Christian Attire - The 90% Rule

ALAYMAN said:
A variety of external fashion could indicate the practice of prostitution in Solomons day, among those might be a veil. Whatever the attire referenced in Prov 7 might have consisted of, it can’t be argued from that passage that sexuality and outward adornment, or lack thereof, are immaterial factors to the discussion of enticement/temptation.
Click to expand...
sorry..... but i looked proverbs 7 up one side and down the other... .. and there is nothing mentioned or even implied in there about "lack therof" regarding the garment or attire the harlot was wearing.... ...

in fact after the words "attire of a harlot" she is described as being "subtle of heart"... "loud and stubborn".... abiding not in her own house... but rather out on the streets and lying in wait around the corners.... .... then it describes how she approaches the young man with an "impudent face" and kisses him.... then immediately begins telling him lies to lure him to her bed..... ... but nothing else is said about what that harlots attire does or does not contain.... . or how the "lack thereof" might have played any part in her ability to seduce him.... .. ..... all that was done through her words... actions... and what he saw in her face/eyes when he looked at her.... .....

are you sure you are not looking at proverbs 7 through the lenses of 20th century middle america and adding regional and cultural values to the lessons you glean from it?.......
 
aleshanee said:
and that;s how it started last time.... .. the condemnation by hyper and part time hyper fundamentalists of spandex pants and shorts on women worn as outer clothing......:rolleyes:. ..well... i dress that way quite frequently depending on the occasion or the activity i am involved in..... and i have raked over the coals for it many time over the entire span of my involvement with the fff.... and i am not going to change it..... .. ......

but one thing i can tell you is this... i do not dress that way to go to church... i dress in a very formal way to go to church just like i would dress to go to a wedding or a funeral.... even for a night out to a nice restaurant where specific types of dress is required and casual wear is innapropriate...... to put it in another light i dress like i would if i was going to job interview as a front desk receptionist in a law office... or being considered as a partner in the law firm itself..... (things way out of my league but not out of my ability to dress like)..... .. ...

yet.. some people in the world of fundamentalism today go to church wearing board shorts.. ragged jeans... t-shirts and backwards baseball hats ... then do a wiggle dance down the ailse to their seat in synch to whatever their church "worship" band is playing - while condeming me for dressing nice in church...... they claim we are trying to "impress" God by wearing '"church clothes" as if it;s even possible to impress God and as if someone being dressed nicely in church is a personal offense to both God and also to them.......

we have had that discussion here before too before about people being "over dressed" at church and how it offends certain people to see it.... it separated a few long time friendships as well.. .. ...does there ever come a time when fundamentalist mind their own business on issues that don;t affect them?...
Click to expand...
We clearly have different views on what is modest and God honoring regarding clothing, but that's the whole point of individual spiritulity and personal independence. I don't have to agree with you on convictions and personal preferences for us to be civil or even friends. I would guess if we listed what we thought was approproprate and God honoring when it comes to music most of the FFF community would not agree. If we discussed which Bible version we prefer there would be at least 5 different choices. If you ask my opinion I will give it, if I am in a position of influence among people who want to know my views then I will share them otherwise to each their own.
 
sword said:
We clearly have different views on what is modest and God honoring regarding clothing, but that's the whole point of individual spiritulity and personal independence. I don't have to agree with you on convictions and personal preferences for us to be civil or even friends. I would guess if we listed what we thought was approproprate and God honoring when it comes to music most of the FFF community would not agree. If we discussed which Bible version we prefer there would be at least 5 different choices. If you ask my opinion I will give it, if I am in a position of influence among people who want to know my views then I will share them otherwise to each their own.
Click to expand...
were we being un-civil?....... the person i was replying to in the post you answered - (starlifter)... threw spandex shorts into the conversation all on his own... ... and then suggested they are immodest because they leave too little to the imagination..... well what is it he is trying to imagine anyway?...... .... ....

in general i get along with starlifter but if someone specifically mentions something i wear all the time and says i am making myself look immodest... then i am going to answer that and give my opinion as well..... . i wear spandex shorts and also spandex leggings when the occasion or activity calls for it... and when they are appropriate... .... i do not wear them to places where they are not appropriate... .. and i make that choice based on what is appropriate in the place - environment - and culture i live in.... ...if i need advice on it then i ask other women that i know well and trust the opinions of.. ... and i mean no offense but i do not base my clothing choices on what men think who live 6000 miles away in a totally different environment and culture... .
 
