What is modest?

[RAIDER]

Though we may differ in every detail, I would say that we as guys know what is not "modest apparel" on a lady.  If it is immodest but appropriate for a sport, it is still immodest. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Though we may differ in every detail, I would say that we as guys know what is not "modest apparel" on a lady.  If it is immodest but appropriate for a sport, it is still immodest.

So do you think that the majority of men who are watching women's summer Olympic track meets are watching so they can see the bodies of the women? Or those who are watching swimming competitions?

I think we Christians are so concerned with what other people are thinking that we believe they are thinking sinful thoughts continuously, we let it control us in a way that God never intended.

 

[Bravo]

Somewhat recently I've been a part of the modesty discussions as well. I believe modesty is appropriate to the occasion or activity. HB teens have gone skiing with skirts over their snow pants. To me modesty would indicate that it does not call attention to itself. Wearing a skirt over snow pants certainly seem to call attention to the young ladies doing it. The second part of that is who lusts after a girl in snow pants?

I could go further but that is my contribution at this point.

 

[Still There]

Many years ago in the workforce women were not allowed to wear pants or pantsuits, I being one of them.  It was suits with skirts or dresses,  no matter what your title was.  From secretary on up.  I worked for one of those companies.  Even up until about 10 years ago.  When the company bellied up I moved on to another company, still under the notion of wearing my business suits.  Boy did I get a rude awakening, called business casual and on Friday jeans.  Hmm.  It took me a long time - a couple of years to change my dress style (it was costly) to conform to their standards.  I still have my suits and even in my new company I still dress up but I don't wear suits.  In the company I work for now, unless BOD are in town no one dresses up.  I do and I like it.  On Friday's and when the boss is out of town, everyone wears jeans and I do too.  It is a totally different dress environment that what it was years ago.  Law firms  in the Chicago area you still have to dress up and jeans are not allowed, but in most corporate offices it's business casual and more peope really do cross that fine line.  Nothing is modest anymore.  I really do dread when summer comes because clothes come off and nothing is left to the imagination anymore and in offices, too. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Many years ago in the workforce women were not allowed to wear pants or pantsuits, I being one of them.  It was suits with skirts or dresses,  no matter what your title was.  From secretary on up.  I worked for one of those companies.  Even up until about 10 years ago.  When the company bellied up I moved on to another company, still under the notion of wearing my business suits.  Boy did I get a rude awakening, called business casual and on Friday jeans.  Hmm.  It took me a long time - a couple of years to change my dress style (it was costly) to conform to their standards.  I still have my suits and even in my new company I still dress up but I don't wear suits.  In the company I work for now, unless BOD are in town no one dresses up.  I do and I like it.  On Friday's and when the boss is out of town, everyone wears jeans and I do too.  It is a totally different dress environment that what it was years ago.  Law firms  in the Chicago area you still have to dress up and jeans are not allowed, but in most corporate offices it's business casual and more peope really do cross that fine line.  Nothing is modest anymore.  I really do dread when summer comes because clothes come off and nothing is left to the imagination anymore and in offices, too.

Women who work in our plant are not allowed to wear dresses. The women in the office may but those that interact with plant machinery are not permitted to do so. Same thing with hoods on jackets and all jewelry (including wedding bands).

Loose clothing on both male and female alike is a higher risk in getting caught on equipment and is a safety hazard.

 

[RAIDER]

Though we may differ in every detail, I would say that we as guys know what is not "modest apparel" on a lady.  If it is immodest but appropriate for a sport, it is still immodest.

So do you think that the majority of men who are watching women's summer Olympic track meets are watching so they can see the bodies of the women? Or those who are watching swimming competitions?

I think we Christians are so concerned with what other people are thinking that we believe they are thinking sinful thoughts continuously, we let it control us in a way that God never intended.

No, I do not think the majority of men watch women's track meets to see the bodies of women.  On the other hand, do you think guys are not looking at these gal's backsides when the gals are wearing the short, tight, spandex material?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Though we may differ in every detail, I would say that we as guys know what is not "modest apparel" on a lady.  If it is immodest but appropriate for a sport, it is still immodest.

