|
|
Post by ellie on May 6, 2016 11:42:33 GMT -5
I’ve not seen the following in the bible. I wondered whether the aforementioned came from personal experience as a parent or if it was pronouncement made upon assessing other people's parenting, or something else? So I thought it best to check, but I understand that you many not wish to say if you have children on a public forum. Perhaps you could assist my understanding of your post by pointing out the passage in the bible that says that dressing children inappropriately encourages children to be immoral. I could restate it in a different way, but I'm not sure how to fully explain this. I consider it common sense that children learn to do the things that they are taught to do. You may or may not agree with this, but assume that for the sake of understanding what comes next that Christian adults should dress modestly. Perhaps some who accept that do not think modesty matters for children. I think I am more worried about children acquiring the idea that their bodies are somehow flawed  and require covering up than I am concerned about immodesty. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 6, 2016 12:26:56 GMT -5
Or why not dressing and behaving as they did at the time of the NT. I see no problem with dressing the way modest people of that time dressed, if one is so inclined and can discover specifically how people dressed then. Generally most Jewish people at that time probably dressed modestly. I understand that one who is simply looking for a chart or one who is not interested in submitting to God would see it that way. Even if I had one, I don't see that a specific list would be of much benefit to someone who is not interested in obedience. Submission to God, seeking first his kingdom, must come first and the rest will follow. The principles of modesty, decency, respect, etc., can be used to guide one in the specific applications. Yes! There is a place for that in a church. I can't say that it would do any good for those without shared values and are not interested in serving God. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 6, 2016 12:35:30 GMT -5
I could restate it in a different way, but I'm not sure how to fully explain this. I consider it common sense that children learn to do the things that they are taught to do. You may or may not agree with this, but assume that for the sake of understanding what comes next that Christian adults should dress modestly. Perhaps some who accept that do not think modesty matters for children. I think I am more worried about children acquiring the idea that their bodies are somehow flawed and require covering up than I am concerned about immodesty. You only need have that concern if you teach them that the only reason for ever covering or concealing something is that it is flawed or wrong. I would be concerned about children learning that their bodies are not worthy of respect if they are too freely revealed for everyone to see. That is one reason I see modesty as so important for children. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 6, 2016 18:53:50 GMT -5
[You only need have that concern if you teach them that the only reason for ever covering or concealing something is that it is flawed or wrong. Correct me I am not remembering correctly but didn't you say manner of dress can be considered immoral? Generally speaking, it is a person's actions that are moral or immoral. I shoot a child. Most people consider that immoral. I paint my house a terrible color. Not many people consider that to be immoral.What about clothes is immoral? Horizontal stripes on someone with my build? Display of something does not diminish respect for that object. Catholics display Jesus on a cross. People still respect the image. Flags are flown proudly and many people still respect the flag. David danced mightily before his god and, according to his wife, flashed his gentiles to everyone at the parade and god did not have a problem with that. If respect is based on what a person wears does one want that respect?Dress modestly to gain respect? |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 6, 2016 22:24:34 GMT -5
I think I am more worried about children acquiring the idea that their bodies are somehow flawed and require covering up than I am concerned about immodesty. You only need have that concern if you teach them that the only reason for ever covering or concealing something is that it is flawed or wrong. How do you actually teach a small child to cover up body parts without inadvertently giving them the idea that there’s something shameful or wrong with the parts that need covering? And if there is not something wrong with the parts why bother with worrying about teaching someone to cover up in the first instance? What exactly makes a person or a body worthy of respect? If someone dresses in a revealing manner does that mean that they or their body are not worthy of respect? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 6, 2016 23:54:23 GMT -5
You only need have that concern if you teach them that the only reason for ever covering or concealing something is that it is flawed or wrong. How do you actually teach a small child to cover up body parts without inadvertently giving them the idea that there’s something shameful or wrong with the parts that need covering? If parents believe there's any risk of giving the wrong impression, they can certainly be careful in the way they talk to their children to make sure they don't misunderstand. The idea that there's anything shameful or wrong with the parts that need covering has nothing to do with modesty. I'm sure everyone here can think of examples of things he has covered or concealed for reasons other than shame or fault. It's not always appropriate and necessary to reveal everything to everyone. Covering does not in any way imply shame. Actually, even the term we use, 'modesty', implies that it is not something done out of shame or a fault in the parts covered up. For 'modesty' carries a connotation of covering or refraining from advertising something about oneself which has value. You might be very intelligent but if you are modest you are careful not to give the impression that you think too highly of yourself. You might be very wealthy but modesty might hold you back from buying fancy expensive things to impress others with your wealth. The person was created in the image of God. It might mean the person does not respect his or her own body. Dressing children modestly is an important part of teaching them to have appropriate respect for their bodies and themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 0:00:22 GMT -5
