|
Post by rational on May 14, 2014 15:26:58 GMT -5
I think God cares about us being modest and decent but if that doesnt concern you -sure wear what you like or go naked. Does the definition of what god considers modest change over time and with geography? reminds me of the opening scene of Hawaii when Reverend Abner Hale arrives and is met by a multitude of near nude women. Probably very different that the harbor he had left!That would go against one of the attributes that most people attach to their god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 15:50:45 GMT -5
I think God cares about us being modest and decent but if that doesnt concern you -sure wear what you like or go naked. Does the definition of what god considers modest change over time and with geography? reminds me of the opening scene of Hawaii when Reverend Abner Hale arrives and is met by a multitude of near nude women. Probably very different that the harbor he had left!That would go against one of the attributes that most people attach to their god. i think what God considers modest hasn't change one iota, what has changed are peoples idea of modest dress namely in the western world...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 14, 2014 15:59:30 GMT -5
To both of you, Child of God and Tom:
You, Child of God, your comment, "I had to bite my tongue and shove my hands in my pockets to keep from saying thanks and giving her a hug. "
And you Tom, your comment, "Thankfully she was modest and sensible enough to wear trousers...."
What the hell does it matter to you what either one of these women were wearing?
And what would you either one of thought had I followed each one of you into a store and shared with the you or others my thoughts on how you looked?
Now, go take a look at yourself in a full length mirror, (Manage to look at your backside with another mirror, so that you can see what I would see if I were following you.)
The truth is, that more than likely I probably wouldn't even notice either of you at all! Oh dear d. good, my sarcasm was a little too subtle for you what you yelled at us was exactly what I was trying to point out to child of god. What we are wearing is unimportant as long as it is modest and decent. To be so pleased just because someone is in a skirt and to imply that trousers are immodest is ridiculous. I was just pointing out that the wrong skirt worn the wrong way can be quite inappropriate -just because its a skirt doesn't make it right. Oh, no, dear tom, -no, your sarcasm was NOT too subtle for me.
I understood what you were trying to do.
I was just tired of hearing one story after another related to women's clothing.
We WOMEN have ALWAYS been blamed in & out of the **TRUTH** for how we are dressed!
And there is no way that we can satisfy anyone as to what is or isn't proper!
My point is WHY,- even here on this board is there such a "blah, blah, blah" about our clothes! All women's clothes?
How about a conversation about MENS clothes for a change? and how they were them?
Did you, tom, or "child of god" either one, -go and take a look at yourselves in a full length mirror?
If so, - what did you see?
Describe what you saw.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 14, 2014 16:11:17 GMT -5
Does the definition of what god considers modest change over time and with geography? reminds me of the opening scene of Hawaii when Reverend Abner Hale arrives and is met by a multitude of near nude women. Probably very different that the harbor he had left!That would go against one of the attributes that most people attach to their god. i think what God considers modest hasn't change one iota, what has changed are peoples idea of modest dress namely in the western world... It isn't a matter of "what God considers modest" that's changed from one time period to another!
What has changed are peoples ideas of who GOD is and understand how GODS have evolved.
All one has to do is take a good look at the different "gods" through out the ages and it is obvious that GOD has changed according to the needs of the people!
|
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on May 14, 2014 17:44:44 GMT -5
Oh dear d. good, my sarcasm was a little too subtle for you what you yelled at us was exactly what I was trying to point out to child of god. What we are wearing is unimportant as long as it is modest and decent. To be so pleased just because someone is in a skirt and to imply that trousers are immodest is ridiculous. I was just pointing out that the wrong skirt worn the wrong way can be quite inappropriate -just because its a skirt doesn't make it right. Oh, no, dear tom, -no, your sarcasm was NOT too subtle for me.
I understood what you were trying to do.
I was just tired of hearing one story after another related to women's clothing.
We WOMEN have ALWAYS been blamed in & out of the **TRUTH** for how we are dressed!
And there is no way that we can satisfy anyone as to what is or isn't proper!
My point is WHY,- even here on this board is there such a "blah, blah, blah" about our clothes! All women's clothes?
How about a conversation about MENS clothes for a change? and how they were them?
