Modesty for women and men

  • Thread starter Thread starter TwoTurtles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Using some of the recent logic, why have any guidelines with dress at all. Also, intent, in the world of fashion is made known all the time.
Don’t forget the girl in a bikini in a sports car commercial waving a flag. Her revealing body was not intended to lure male viewers based on lust. :rolleyes:
Why do you watch those commercials?
 
I think we all need to step back and realize what Modesty and other things are all about. It is for our salvation and for us to not impede in the salvation of others.

Once we keep that in mind, and that it is our sole goal of our lives, I think we will have much perspective on handling this issue.

Right now, it seems that many are approaching this issue from the perspective of trying to win more freedom for women or trying to win more freedom for men etc.

But this is not what this issue is about. If a woman cannot dress a certain way or becomes more careful about what she dresses, it is not the end of the world. She will be rewarded by God for her consideration of her fellow brothers. At the same time, men should try to develop more self-control as well.

So the harmony between men and women is established in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Such form of harmony is good because both have the goal of salvation in perspective.

But from what I understand in this thread, many are seeking to strike a harmony in this way
  1. women get to wear anything they want as long as they don’t directly wish to tempt
  2. men should try to develop self-control to endure anything a woman dresses
Apart from the glaring problem here that women should put the love of dress above the desire to not be a stumbling block for someone else, such a harmony is not possible due to the existence of concupiscence. John Paul II makes this very clear in his Theology of the Body and so do all the saints through the Tradition of the Church.

We need only consider the case of the mighty David and Solomon, ones who were exemplary men in their time and very close to God. But we all know how these very pious men, still ended up acting on temptation. David, murdered a person and married his wife as a result of seeing her while bathing. Solomon, had a large number of wives.

What we must keep in mind is that while men must try to do better than them, it would be pride in us that lead men to the same moments of temptation and expect men to walk away due to self-control.

Therefore, we have no choice but to pursue harmony between men and women in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Only one thing is important, SALVATION!
 
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to. You can post my exact words if you like so I can respond.
You were replying to me to something I said to someone else. So if you have already forgotten what it was as well, then I think we don’t need to waste more time on it.
 
Please, I invite you to read the post by paying more attention to what I am communicating.

The counter-example was against the claim that “intent can never be judged”.

The criminal justice system was a good example to show that we do judge intent all the time. But you seem to bogged yourself down on the criminal justice system now. The intricacies of the criminal justice system is not the point. The POINT, if you had paid attention, was that the initial claim that “intent cannot be deduced to a reasonable degree” is bogus. The proof was by counter-example.
But you keep referring to the criminal justice system to validate your argument. Maybe I am just too dumb to understand your POINT.
 
You were replying to me to something I said to someone else. So if you have already forgotten what it was as well, then I think we don’t need to waste more time on it.
That is so clever of you. You are quite right, I do not want to waste any more of my time.
 
But you keep referring to the criminal justice system to validate your argument. Maybe I am just too dumb to understand your POINT.
Your suggestion is quiet possible. But I like to think its not the case so let me try to explain a different way.

I was stating a counter example. So to give you an analogy
If someone says there are no black swans in the world, I just pointed out there was a black swan in China.

The claim made by your friend was that “one cannot make a reasonable judgement on another person’s intent at anytime”. I merely produced a counter-example i.e. the justice system, which judges intent of the accused all the time.

So the point here is not how the justice system operates but the fact that it does make a reasonable judgement on intent and hinges on its ability to do so. Therefore, we have a proof by counter-example that the claim “one can never make a reasonable judgement on the intent of another” is bogus.
 
Contrary to what you may think, many women embrace fashion for themselves, not to entice men!

Regarding your argument, I can see what you mean to a (very small) point - a woman knows when she looks good and will understand that men will find her attractive. And not necessarily married men, but unmarried men, if she is single. But, if by chance a married man finds her attractive, what is wrong with that? It is human nature to be attracted to someone that is beautiful, which goes for both men and women. A beautifully dressed woman should not give a man the urge to have impure thoughts or cheat on their spouse. A man should be able to acknowledge her beauty and move on.

My above example deals with women who are dressed fashionably well - not those who are hardly clothed with their breasts and backsides hanging out. Re: your Islamic dress comparison, there are more issues than the head dress. And frankly, it is scary that you even make this comparison. Dress is used as a form of control, not as a way to show respect. It seems to me that you think modest dress means a woman should be covered from throat to wrist and ankle. A woman can dress fashionably while showing some skin but without showing everything God gave her.