I’ve not seen the following in the bible. I wondered whether the aforementioned came from personal experience as a parent or if it was pronouncement made upon assessing other people's parenting, or something else? So I thought it best to check, but I understand that you many not wish to say if you have children on a public forum. Perhaps you could assist my understanding of your post by pointing out the passage in the bible that says that dressing children inappropriately encourages children to be immoral. I could restate it in a different way, but I'm not sure how to fully explain this. I consider it common sense that children learn to do the things that they are taught to do. You may or may not agree with this, but assume that for the sake of understanding what comes next that Christian adults should dress modestly. Perhaps some who accept that do not think modesty matters for children. However, even without any further reasons why modesty matters for children, they should be dressed modestly as children so that they will learn to dress themselves modestly when they are older and are responsible for their own clothing. calleduntoliberty, I assume by this you are talking about girls dressing modestly, not children in general, but girls. Because after all how can a boy dress immodestly ? Those of us who were born & raised in the "Truth" know all about being told how to dress and we also know what it feels like to be made "fun of" because of the way we had to dress. If they are not taught when they are young, they may or may not learn modesty when they are older. God can certainly teach them when they are older, but people often tend to stick to what is familiar and unless they think carefully about a particular issue it is likely that many young people will by default continue dressing immodestly if their their parents dressed them that way when they are young. Once a child is 18 they are an adult and should be free to decide how they dress ! |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 0:14:22 GMT -5
Quote - "reminds me of how a worker answers a question they don't really want to
answer ! That is why I asked anytoll if he (I am assuming here) is a worker !"
Given that most questions I ask here don't get answered,
let's see if YOU can answer questions Roselyn T
1 - why don't people answer my questions on the TMB?
2 - why is that Jesus changed the subject, or ignored, nearly every question asked of him?
3 - why did Jesus spiritualize natural questions?
4 - can you give me a list of questions Workers won't answer? (I can give you seven A4 pages of unanswered TMB questions)
Regards cartoon below:
5 - in the cartoon, WHO isn't answering the question?
6 - can you recognize the same questions asked in the bible? What were THEIR answers?
7 - does it matter?
8 - do you think there's hypocrisy on this board?
ps I won't be offended if you don't answer the questions posed by my cartoon.
In fact no-one has been honest enough to tackle it in the five or so years I
have posted in on-line. You see, Workers often WON'T answer the question, their
detractors CAN'T answer the questions. Did I hit a nerve bert ? As far as I am aware bert I have answered any question you have asked me on TMB, as to others well I cannot speak for them. As to Jesus changing the subject or ignoring questions asked of him, well can you really say that ? Also the workers are NOT JESUS ! Did Jesus spiritualize every natural questions? If he did what has that got to do with the workers, once again the workers are NOT JESUS. Ask David Leitch what is being done about CSA in Victoria, bert and see what answer you get. You seem to forget those of us who were born & raised in the "truth" know exactly how workers avoid questions by giving a non-answer. With your cartoon, I believe others have answered your question. Also once again the workers are NOT JESUS ! Did Jesus tell people they had to go to Missions before they could "profess"? So I believe your theory that no-one has answered the questions posed in your cartoons is just your belief. To be honest, half the time I don't understand what you are getting at with some of your cartoons. There is hypocrisy everywhere, even amongst the workers ! |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 1:03:13 GMT -5
Roselyn, I would not state it exactly how you or Bert put it, but there were times when people asked Jesus questions and he did not directly answer the question in the way the asker would have intended. On at least some of those occasions, the questions were insincere as they were not trying to learn but rather trying to trap Jesus. Jesus gave them a better answer but I wouldn't be surprised if the scribes and Pharisees considered it a non-answer. We are not Jesus but we are called to be his disciples who learn from his example. A person asking a question is not always sincere and even if sincere, may or may not be approaching the situation and so the question might be best not answered directly as phrased. A direct answer on the asker's terms is not always appropriate for the situation. As imperfect followers we are not equal to our master so we are not infallible in making that determination or in our speech in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 1:15:38 GMT -5