Did you, tom, or "child of god" either one, -go and take a look at yourselves in a full length mirror?
If so, - what did you see?
Describe what you saw.
I give up on this one!! Of course I have no full length mirrors now -after reading your post I got rid of them because apparently it doesnt matter what we look like?? You are welcome to start up a thread about mens clothing but I would say the same thing. As long as your modest and decent who cares. I had no intention of making this an issue -in fact the intention of my original post was to try and say it's not an issue.Cant win sometimes!!
|
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on May 14, 2014 17:58:36 GMT -5
Does the definition of what god considers modest change over time and with geography? reminds me of the opening scene of Hawaii when Reverend Abner Hale arrives and is met by a multitude of near nude women. Probably very different that the harbor he had left!That would go against one of the attributes that most people attach to their god. i think what God considers modest hasn't change one iota, what has changed are peoples idea of modest dress namely in the western world... We have to sensible and guided by the society we live in -once it was considered immodest to show your ankles, some cultures its immodest to show your shouders ...but if your aim i to be modest I'm sure most peoplecan work it out.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 14, 2014 18:14:25 GMT -5
Oh dear d. good, my sarcasm was a little too subtle for you what you yelled at us was exactly what I was trying to point out to child of god. What we are wearing is unimportant as long as it is modest and decent. To be so pleased just because someone is in a skirt and to imply that trousers are immodest is ridiculous. I was just pointing out that the wrong skirt worn the wrong way can be quite inappropriate -just because its a skirt doesn't make it right. This raises the question of what is modest and decent and why that should matter to anyone other than the person wearing the clothes. If Bob, weighing 22 stone, wants to wear a pair is tight short why does anyone care? The examples above seemed to be concerned with women and what they looked like or what could be seen, given their clothing. Had it been in New York they could have been topless! Perhaps people are suffering from 'nevernude syndrome' or gymnophobia. What would be the downside of people being allowed to go naked anywhere should they wish to do so? It is sort of like the TV - if you don't like what you see, stop looking. 22 "stone"? C'mon, don't make us 'muricans look it up. What is that in kilos?
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 14, 2014 20:38:55 GMT -5
Does the definition of what god considers modest change over time and with geography? reminds me of the opening scene of Hawaii when Reverend Abner Hale arrives and is met by a multitude of near nude women. Probably very different that the harbor he had left!That would go against one of the attributes that most people attach to their god. i think what God considers modest hasn't change one iota, what has changed are peoples idea of modest dress namely in the western world... What did god say s/he thought was immodest? Remember, s/he put Adam and Eve in the garden naked. It was their choice to wear clothes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 22:18:58 GMT -5
i think what God considers modest hasn't change one iota, what has changed are peoples idea of modest dress namely in the western world... What did god say s/he thought was immodest? Remember, s/he put Adam and Eve in the garden naked. It was their choice to wear clothes. actually God sorta insisted that they wear clothes made of skin after their weak attempt with fig leaves...Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. we would have to look to what people wore of that time period as to what was considered modest vs immodest...
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 15, 2014 9:32:31 GMT -5
What did god say s/he thought was immodest? Remember, s/he put Adam and Eve in the garden naked. It was their choice to wear clothes. actually God sorta insisted that they wear clothes made of skin after their weak attempt with fig leaves...Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Where does it say god was insisting on clothes? His/her creations are all born without clothing. And it was Adam and Eve that took it upon themselves to cover themselves. Their idea - not god's. Are you saying that what god thinks is immodest changes with time? That was my question. How do you know what god feels is immodest? Did Eve have more leaves than Adam? Did god think it was OK for Adam to bare his upper torso but not Eve? Or did Eve walk around topless? Were they just avoiding full frontal nudity or was the backside a problem for god as well? Then there is the question of why god would create beings with parts that s/he thought should be covered. Seems like a poor design if you need to add accessories after manufacture for the item to be in compliance. Sort of like making a car without bumpers that have to be added on before you can use the car legally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 11:51:40 GMT -5
actually God sorta insisted that they wear clothes made of skin after their weak attempt with fig leaves...Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. Where does it say god was insisting on clothes? His/her creations are all born without clothing. And it was Adam and Eve that took it upon themselves to cover themselves. Their idea - not god's. Are you saying that what god thinks is immodest changes with time? That was my question. How do you know what god feels is immodest? Did Eve have more leaves than Adam? Did god think it was OK for Adam to bare his upper torso but not Eve? Or did Eve walk around topless? Were they just avoiding full frontal nudity or was the backside a problem for god as well? Then there is the question of why god would create beings with parts that s/he thought should be covered. Seems like a poor design if you need to add accessories after manufacture for the item to be in compliance. Sort of like making a car without bumpers that have to be added on before you can use the car legally. he clothed them without asking permission in that verse... here is what God thinks about uncovered buttocks... Isa_20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. God never changes so what he thought was immodest is still immodest today. just because people change doesn't mean God changes. to know what immodest is we have to get back to the original pattern God setup... that requires us to look at history for clues as to what is considered immodest and i think we know what that means men in pants and a shirt and women in full length dresses. no one topless...