It gets frustrating when women are constantly told they are the balance on which the morality of society rests, while at the same time, men use the modesty argument to sexualize women. Like other posters have noted, if a man needs a woman completely covered because of some sin it might spark in him, he is objectifying her just as much as the man who gawks at her while she walks down the street.
I was never just talking about a woman “looking good”. I was speaking of revealing clothes and the intent behind them. Being married and finding a woman attractive can be normal, who has a problem with that (well maybe some do)? Again, I was speaking of inducing lust. A man can be married but if a woman at work likes him (or even doesn’t) and is wearing tight mini skirts because HER intent is to possibly make him look more at her or “win him over” than she is wrong.

Do you mean to tell me that as a woman you don’t know about the intent of some fashions. Your version of “show some skin” may be different than mine. Most women know the higher the skirt or the shorter the shorts means sexier. Thats the skin I’m talking about that will cause men to look. And if the woman’s intent was to advance a lustful look from a man, the church does not condone that. That is not practicing modesty.

All women are not Christian or “religious” and we live a in a secular society where almost anything goes. Should a Christian woman have a different approach? I would think so.

My point about Islamic clothes was that I understood the track they were on but it is extreme and wrote that as I communicated and forth with another poster. Beauty and lust are worlds apart and you have intertwined them. A beautiful woman is a joy to look at. I often acknowledge a womans beauty, and sometimes tell her, then “move on”. I don’t walk up to a thonged female and say, “nice a*s” . You must know that many women wear revealing clothes to “catch a man”. That purpose is designed temptation.

The woman in those cases is therefor as guilty as the man if he looks and lusts. You have interpreted this argument to be the ills of society rest on the female. All that is being said by me and some others it that a woman has some responsibility, not just the man, particularly if she wears clothes with an intent to cause temptation.

The “frustrating” thing is making believe a woman is unaware of her sexuality and hiding behind “looking good” which is far different than painted on sweatpants.
 
nolongerquivering.com/2011/11/22/how-modesty-made-me-fat/ Some people might find that interesting…I know it’s about the Quiverfull movement, but I can testify to having similar things occur in what was considered a conservative mainline denomination. There are real negative effects on women to some of these modesty teachings.
Thanks for the article. They are about control and seeing women as tainted, ready to bring men down if not reined in.
 
Thanks for the article. They are about control and seeing women as tainted, ready to bring men down if not reined in.
I think you need to read this which you might have missed. The issue here might be that you have also fallen in the mentality of men vs. women when the goal is harmony to help us all attain SALVATION!

**

I think we all need to step back and realize what Modesty and other things are all about. It is for our salvation and for us to not impede in the salvation of others.

Once we keep that in mind, and that it is our sole goal of our lives, I think we will have much perspective on handling this issue.

Right now, it seems that many are approaching this issue from the perspective of trying to win more freedom for women or trying to win more freedom for men etc.

But this is not what this issue is about. If a woman cannot dress a certain way or becomes more careful about what she dresses, it is not the end of the world. She will be rewarded by God for her consideration of her fellow brothers. At the same time, men should try to develop more self-control as well.

So the harmony between men and women is established in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Such form of harmony is good because both have the goal of salvation in perspective.

But from what I understand in this thread, many are seeking to strike a harmony in this way
  1. women get to wear anything they want as long as they don’t directly wish to tempt
  2. men should try to develop self-control to endure anything a woman dresses
Apart from the glaring problem here that women should put the love of dress above the desire to not be a stumbling block for someone else, such a harmony is not possible due to the existence of concupiscence. John Paul II makes this very clear in his Theology of the Body and so do all the saints through the Tradition of the Church.

We need only consider the case of the mighty David and Solomon, ones who were exemplary men in their time and very close to God. But we all know how these very pious men, still ended up acting on temptation. David, murdered a person and married his wife as a result of seeing her while bathing. Solomon, had a large number of wives.

What we must keep in mind is that while men must try to do better than them, it would be pride in us that lead men to the same moments of temptation and expect men to walk away due to self-control.

Therefore, we have no choice but to pursue harmony between men and women in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Only one thing is important, SALVATION!

**

 
I was never just talking about a woman “looking good”. I was speaking of revealing clothes and the intent behind them. Being married and finding a woman attractive can be normal, who has a problem with that (well maybe some do)? Again, I was speaking of inducing lust. A man can be married but if a woman at work likes him (or even doesn’t) and is wearing tight mini skirts because HER intent is to possibly make him look more at her or “win him over” than she is wrong.

