Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Miss California vs. Sodomy


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Ah, pt, I'm sorry. But the holiness of God demands a more stringent look than just saying our culture is okay with things. As to your wedding example - the shoulder and head wear isn't "culture." It is a standard of the church (or of the wedding participants) where the wedding took place. There is a difference between culture and standard.

The culture in which our society finds itself today is godless. No-one who is out in public much these days can deny it. It is anti-God. And the accepted behaviours are a reflection of that culture. One of the big problems with the majority of Christianity today is that Christians also accept it! And that is in direct disobedience to the Word of God, which is very clear that we are to be distinct from the world. Modesty is one of those distinctions. It is a protection God has put in place for women. But we have thrown that protection away, and then try to reason our way into an excuse for it.

The term "naked" in the Bible refers to different things - sometimes completely naked (like Adam and Eve realized they were naked when they first sinned), sometimes not completely clothed (like Adam and Eve when God came to the garden...and Adam told God he hid himself because he was afraid, because he was naked...but remember, he wasn't naked in our terms...he was clothed with the leaf garment they had made). And then GOD covered them - the coat being a garment that covered their bodies - not just the "private" parts.

No, it isn't physical health that the judges are looking at - it's how the woman looks in a bathing suit. The judges themselves may not be lecherous, but those men viewing on the tv sure are!!! Else why would they watch? Just to see the beauty of the womanly form? No! Of course not. It's to see how those women look in skimpy bathing suits.

Bathing suits are designed for sensuality, as is much of women's clothing nowadays. Why? Because it will cause a man to look...and a woman's pride will be fed with those wolf whistles or admiring glances. A man's lust is fed and a woman's ego massaged. Good reason to wear them (not!).

"Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." We are not to accept the standards of the current culture as an okay to undress publicly. Beauty pageants are conforming to the world, the world's view of "beauty." And little girls grow up believing that this is the epitome of beautiful womandhood, while little boys grow up to think it's perfectly okay. That's a sad thing.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." Whether anyone who watches pageants wants to admit it or not, it is an excercise in the lust of the eyes. And God condemns it. When a Christian woman dons a bathing suit and walks around on camera so that all kinds of eyes can "inspect her to see how physically healthy she is," she is contributing to that lust of the eyes...and does not glorify God in the process.

We are a peculiar people, if we are saved. That doesn't mean weird, even though pecualiar has taken on that meaning today. It means set apart - we are a set apart people...set apart from sin and the world, and all of its lusts, and set apart to God and His holiness. Many Christians today have lost sight of that.

(BTW - it's good to see you posting again, pt - even if we're disagreeing. :lol: )


I cannot agree that every man that looks at a woman is lusting after her, whether she happens to be fully clothed, scantly dressed, or completly naked. Lust does not happen in the eyes, it happens in the heart. I live on a beach that is flooded with tourist every summer. I literally see hundreds of women in bikinis every day. It has no effect on me. I don't even notice. If I do so happen to see a woman that I find phyisically admireable, I can hold my glance on her long enough to appreciate her beauty without any lustful thoughts coming in to play. I have a feeling that swimming attire being a common form of dress in my culture has an affect on how seeing beautiful women in bikinis affects me. Are you honoestly telling me that you had no admiration for your husbands physicallity before you were married to him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Administrators


I cannot agree that every man that looks at a woman is lusting after her, whether she happens to be fully clothed, scantly dressed, or completly naked. Lust does not happen in the eyes, it happens in the heart. I live on a beach that is flooded with tourist every summer. I literally see hundreds of women in bikinis every day. It has no effect on me. I don't even notice. If I do so happen to see a woman that I find phyisically admireable, I can hold my glance on her long enough to appreciate her beauty without any lustful thoughts coming in to play. I have a feeling that swimming attire being a common form of dress in my culture has an affect on how seeing beautiful women in bikinis affects me. Are you honoestly telling me that you had no admiration for your husbands physicallity before you were married to him?


Well, I don't believe you're being completely honest with yourself, but that's okay - I don't know your mind. And, yes, lust does begin in the heart. But guess what? The Bible says, "Mine eye affecteth mine heart." What goes in the eye gate goes into the heart and has vast impact on us, whether we want to admit it does or not, and whether or not we think it does!