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 15, 2014 13:44:31 GMT -5
Where does it say god was insisting on clothes? His/her creations are all born without clothing. And it was Adam and Eve that took it upon themselves to cover themselves. Their idea - not god's. Are you saying that what god thinks is immodest changes with time? That was my question. How do you know what god feels is immodest? Did Eve have more leaves than Adam? Did god think it was OK for Adam to bare his upper torso but not Eve? Or did Eve walk around topless? Were they just avoiding full frontal nudity or was the backside a problem for god as well? Then there is the question of why god would create beings with parts that s/he thought should be covered. Seems like a poor design if you need to add accessories after manufacture for the item to be in compliance. Sort of like making a car without bumpers that have to be added on before you can use the car legally. he clothed them without asking permission in that verse... here is what God thinks about uncovered buttocks... Isa_20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. God never changes so what he thought was immodest is still immodest today. just because people change doesn't mean God changes. to know what immodest is we have to get back to the original pattern God setup... that requires us to look at history for clues as to what is considered immodest and i think we know what that means men in pants and a shirt and women in full length dresses. no one topless... Hmmm. Moses saw God's hinder parts. Maybe that is why he never entered the promised land.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 14:11:44 GMT -5
he clothed them without asking permission in that verse... here is what God thinks about uncovered buttocks... Isa_20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. God never changes so what he thought was immodest is still immodest today. just because people change doesn't mean God changes. to know what immodest is we have to get back to the original pattern God setup... that requires us to look at history for clues as to what is considered immodest and i think we know what that means men in pants and a shirt and women in full length dresses. no one topless... Hmmm. Moses saw God's hinder parts. Maybe that is why he never entered the promised land. Exo_33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. that verse doesn't say he was naked...
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 15, 2014 15:29:06 GMT -5
he clothed them without asking permission in that verse... They had already clothed themselves. God just did an upgrade. S/he never commanded that they wear the clothes. Oddly I see no mention of god in this bit of quoted scripture. The redundancy of the phrase makes one wonder. They were naked and their buttocks were uncovered. I am trying to imagine them naked with their buttocks covered. Men in pants. That would probably mean that Jesus was not dressed modestly. His dad must have been sooooo disappointed to see his son running around in a dress. And the idea of a shirt. I just don't know. Perhaps a kethōneth. Where does in mention for anyone not to go topless?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 15:43:25 GMT -5
he clothed them without asking permission in that verse... They had already clothed themselves. God just did an upgrade. S/he never commanded that they wear the clothes. Oddly I see no mention of god in this bit of quoted scripture. The redundancy of the phrase makes one wonder. They were naked and their buttocks were uncovered. I am trying to imagine them naked with their buttocks covered. Men in pants. That would probably mean that Jesus was not dressed modestly. His dad must have been sooooo disappointed to see his son running around in a dress. And the idea of a shirt. I just don't know. Perhaps a kethōneth. Where does in mention for anyone not to go topless? in most(not all) cases where nakedness/naked is mentioned in the bible it is a sign of weakness or shame, conclusion not a good idea to get naked...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 15:44:21 GMT -5
he clothed them without asking permission in that verse... They had already clothed themselves. God just did an upgrade. S/he never commanded that they wear the clothes. Oddly I see no mention of god in this bit of quoted scripture. The redundancy of the phrase makes one wonder. They were naked and their buttocks were uncovered. I am trying to imagine them naked with their buttocks covered. Men in pants. That would probably mean that Jesus was not dressed modestly. His dad must have been sooooo disappointed to see his son running around in a dress. And the idea of a shirt. I just don't know. Perhaps a kethōneth. Where does in mention for anyone not to go topless? Jesus could have worn pants under his robe...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 15, 2014 16:04:39 GMT -5
What did god say s/he thought was immodest? Remember, s/he put Adam and Eve in the garden naked. It was their choice to wear clothes. actually God sorta insisted that they wear clothes made of skin after their weak attempt with fig leaves...Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. we would have to look to what people wore of that time period as to what was considered modest vs immodest... Well, no, wally. What we really need to look at is not only the time period, but the place s well.
