Modesty, yoga pants and myths.

[praise_yeshua]

Modesty definitions are subjective.  There, I stated the obvious.  Having said that, Tarheel has an obvious point.  Daisy Dukes for a girl/woman ain't modest and I'll go on record with common sense Christianity on that matter.

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Alayman must have had a crush in "Daisy". I have to admit. I might have myself. What is bad for one isn't necessarily bad for another.

If you read the entire thread, ugh, you will find that Alayman stated more than once the opposite of what you accuse him of....modesty is in the eye of the beholder. Fortunately, nobody here gives a rat's hiney what anyone else thinks, or how they vote. But, in spite of that we sometimes use the ignore feature.

I just posted his own words. That's all. He very explicitly said Daisy Dukes "ain't modest". He never withdrew those comments. Not that I see.

Having said that:
What would you say if David Duke endorsed Donald Trump while wearing Daisy Dukes? And naturally,Trump calls a news conference, on CNN of course, to renounce Duke while wearing a pair of his line of Donald Trump Yoga Pants?

That's kinda weird.     I might be scared for life......

I don't think you understand that a Honeycrisp apple has a far better taste than a Granny Smith.....but at least they are in the same family. A orange grows on trees too.... but it ain't an apple.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Aren't pants...... pretty much pants?

I took some time today to notice women in yoga pants and many other types of pants. They pretty much all gave the same look.

Granted.... I did notice one lady with yoga pants that need "stabilizers".... but I wouldn't say any of them were indecent.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I just wish that when people put people on ignore that they actually meant it.


And P_Y, nothing you've posted yet supports your lie about me that I claimed that immodestly dressed people are responsible for the lust of others who lust after them.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Another epic fail at logic.  In what way am I "not allowing" somebody else their own choice?  By gun?  By fiat?  By law?  By ecclesiastical court?

puh-lease. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Another epic fail at logic.  In what way am I "not allowing" somebody else their own choice?  By gun?  By fiat?  By law?  By ecclesiastical court?

puh-lease. 

By preaching your biased rhetoric. Your theology will not allow it within the confines of decency.

All I did was paste what you wrote. You said it.

To try and say I am wrong because you can't "physically" restrain it from happening is preposterous.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Another epic fail at logic.  In what way am I "not allowing" somebody else their own choice?  By gun?  By fiat?  By law?  By ecclesiastical court?

puh-lease. 

By preaching your biased rhetoric. Your theology will not allow it within the confines of decency.

All I did was paste what you wrote. You said it.

To try and say I am wrong because you can't "physically" restrain it from happening is preposterous.

"will not allow"

Those are your words.  It's still a free country, no matter how much you disagree with somebody, to wear whatever immodest clothes you want, even when an internet preacher says otherwise.  Get in the real world.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Another shining example of the inability of ALAYMAN to allow a brother or sister in Christ to make their own choices in what they wear....

Another epic fail at logic.  In what way am I "not allowing" somebody else their own choice?  By gun?  By fiat?  By law?  By ecclesiastical court?

puh-lease. 

By preaching your biased rhetoric. Your theology will not allow it within the confines of decency.

All I did was paste what you wrote. You said it.

To try and say I am wrong because you can't "physically" restrain it from happening is preposterous.

"will not allow"

Those are your words.  It's still a free country, no matter how much you disagree with somebody, to wear whatever immodest clothes you want, even when an internet preacher says otherwise.  Get in the real world.

I am in the real world....

Are you saying your theology doesn't influence others to either do or not do certain things?

Let me remind you of some Scripture.

Matthew 23:13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

I'd imagine you'd rebuke Jesus for saying much the same thing?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I just wish that when people put people on ignore that they actually meant it.


And P_Y, nothing you've posted yet supports your lie about me that I claimed that immodestly dressed people are responsible for the lust of others who lust after them.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/modesty-yoga-pants-and-myths/msg147214/#msg147214

All I know is that the problem of people doing sex the wrong way is old as the Good Book, and I'll err on the side of caution on this subject because of the many indicators that point to the fact that the more skin that shows generally leads to an incitement to lust.

Eat it....

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am in the real world....

Are you saying your theology doesn't influence others to either do or not do certain things?

Let me remind you of some Scripture.

Matthew 23:13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

I'd imagine you'd rebuke Jesus for saying much the same thing?

I know you have a hard time with this, because you ain't a Baptist, but I am not attempting to coerce anybody or bind anybody's conscience, and have said so in this very thread NUMEROUS times.  Each person is left ultimately to their own conscience before the Lord and the Scriptures.  If you don't believe in my subjective notion of modesty, and I have not persuaded you by use of principles gleaned from Scriptures, you are free to go buck naked if that's what you want to do (though I wouldn't recommend that in the Volunteer state, as there are manmade laws against it ).