Roselyn, I would not state it exactly how you or Bert put it, but there were times when people asked Jesus questions and he did not directly answer the question in the way the asker would have intended. On at least some of those occasions, the questions were insincere as they were not trying to learn but rather trying to trap Jesus. Jesus gave them a better answer but I wouldn't be surprised if the scribes and Pharisees considered it a non-answer. We are not Jesus but we are called to be his disciples who learn from his example. A person asking a question is not always sincere and even if sincere, may or may not be approaching the situation and so the question might be best not answered directly as phrased. A direct answer on the asker's terms is not always appropriate for the situation. When a question is asked of a worker in regard to CSA, there is no excuse for a non-answer. I wonder what Jesus's view would have been on children being abused, do you think he would have ignored or given a non-answer ? Exactly we are not Jesus & the workers are not Jesus ! |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 1:37:13 GMT -5
Dressing children modestly is an important part of teaching them to have appropriate respect for their bodies and themselves. How do clothes cause children to respect or not respect their bodies? This seems to be counter to any current ideas of child development and the development of self worth. Hopefully children will develop self-respect and a respect for their bodies, as well as the bodies of others, regardless of what clothes they are, or are not, wearing. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 1:42:56 GMT -5
Roselyn,
As I said, it depends what's appropriate for the situation. I agree with you that there are situations in which a direct answer is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 1:49:36 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty, I assume by this you are talking about girls dressing modestly, not children in general, but girls. Because after all how can a boy dress immodestly ? Those of us who were born & raised in the "Truth" know all about being told how to dress and we also know what it feels like to be made "fun of" because of the way we had to dress. Boys can and do dress immodestly. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 1:53:34 GMT -5
Roselyn, As I said, it depends what's appropriate for the situation. I agree with you that there are situations in which a direct answer is appropriate. From experience workers, when asked questions give non-answers unless it is something about the weather or where they are preaching ! |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 1:54:23 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty, I assume by this you are talking about girls dressing modestly, not children in general, but girls. Because after all how can a boy dress immodestly ? Those of us who were born & raised in the "Truth" know all about being told how to dress and we also know what it feels like to be made "fun of" because of the way we had to dress. Boys can and do dress immodestly. Ok, give me an example of boys dressing immodestly calleduntoliberty ? |
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 7, 2016 2:15:44 GMT -5
Roselyn, As I said, it depends what's appropriate for the situation. I agree with you that there are situations in which a direct answer is appropriate. I think we are all in agreement with this. Jesus gave non-answers or flipped the questions, not only because the Pharasees were trying to trap him, but also because their questions were about silly things. Like hand washing and enjoying food and wine. They were using outward measures to make Jesus and his disciples look bad. Likewise friends and workers can say that if someone really has the spirit, their outside appearance will change to unimportant, legalistic standards. There is a difference in a critic asking why member is hypocritical about something minor and...asking a member, especially an authority figure, why they are being hypocritical/manipulative/hurtful about something that supposedly affects salvation or approval from the group or other damage. A critic or a former members who has been hurt or has concern for others being hurt (including not only physical, but also very other form of neglect or abuse), IMO has every right to question. A representative of the group has more of the burden of validating questions about inconsistencies or injustices. It is not a case of pearls before swine, or defending the group, but rather caring for the other party. Defensiveness has no place in a kingdom whose banner is love, and from people who do not judge another's soul. |
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 7, 2016 2:29:12 GMT -5
Roselyn, As I said, it depends what's appropriate for the situation. I agree with you that there are situations in which a direct answer is appropriate. Just to add, it seems people have differing ideas about what is a legitimate question, what is hurtful, who has been hurt, and what is an appropriate response. Exclusive groups who are sensitive to ridicule or a cult label maybe are naturally defensive. It would be healthy to realize that the questioner has a reason for feeling angry or wanting to advocate change. What does it harm to answer honestly, being respectful of the other? There is nothing wrong with being apologetic for something the group or deceased leaders have done...as a member you represent the ideals even if they are not your own. CEOs and PR spokespeople do this all the time. It is much better to own up to mistakes than to be defensive. |
|
|
|
Post by withlove on May 7, 2016 3:01:25 GMT -5
