What would you do?

[Saved41199]

17 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

I don't know what else to say.  That attitude is unscriptural, ungodly and completely lacking in compassion.  I'm done here.

"Unscriptural"...I quoted Galatians 5:22-23.

"Ungodly"...saying that a Christian should exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as found in Galatians 5:22-23

"Lacking in compassion"...saying a Christian should endeavor to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit as found in Galatians 5:22-23.

What I see is a bunch of men refusing to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions...kind of like when Adam blamed Eve. 

 

[Thief on the Cross]

I have a solution for the debate on clothing. We should all go back to wearing tunics like the bible times.   Yes Im being silly,  but honestly I would be all for it.  I wouldn't have to think about what to wear.  No one could judge another about their spiritual state based on what their wearing.   And comfortable!!  Im mean what could be more comfy.   

I understand everyones point of veiw to some extent.   As far as bikinis and Speedos go.  I personally cant see anyone entering a church wearing one,  unless their intention was to offend.   Or maybe if you decided to hold a service on the beach, then perhaps. 

I do believe that the IFB does put more pressure on women to be modest than men.   I see way to many men with their pants far to snug , And I have Never heard anything preached at them.   Alot of women now a days , (and its an awful thing) are addicted to pornography as well.   I do believe we are all accountable to one another and should help each other to not sin.   But it can go overboard,  thats why  so many of the Arab nation have their women wear burkas.    When we take all responsibility away from men for watching their eyes and controlling their thoughts, it puts a heavy burden on women and allows men to believe they are not responsible for their actions.    

So many times when a Christian man falls in adultery,   what I hear is more preaching about covering up directed toward women.  The man is talked about as a poor brother that fell.   I find it disturbing.     

 Im all for modesty ,  I believe that I do dress modest , even when I do wear pants.   I see others will disagree with me.   And I know that many in my church feel Im less sanctified and a lesser christian because I dont see things their way.   I guess that's just the way it will have to be unless the Lord tells me different.    I do understand that everyone has their own personal convictions,  and I do respect that.    

 

 

 

 

 

[Saved41199]

5 hours ago, Thief on the Cross said:

So many times when a Christian man falls in adultery,   what I hear is more preaching about covering up directed toward women.  The man is talked about as a poor brother that fell.   I find it disturbing.     

Yes! It seems that men are given a pass...they just can't help it. 

I work in a male-dominated industry. Yes, I dress fairly modestly most of the time, yet...it is not my responsibility to keep some man from losing self-control. I see many men wearing things that I might consider inappropriate...like the guys who walk home from the pool in wet swim suits that leave nothing to the imagination. I may notice it, but it doesn't cause me to "lust" after them. There's only ONE man that I go completely ga-ga over...just one. I've been married to him for a long time.

This whole thing over pornography, "modesty", etc. is just an excuse for not exercising self-control. Personally, I have NEVER had the urge to look at pornography. It's just not something I'm interested in. I don't watch "chick flicks", I don't read romance novels either. I find them a waste of my time. Now, if there's a good sci-fi movie or series on, or a good drama, or something with lots of explosions and car chases, I'm there. My reason for not being interested in those things is simple...sex is not a spectator sport. 

I spoke with my husband about this last night and read him some of the posts. Poor guy's eyes rolled so far back into his head I think he saw his own brain. Something about needing to grow up, learning respect, and yes, developing self control were in his comments. We're talking about a retired 24 year sailor here. 

So, for all you men who are so fragile that the glimpse of a shoulder or a curve can turn you into a boiling pot of lust, it's not the woman's fault, it's your own. Seeing women as human beings that are not property to control will go a long way to resolving your lust issues. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Jim_Alaska
administrator edit for poor choice of language

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Let us get this Biblically correct:

1.  If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior.  It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly.  That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.)

2.  If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior.  It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her.  That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.)

[Saved41199]

29 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Let us get this Biblically correct:

1.  If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior.  It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly.  That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.)

2.  If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior.  It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her.  That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.)

citations please. From the New Testament, with proper cultural and historical exegesis please. 

[Thief on the Cross]

Brother Stafford, may I ask how you would respond to the original question.  Please understand Im not trying to argue with you.  I believe by your responses that you love the church and its people.   I know we dont see some things the same,  but would like to know your opinion on what would Be the best way to deal with someone dressed like described in the OP.    If you dont want to answer thats fine.  

Also I agree completely that both saved men and women are responsible for their thoughts and actions.   But an unsaved is not in the same way.  They are in bondage held captive by the enemy.  We should first be concerned with their souls , before clothing.    I dont want to forget those the Lord used , some of them were Harlots.  Why was Mary Magdalene drawn to the Lord, because he had compasion on her , I believe.    I would have to do the same with soneone thats walked in , in the attire of a harlot.    Maybe its because Im a woman, and one that lived in the world for 36 yrs.  I would like to think as christians we woukd put aside our comfort for a while in hopes that a soul might be saved.    