I never said I wasn't physically attracted to my husband. I don't know where you got that. But I will say: he was never undressed in front of me, nor was I ever undressed in front of him. Our relationship wasn't built on the physical. It was built on so much more. Glancing at a woman to admire her physical beauty is one thing - but when that woman is not clothed, it makes it so much more. I certainly hope that looking at scantily clad women doesn't come back to haunt you after you are married. You know, it could. Because the eye does affect the heart. But, just as in gardening, the law of reaping and sowing applies: the reaping comes later. Allowing things into our hearts and minds that shouldn't be there gives fertile ground for lust to grow in the heart. "Mine eye affecteth mine heart." A Bible truth that, no matter what we might like to say, cannot be disputed - else we'd be calling God a liar.

No, swimming attire being a common form of dress actually causes desensitization. When we are exposed to something long enough, we become desensitized to it. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect us - what it means is that we no longer view it as God does. As I said earlier, our society's culture (and it includes CA as well as anywhere else, beaches as well as any other place) is godless. And when we accept what our culture does as normal, we are pushing God's holiness away from us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Happy: I didn't ask whether you were ever phsyically attracted to your husband prior to marriage. I asked whether you admired his physicallity. You don't have to see a person naked to have a fairly vivid idea of what their body looks like. I have been on countless dates and have dated a few girls seriously and with each one I admired their physical health. I admired that they had tone bodies and were not fat or obese. I admired their grooming habits and the fact that they took care of themselves. Without getting into my personal sins, lets just say that I do my best at all times to never lust and I think I do a fairly good job of it (a quick little prayer asking God to take away the temptation does the job 100% of the time, so long as it is sincere). It is just silly to think that a man will automatically lust after a woman (even if she is 100% nude) just because he sees her.
Again I think it boils down to intent and culture. What if a man has some strange interest in seeing women in lose fitting pants? Is it a sin for women to wear lose fitting pants in his presence due to the fact that he may lust over them? She did not intend to cause him to lust, nor did she know that he would be lusting after her. Men have all sorts of weird attractions that women can not, and should not, be expected to know.

I think I understand the problem you are having with the bikini. It shoes three things that trouble you: a portion of the breast, the waist and the thigh. If a woman was wearing such an outfit at the drive through, I'd be on the same page as you. But if the outfit is being worn for its purpose (and whether you want to believe it or not, not every piece of female clothing is designed to enhance the sexual desires of men, even if that is a byproduct), which is swimming/bathing, then I see no problem with it. If a man is not a christian, or is a christian who has problems with sexual temptation, then he should avoid places where he may be tempted. If bikinis just so happen to further his temptation, then he should stay away from the beach. I don't believe it is the woman's responsibility to police the temptation of everyman which she might encounter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Happy: I didn't ask whether you were ever phsyically attracted to your husband prior to marriage. I asked whether you admired his physicallity. You don't have to see a person naked to have a fairly vivid idea of what their body looks like. I have been on countless dates and have dated a few girls seriously and with each one I admired their physical health. I admired that they had tone bodies and were not fat or obese. I admired their grooming habits and the fact that they took care of themselves. Without getting into my personal sins, lets just say that I do my best at all times to never lust and I think I do a fairly good job of it (a quick little prayer asking God to take away the temptation does the job 100% of the time, so long as it is sincere). It is just silly to think that a man will automatically lust after a woman (even if she is 100% nude) just because he sees her.
Again I think it boils down to intent and culture. What if a man has some strange interest in seeing women in lose fitting pants? Is it a sin for women to wear lose fitting pants in his presence due to the fact that he may lust over them? She did not intend to cause him to lust, nor did she know that he would be lusting after her. Men have all sorts of weird attractions that women can not, and should not, be expected to know.

I think I understand the problem you are having with the bikini. It shoes three things that trouble you: a portion of the breast, the waist and the thigh. If a woman was wearing such an outfit at the drive through, I'd be on the same page as you. But if the outfit is being worn for its purpose (and whether you want to believe it or not, not every piece of female clothing is designed to enhance the sexual desires of men, even if that is a byproduct), which is swimming/bathing, then I see no problem with it. If a man is not a christian, or is a christian who has problems with sexual temptation, then he should avoid places where he may be tempted. If bikinis just so happen to further his temptation, then he should stay away from the beach. I don't believe it is the woman's responsibility to police the temptation of everyman which she might encounter.

Being physically attracted is actually the same thing as admiring physicality - just a different way of putting it. But see, with your second sentence, you contradicted what you said earlier: you claimed that the judges had to see the women in a bathing suit in order to determine her physical health (they weren't looking at her health, they were looking at the shape of her body. Not the same thing, by a long shot!). And then you say that it isn't necessary to see someone naked to know what their body looks like. And that is true!!! That statement alone belies the supposed need for women to wear undress for judges to ponder.