aleshanee said:
were we being un-civil?....... the person i was replying to in the post you answered - (starlifter)... threw spandex shorts into the conversation all on his own... ... and then suggested they are immodest because they leave too little to the imagination..... well what is it he is trying to imagine anyway?...... .... ....

in general i get along with starlifter but if someone specifically mentions something i wear all the time and says i am making myself look immodest... then i am going to answer that and give my opinion as well..... . i wear spandex shorts and also spandex leggings when the occasion or activity calls for it... and when they are appropriate... .... i do not wear them to places where they are not appropriate... .. and i make that choice based on what is appropriate in the place - environment - and culture i live in.... ...if i need advice on it then i ask other women that i know well and trust the opinions of.. ... and i mean no offense but i do not base my clothing choices on what men think who live 6000 miles away in a totally different environment and culture... .
Click to expand...
Not at all, Sorry.

My point is we can vastly disagree, especially on methods and preferences and still should be able to get along and even be friends
 
aleshanee said:
were we being un-civil?....... the person i was replying to in the post you answered - (starlifter)... threw spandex shorts into the conversation all on his own... ... and then suggested they are immodest because they leave too little to the imagination..... well what is it he is trying to imagine anyway?...... .... ....

in general i get along with starlifter but if someone specifically mentions something i wear all the time and says i am making myself look immodest... then i am going to answer that and give my opinion as well..... . i wear spandex shorts and also spandex leggings when the occasion or activity calls for it... and when they are appropriate... .... i do not wear them to places where they are not appropriate... .. and i make that choice based on what is appropriate in the place - environment - and culture i live in.... ...if i need advice on it then i ask other women that i know well and trust the opinions of.. ... and i mean no offense but i do not base my clothing choices on what men think who live 6000 miles away in a totally different environment and culture... .
Click to expand...
My mom would say they are only approprate when you are in bed and not even around the house, but she is from a very different era.

She is horrified at what she sees at the mall.
 
sword said:
My mom would say they are only approprate when you are in bed and not even around the house, but she is from a very different era.

She is horrified at what she sees at the mall.
Click to expand...
she would probably be horrified if she saw me pretty much anywhere i go..... except for church...... like i said previously i dress up for church in way that;s much more formal then what i have seen others on the forums describe when discussing their own church attire... .. some of them clam people who dress up for church are trying to impress people or impress God...... ......maybe so but i am not...... ...i act better when i am wearing better clothes... it;s just a fact of who i am... .. the old saying of "good manners come with a good suit" comes to mind... ..

i don;t try to surf or spearfish in a dress and i would never wear a swimsuit or wetsuit into church..... . would never go to church in my hunting clothes either... which is a long pair of military bdu pants and a ghilly suit shirt and hood... black tank top under it for when i get over heated or don;t need to be camoflaged... .. but people on the old forums criticized me for that too saying a woman wearing pants of any kind at any time was innapropriate..... they even suggested i should try both surfing and bowhunting wearing culottes... ....

but at the archery range and also for bicycling i am usually wearing spandex shorts... . sometimes udt style shorts like what some here call "daisy dukes"..... ..with an appropriate top depending on what the weather ..sun and heat index is like........apparently just the thought of that makes a few fundamentalist heads explode..... but nobody here in hawaii seems to care... . especially since many of them... females anyway... are wearing the same kinds of things.... ...
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if anyone here has run into this but I have seen many posts ‘out there’ decrying the damage done by the “purity movement” or the “modesty cult”. Whether the two are the same or different is still unclear to me. The core issue is that these movements were used as cover by Christian leaders to abuse girls and then blame them because of their lack of modesty.

I know that it doesn’t directly relate to the OP but it is what came to my mind as I was reading through this thread.
 
Starlifter said:
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, and I'm not for women wearing dresses down to their ankles to appear 'godly', but wouldn't you consider spandex volley ball shorts immodest just b/c the Bible doesn't specifically say "spandex shorts" are immodest? I mean, common sense tells me that when what you wear leaves little to imagination, maybe it's immodest?
Click to expand...
Yeah, immodest in the "too tight" kind of way. When I first went to university, moving to the city from a small town in the late 1980s, I was rather surprised at the number of girls that walked around campus in skin-tight biking shorts. It wasn't done where I was from. Still feel that way as a general rule.

But spandex shorts are like swimsuits in one regard: they're utilitarian--useful for their intended purposes, such as biking or exercising. If I see a woman in a bathing suit at the pool, I might check her out, but I'm far less likely to keep paying her attention than if she wore it to, say, Walmart. Similarly, a woman wearing spandex as gym or biking gear. It's a bit of a grey area as far as making blanket pronunciations about her immodesty, if it's the appropriate attire for the task.
 