As far as the misuse of Scripture, you are good at that.  I'm not keeping anybody out of the kingdom or making laws by which a person enters it.  It's a free gift, by grace through faith, so please don't try to clobber me again with twisted Scriptures.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I just wish that when people put people on ignore that they actually meant it.


And P_Y, nothing you've posted yet supports your lie about me that I claimed that immodestly dressed people are responsible for the lust of others who lust after them.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/modesty-yoga-pants-and-myths/msg147214/#msg147214

All I know is that the problem of people doing sex the wrong way is old as the Good Book, and I'll err on the side of caution on this subject because of the many indicators that point to the fact that the more skin that shows generally leads to an incitement to lust.

Eat it....

As just john says to you, remedial reading comprehension may be in order.  An immodestly dressed person who serves as a trigger to lust will answer for their immodesty, not the other person's lust.  This ground has already been covered in this thread, but nice try.  Well, not really.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I just wish that when people put people on ignore that they actually meant it.


And P_Y, nothing you've posted yet supports your lie about me that I claimed that immodestly dressed people are responsible for the lust of others who lust after them.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/modesty-yoga-pants-and-myths/msg147214/#msg147214

All I know is that the problem of people doing sex the wrong way is old as the Good Book, and I'll err on the side of caution on this subject because of the many indicators that point to the fact that the more skin that shows generally leads to an incitement to lust.

Eat it....

As just john says to you, remedial reading comprehension may be in order.  An immodestly dressed person who serves as a trigger to lust will answer for their immodesty, not the other person's lust.  This ground has already been covered in this thread, but nice try.  Well, not really.

So you don't believe a person can incite someone to lust? You said that they can. You said they would answer for it.

I don't have a problem with remedial reading comprehension. I understand.... words mean something. You can't say that a person can incite lust and then back away from the fact you're place some form of blame in the incident......on the person inciting lust.

If you think you can... .then you're the one living in a fantasy world.

It really is amaze the theological gymnastics your using to avoid the fact.... you believe a person can incite lust by wearing daisy duke shorts.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I am in the real world....

Are you saying your theology doesn't influence others to either do or not do certain things?

Let me remind you of some Scripture.

Matthew 23:13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

I'd imagine you'd rebuke Jesus for saying much the same thing?

I know you have a hard time with this, because you ain't a Baptist, but I am not attempting to coerce anybody or bind anybody's conscience, and have said so in this very thread NUMEROUS times.  Each person is left ultimately to their own conscience before the Lord and the Scriptures.  If you don't believe in my subjective notion of modesty, and I have not persuaded you by use of principles gleaned from Scriptures, you are free to go buck naked if that's what you want to do (though I wouldn't recommend that in the Volunteer state, as there are manmade laws against it ).

As far as the misuse of Scripture, you are good at that.  I'm not keeping anybody out of the kingdom or making laws by which a person enters it.  It's a free gift, by grace through faith, so please don't try to clobber me again with twisted Scriptures.

I'm going to warn you right here. I've been rather nice to you regardless of what you've been saying to me. That stops right now. Consider yourself warned.

I'm not a Baptist because I gave up being an Baptist idiot more than 25 years ago. You're the idiots that find value in everything but Christ. You could care less what Christ has to say about another brother or sister in Christ.... but you want your..... way.... You will always want this. Always.

To the point of the verse I posted.

You made the defense..... that you couldn't physically stop people from doing whatever they want with your theology. That is the defense you made. Contrary to this defense.... Jesus said the Pharisee of his day.... "shut up the Kingdom of Heaven" through their theology.

THEY COULDN'T physically stop a Greek citizen from doing whatever they wanted to do. However, their philosophy and teaching shut up the Kingdom of God to them.

Words matter. Words have influence. You will face God with your words..... your theology.... and your hypocritical beliefs. Not having the ability to force someone to do what you want them to do..... doesn't preclude this fact.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ice cream can be a trigger for someone's gluttony.  Is it the ice cream's fault?  No. 

My point is that a man (or woman) has to have lust in his/her heart FIRST in order for it to be triggered by something. 

Pizza used to be irresistible to me.  A diabetes medicine I'm taking has "cured" me of that.  So you could wave my favorite pizza from my favorite pizza place in front of my face, and I'd be unfazed by it.  The pizza hasn't changed.  I have. 

I don't know if Jesus "cures" lust in every Christian, and if not, I don't know why he cures it in one person and not another.  But to deny that Jesus CAN take away that lust is to deny the transformative power of God.  And those who constantly harp on modesty as being a problem may have an outward form of Godliness, but they deny its power.