People seem to get hung up on "Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden." They don't even think of any myths but their own.
They never even think about other peoples in other countries.
How about the people of Hawaii?
Their gods didn't wear tops so neither did the women wear tops!
Why I wonder? Could part of it be the climate? Maybe they didn't need clothes for warmth.
Then how about the Inuit gods & therefore the people wear where it was cold?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 15, 2014 16:09:32 GMT -5
Oh, no, dear tom, -no, your sarcasm was NOT too subtle for me.
I understood what you were trying to do.
I was just tired of hearing one story after another related to women's clothing.
We WOMEN have ALWAYS been blamed in & out of the **TRUTH** for how we are dressed!
And there is no way that we can satisfy anyone as to what is or isn't proper!
My point is WHY,- even here on this board is there such a "blah, blah, blah" about our clothes! All women's clothes?
How about a conversation about MENS clothes for a change? and how they were them?
Did you, tom, or "child of god" either one, -go and take a look at yourselves in a full length mirror?
If so, - what did you see?
Describe what you saw.
I give up on this one!! Of course I have no full length mirrors now -after reading your post I got rid of them because apparently it doesnt matter what we look like?? You are welcome to start up a thread about mens clothing but I would say the same thing. As long as your modest and decent who cares. I had no intention of making this an issue -in fact the intention of my original post was to try and say it's not an issue. Cant win sometimes!! Well, it is kinda hard to win anytime, when all one hears is men talking about women's clothes and never hear mention anything about men's clothes!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 15, 2014 16:21:18 GMT -5
They had already clothed themselves. God just did an upgrade. S/he never commanded that they wear the clothes. Oddly I see no mention of god in this bit of quoted scripture. The redundancy of the phrase makes one wonder. They were naked and their buttocks were uncovered. I am trying to imagine them naked with their buttocks covered. Men in pants. That would probably mean that Jesus was not dressed modestly. His dad must have been sooooo disappointed to see his son running around in a dress. And the idea of a shirt. I just don't know. Perhaps a kethōneth. Where does in mention for anyone not to go topless? in most(not all) cases where nakedness/naked is mentioned in the bible it is a sign of weakness or shame, conclusion not a good idea to get naked... I find it interesting that you do not answer the questions but just keep moving the target. If god thought men should wear pants why did s/he not when s/he walked the earth as Jesus? Isaiah walked about naked. Naked and nakedness are not the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 16:37:43 GMT -5
in most(not all) cases where nakedness/naked is mentioned in the bible it is a sign of weakness or shame, conclusion not a good idea to get naked... I find it interesting that you do not answer the questions but just keep moving the target. If god thought men should wear pants why did s/he not when s/he walked the earth as Jesus? Isaiah walked about naked. Naked and nakedness are not the same thing. not at all, to go topless is to be partially naked, being naked is not a good thing, hence not a good idea to go topless. i just looked up naked/nakedness at dictionary.com and they have the same meaning what are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 15, 2014 16:44:11 GMT -5
God never changes so what he thought was immodest is still immodest today. just because people change doesn't mean God changes.
That is only in accordance to which God you worship.
Even that God does change according the time period and place one lives.