ALAYMAN said:
A variety of external fashion could indicate the practice of prostitution in Solomons day, among those might be a veil. Whatever the attire referenced in Prov 7 might have consisted of, it can’t be argued from that passage that sexuality and outward adornment, or lack thereof, are immaterial factors to the discussion of enticement/temptation.
Click to expand...
But when the "attire of a harlot" is brought up by some Manna God who thinks the womenfolk might as well strut around naked as wear jeans or knee-length skirts, it's wholly relevant to point out to the pulpit shouter that Tamar signalled her immodesty, not by revealing too much skin or shape, but by covering herself head to toe.
 
Ransom said:
But when the "attire of a harlot" is brought up by some Manna God who thinks the womenfolk might as well strut around naked as wear jeans or knee-length skirts, it's wholly relevant to point out to the pulpit shouter that Tamar signalled her immodesty, not by revealing too much skin or shape, but by covering herself head to toe.
Click to expand...
The narrative says he thought she was a harlot because she covered her face.

But nature tells us there had to be some sex appeal. She was still young, most likely shapely, and when he uncovered her, it didn't kill the mood.

Add to that, he didn't recognize her voice, and even without the vail he didn't recognize her, so I'd say his previous interactions with her were few, and likely through correspondence or a messenger.

I think it's a stretch trying to paint her attire like that of a burka.
 
If the David/Bathsheba scandal happened today, how would we pious Christian men respond? I can hear it now . . .

David should not be blamed or penalized for this - he was "set up."
Bathsheba must not have been "dressed right."
Bathsheba must have been seductive - David simply didn't have the power to resist - men will be men.
It must have been consensual - Bathsheba didn't have any serious bruises or missing teeth.
Bathsheba should not go public or press charges - think how this will damage David's career and hurt his family!
We need to cover this up for the good of the ministry.
We shouldn't even be talking about this on the Internet - that's the sin of gossip, worse than anything David might have done.
David's wives must not have been giving him enough pleasure in bed, and they didn't keep up their good looks. Abigail must have put on weight and gone frumpy.
It seems that Nathan is putting 100% of the blame on David, and that's not fair. Bathsheba deserves the lion's share of the blame. If not for her, none of this would have happened.
We are the only religion that shoots our wounded - David is wounded, so we need to stop shooting at him.
The people who are grousing about this are just out to get the Mannagod and destroy fundamentalism. Their motives are evil, and who are they to throw the first stone?
Why are we bringing up all this old stuff from the past? We need to forgive, forget and move on.
 
Ekklesian said:
The narrative says he thought she was a harlot because she covered her face.

But nature tells us there had to be some sex appeal. She was still young, most likely shapely, and when he uncovered her, it didn't kill the mood.

Add to that, he didn't recognize her voice, and even without the vail he didn't recognize her, so I'd say his previous interactions with her were few, and likely through correspondence or a messenger.

I think it's a stretch trying to paint her attire like that of a burka.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on writing four full paragraphs to miss the point.
 
illinoisguy said:
If the David/Bathsheba scandal happened today, how would we pious Christian men respond? I can hear it now . . .

David should not be blamed or penalized for this - he was "set up."
Bathsheba must not have been "dressed right."
Bathsheba must have been seductive - David simply didn't have the power to resist - men will be men.
It must have been consensual - Bathsheba didn't have any serious bruises or missing teeth.
Bathsheba should not go public or press charges - think how this will damage David's career and hurt his family!
We need to cover this up for the good of the ministry.
We shouldn't even be talking about this on the Internet - that's the sin of gossip, worse than anything David might have done.
David's wives must not have been giving him enough pleasure in bed, and they didn't keep up their good looks. Abigail must have put on weight and gone frumpy.
It seems that Nathan is putting 100% of the blame on David, and that's not fair. Bathsheba deserves the lion's share of the blame. If not for her, none of this would have happened.
We are the only religion that shoots our wounded - David is wounded, so we need to stop shooting at him.
The people who are grousing about this are just out to get the Mannagod and destroy fundamentalism. Their motives are evil, and who are they to throw the first stone?
Why are we bringing up all this old stuff from the past? We need to forgive, forget and move on.
Click to expand...
Though there are some out there who do just that, I have not seen anyone on the recent FFF excuse improper behavour of the guys. The comments are regarding if it's possible for the victim to also be in the wrong by her unwise choices like visiting his hotel room late at night alone. He is still responsible for his actions but she could easily be sending the incorrect signals. The next day how are we suppose to know exactly what happened. How can one prove if it was consentual at the time?