Roselyn, I would not state it exactly how you or Bert put it, but there were times when people asked Jesus questions and he did not directly answer the question in the way the asker would have intended. On at least some of those occasions, the questions were insincere as they were not trying to learn but rather trying to trap Jesus. Jesus gave them a better answer but I wouldn't be surprised if the scribes and Pharisees considered it a non-answer. We are not Jesus but we are called to be his disciples who learn from his example. A person asking a question is not always sincere and even if sincere, may or may not be approaching the situation and so the question might be best not answered directly as phrased. A direct answer on the asker's terms is not always appropriate for the situation. As imperfect followers we are not equal to our master so we are not infallible in making that determination or in our speech in general. I addressed some of this in above posts, but want to add some clarification. The implication that the Pharisees are like modern questioners and Jesus is like the friends is inaccurate. Parisees asked why Jesus and his disciples were not strictly following OT rules. Critics on this board are asking the opposite...we are asking why are friends and workers legalistic. Essentially why the Pharisee logic is being used. Why undue burdens are being placed on members. Jesus and Paul had an entirely different outlook from legalism. If they avoided questions or twisted the topic to question someone's intentions or spiritual health, I think it was entirely appropriate and not at all the same as a member of your group not answering why women wear buns and skirts, or suggesting that the questioner isn't pure inside or that their brand of modesty the only one God approves of. If Jesus were here and the topic was dress code, who do you think he would agree with? |
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 7, 2016 7:34:59 GMT -5
Scriptures Approving of Questioning Luke 1:4: "know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed" Acts 17:11: Paul praised the Bereans because they "searched the Scriptures daily to make certain whether things were so..." Romans 14:5: "...be fully persuaded in your own mind" Eph. 3:18: "...be able to comprehend...what is the breadth and length and depth and height" of it all Col. 1:9: "...be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding" Col. 1:28-2:2: "have the full assurance of understanding" (meaning certainty, full assurance, complete conviction.) 2 Tim. 2:15: "study to show thyself approved unto God...rightly dividing the word of truth." 1 Thes. 5:21: "prove all things and hold fast that which is good" 1 Peter 3:15: "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." 2 Peter 1:5: "...add to your faith, virtue, and to virtue KNOWLEDGE," James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Ps 90:12: "So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom." Isaiah 1:18: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD" Jesus often used the question method in His teaching.By what authority doest thou these things? Matt 21:23 How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Matt 18:21 Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not? Matt 22:17 Lord, is it I? Matt 26:22 What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? Matt 27:22 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things? Luke 24:26 What doth hinder me to be baptized? Acts 8:36 What must I do to be saved? Acts 16:30 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Rom 8:35 Is Christ divided? 1 Cor 1:13 Wherefore, then serveth the law? Gal 3:19 Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? Gal 4:16 How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Heb 2:3 Who is a wise man? James 3:13 For what is your life? James 4:14 What manner of persons ought ye to be? 2 Peter 3:11
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 7, 2016 8:48:27 GMT -5
Jesus often used the question method in His teaching. Maybe Jesus was channeling Socrates! |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 11:18:49 GMT -5
Boys can and do dress immodestly. Ok, give me an example of boys dressing immodestly calleduntoliberty ? The way most boys dress for swimming. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 11:27:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Cherie, for the Scripture examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2016 12:03:47 GMT -5
Roselyn, As I said, it depends what's appropriate for the situation. I agree with you that there are situations in which a direct answer is appropriate. I think we are all in agreement with this. Jesus gave non-answers or flipped the questions, not only because the Pharasees were trying to trap him, but also because their questions were about silly things. Like hand washing and enjoying food and wine. They were using outward measures to make Jesus and his disciples look bad. You do realize that this board is full of examples of questions about silly things, trying to make the group in question look bad, don't you? You might think outward appearance is unimportant but Jesus taught a connection between inward belief and outward manifestation of belief. One who believes in a set of facts inwardly but does not allow them to influence his life cannot claim to be a follower of Christ. Please answer at least this question so we can see where you stand on this issue and how it might influence your posting: Do you agree with the foregoing statement in italics? Please don't try to judge any hidden meaning that might exist in my mind or read into my words any hidden definitions. Please simply indicate whether or not you can assent to the statement itself. Just the fact that a person does not understand the reasons for something does not mean the other person or group is hypocritical. The words of Jesus were not without meaning or purpose. Please explain to us your understanding of the verse in question, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.", and the consequences that teaching should