Do you mean to tell me that as a woman you don’t know about the intent of some fashions. Your version of “show some skin” may be different than mine. Most women know the higher the skirt or the shorter the shorts means sexier. Thats the skin I’m talking about that will cause men to look. And if the woman’s intent was to advance a lustful look from a man, the church does not condone that. That is not practicing modesty.

All women are not Christian or “religious” and we live a in a secular society where almost anything goes. Should a Christian woman have a different approach? I would think so.

My point about Islamic clothes was that I understood the track they were on but it is extreme and wrote that as I communicated and forth with another poster. Beauty and lust are worlds apart and you have intertwined them. A beautiful woman is a joy to look at. I often acknowledge a womans beauty, and sometimes tell her, then “move on”. I don’t walk up to a thonged female and say, “nice a*s” . You must know that many women wear revealing clothes to “catch a man”. That purpose is designed temptation.

The woman in those cases is therefor as guilty as the man if he looks and lusts. You have interpreted this argument to be the ills of society rest on the female. All that is being said by me and some others it that a woman has some responsibility, not just the man, particularly if she wears clothes with an intent to cause temptation.

The “frustrating” thing is making believe a woman is unaware of her sexuality and hiding behind “looking good” which is far different than painted on sweatpants.
Thanks for your response.

What I meant by showing some skin is a sleeveless shirt, a highcut strapless dress, or a skirt or pair of shorts a bit above the knee, depending on leg length. Nothing too short, on either end of the torso.

Yes, I know many women wear revealing clothes to catch men, which I why I said I did not mean those who bared their breasts and backsides.

Yes, women should most definitely be aware of their sexuality. I read that you noted your Islamic dress was an extreme example, which is why I can’t understand you bringing it up. We shouldn’t be dealing with extremes. And the idea of using the Islamic way of dressing to back-up your argument, even as an extreme, is still disturbing to me. The track they are on does not have to do with modesty, but with control, which is why I don’t believe it helps your argument at all. And because of that example, I read your argument that a fashionable woman who wants to look good = immodest dress.
 
Yes , there is a continual desire to go back to focusing on only what the man is doing and placing a woman into zero accountability status. If one plans temptation, whether successful or not, they have sinned.
 
I think we all need to step back and realize what Modesty and other things are all about. It is for our salvation and for us to not impede in the salvation of others.

Once we keep that in mind, and that it is our sole goal of our lives, I think we will have much perspective on handling this issue.

Right now, it seems that many are approaching this issue from the perspective of trying to win more freedom for women or trying to win more freedom for men etc.

But this is not what this issue is about. If a woman cannot dress a certain way or becomes more careful about what she dresses, it is not the end of the world. She will be rewarded by God for her consideration of her fellow brothers. At the same time, men should try to develop more self-control as well.

So the harmony between men and women is established in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Such form of harmony is good because both have the goal of salvation in perspective.

But from what I understand in this thread, many are seeking to strike a harmony in this way
  1. women get to wear anything they want as long as they don’t directly wish to tempt
  2. men should try to develop self-control to endure anything a woman dresses
Apart from the glaring problem here that women should put the love of dress above the desire to not be a stumbling block for someone else, such a harmony is not possible due to the existence of concupiscence. John Paul II makes this very clear in his Theology of the Body and so do all the saints through the Tradition of the Church.

We need only consider the case of the mighty David and Solomon, ones who were exemplary men in their time and very close to God. But we all know how these very pious men, still ended up acting on temptation. David, murdered a person and married his wife as a result of seeing her while bathing. Solomon, had a large number of wives.

What we must keep in mind is that while men must try to do better than them, it would be pride in us that lead men to the same moments of temptation and expect men to walk away due to self-control.