Where is the post excusing the actions of the man in any of the recent threads?
 
subllibrm said:
I don’t know if anyone here has run into this but I have seen many posts ‘out there’ decrying the damage done by the “purity movement” or the “modesty cult”. Whether the two are the same or different is still unclear to me. The core issue is that these movements were used as cover by Christian leaders to abuse girls and then blame them because of their lack of modesty.

I know that it doesn’t directly relate to the OP but it is what came to my mind as I was reading through this thread.
Click to expand...
its no less criminal or immoral on their part, just because she may or may not have been properly dressed.

Thousands of good moral Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist, IFB, Northern Baptist and other varieties over the years have preached we should dress modestly, without ever doing anything immodest or improper. Just because some of the preditor type preachers also preached modesty does not mean there is a connection. many of them likely preached against drinking or even the need for church attendence, but that does not mean there is a connection or correlation. That seems like a classic application of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

​

 
aleshanee said:
sorry..... but i looked proverbs 7 up one side and down the other... .. and there is nothing mentioned or even implied in there about "lack therof" regarding the garment or attire the harlot was wearing.... ...

in fact after the words "attire of a harlot" she is described as being "subtle of heart"... "loud and stubborn".... abiding not in her own house... but rather out on the streets and lying in wait around the corners.... .... then it describes how she approaches the young man with an "impudent face" and kisses him.... then immediately begins telling him lies to lure him to her bed..... ... but nothing else is said about what that harlots attire does or does not contain.... . or how the "lack thereof" might have played any part in her ability to seduce him.... .. ..... all that was done through her words... actions... and what he saw in her face/eyes when he looked at her.... .....

are you sure you are not looking at proverbs 7 through the lenses of 20th century middle america and adding regional and cultural values to the lessons you glean from it?.......
Click to expand...
All that I meant is that since the passage is in the genre of wisdom literature, it must be read and applied as such. It’s not a (legalistic) treatise on what articles of clothing constitutes harlotry (neither in a restrictive or permissive way). As such, it can’t be used to legislate and define articles of clothing accordingly.
 
illinoisguy said:
For the first time in history that I am aware of, a fundamentalist has proposed a numerical standard for Christian attire. Dr. Shelton Smith said this, as an addendum to a discussion of mixed bathing, in the August 2, 2024 issue of "Sword of the Lord," page 20:

"I simply do not believe that Christians ought to undress themselves for going out in public. There is very little of your flesh that should be uncovered. About 90% or more of your body should be covered. Whatever portion of your flesh you leave uncovered, it strongly suggests that you probably don't mind people looking at it. Consequently, I recommend a pretty full attire.

"I hope this will help you understand that Christians ought to dress modestly. we should not attempt to mimic the world in its state of undress."

The 90% standard would appear to mean that very little of our bodies, other than face and hands, can be left uncovered in public. I am not sure what to make of this. I wonder if any significant number of IFBx lay people and pastors, even among churches that advertise in the "Sword of the Lord," would take such a standard seriously.

It could be said that Smith is not attempting to lay down the law for all fundamentalists - perhaps he is merely making a suggestion, a recommendation, some helpful advice, for our own good. Nevertheless, the publication of such a strict standard, even as a suggestion only, could be a discouragement to folks considering affiliation with an IFBx congregation.
Click to expand...
Well, according to some, if a woman is 90% covered there shouldn’t be any rape.
 
biscuit1953 said:
When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: "I know it when I see it." How are prostitutes dressed today? Would John MacArthur or any other pastor allow women singing in the choir in a bikini?
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any women that claim to be born again that would wear a bikini to sing in the choir.

Do you really believe that there has ever been a woman that has showed up to church in a bikini and said, I’m here to sing in the choir.
 
Bruh said:
I don’t know of any women that claim to be born again that would wear a bikini to sing in the choir.

Do you really believe that there has ever been a woman that has showed up to church in a bikini and said, I’m here to sing in the choir.
Click to expand...
It seems there are people on this forum that believe a scantily clad woman has nothing to do with tempting a man to lust after her body. Once again, a man is responsible for lusting after women and on the day of judgment, the women who dress in a way to entice men will also be judged just as harshly as the man. If a pastor forbade a church member to sing in the choir scantily clad, does that make him a legalist? You can change with the times as far as apparel but there are lines that can be crossed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top