How could that God not change since it is the people who make their gods in their image?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 15, 2014 17:12:23 GMT -5
This raises the question of what is modest and decent and why that should matter to anyone other than the person wearing the clothes. If Bob, weighing 22 stone, wants to wear a pair is tight short why does anyone care? The examples above seemed to be concerned with women and what they looked like or what could be seen, given their clothing. Had it been in New York they could have been topless! Perhaps people are suffering from 'nevernude syndrome' or gymnophobia. What would be the downside of people being allowed to go naked anywhere should they wish to do so? It is sort of like the TV - if you don't like what you see, stop looking. I think God cares about us being modest and decent but if that doesnt concern you -sure wear what you like or go naked. I just dont think what we wear to be modest is the issue. What is modest ? I think most people who are concerned about being modest usually are. Maybe try telling God 'if you dont like what you see, stop looking. Of course first of all, one does have to believe in a god to start with.
Then which god does one believes in?
Then does that particular god CARE about how we dress?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 15, 2014 17:37:13 GMT -5
They had already clothed themselves. God just did an upgrade. S/he never commanded that they wear the clothes. Oddly I see no mention of god in this bit of quoted scripture. The redundancy of the phrase makes one wonder. They were naked and their buttocks were uncovered. I am trying to imagine them naked with their buttocks covered. Men in pants. That would probably mean that Jesus was not dressed modestly. His dad must have been sooooo disappointed to see his son running around in a dress. And the idea of a shirt. I just don't know. Perhaps a kethōneth. Where does in mention for anyone not to go topless? Jesus could have worn pants under his robe... Good to know. So there's precedent for the little professing girls in northern Iowa to wear pants under their dresses in the winter time so they don't freeze their little legs off.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 15, 2014 17:41:15 GMT -5
God never changes so what he thought was immodest is still immodest today. just because people change doesn't mean God changes.
That is only in accordance to which God you worship.
Even that God does change according the time period and place one lives.
How could that God not change since it is the people who make their gods in their image?
C'mon, dmmichgood! You know God never changes. Except for maybe that point where once upon a time God demanded that disobedient children be stoned to death by their parents but doesn't appear to demand that of God-fearing zealots any longer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 16, 2014 4:50:50 GMT -5
I find it interesting that you do not answer the questions but just keep moving the target. If god thought men should wear pants why did s/he not when s/he walked the earth as Jesus? Isaiah walked about naked. Naked and nakedness are not the same thing. not at all, to go topless is to be partially naked, being naked is not a good thing, hence not a good idea to go topless. i just looked up naked/nakedness at dictionary.com and they have the same meaning what are you talking about? It depends on whether you are referring to the Hebrew arowm, eyrom, or ervah. Three different words all translated as nakedness. Do you really believe that Ham was that severely punished simply for seeing his father's genitals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2014 12:26:04 GMT -5
not at all, to go topless is to be partially naked, being naked is not a good thing, hence not a good idea to go topless. i just looked up naked/nakedness at dictionary.com and they have the same meaning what are you talking about? It depends on whether you are referring to the Hebrew arowm, eyrom, or ervah. Three different words all translated as nakedness. Do you really believe that Ham was that severely punished simply for seeing his father's genitals? yes i believe ham got in trouble for seeing his father drunk and naked... Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 16, 2014 13:23:50 GMT -5
It depends on whether you are referring to the Hebrew arowm, eyrom, or ervah. Three different words all translated as nakedness. Do you really believe that Ham was that severely punished simply for seeing his father's genitals? yes i believe ham got in trouble for seeing his father drunk and naked... Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. and you don't see how ludicrous that is? Especially since it wasn't his fault it was his father's fault? Just another good example of OT stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 16, 2014 15:48:03 GMT -5
It depends on whether you are referring to the Hebrew arowm, eyrom, or ervah. Three different words all translated as nakedness. Do you really believe that Ham was that severely punished simply for seeing his father's genitals? yes i believe ham got in trouble for seeing his father drunk and naked...Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. That was yet another incident of a unjust god who would punish a person who, through no fault of his own, by accident entered his father's tent and found him drunk and naked..
Rates up there with an unjust god who would take the life of the innocent child of David & Bathseheba because of their misconduct .
It is hard to believe that there are still people who worship such a god.
|
|