|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 28, 2006 2:30:21 GMT -5
Well bless your heart.... I was actually intending those second two paragraphs as scenarios, but I can see where the miscommunication came from.
As far as the common sense thing goes, I would like to emphasize I was talking about 'true' common sense, as in, common to all people. That includes believers, non-believers, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Thank you for clarifying your statement - you meant sense common only to 'believers', per your definition of a believer, which is again, only common to the people who think like you.
Thank you for working with me to answer these questions. If you don't mind, I'm going to list them. Assume that I'm bringing these to your attention.
HopefulHeart's Scenarios
1) The first example I cited. The Muslim culture. Should all women in the countries that require it wear the full-covering outfits?
2) Some people have fetishes - things that they are turned on by that other people may find weird. Should actions be taken in those cases to keep them from sinning?
Extensionx of #2, because this is the one that could have a number of scenarios
2.1) When you preach to large masses, you're much more likely to encounter people with these fetishes. Since you realize this fact, how do you alter your clothing to keep people from sinning?
2.2) People attracted to women tend to be turned on by breasts. I assume, seeing as this is very obvious, you hide the fact that you have them?
2.3) Some people are turned on by nice rear-ends. Do you hide that you have one of those?
2.4) Some people find bald men very attractive. Miles, I'm looking at you =D
But all joking aside, given the large numbers of people that Open Air reaches, I think it's important that these issues, among others that I can point out, should be brought to your attention.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 28, 2006 9:48:48 GMT -5
First off lust comes from a filthy heart. You can ware a trashbag and if someone is filled with lust they might enjoy it. The point is modesty.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 28, 2006 13:42:42 GMT -5
Thank you for working with me to answer these questions. If you don't mind, I'm going to list them. Assume that I'm bringing these to your attention. HopefulHeart's Scenarios1) The first example I cited. The Muslim culture. Should all women in the countries that require it wear the full-covering outfits? 2) Some people have fetishes - things that they are turned on by that other people may find weird. Should actions be taken in those cases to keep them from sinning? Extensionx of #2, because this is the one that could have a number of scenarios 2.1) When you preach to large masses, you're much more likely to encounter people with these fetishes. Since you realize this fact, how do you alter your clothing to keep people from sinning? 2.2) People attracted to women tend to be turned on by breasts. I assume, seeing as this is very obvious, you hide the fact that you have them? 2.3) Some people are turned on by nice rear-ends. Do you hide that you have one of those? 2.4) Some people find bald men very attractive. Miles, I'm looking at you =D But all joking aside, given the large numbers of people that Open Air reaches, I think it's important that these issues, among others that I can point out, should be brought to your attention. If law requires that women dress a certain way because of the state religion, then women should submit to the authority over them, in this case, the government. I don't think it is required though in other circumstances to be completely covered though. WHen a fetish comes to your attention, you don't do anything to cause that person to stumble. Much of this will come to your attention as Christians are led by the Spirit and are discerning. Once we know, then we act. But we can't possible know every single fetish BEFOREHAND. When I am on the street, preaching, passingout tracts or doing on on ones, I dress modestly. This means no shorts. I wear capris, or jeans, or I could wear a long skirt although I don't. I wear closed toes shoes mostly for comfort, but mainly because I am not out there to look good. I am out to preach. I don't want anything to distract from the message onto me. That means I limit even jewlery, because it can be considered vain by some (as Peter pointed out) As far as breats - no low cut, tight or revealing tops. No shirts showing any part of the stomach or middriff. Loose fitting, not necessarily baggy, is fine. I usually wear a t-shirt - again for comfort. Or a button down. I also don't wear sleeveless, but that is just me because I hate sleeveless anyway How does one hide the fact that you have a behind? The point is not to HIDE necessarily, but to simply not exenuate. (I know i spelled that wrong, sorry!) DOn't draw unnecessary attention to any part of your body using clothing or jewlery. Bottom line. Miles is bald now? I know Jeff was, and Jesse has been.... Hair ther eis not much you can do about that. Some men or women are going to be attractive no matter HOW much they deemphasize. Nothing wrong with that of course, God made us who we are. But seriously, even with Miles' sexy head, most women once they hear him telling them to repent or perish, get turned off quickly. Again, it is about the message. It generally overrides all else. I have been grabbed, touched, hit on and lusted after while preaching. Men are sick and depraved. I don't go out on the strees without some godly brothers with me to watch out for me. That is one role of men - to be the protector of women. If I am out there and a guy starts moving in too close, all it takes is a borther coming near and the guy stops. Same goes for gals who are harlots and flirting with me. If I or another woman step into the conversation, they back down fast. Most men can handle their own though, as can women, but the message of the gospel is usually so convicting that they are ashamed to lust after you. Hope that helps...