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Sin by character is wicked.  Sin by definition is any transgression against the will or Word of God.

1.  Matthew 5:27-28 -- "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 her heart."  Herein our Lord Jesus Christ was NOT cancelling the prohibition against adultery, as if it no longer applied.  Rather, herein our Lord Jesus Christ was revealing that sexual lust in one's heart is equally as offensive in the sight of God as sexual adultery in one's actions.  Clearly the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the behavior of the male gender (although this does not exclude the application of the principle from the female gender).  Furthermore, the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the HEART-behavior of the individual, not just upon the outward-behavior of the individual.  The specific HEART-behavior that our Lord confronts and condemns is that of lusting after a woman.  This sinful scenario begins with a look, that carries a purpose or result of lusting within after a woman.  No further action is necessary.  Our Lord clearly states that this internal lusting after the woman is in the sight of God a commission of ADULTERY with her ALREADY in his heart.  She does not have to agree.  She does not have to even know.  How she is attired does not matter.  Our Lord Jesus Christ did not grant any avenue of excuse for the man.  He has already committed a wicked sin against the Lord his God.  Culture is irrelevant; it is a matter of the heart in the sight of the Lord God.

2.  1 Timothy 2:9-10 -- "In 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; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."  Herein we find a New Testament instruction that clearly places its emphasis upon the behavior of the female gender (although this does not exclude the application of the principle from the male gender).  Furthermore, the emphasis of this instruction concerns the external apparel and attire of women professing godliness.  Women of God are required by the Lord our God to adorn themselves in a modest manner.  This is the opposite of a "show-offish" manner.  In that time the most common purpose for showing-off concerned one's material wealth or physical beauty.  Thus the passage provides such examples of showiness as "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."  However, the precept for "modest apparel" is all inclusive, encompassing any manner of showiness.  Even so, in our time another common purpose for showing-off concerns one's sexiness and sexual attraction.  This also would be contrary to the precept for modest apparel.  Yet the passage does not emphasize only the matter of external apparel, but also indicates that a woman's choice of modest apparel should be founded upon a modest spirit, "with shamefacedness and sobriety."  Such would be equivalent to the "meek and quiet spirit" of 1 Peter 3:4, "which is in the sight OF GOD of great price."  Finally, the passage emphasizes that women of God are to pursue the spiritual adornment and attractiveness of good, godly works.  Thus a woman of God is to be filled with a Spirit-filled attitude of modesty and meekness, to be externally adorned with modest apparel and attire, and to be spiritually adorned with good works.  Certainly, the culture may change its fashions of showiness; however, the precept against showiness remains in any cultural setting.  For a woman of God to transgress any part of this instruction is for her to commit a wicked sin against the Lord her God.

[Saved41199]

15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sin by character is wicked.  Sin by definition is any transgression against the will or Word of God.

nice try, not buying it. I specifically requested biblical support for your opinions on clothing and how a woman's "immodest dress" directly causes a man (any man) to sin. I requested citations, proper exegesis and looking at the cultural and historical context. You went off on a tangent. That doesn't work with me. Try it again. 

 

15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Women of God are required by the Lord our God to adorn themselves in a modest manner. 

Modest how? Outwardly, or with a gentle spirit? I can dress in the most "modest" way imaginable and yet be immodest by calling attention to how modest I am. 

Also, in that quote, where's the idea that men would "stumble"? 

15 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, the emphasis that our Lord provides is upon the HEART-behavior of the individual, not just upon the outward-behavior of the individual.  The specific HEART-behavior that our Lord confronts and condemns is that of lusting after a woman.  This sinful scenario begins with a look, that carries a purpose or result of lusting within after a woman.  No further action is necessary.  Our Lord clearly states that this internal lusting after the woman is in the sight of God a commission of ADULTERY with her ALREADY in his heart.  She does not have to agree.  She does not have to even know.  How she is attired does not matter.

Hmm....there's that pesky idea of self-control again. 

I'm currently wearing a scoop neck, short-sleeved top with appropriate underthings, and a skirt that goes to mid-calf. Some random guy might get turned on by the lumps on my chest that can't be hidden unless I wear a tent. Is it my problem he goes nuts? Nope. It's not. My physical attributes do not exist just to make some guy get hormonal. 

Again, a man's reaction to my clothing is not my problem. HE needs to discover that my existence is not to blame for whatever thoughts go popping into his head. 

But...men are convinced (by the church) that they're nothing more than meat sacks of uncontrollable hormones. If you're silly enough to buy that, you've just lowered yourself to being an animal. Animals can't control their lusts. Men can. 