You know, if a man has a problem with lust, it is his heart problem, as has been mentioned earlier. Women can dress in sacks and some men will lust just because they are women. That isn't the issue here. But I do agree that a man should avoid things that can further a temptation - as should women. But thinking that just because lust seems to be avoidable can be very dangerous, pt!! "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Warning to all of us!

BTW - I didn't say every piece of women's clothing was designed to enhance the sexual desires of men. I said that a lot of women's clothing was sensual. And it is. Purposely. To attract attention on the part of the male, and to enhance a woman's feelings of being "sexy." Look into it, pt, and you will find that I am right on the money!

And, no, it isn't silly to think that a man will automatically lust after a woman who is not clothed correctly. God designed men to respond to sight. And men do. Whether it is right away or not. That's why so many fellows who, as young boys snuck peaks at playboy magazines have problems with marital relations as adults. "Mine eye affecteth mine heart." We reap what we sow. Ironclad Biblical principle that we cannot explain away.

No, actually my "problem" isn't with what you assumed. My "problem" is with the fact that this girl, and so many others like her, have not been taught the holiness of God. Instead she, and others, have adapted to culture - in direct defiance, whether it is willful or not - to what God says about not doing that. I expect that kind of thing from the lost. But not from someone who names the name of Christ.

No, it isn't the woman's responsibility to police the temptations of every man she encounters. But it is her responsibility to make sure there would be no truthful reason for a normal man to think lustful thoughts about her. We are none of us to be a stumbling block to our fellow Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But how is a woman to kno whether or not she will be a stumbling block based on what she wears? Sure, can assume that a certain peice of clothing will not excite the desires of man, but what if she is wrong? Or what if she is naive in thinking that certain piece of clothing will not excite the desires of man?

I do agree with you that we (and propbably me more than you considering my age and what I have been exposed to in only a short life) have become desensitized to many things, the female body being a fine example. However, that is counter to lust. As you mentioned, I have been around women in bathing suits for the majority of my life. Because of that, I am not as likely to lust after a woman in a bathing suit than other people who don't live in a subtropical climate where bathing suits are common. I'm sure most men in my culture are the same way. Thus, considering that the culture doesn't see bikinis as immodest due to our culture being "desensitized" to them, then I do not see how it is immodest in my culture for a woman to wear a bikini.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I owe the modest and chaste ladies of this board an apology. I sincerely apologize to you first; and secondly salute your adherence to Biblical principle for wearing of apparel. Lastly, to the men here, attempting to live Godly separated lives, I also apologize.

The fact that an immodestly, scantily dressed, representative of worldly compromise would receive so much praise from so many of the world?s media sources should have set off a loud siren. Please allow me to retract any supportive comment previously made.

Yes, the message should have been given that, a Christian should not compromise on the issue of sodomy. However, the message, if sent of God has in the past come from sanctified sources. I could begin listing prophets here end with Jesus and the apostles but, for brevity, I will just bring them to mind.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

This young woman?s utterance, although commendable, weakens our stand of separation from the world. In these days of subtle attack by Satan and his minions we need to be ever vigilant to his attempt to promote apostasy. Inviting the world into sanctified and separated living is just such an attempt.

I?ve perpetuated this thread beyond what it deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Dave, thank you for that!! Let me say that I never for one minute though you were okaying what she wore!

pt - I just wanted to comment on a couple of things, and then I'll be done, most likely. I think everything that can be said just about is, except...

You have the wrong idea about desensitization!! That term is referring to the fact that, as we allow ourselves to be exposed to sin, we become less sensitive to the Holy Spirit telling us it is sin...until finally we no longer view it as sin (notice I say "we," not God!). But the plain fact of the matter is - it is still sin, and our eyes still do affect our hearts, and we do reap what we sow.

The culture that this world offers is anti-God. As Christians, we are to stand against it. Comments have been made at different times about different cultures around the world, and how they dress differently...well, we are citizens of Heaven. Should our clothing not reflect that?

God clothed people in the Bible - Adam and Eve were clothed with cloaks (covering at least from the neck to the knees, possibly mid-calf or longer). The priests were clothed at least to the knees (actually, their tunics were most likely to the feet). And in Heaven saints are clothed in robes...at least to the knees (the word for all of those clothes indicate the same thing...). So, if the saints in heaven are clothed from neck to at least the knee, and they are sinless, it would seem to me that God would want us to be covered.