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 28, 2006 13:46:00 GMT -5
I typed too fast and had many typos, I meant to say harlots fliritng with MEN, not me (have yet to get hit on by a lesbian thank the Lord) If men are being flirted with a woman can diffuse the situation simply by her presence as well. But OAO has no women on the team. Ask them how they handle it, although I think the message they preach is so strong, not many women are turned on except to anger THat's what I love about those guys!
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 28, 2006 15:09:27 GMT -5
If law requires that women dress a certain way because of the state religion, then women should submit to the authority over them, in this case, the government. I don't think it is required though in other circumstances to be completely covered though. So you support countries, like Saudi Arabia, which require their women to wear clothing that covers their entire bodies (except for the eyes)? Do you also support female genital mutilation? What about places where the man is given complete control over his wive s? How can you assume that authority will always do what is right? Isn't that why the governmental structure characterized as authoritarian is the one that oppresses the most?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 28, 2006 15:23:38 GMT -5
Treky.... repent!
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Apr 29, 2006 11:36:46 GMT -5
If law requires that women dress a certain way because of the state religion, then women should submit to the authority over them, in this case, the government. I don't think it is required though in other circumstances to be completely covered though. So you support countries, like Saudi Arabia, which require their women to wear clothing that covers their entire bodies (except for the eyes)? Do you also support female genital mutilation? What about places where the man is given complete control over his wive s? How can you assume that authority will always do what is right? Isn't that why the governmental structure characterized as authoritarian is the one that oppresses the most? Of course we don't! We are talking about a Christian context! You are talking about an Islam context! We aren't Muslim's!!!!!! If a man and a woman are following what God has commanded them to do in the Bible, the man will treat the woman like Christ did the church and the woman will submit to the man as Christ submitted to the father. There was no abuse in either of those relationships and both were an act of selflessness. This is probably why you have trouble understanding this: 1. you aren't a Christian 2. you live a selfish sinful life (I am not being mean, it is the honest truth, you may give to charity...but that does not changed the fact that you are selfish because you love yourself so much you are unwilling to give up your sin. This sin is sending you to hell and you still refuse to repent, and be obedient to the God who died for you. This is selfishness.)
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 29, 2006 11:54:58 GMT -5
Ejuliot: Of course we don't! We are talking about a Christian context! You are talking about an Islam context! We aren't Muslim's!!!!!!
Well said!
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 30, 2006 12:59:16 GMT -5
trekker, open your ears, please, and quit trying to put words in my mouth, or motivations in my heart, all you are trying to do is once again distract from the discussion that is ALWAYS at hand on EVERY single thread - REPENT! That is the word you hate most, and hate hearing, and you guys will ramble on and on about anything even if it is nonsense just to avoid that word. REPENT! REPENT! How many times and ways do we have to say it? We aren't going to change tactics or strategies because ther eis none - we are simply speaking truth. When we try to answer some questions about issues, you turn it into a debate and make assumptions...so guess I am going to just tell you again to repent. You don't sound like you care to hear what we think anyway, and are closed minded to our views. So wht continue to ask questions? REPENT.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 30, 2006 19:05:39 GMT -5
If law requires that women dress a certain way because of the state religion, then women should submit to the authority over them, in this case, the government. I don't think it is required though in other circumstances to be completely covered though.
Jules, could you please clarify for me? I see where Trekker gets his point about Saudi Arabian countries. Islam is that country's religion.
His inquiry does fit the context of your statement. Someone (I've forgotten who) also made a statement that Christianity isn't a 'religion' (still not sure what they meant by that), so that's confuzzled me more. And you must have meant a religion besides Christianity, because I don't think there are any state laws based in Christianity... though I realize I'm very likely to be ignorant of that fact. So again, could you please clarify?
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Apr 30, 2006 21:31:45 GMT -5
I think I know what she means...If I were in Saudi Arabia or another country that requires women to wear head coverings etc...I would do it in order to obey the authority over me and out of respect for the culture (this does not mean I agree with it). Here is an example: My friend Sarah was in Morrocco and she had a head covering on because women are required to wear them in public. She needed to fix hers because it was falling off so she lifted it up and fixed it at a store front. A man was standing in front of her. Her friend later on told her that taking off your veil in front of a man is like making a move on him. If I went to a muslim country and dressed the way I dress here men would think I was a prostitute! I would obey the law and culturural customs in order to not offend unless they go against God's law. I think this is what Jules is saying.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 30, 2006 22:31:17 GMT -5
Let's just start with women (and men) wearing clothes that do not show anything above the knees, above the elbows, no cleavage, no waistlines, and no tight fitting clothes.
