Author	Thread: Lust and/or Immodesty?
DontHitThatMark View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 11 Jan, 2011 05:00 PM Which is worse? Is lust caused by immodesty or vice-versa? Can a person's lust be cured by modesty? :peace::peace: Post Reply
DontHitThatMark View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 12 Jan, 2011 06:22 PM But is immodesty just an expression of pride? I mean...in Africa or on some islands and/or some other third world cultures(and the garden of Eden), people wear next to nothing, and their culture doesn't seem to have an increase in immodesty/lust/pride because of it, right? So is it what we wear?? And lust...is it really caused by immodesty, or is it just drawn out by immodesty? And even self-respect...is it really tied to what clothes we're supposed to wear, or is it tied to our principles/morals? I'm just brainshowering here, but I think in reality, the problem is actually more like "immodest thoughts" directed at different amounts of "not-sinful-by-itself" fabric, and what we call immodesty is probably either ignorance of our effect on other people, selfishly choosing to ignore other people to do the fun self-pleasing things we want, or good ol' fashioned basic pride in showing off/building up our self-proclaimed awesome selves by putting down/"beating" others. Anyway...I know most of that is irrelevant, because immodesty is still wrong, but I just get tired of some people passing the buck I guess. Complaining about immodesty just sounds like straining out a gnat and ignoring the real problem. The real problem isn't immodesty, it's lust. It seems like immodesty is a side-effect. And again...don't get me wrong ladies and gentlemen, it is NOT christian to just wear whatever you want and not think of other people and their personal battles. It's not possible to cure a persons lust problem by wearing grandma/grandpa clothes, but it can help if we avoid the obvious ploys to attract attention to ourselves. "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." We may have the freedom to wear whatever we want as long as our conscience is clear, but at the same time, we don't. Not if we really have love for our brothers/sisters. Everybody isn't at the same place in their "freedom in Christ" on this planet. If everybody in the world had a perfect Christ-like character, ladies could probably wear "Victoria's Secret" to church.:laugh: :peace::peace: Post Reply
View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 12 Jan, 2011 06:49 PM Immodesty is dressing to intentionally induce lust. Again, it's the intent behind the act. The bush people aren't being immodest; that's how they dress. IF I lived in the jungle, I'd want to wear as little as possible, too, frankly. And it doesn't induce excessive lust (so far as I know). As others have said, arousal is a reaction. Lust is an indulgence, and I think therein lies the sin. Post Reply
View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 12 Jan, 2011 07:09 PM Seems like people want to make inmodesty and lust brother and sister. I say they are barely second cousins twice removed. What throws people off is the sex part. Go figure : ) To explain : Let's say you have been wanting a new car and your neighbor buys the exact car you wanted but couldn't afford. It has all the extras you wanted and is even the same color you wanted. If he keeps it in the garage or covered chances are you won't lust for it as much as if he parked it in front of your house everyday. Is he doing it on purpose or is he clueless that would be his sin The lust is yours. Post Reply
View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 12 Jan, 2011 07:42 PM Zacktly. Post Reply
View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 12 Jan, 2011 07:52 PM Immodesty and lust do seem to be popular forum topics, but not usually in a manner conducive to discussion. It is usually a man telling women to be more modest because they are causing him and his brothers to sin, or a woman calling men to stop seeing her as a lust object no matter how she dresses. So, looking at how it plays out in the forums, it looks like it often becomes a male vs. female issue. Following, some paraphrasing: The Bible is clear that we are not to lust (notice I say �we�, not �men�: women can lust too, y�know). The Bible is also clear that women are to adorn themselves in a way that glorifies God, and to be adorned with good works instead of all that outward showiness. So yes, women should dress in a way that they are not deliberately trying to incite that kind of interest. That being said, a lot of women do not consider the consequences of how they dress: either they have never been taught or they are blinded by what is �cute� and what fashion trends are in their culture. However, if a woman has learned better, then it is her responsibility to be obedient to what she has learned. To know and to choose against it is wrong. The same goes for men who love showing off their bodies, because women can fall into lust as well, it just doesn�t get brought up nearly as much it seems. And any woman who pops up to say that �it�s hard to find modest clothes�, please, just don�t. That�s a terrible argument. Just� no. The same kind of philosophy goes for the lustful party: if you are aware of the impure thought and indulge it even though you know it is wrong, then you do wrong. If you are aware of an impure thought and fight it and try to resume grocery shopping, you do right. Any man thinking it can be ended if women just wore prairie dresses or burkas, that doesn�t work either. It is a band-aid over the real issue. I have been told before, �You could be wearing a potato sack and still look hot,� and �You could put on a burka, but you can�t control where his mind goes� from two separate people on two separate occasions, but to me kind of say the same thing. We can only be responsible for ourselves! I make sure I don�t buy a garment because when I try it on I think, �Ooh, I looks so sexy!� But it is also up to the guy in the desk behind me to keep his mind on the instructor if he still manages to find me visually stimulating. I can see how people want to tie the two together in their playing of the blame-game, but they are separate issues that are both the responsibility of the individual. Post Reply
View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 13 Jan, 2011 12:21 PM I see there were no brave souls to take on my questions from earler. Post Reply
View Profile History	Lust and/or Immodesty? Posted : 14 Jan, 2011 12:35 PM dgrimater, i think you're refering to moral relativity (i.e. an African or South American indigenous tribesman may, due to local enviromental conditions, stroll around all but nude.) But for them, a...Don't recall what they call it, but it's some kinda root placed over...Their 'naughty bits' (believe me, I'd rather have a mature discussion using scientific terminology but not one to tempt fate hehe,) and for them then, that covering is like our being clothed head-to-toe. But regardless of this relative definition of modesty, Christian missionaries have for centuries imposed European ideas of modesty onto those they wish to convert. Post Reply

First

<< Previous  10

Page : 1 2 3

Last