I would heartily recommend a book written by Jeff Pollard: Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America. He explains a lot of the history behind the suit. Quite informative!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I cannot agree that every man that looks at a woman is lusting after her, whether she happens to be fully clothed, scantly dressed, or completly naked. Lust does not happen in the eyes, it happens in the heart. I live on a beach that is flooded with tourist every summer. I literally see hundreds of women in bikinis every day. It has no effect on me. I don't even notice. If I do so happen to see a woman that I find phyisically admireable, I can hold my glance on her long enough to appreciate her beauty without any lustful thoughts coming in to play. I have a feeling that swimming attire being a common form of dress in my culture has an affect on how seeing beautiful women in bikinis affects me. Are you honoestly telling me that you had no admiration for your husbands physicallity before you were married to him?


Looks like this has been beat to death already.....but read Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is what the scripture says. I know you say you don't look at a woman in a bikini to "lust" after her (I understand that).
I personally would hate to be responsible for dressing as such and causing someone to sin (You may be able to just look & think nothing of it "but that's not true with every man". I think what you're saying has become a common problem with Christians......for example, a lot of people think they can drink and it not affect anyone else. Not true, basically if the Bible says something is wrong, it was wrong then AND STILL is wrong today! Look at our society, we've compromised so much that's there are no wrongs anymore. Culture doesn't come into play, you can't undress much more than a Bikini. Also, I know from a woman's standpoint that I wore a mini dress, I would be doing it for no other reason that to dress "sexy". And we won't talk about a dress that exposes much to much cleavage. This is not culture, this is just wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Looks like this has been beat to death already.....but read Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is what the scripture says. I know you say you don't look at a woman in a bikini to "lust" after her (I understand that).
I personally would hate to be responsible for dressing as such and causing someone to sin (You may be able to just look & think nothing of it "but that's not true with every man". I think what you're saying has become a common problem with Christians......for example, a lot of people think they can drink and it not affect anyone else. Not true, basically if the Bible says something is wrong, it was wrong then AND STILL is wrong today! Look at our society, we've compromised so much that's there are no wrongs anymore. Culture doesn't come into play, you can't undress much more than a Bikini. Also, I know from a woman's standpoint that I wore a mini dress, I would be doing it for no other reason that to dress "sexy". And we won't talk about a dress that exposes much to much cleavage. This is not culture, this is just wrong.


It is what comes out of the body, not what goes in, that is sinful. A bikini is different that a mini dress. The bikini has a practical, functional purpose, which it bathing/swimming. Women wear bikinis every day with no intent or expectation that it will cause a man to lust after them. Although I do agree that alcohol can be a stumbling block for others, it, like the bikini, is not a sin in and of itself. Your argument is basically that the sinfulness of the bikini is that it has the capability of causing a person to lust. However, that than can be said for almost anything a woman wears. There are as many different things that cause men to lust as their are men themselves. It is not womankind's responsibility to police men's thoughts and desires. If a woman goes to a beach and knows she will be around a man who lust after women in bikinis, she has a responsibility not to be a stumbling block to him and therefore should wear a less revealing swimming garment. However, if she is merely going to the beach to sun bath or swim, and has no reason to know that such a man will be in her presence, she has no obligation to plan her life around whether or not she may or may not encounter such a man.

Alcohol has never been wrong. The abuse of alcohol, like the abuse of chocolate, sugar, coca-cola, meat, or any other thing that you can consume in great quantities to your detriment, is what is wrong. Again, its not what goes into the body, but what comes out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators


It is what comes out of the body, not what goes in, that is sinful. A bikini is different that a mini dress. The bikini has a practical, functional purpose, which it bathing/swimming. Women wear bikinis every day with no intent or expectation that it will cause a man to lust after them. Although I do agree that alcohol can be a stumbling block for others, it, like the bikini, is not a sin in and of itself. Your argument is basically that the sinfulness of the bikini is that it has the capability of causing a person to lust. However, that than can be said for almost anything a woman wears. There are as many different things that cause men to lust as their are men themselves. It is not womankind's responsibility to police men's thoughts and desires. If a woman goes to a beach and knows she will be around a man who lust after women in bikinis, she has a responsibility not to be a stumbling block to him and therefore should wear a less revealing swimming garment. However, if she is merely going to the beach to sun bath or swim, and has no reason to know that such a man will be in her presence, she has no obligation to plan her life around whether or not she may or may not encounter such a man.