It is pretty simple really.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 30, 2006 22:52:31 GMT -5
The purpose of clothing ought to be to cover. Some dress in a way that isn't covering at all but is revealing. It doesn't hid any curves or shapes, it's as though they simply have a thicker layer of skin on. In such a case, what's the point of wearing clothing at all?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 1:00:57 GMT -5
So you support countries, like Saudi Arabia, which require their women to wear clothing that covers their entire bodies (except for the eyes)? Do you also support female genital mutilation? What about places where the man is given complete control over his wive s? How can you assume that authority will always do what is right? Isn't that why the governmental structure characterized as authoritarian is the one that oppresses the most? Of course we don't! We are talking about a Christian context! You are talking about an Islam context! We aren't Muslim's!!!!!! If a man and a woman are following what God has commanded them to do in the Bible, the man will treat the woman like Christ did the church and the woman will submit to the man as Christ submitted to the father. There was no abuse in either of those relationships and both were an act of selflessness. This is probably why you have trouble understanding this: 1. you aren't a Christian 2. you live a selfish sinful life (I am not being mean, it is the honest truth, you may give to charity...but that does not changed the fact that you are selfish because you love yourself so much you are unwilling to give up your sin. This sin is sending you to hell and you still refuse to repent, and be obedient to the God who died for you. This is selfishness.) Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been working on term papers and studying for finals. I can't help but notice that you haven't responded to my questions. Jules said: If the state religion forces someone to do the aforementioned things, should you? What if they are not just customary? Female genital mutilation? That is practiced in many african countries, it is painful, and can lead to death. Should women submit to that just because authority says to? Remember, Hitler was an authority as well. And Jules, I apologize if you think I put words in your mouth. I just quoted you and extrapolated from there. Did I somehow misinterpret your meaning? Let's look more carefully at this scenario: "If law requires that women dress a certain way because of the state religion, then women should submit to the authority over them, in this case, the government. I don't think it is required though in other circumstances to be completely covered though." And if the state is Saudi Arabia... And if the state religion is Islam... Therefore if law requires women dress a certain way because of the state relgion, then women should submit to the authorigy over them, in this case, the government. Since you seem to have been talking in a Christian context, I'm not sure how this applies. I know of no "Christian" countries that have dress codes. Besides which, if God is universal and he created men and women with certain roles, does it matter if those women are Christian or Muslim? Wouldn't they be obligated to fulfill God's role for them--that is to obey the mandate of the state?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 1, 2006 1:06:25 GMT -5
trekker, open your ears, please, and quit trying to put words in my mouth, or motivations in my heart, all you are trying to do is once again distract from the discussion that is ALWAYS at hand on EVERY single thread - REPENT! That is the word you hate most, and hate hearing, and you guys will ramble on and on about anything even if it is nonsense just to avoid that word. REPENT! REPENT! How many times and ways do we have to say it? We aren't going to change tactics or strategies because ther eis none - we are simply speaking truth. When we try to answer some questions about issues, you turn it into a debate and make assumptions...so guess I am going to just tell you again to repent. You don't sound like you care to hear what we think anyway, and are closed minded to our views. So wht continue to ask questions? REPENT. I didn't come here to convert, confuse, or confound. I came here to understand and to be understood. My mind is not closed to your arguements, but you have yet to say anything new. And before you say anything, I know...repent. Yes I heard you. Repent, repent, repent. Got it. I'm not sure why you are getting defensive. I have no malicious intent. I honestly want to hear why women are asking to be subjugated to the men in their lives. So instead of shouting repent, as if to cover the silence of no response, or to over shout the truth you can't admit, address my questions. Oh yes, I believe that you have just over 350,000 repents to go. I can't remember the exact count at the moment, I get so many that I only count on Saturdays. But I mentioned the number of repents left to go on some other thread. I think Thumper will remember where it is. Oh, and one more thing: My name is Trekker, not Treky. Ok Bambi?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on May 1, 2006 18:34:43 GMT -5
you submit to authority (husbands, government, etc) in all circumstances UNLESS it would cause personal harm or cause you to sin. So for example, you don't stay in a marriage where you are being beaten, you seperate from him. You don't multilate yourself because someone told you to, you don't kill your babies because the law says there are too many girls (China) But wearing a veil is not hurting anyone or causing the woman to sin, although I do not agree with the custom/law.
I'll address others questions later...no time to now, sorry. I say trek because it is shorter. What is your first name and I will address you as that if you prefer?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on May 1, 2006 22:19:16 GMT -5
I'll address others questions later...no time to now, sorry. I say trek because it is shorter. What is your first name and I will address you as that if you prefer? He was referring to Biblethumper's nickname of "Treky," which he did not appreciate. Hence the name "Bambi" in response (Thumper...Bambi...even if you do "live apart from the world" you probably get that allusion). I do not mind any abbreviation of my name, for the record. Feel free to call me Val or Vally--after all, the character that I am named for answered to both on occasion. But I do see Trekker's point: nicknames are typically reserved for those who are on friendly terms with a person, and from where I'm standing it does not seem like he has that sort of relationship with Biblethumper.
|
|