So do you think that the majority of men who are watching women's summer Olympic track meets are watching so they can see the bodies of the women? Or those who are watching swimming competitions?

I think we Christians are so concerned with what other people are thinking that we believe they are thinking sinful thoughts continuously, we let it control us in a way that God never intended.

I No, I do not think the majority of men watch women's track meets to see the bodies of women.  On the other hand, do you think guys are not looking at these gal's backsides when the gals are wearing the short, tight, spandex material?

I don't know. Why should they be?

Maybe it is because I have daughters and am around sports and cheerleaders (not the NFL kind which I DO belive is immodest due to their attempting to look provocative) and frankly, when the girls don't flaunt, I don't even think about it. I don't believe I'm the only one. On rare occasion I might see a high school kid stare down a girl at a game but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that maybe our overemphasis on modesty makes us look for immodesty and rather than glossing over it, we tend to look for it (not necessarily in a bad way). When we look for a devil behind every rock, we will find one every time. That is just human nature.

Now when a woman dresses in a way to purposely be provocative, that changes the game completely. I don't think it is the attire itself as much as the way it is displayed.

But then again, I'm weird.

 

[brainisengaged]

I just wonder why a group of men want to have a discussion about what women to whom they are not married should be wearing?

It might seem like I am joking around with all my contributions to this thread, but my point is...what is your point?

 

[RAIDER]

I just wonder why a group of men want to have a discussion about what women to whom they are not married should be wearing?

It might seem like I am joking around with all my contributions to this thread, but my point is...what is your point?

We are attempting to have a discussion (both male and female posters) about Biblical modesty.  We are considering everyone's point of view.  What is the point of any thread?

 

[RAIDER]

I don't know. Why should they be?

Maybe it is because I have daughters and am around sports and cheerleaders (not the NFL kind which I DO belive is immodest due to their attempting to look provocative) and frankly, when the girls don't flaunt, I don't even think about it. I don't believe I'm the only one. On rare occasion I might see a high school kid stare down a girl at a game but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that maybe our overemphasis on modesty makes us look for immodesty and rather than glossing over it, we tend to look for it (not necessarily in a bad way). When we look for a devil behind every rock, we will find one every time. That is just human nature.

Now when a woman dresses in a way to purposely be provocative, that changes the game completely. I don't think it is the attire itself as much as the way it is displayed.

But then again, I'm weird.

I just have trouble believing that God would be pleased with gals wearing glorified underwear while men watch them run.  Perhaps we have become desensitized.

But then again, I'm a stinkin' Hacker!! 

 

[IFB X-Files]

I remember once talking to Jim Jorgenson and he mentioned he was going to attend a college basketball game.  My first thought was, "Wow, how can he do that with all those immodest dressed cheerleaders".  Me thinking of him there seeing all that really bothered me.  I guess I expected more from leadership.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't know. Why should they be?

Maybe it is because I have daughters and am around sports and cheerleaders (not the NFL kind which I DO belive is immodest due to their attempting to look provocative) and frankly, when the girls don't flaunt, I don't even think about it. I don't believe I'm the only one. On rare occasion I might see a high school kid stare down a girl at a game but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that maybe our overemphasis on modesty makes us look for immodesty and rather than glossing over it, we tend to look for it (not necessarily in a bad way). When we look for a devil behind every rock, we will find one every time. That is just human nature.

Now when a woman dresses in a way to purposely be provocative, that changes the game completely. I don't think it is the attire itself as much as the way it is displayed.

But then again, I'm weird.

I just have trouble believing that God would be pleased with gals wearing glorified underwear while men watch them run.  Perhaps we have become desensitized.

But then again, I'm a stinkin' Hacker!! 