Alcohol has never been wrong. The abuse of alcohol, like the abuse of chocolate, sugar, coca-cola, meat, or any other thing that you can consume in great quantities to your detriment, is what is wrong. Again, its not what goes into the body, but what comes out.

"Mine eye affecteth mine heart." That's Bible. Yes, it does affect. God says it does. Argument can be given that it doesn't, but I'll take God's word over man's any day.

And yes, women have a responsibility to dress in a proper way - God commands modesty. And no matter what you want to believe, pt, a bikini is not modest. Even the world knows this. It's a shame that Christians don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Mine eye affecteth mine heart." That's Bible. Yes, it does affect. God says it does. Argument can be given that it doesn't, but I'll take God's word over man's any day.

And yes, women have a responsibility to dress in a proper way - God commands modesty. And no matter what you want to believe, pt, a bikini is not modest. Even the world knows this. It's a shame that Christians don't.


No doubt that what the eye sees has the ability to affect the heart, but there is no reasonable arguement that everything you see affects your heart. I don't have a bible in front of me and am a little to busy to look on line, but when I get a chance I would like to look at the verse you are referencing to see what exactly it is talking about. I can't honestly say that I am familiar with it right off hand.

What is the biblical definition of what divides "modest dress" from "immodest dress"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It's Lamentations 3:53 and it's specifically talking about mourning in that passage. But other verses throughout the Bible support the principle that what goes in our eyes does affect us. There is no way that it cannot. And any honest person would admit it!

"I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me." Psalm 101:3

"I have made a covenant with mine eyes: why then should I think upon a maid?" Job 31:1 It's interesting that a man that the Bible says eschewed evil made a covenant with his eyes...when women were clothed from neck to foot!!!

pt - I've mentioned several times, and I will do it just once more -

God commands modesty. Does the Bible say, "This is modesty?" Of course not. But the Bible gives us principles which we are to follow - whether we like it or not, whether we think we're convicted about it or not! It's called obedience.

The instance in the garden of Eden is interesting. Eve disobeyed God and Adam followed along...she looked at the tree and fell prey to the three things that God warns us of in 1 John 2:16 "...the lust of the flesh, the lust of the EYES, and the pride of life..." Genesis 3:6 tells us: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise..." All three aspects are here - good for food - lust of the flesh (there was no need for her to eat it...God had provided everything she needed), pleasant to the eyes - lust of the eyes (when we allow our eyes to look on things that aren't right, but are pleasant to look at...), and desired to make one wise - pride of life. Pride is the sin that is at the base of just about every sin. ("Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Pride makes us think we won't sin.)

When Adam and Eve had eaten, their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. Well, they were married, so what's the harm? But they were ashamed. So they made covering for themselves - aprons, short coverings. God came to walk. Adam hid himself because he was afraid...because he was naked. But wait! They had "covered" themselves. But they both knew it wasn't sufficient. God made them coverings. And the word for that means they were covered from neck to knee at the very least, possibly to mid-calf or the feet.

The next instance of God detailing how one should dress is the priests. The same word is used...they were to be covered from neck to at least the knee.

The saints in heaven will be in robes...the same word - from the neck to at least the knee.

What was nakedness in Bible times? (and let's remember "I am the LORD, I change not." Malachi 3, and "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today and forever." Heb. 13

After Jesus' resurrection but before His ascension, Peter went back to fishing. Some of the disciples went with him. The Bible tells us that when they knew that it was the Lord on the shore, Peter put on his cloak because he was naked. Now, to us naked means completely bare. But the word naked in the Bible can mean completely bare or just partially clothed. In this case, Peter had on his tunic but no overcoat. It was acceptable when in fishing with a bunch of men, because he wasn't completely bare. But it was not acceptable elsewhere. And they were on the water...near the beach. So I guess if one wants to say something is acceptable for beachwear, a tunic would be...and tunics were one piece garments that went from the neck to at least the knee....

God used the example of a woman's shame to let Babylon know of shame coming. And what was that shame? Making bare the leg, and uncovering the thigh (the thigh extends from the hip to the knee).

So what would the principle of modesty be in scripture? Being covered from the neck to at least the knee. That's what God instituted in the garden and how saints will be dressed in eternity...from the beginning to eternity God is the same. Bikinis are inappropriate wear for Christians - regardless of where they are when they wear them.

