Beach Day at Church

[macgulley]

The very things that I hear many say as legalism and narrow minded now are some of the very things that cost men and women their lives in the days of the the Children of Israel. I believe that most of it was listed as idolatry. I know some wont like this statement, but check it out or get over it.

Where would one go to check out that statement?

[oletimer]

macgulley Posted:

oletimer wrote:

The very things that I hear many say as legalism and narrow minded now are some of the very things that cost men and women their lives in the days of the the Children of Israel. I believe that most of it was listed as idolatry. I know some wont like this statement, but check it out or get over it.

Where would one go to check out that statement?

Try the Old Testament, this could be a start, but remember that when the people left the will and word of God, they also left modesty, morals, and shameness, what everybody else was doing was alright. The stranger the gods the more desirable it seemed.

Ex 32:25
And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)

[dolfan]

Oletimer, you cited shameness (a sense of shame, tied to modesty, I think is what you meant). I defy you to point to that young woman in the picture and say she lacks shame and use that photo as evidence of it. Would there be less shame involved, in your opinion, if there was less skin showing? Is there a biblical encouragement, teaching, mandate, etc., against large showy skin? Color in the midriff on that little gal, and answer the question again --- would she be as shameful then? If not, is the problem then a bare back and tummy? Really??

Let's stop the appeal to broad principles. We all agree on the principles. Get down to cases. You cited this young woman in Rahab's photo as an example of improper godless apparel. I want to stick to the issue about her. Would she be less godless, in your view, if she had on a one piece bathing suit?

[oletimer]

First I think that the woman doesn't know any better. You asked if she had a one piece suite would it help? Though I'm not sure from how well a one piece would cover, it would have to beat that out fit.

I defy you to point to that young woman in the picture and say she lacks shame and use that photo as evidence of it.

Any shame I feel she is igorant of. I don't think that she knows any better. The real shame would be on those that didn't help her, but when anything goes, I guess who cares. Well I for one do as well as others that believe that God requires more from His children. I got handkerchiefs that will cover more and that is shameful man or woman in public. God requires more out of His children.

[Susie Hamilton]

This young lady had been saved in the past week. The Pastor spoke with her concerning the baptism to confirm her decision. She had been at the beach that afternoon with friends and family prior to the baptism. She never once flaunted herself, rather, she was very respctful. Give a new Christian a break. I have a 2 piece bathing suit that I only wear in my pool at home. In public I usually wear spandex shorts and a dark t-shirt. I have too many scars on body that I would not want to impose on others. Okay, now back to the story.

[paul]

I must be going blind. I zoomed the picture in question and still fail to see why there is a fuss.

I remember as a young boy in cogop, God forbid that girls or women would wear pants. We had a rather large girl in our group, we were having a youth outing. We were playing soft ball. She hit the ball hard came sliding into home plate. God I wish she would have had on a pair of jeans.

I was not at this baptism, but if the spirit of it was in order and from what Rahab said it seems to be so. Then it was done decently and in order.

All the references to Paul concerning decently and in order, has a great deal more to do with the heart attitude, and if that attitude is out of order then the flesh gets out of order.

We look on the outwar, but thank God He see the inward heart. I am not an advocate of nudity..far from it. But I find it less offecsive than some of the self righetous attitude I come across so often.( I am not referring to you oldtimer, not at all, I respect you )

[Poimen]

For the record, most of the folks in that picture seem to me to be decent enough -- modest. Especially the ministers.

[Sherry]

For the record, most of the folks in that picture seem to me to be decent enough -- modest. Especially the ministers.

Nice too see that "most" have your approval.

Seriously, this whole conversation makes my sick to my stomach.....and we wonder why Christians get such a bad rap?

[macgulley]

Most of the folks in that picture seem to me to be decent enough from up here.

[c u there]

This all reminds me of a conversation I had with a dear friend a couple years ago ( she is in cogop). She said she felt we were just to strict and asked me how I was gonna feel when I got to heaven and found how I was to strict on myself and could have gotten by with a lot more, I said well at least I would be in heaven and probably wouldn't care, but asked her how would she feel if at her passing they told her she was not strict enough and was not getting by as she thought. She stood there for a moment and told me I made a good point.

[scooter]

You all would have had a real problem with Isaiah's modesty.

Ahh the Bible and Tradition what shall we do?

I bet he would have been dismembered, by the traditional apostolic nutjob church.

David's modesty would also be subject, but then again we see those with Michael's prospective being just as barren.

[Poimen]

Most of the folks in that picture seem to me to be decent enough from up here.

The picture (admittedly) is cute, though your response is a bit offensive.

Really, I was simply trying to relate that I am not a victorian prude, and I am not saying modesty has to be donning a burka or petti-coats (though my girls like petti-coats ).

It seems to me that most of you guys are so uptight about the issue of modesty that you can't abide an opinion stricter than your own. I've been taught that such a defensive posture is likely a reason to at least reconsider what one permits in and of itself.

I'd like to point out that though I've called immodesty out, I've not attempted to level any ill or evil intent towards any one -- only the action or behavior itself, realizing that we all grow in grace and knowledge, and thus holiness. But I have been, not only differed with, but more or less charged with sinful intent and motives -- from problems with lust, self control, unrighteous judgmentalism, and a "high horse" attitude.

Why?

[Poimen]

You all would have had a real problem with Isaiah's modesty.

Ahh the Bible and Tradition what shall we do?

I bet he would have been dismembered, by the traditional apostolic nutjob church.

David's modesty would also be subject, but then again we see those with Michael's prospective being just as barren.

Scoot scoot, you been hanging out at Acts to much bud.

Seriously though, Isaiah's case (if it was in fact nudity) is the exception, not the rule.

We don't go to witches to speak the departed spirit's of men of God either -- but God permitted it in Saul's case.

My point? Exceptions are God's prerogative, rules are ours to follow.

Same with David. Besides, most commentary that I have read indicates David's nakedness was not nudity, but a mere shedding of his outer and/or regal garments. Not a stripping down to his undies or birthday suit.

[macgulley]

Really, I was simply trying to relate that I am not a victorian prude, and I am not saying modesty has to be donning a burka or petti-coats (though my girls like petti-coats ).

Just to sort of look at the argument from the other side, wouldn't petticoats and such be also covered by Timothy's admonition?

1 Timothy 2:9 (King James Version)

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;

[Poimen]

Just to sort of look at the argument from the other side, wouldn't petticoats and such be also covered by Timothy's admonition?

1 Timothy 2:9 (King James Version)

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;

I guess it could, depending on the type of petticoat, and the motive for wearing them. BUT, what my girls wear are more or less bloomers, home made slips, and actual "under pants" to help keep them modest when wearing or playing in dresses.

In fact, on an interestuing side note, such is even required by the JeffCoEd school board and for no other purpose or motivation than decency and modesty -- religious conviction aside. So, even if we didn't already practice such our girls would be required by the school to dress so.

But yeah, modesty not only includes wearing enough clothes BUT not wearing too extravagant of clothes, nor donning attire in a prideful spirit.
In both cases it's about purposely NOT drawing attention to ourselves.