And that is an understandable point. But the way I look at it desensitizing isn't always a bad thing. In this case, being desensitized actually removes the temptation. Does this mean we should deliberately sin to avoid future temptation? Of course not. Take the position of a physician. Does a physician need to see the bodies of members of the opposite sex? Absolutely. It is a necessity for their occupation in the saving of lives. How many naked bodies did they have to be exposed to until they become desensitized?

To be honest, I think that with all the attention we Christians bring to the matter, the more we create in people the objectification of women, though that isn't the intent. Think about it, if you hadn't heard that "toe cleavage is bad", would it even have dawned on you (not suggesting you believe it is)? I believe the enemy has taken our nativity and sincerity in trying to avoid evil and twisted it into our inability to see people as creatures who are loved by our God and created in His image. In essence, like the physician who sees members of the opposite sex as patients in need, we should be looking at people of all genders, sexualities, races physical normalcies and deformities all as being created in God's image. I believe that a bigger problem than immodest attire is the way we look at and view other people.

 

[brainisengaged]

smellin' coffee said: To be honest, I think that with all the attention we Christians bring to the matter, the more we create in people the objectification of women, though that isn't the intent.

Right!

I am sorry for being "bossy" and suggesting there is no point to your thread, Raider. It is, after all, your desire to discuss the matter. It is my desire that men would stop looking at women as objects, and I like how SC said it.

I live and work in the world, where people are people. Nowhere am I more objectified than in the church environment. At work, if I wish to speak to a man, I do. I call him by his first name and he calls me by mine. If I have an idea, I voice it. At church, first I am not encouraged to speak. And if I do, I must be properly deferential to a male, seeing as how I am but a female. The dichotomy is disturbing to me. I wish it could be the same as 'in the world', where I speak to my superiors as if we are colleagues -- for we are -- and where I am not looked upon as inferior for being female. I am judged solely on my merit and contribution, and I am allowed to have merit and contribution.

 

[BALAAM]

I don't know. Why should they be?

Maybe it is because I have daughters and am around sports and cheerleaders (not the NFL kind which I DO belive is immodest due to their attempting to look provocative) and frankly, when the girls don't flaunt, I don't even think about it. I don't believe I'm the only one. On rare occasion I might see a high school kid stare down a girl at a game but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that maybe our overemphasis on modesty makes us look for immodesty and rather than glossing over it, we tend to look for it (not necessarily in a bad way). When we look for a devil behind every rock, we will find one every time. That is just human nature.

Now when a woman dresses in a way to purposely be provocative, that changes the game completely. I don't think it is the attire itself as much as the way it is displayed.

But then again, I'm weird.

I just have trouble believing that God would be pleased with gals wearing glorified underwear while men watch them run.  Perhaps we have become desensitized.

But then again, I'm a stinkin' Hacker!! 

And that is an understandable point. But the way I look at it desensitizing isn't always a bad thing. In this case, being desensitized actually removes the temptation. Does this mean we should deliberately sin to avoid future temptation? Of course not. Take the position of a physician. Does a physician need to see the bodies of members of the opposite sex? Absolutely. It is a necessity for their occupation in the saving of lives. How many naked bodies did they have to be exposed to until they become desensitized?

To be honest, I think that with all the attention we Christians bring to the matter, the more we create in people the objectification of women, though that isn't the intent. Think about it, if you hadn't heard that "toe cleavage is bad", would it even have dawned on you (not suggesting you believe it is)? I believe the enemy has taken our nativity and sincerity in trying to avoid evil and twisted it into our inability to see people as creatures who are loved by our God and created in His image. In essence, like the physician who sees members of the opposite sex as patients in need, we should be looking at people of all genders, sexualities, races physical normalcies and deformities all as being created in God's image. I believe that a bigger problem than immodest attire is the way we look at and view other people.

When you hit your mid-fifties you will be desensitized whether you want to be or not.

 

[Bruh]

I don't know. Why should they be?