have for a follower of Christ in modern times. Roselyn, As I said, it depends what's appropriate for the situation. I agree with you that there are situations in which a direct answer is appropriate. Just to add, it seems people have differing ideas about what is a legitimate question, what is hurtful, who has been hurt, and what is an appropriate response. Exclusive groups who are sensitive to ridicule or a cult label maybe are naturally defensive. It would be healthy to realize that the questioner has a reason for feeling angry or wanting to advocate change. What does it harm to answer honestly, being respectful of the other? There is nothing wrong with being apologetic for something the group or deceased leaders have done...as a member you represent the ideals even if they are not your own. CEOs and PR spokespeople do this all the time. It is much better to own up to mistakes than to be defensive. You're responding to me, so I'll answer this personally. I do not claim to be a member of anything other than the body of Christ. I am only one part of that body and cannot claim to represent all members of the body and everything they may say or do. Christ is the head of the body and the best I can do is to point to him. Roselyn, I would not state it exactly how you or Bert put it, but there were times when people asked Jesus questions and he did not directly answer the question in the way the asker would have intended. On at least some of those occasions, the questions were insincere as they were not trying to learn but rather trying to trap Jesus. Jesus gave them a better answer but I wouldn't be surprised if the scribes and Pharisees considered it a non-answer. We are not Jesus but we are called to be his disciples who learn from his example. A person asking a question is not always sincere and even if sincere, may or may not be approaching the situation and so the question might be best not answered directly as phrased. A direct answer on the asker's terms is not always appropriate for the situation. As imperfect followers we are not equal to our master so we are not infallible in making that determination or in our speech in general. I addressed some of this in above posts, but want to add some clarification. The implication that the Pharisees are like modern questioners and Jesus is like the friends is inaccurate. That statement really has no meaning outside of a particular context. We are not perfect and so do not always perfectly respond. Yet I have read and been the direct receipient of questions that were focused on earthly things and responded by pointing to spiritual things such as faithfulness to God. To build on your earlier example, consider a Christian group of people who regularly wash their hands. Someone approaches them and claims Jesus said hand-washing isn't necessary so they shouldn't do it. Maybe he believes they're deceived and wants to save them from the bondage of hand-washing. They respond with their reasons. The questioner continues questioning and twists the answers to try to make it appear that the hand-washers are deceived and are washing their hands for the purpose of fulfilling some ritualistic Pharisaic demand or are trying to earn salvation by washing their hands... Do you have any examples of those things happening? You're free to start a thread here or ask someone in person questions like that in a sincere manner, seeking only for the answer and not seeking to imply by the questioning that the people in the group are not truly devoted to God, are insincere, don't understand the Bible, etc., etc., which claims and implications this board is littered with. Unfortunately, if you started that thread it would quickly fill up with such posts by others and any responder might take other potential readers into consideration when giving an answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 18:52:11 GMT -5
The way most boys dress for swimming. , are you serious  ?? Exactly what is wrong with boys in board shorts ? |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 7, 2016 23:31:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 8, 2016 1:23:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 8, 2016 9:48:48 GMT -5
There are always bad examples available - the beauty/danger of the internet! It seems that all of this discussion is based on the phrase spoken by Jesus: Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.Much of the discussion is not wearing or doing something that would cause a person to have lust. It is probably unfortunate that the word lust was used for the Greek word epithymeō in this instance instead of the word covet, which is a better fit. Consider its use in Acts 20:33 or Romans 7:7. In the verse in Romans the Greek ἐπιθυμία is translated as lust while the Greek epithymeō is translated as covet. Jesus was not introducing a new concept but was warning the listeners that they should not be influenced by any lust they felt to go against the tenth commandment. People are not in control of their emotions and therefore cannot be held responsible for having them. The phrase already assumes the desire of the male for the female. But if you follow that look and covet the woman who has caused that feeling of desire you enter into the sinful act. Jesus would have been crazy to make feeling natural and normal desires sinful. Looking at something and finding it attractive is different from wanting to possess the same thing. Looking at my neighbor's house and saying "Wow, that is a nice house" is not a sin. Having sexual desire when looking at my neighbor's wife is not a sin. Acting on these is a sin. Thoughts are not immoral - actions are. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 8, 2016 18:27:58 GMT -5
The way most boys dress for swimming. You mean when they wear budgie smugglers? |
|
and require covering up than I am concerned about immodesty.
?? Exactly what is wrong with boys in board shorts ? 