God told us not to allow the lust of the eyes influence us. And exposed flesh, especially when draped just so to heighten sensuality (which bathing suits do) is allowing the lust of the eyes to influence the person who looks, likes and continues to look.

"Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It's Lamentations 3:53 and it's specifically talking about mourning in that passage. But other verses throughout the Bible support the principle that what goes in our eyes does affect us. There is no way that it cannot. And any honest person would admit it!

"I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me." Psalm 101:3

"I have made a covenant with mine eyes: why then should I think upon a maid?" Job 31:1 It's interesting that a man that the Bible says eschewed evil made a covenant with his eyes...when women were clothed from neck to foot!!!

pt - I've mentioned several times, and I will do it just once more -

God commands modesty. Does the Bible say, "This is modesty?" Of course not. But the Bible gives us principles which we are to follow - whether we like it or not, whether we think we're convicted about it or not! It's called obedience.

The instance in the garden of Eden is interesting. Eve disobeyed God and Adam followed along...she looked at the tree and fell prey to the three things that God warns us of in 1 John 2:16 "...the lust of the flesh, the lust of the EYES, and the pride of life..." Genesis 3:6 tells us: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise..." All three aspects are here - good for food - lust of the flesh (there was no need for her to eat it...God had provided everything she needed), pleasant to the eyes - lust of the eyes (when we allow our eyes to look on things that aren't right, but are pleasant to look at...), and desired to make one wise - pride of life. Pride is the sin that is at the base of just about every sin. ("Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Pride makes us think we won't sin.)

When Adam and Eve had eaten, their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. Well, they were married, so what's the harm? But they were ashamed. So they made covering for themselves - aprons, short coverings. God came to walk. Adam hid himself because he was afraid...because he was naked. But wait! They had "covered" themselves. But they both knew it wasn't sufficient. God made them coverings. And the word for that means they were covered from neck to knee at the very least, possibly to mid-calf or the feet.

The next instance of God detailing how one should dress is the priests. The same word is used...they were to be covered from neck to at least the knee.

The saints in heaven will be in robes...the same word - from the neck to at least the knee.

What was nakedness in Bible times? (and let's remember "I am the LORD, I change not." Malachi 3, and "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today and forever." Heb. 13

After Jesus' resurrection but before His ascension, Peter went back to fishing. Some of the disciples went with him. The Bible tells us that when they knew that it was the Lord on the shore, Peter put on his cloak because he was naked. Now, to us naked means completely bare. But the word naked in the Bible can mean completely bare or just partially clothed. In this case, Peter had on his tunic but no overcoat. It was acceptable when in fishing with a bunch of men, because he wasn't completely bare. But it was not acceptable elsewhere. And they were on the water...near the beach. So I guess if one wants to say something is acceptable for beachwear, a tunic would be...and tunics were one piece garments that went from the neck to at least the knee....

God used the example of a woman's shame to let Babylon know of shame coming. And what was that shame? Making bare the leg, and uncovering the thigh (the thigh extends from the hip to the knee).

So what would the principle of modesty be in scripture? Being covered from the neck to at least the knee. That's what God instituted in the garden and how saints will be dressed in eternity...from the beginning to eternity God is the same. Bikinis are inappropriate wear for Christians - regardless of where they are when they wear them.

God told us not to allow the lust of the eyes influence us. And exposed flesh, especially when draped just so to heighten sensuality (which bathing suits do) is allowing the lust of the eyes to influence the person who looks, likes and continues to look.

"Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."


Happy: you just prove my point. The reason Peter felt the need to further cover himself was because, according to his particular culture and tradition, it was not appropriate for man to be dressed only in a tunic when he was doing anything other than fishing. The bikini is like to tunic. It is acceptable in our culture to be worn for swimming/bathing, but in every other situation, it is inappropriate.

I am also interested in what you have provided regarding the garment provided by God in the garden. What references are you using to determine the supposed length of the garments?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

pt - no, I didn't prove your point! A tunic is much more covering than a bikini...and GOD DOESN'T CHANGE. My comments about beachwear was tongue in cheek.

It's the definition of the word that was translated...interesting that it's the same definition in Hebrew and Greek. Hmmmm - maybe God was trying to make a point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
pt - no, I didn't prove your point! A tunic is much more covering than a bikini...and GOD DOESN'T CHANGE. My comments about beachwear was tongue in cheek.

It's the definition of the word that was translated...interesting that it's the same definition in Hebrew and Greek. Hmmmm - maybe God was trying to make a point?


what is the word being translated?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...