Maybe it is because I have daughters and am around sports and cheerleaders (not the NFL kind which I DO belive is immodest due to their attempting to look provocative) and frankly, when the girls don't flaunt, I don't even think about it. I don't believe I'm the only one. On rare occasion I might see a high school kid stare down a girl at a game but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that maybe our overemphasis on modesty makes us look for immodesty and rather than glossing over it, we tend to look for it (not necessarily in a bad way). When we look for a devil behind every rock, we will find one every time. That is just human nature.

Now when a woman dresses in a way to purposely be provocative, that changes the game completely. I don't think it is the attire itself as much as the way it is displayed.

But then again, I'm weird.

I just have trouble believing that God would be pleased with gals wearing glorified underwear while men watch them run.  Perhaps we have become desensitized.

But then again, I'm a stinkin' Hacker!! 

And that is an understandable point. But the way I look at it desensitizing isn't always a bad thing. In this case, being desensitized actually removes the temptation. Does this mean we should deliberately sin to avoid future temptation? Of course not. Take the position of a physician. Does a physician need to see the bodies of members of the opposite sex? Absolutely. It is a necessity for their occupation in the saving of lives. How many naked bodies did they have to be exposed to until they become desensitized?

To be honest, I think that with all the attention we Christians bring to the matter, the more we create in people the objectification of women, though that isn't the intent. Think about it, if you hadn't heard that "toe cleavage is bad", would it even have dawned on you (not suggesting you believe it is)? I believe the enemy has taken our nativity and sincerity in trying to avoid evil and twisted it into our inability to see people as creatures who are loved by our God and created in His image. In essence, like the physician who sees members of the opposite sex as patients in need, we should be looking at people of all genders, sexualities, races physical normalcies and deformities all as being created in God's image. I believe that a bigger problem than immodest attire is the way we look at and view other people.

I don't know what world you work in?  But the men I work with often discuss what women wear and how they look when it comes to sporting events.  Be it track and field or swim meets or Cross fit. 

Concerning the highlighted I don't think any one would disagree with what you say here. 
But we are dealing with human nature.  And to tell you the truth your view on the above sounds like some of the lost men I work with. 

As I have said before, I believe some leave the Hyles movement (as they should) and tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Its almost like you do not believe in such a thing like "a slippery slope".

I will say there is one BIG thing you did take from your years there "SHALLOWNESS".  You go from women in a track and field meet to doctors needing to see people naked, how in the world is this even the same.  You sound like some of these 100% Hyles people I talk to.   

Look I am still IFB BUT my wife wears pants and we go to the movies and trust me I know some who really think we are on a slippery slope but ain't nothen else changed and by Gods Grace nothing else will ever change.  All I am saying is that you shouldn't of thrown the baby out with the bath water when you left the IFB.  Sad things is, is that the only side of the IFB that you have ever been a part of is the Hyles side. (I'm assuming of course)  And I'm sure that is why you are where you are.  I've talked to a few of you guys and that is the only thing I can come up with as to why they leave most if not everything behind and it is sad.  But of course no substance was ever really taught there.   

 

[Lone Ranger]

I would like us to discuss our thoughts on the following passage:

1 Timothy 2:9-12
King James Version (KJV)

9 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;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Where do you draw the line of modesty in woman's dress?  What say ye, Hacker Nation?!!

When you look at the Greek words Paul used in verse 9, there are two of them which are from the same root.
Adorn = kosmeo - a verb meaning "to put in order."
Modest = kosmios - an adjective meaning "orderly, properly organized."
They both come from the same root kosmos, which is the noun meaning "ordered system" and translated "world" throughout the New Testament, from which comes our English word cosmos.

This is also the root from which we get our English word cosmetics, which would have the connotation of "putting the face in order."

I would agree with several of the comments already made here that part of the meaning of modest would include appropriate, since properly organized would mean "organized in an appropriate manner."

Although the word translated modest here might be construed to mean worldly, due to its Greek origin, I have never heard this verse used to claim that "women are to adorn themselves in worldly apparel."  The adjective used to convey the negative aspect of worldly is kosmikos which can be found in Titus 2:12. "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;"

Our English word modest is defined as "restrained by a sense of propriety; hence, not forward or bold; not presumptuous or arrogant." Thus the Greek word in 1 Tim 2:9 which most closely could be translated modesty would be the word aidos, which in the KJV is translated shamefacedness.

