation and the extent, though I do question how loving it truly is to desire someone you are not dating or married to sexually without knowing for sure if they want to be viewed that way. Yeah I know its seems highly questionable in light of how certain other sins are treated, but when you consider how different the cultures in the bible were, it seems more likely. The question reminds if this is true: where do we draw line of lust and still be biblical?
So because men won't take 'personal responsibility' for controlling their own animal rutting urges, it's easier to blame women and try to control them instead?
This sounds like you think men are less 'spiritually' evolved than women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowdog
Sorry it sounds that way to you because that is not what I meant. God gives a way of escape, so the man has plenty of the blame on him. I was just saying 'if you put dog food in the bowl don't be surprised if the dog eats'.
Just for the fun of it, let me bring in another possible and somewhat controversial perspective. After a bit of study, I think there may in fact a middle point between our traditional idea of lust as a sin and the obsessive rapest idea of lust that needs to be considered and its
The word for lust in Greek is "Epithumia" which is actually the word for "covet" as seen in the septuagint. If you think about it from a Hebrew cultural standpoint, when they heard the word Covet, they thought of the 10th commandment which says:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
As you can see, is the primary focus of the 10th commandment which may even imply a desire to steal from your neighbor since I doubt it was illegal to want something that was forsale ;p Interestingly, Epithumia by itself is just meaning a great desire and Jesus even used this word for his own desire for the last supper (Luke 22:15) so the word itself does not always imply a negative sinful connotation. If you read the Torah law, Adultery was also a very specific action in the old Testament and involve having sexual relations your neighbors wife perhaps temporarily. To the Husband of that wife, this was consider a form of theft and an attempt to polute his lineage and Adultery always resulted in the punishment of death.
When Jesus talked about lust (coveting) in Matthew 5:28, I don't believe he was teaching anything new necessarily, rather he might have been correcting a flawed understanding of the the intention of the 7th and 10th commandments. Not only does he use the word Epithumia, but he also uses the word "Gyne" for Women. From a cultural standpoint, a Gyne was any Woman who has been married at least once or currently married or no longer a physical virgin. This distinguished them from a "Parthenos" (virgin) because they no longer had dowry value the same way as a virgin since they may not be providing a pure lineage.
So in other words, based on the wording of Matthew 5:28 using the word Adultery and the other aspects I've mentioned, there is a fairly good chance Jesus was referring to Obsessing over the wife of another man and not just any woman. The Tydale bible and a few of the earliest bibles even translated it that way which makes me a bit suspicious of the future translation motives. It may seem to weaken the scope of lust, but it also might make a little more sense considering the natural sex drive and fantasy ability of a normal person.
Therefore, if a woman wants to be viewed sexually to some degree and dress as such (within reason of course), there may not necessarily be a problem with that depending on the situation and the extent, though I do question how loving it truly is to desire someone you are not dating or married to sexually without knowing for sure if they want to be viewed that way. Yeah I know its seems highly questionable in light of how certain other sins are treated, but when you consider how different the cultures in the bible were, it seems more likely. The question reminds if this is true: where do we draw line of lust and still be biblical?
To me, adultery in the OT was about using another man's property (his woman), more so than about sexual lust.
What really gets me about the analogy is that it assumes all men are dogs. If you put "dog food" in a bowl in front of a male human, he'll just ignore it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