PS...I broke my sons of saying "I couldn't help it" very early in their lives. They were taught they were fully responsible for every word and action in their lives. I broke them of blaming someone or something else too. My response to "He/She made me...." was this: "Was someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do/say whatever it was? No? Then you did it because you wanted to do it." They take full responsibility for everything they do, even if it's something they shouldn't have done. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Saved41199

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Pastor Scott Markle]

31 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

nice try, not buying it. I specifically requested biblical support for your opinions on clothing and how a woman's "immodest dress" directly causes a man (any man) to sin. I requested citations, proper exegesis and looking at the cultural and historical context. You went off on a tangent. That doesn't work with me. Try it again. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Well, the emboldened part of your quote above is where you have your failure in relation to my earlier posting.  My earlier posting NO WHERE indicated that a woman's immodest dress CAUSES a man to sin, or that she is AT ALL responsible for his sin.  I have NO NEED to support that opinion, specifically because it is NOT my opinion.  Rather, my earlier posting indicated that a man is at fault for sin against the Lord his God through lust REGARDLESS of the woman's behavior.  You might want to read again, as follows:

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  If a saved man lusts after a woman (that is not his wife), it is a wicked sin against the Lord his God and Savior.  It does not matter if the woman is dressed immodestly or modestly.  That man committed sin against the Lord, and HE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would be true in reverse for a saved woman who lusts as well.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon men; therefore, I have done the same.) (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Furthermore, my earlier posting also indicated that a woman is at fault for sin against the Lord her God if she wears immodest apparel, REGARDLESS of whether a man chooses to lust after her or not.  You might want to read again, as follows:

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  If a saved woman dresses immodestly within a public arena (not in the privacy of her relationship with her husband), it is a wicked sin against the Lord her God and Savior.  It does not matter if a man lusts after her or not, or even if a man is actually present who might lust after her.  That woman committed sin against the Lord, and SHE is at fault before the Lord.  (This principle would also be true in reverse for a saved man who dresses immodestly.  However, the specific passage of Scripture in mind sets its focus upon women; therefore, I have done the same.) (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

My additional posting, as per your request, provided the two Biblical passages wherein the two Biblical commands are provided for the two positions that I presented in my previous posting.  The man in point #1 has committed sin because he transgressed the command of Matthew 5:28.  The woman in point #2 has committed sin because she transgressed the command of 1 Timothy 2:9-10.  It really does not matter what any other person may or may not do.  Breaking the respective command in each case IS SIN.

By the way, in my earlier posting there was also NO hint of BLAME SHIFTING.  Each individual is responsible before the Lord God for his or her OWN behavior, whether it be obedient or disobedient to the respective command of God's Word.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[Pastor Scott Markle]

15 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

P.P.S. It just occurred to me that I can't recall guests and visitors being mentioned in the epistles.  Now I want to go see if I can find some verses about the subject.

1 Corinthians 14:23

Also maybe James 2:1-3

Edited September 7, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Saved41199]

1 hour ago, Brother Stafford said:

P.S. It is my personal opinion that churches should use caution when allowing visitors to attend.  I believe that the majority of the soul-winning of the lost should be done outside of church.  I feel strongly that members should only invite guests that they have spoken with and who have shown at least some sort of interest in the things of God.  There are plenty of things that believers can hear preached and can understand, but that would confuse or put off the still lost.  There have been instances where visitors from other churches or even other denominations have caused discord among existing members.  These are a few examples why I believe we should use caution with visitors, and, as I said, it is only my opinion.

So you have to show your membership card and secret decoder ring to get in the door? 

[Alan]

On 8/9/2018 at 7:28 PM, Alan said:

I Timothy 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

The “house of God” that Paul is referring to the local assembly of the believers. The Apostle Paul is admonishing Timothy to behave himself in the local assembly of believers; the church. The local church was an assembly in an area of a community. It was the visible assembly of the saints in the New Testament. The church may be in a house, a rented building, or a building that was bought for the purpose of the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In 1 and 2 Timothy Paul the Apostle give Timothy, and every saint in the New Testament, instructions “how” to behave himself in the local assembly of believers in the church. 

 

 

All visitors are cordially welcomed to visit churches.

All of the churches that we have started we have welcomed all folks, with all types of backgrounds, with opened arms.

All people should learn "how" they should behave in the "house of God." The church is, or at least should be, "...the house of God." The invisible head of the New Testament church is the Lord Jesus Christ and the pastor is his under-shepherd. The godly Pastor (please note the word 'godly'), knows the difference between 'modest' apparel and 'immodest' apparel.  

The "Progressive" churches, liberal churches, and many other churches in our Laodicean Age, are not teaching the saints, nor the sinners, "how to behave in the house of God." Part of the reason is that they are not 'godly.'

Those saints who refuse (after careful teaching),to learn "how to behave in the house of God," should not be in a position of authority in the church nor represent the church in any fashion.

Included on "how to behave in the house of God," is: our speech, our behaviour, our dress, our actions, our doctrines, our attitudes, and our compassion shown towards others.

 

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Jim_Alaska]

1 hour ago, Saved41199 said:

So you have to show your membership card and secret decoder ring to get in the door? 

Sarcastic comments such as this are unbecoming to Christians. I, for one, can do without them and would encourage your future comments written in a godly manner.