A more literal translation from the Greek might be "women should arrange themselves in appropriate clothing, with modesty and moderation."

 

[Norefund]

So, after reading through this thread, did Jack Hyles ignore Paul's admonition by wearing those expensive tailored suits?

 

[RAIDER]

So, after reading through this thread, did Jack Hyles ignore Paul's admonition by wearing those expensive tailored suits?

Only if he was a woman.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I don't know what world you work in?  But the men I work with often discuss what women wear and how they look when it comes to sporting events.  Be it track and field or swim meets or Cross fit.

I'm sure there are some men who do and some sporting events that DO go overboard (ex. women's beach volleyball) but I find it highly unlikely most men appease their ummm...curiosities over women's sporting events. The plant where I work, women's sports hardly, if ever come up in my conversations. Looks like an opportunity for you to quietly refuse to participate in said conversations.

Concerning the highlighted I don't think any one would disagree with what you say here. 
But we are dealing with human nature.  And to tell you the truth your view on the above sounds like some of the lost men I work with.

So these "lost men" see people as being created in the image of God? Are these the same men that "discuss what women wear and how they look when it comes to sporting events"? Seems contradictory if that is the case.

As I have said before, I believe some leave the Hyles movement (as they should) and tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Its almost like you do not believe in such a thing like "a slippery slope".

I would hope I have thrown out the baby. That was what was causing the contamination in the first place.

I will say there is one BIG thing you did take from your years there "SHALLOWNESS".  You go from women in a track and field meet to doctors needing to see people naked, how in the world is this even the same.  You sound like some of these 100% Hyles people I talk to.

Go back and read what I said. My point was desentization and like physicians who can be desensitized, why couldn't others who are not in the medical field? My point is that we need to change our own perspective, to view people as made in the image of our Creator rather than as objects of our attractions. Just like the physician who views his patients as one in need of health care.

Look I am still IFB BUT my wife wears pants and we go to the movies and trust me I know some who really think we are on a slippery slope but ain't nothen else changed and by Gods Grace nothing else will ever change.

Why are you still hanging around people who are judging you?

All I am saying is that you shouldn't of thrown the baby out with the bath water when you left the IFB.

Can you explain to me what this "baby" really is that you mean and what I should not have thrown out?

Sad things is, is that the only side of the IFB that you have ever been a part of is the Hyles side. (I'm assuming of course)  And I'm sure that is why you are where you are.

Though you are pretty much spot on with where I came from, you are wrong as to why I am where I am. I am where I am by choice based on the Bible, study, logic, questioning everything and listening to arguments so I can find the truth.

I've talked to a few of you guys and that is the only thing I can come up with as to why they leave most if not everything behind and it is sad.

In what way is it sad?

But of course no substance was ever really taught there. 

I guess you didn't read "The Positive I Learned" thread.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

I don't know. Why should they be?

Maybe it is because I have daughters and am around sports and cheerleaders (not the NFL kind which I DO belive is immodest due to their attempting to look provocative) and frankly, when the girls don't flaunt, I don't even think about it. I don't believe I'm the only one. On rare occasion I might see a high school kid stare down a girl at a game but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that maybe our overemphasis on modesty makes us look for immodesty and rather than glossing over it, we tend to look for it (not necessarily in a bad way). When we look for a devil behind every rock, we will find one every time. That is just human nature.

Now when a woman dresses in a way to purposely be provocative, that changes the game completely. I don't think it is the attire itself as much as the way it is displayed.

But then again, I'm weird.

I just have trouble believing that God would be pleased with gals wearing glorified underwear while men watch them run.  Perhaps we have become desensitized.

But then again, I'm a stinkin' Hacker!! 

Wear that label proudly, Raider. Wear it proudly!