Therefore, we have no choice but to pursue harmony between men and women in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Only one thing is important, SALVATION!
I think it’s more than just “putting love of dress over desire not to be a stumbling block.” A few points:

(1) An excessive focus on modesty promotes shame among women. It teaches women to view their bodies primarily as a stumbling block to men, instead of as a gift from God.
(2) Such a focus also detracts from men’s and women’s abilities to interact properly, because it teaches men excessive fear of natural desires to the point of seeing their sisters in Christ as potential temptations.
(3) No matter what you wear, there will be some man who is attracted by it. Without some sort of balance, it turns into an ever-growing set of rules about what a woman may not wear, removing the focus on Christ and his grace.
(4) It creates a culture of objectification by viewing women primarily as body parts that need to be covered, at the expense of their own full personhood.
(5) It also encourages men to see a woman’s clothing as primarily directed at him, rather than being about convenience/comfort/enjoyment. For example, it encourages men to think that a woman who puts on shorts and a tank top for exercise as attempting to tempt them, rather than simply trying to remain cool.
(5) It encourages a culture where women are blamed for “encouraging” the actions of men, in which a woman who is the object of inappropriate male attention is subject to questioning about her modesty instead of being supported. (I have seen this last one in cases ranging from harassment to full-out sexual abuse,)

Given all that, I contend that asking women to “dress so as to avoid tempting a man” is in fact NOT honoring God. It’s dishonoring his gifts to us of our bodies, and dishonoring to each other and thus to our Creator by turning the focus away from our relationships onto our dress.
 
Welcome, TwoTurtles! What a wonderful question!

May I ask, what is the exact occasion you’re planning?

I’m sorry, I didn’t see what the occasion was or may have missed that.

**In general, I think of modesty as always choosing not to attract undue negative attention to oneself by clothing or outward appearance, but instead to keep in mind what is appropriate for the occasion. **👋

Do you recall that photo op several years ago when a number of very nice young ladies from a high school sports team showed up at the Bush White House on a hot summer day, many wearing nice dresses but also very basic, (almost flip flop) sandals?

The nearly- bare feet caused quite a split down the country. Some were on the side of the nearly bare foot look and others from the Old School were horrified!:eek:

Many asked “Where on earth were their mothers?”***:nun1:

Some asked, well, what if they showed up in the basketball/or soccer shorts and sneakers? Why would that not be appropriate?* I wondered where the White House Liaison was when she booked them to come.* Perhaps she assumed that footwear would not cause such a stir. She could have made some suggestions in advance. Compared to the way most young people were dressing at the time, I thought they looked lovely, despite the shoes. It was, after all, a hot day.

We live in a day when people seem not to care a whit what one wears; to Mass, to go shopping, to meet new people etc. Strangely, even the worst hoodlums seem to dress decently for their court appearances. People always seem to put their best foot forward at a job interview. What does that tell us? For whom are we dressing? What do our choices say about us? I think how we present ourselves speaks volumes about our inner selves.:angel1:

Some of the present generation will laugh when I tell them how young ladies used to take an extra shower, change clothes, re-do their makeup and dress up quite a bit just to go with their father to pick up someone from the airport. One might see a lady at the A & P (that’s a grocery store chain) sporting white gloves and a hat, and our brothers were expected to don a suit and tie for such an occasion. Certainly for Mass, we wore whatever was our best, appropriate church attire.:highprayer:

I think it is so refreshing when anyone even asks about modesty and appropriate dress, etc. In my humble opinion, I would say that what matters most are the following;

***What is the occasion and what will the activities include? ***

***Will we need to bring a change of clothes?

Where is the event? (Fox hunt in Virginia or a BBQ at Uncle Ted’s in Jersey?

What choices do I have?***

If it’s a beach party, well, there* are *going to be bathing suits, aren’t there? But even here, there are one- pieces and there are eensy weensie suits and bikinis.
There are swim trunks and there are those dreadful Speedos (that are fine for official swim team events but perhaps not so fine if our Great Aunt Pitty Patt is hosting a sea side brunch for us. We wouldn’t want her, or her friends, to faint would we? :frighten:

If I were a young lady at a beach or pool event, I might have a nice cover -up along and definitely a change of clothing and some towels.
**
Is there a dress code at the event?**

Is there a guest being honored? Who is it?*** (Aunt Pitty Pat’s favorite grand niece from a convent boarding school, The local Bishop, or royalty?

If I am deciding on the dress code, all of the above are good questions.

We ladies shouldn’t have to dress in floor length maxis, but neither should we wear tube tops and micro minis in public, and certainly not at Mass. Find a nice medium.

We should stand out not for the flamboyant clothes on our backs or Heaven forbid, scary, Goth nails or black lipstick, but for our friendly spirits and consideration for others.

In general, dressing nicely for the occasion/event and choosing to “err” on the side of modesty versus being in any way flamboyant, should work best.

Outside of Halloween or slumber parties,I hope we can all think about how we present ourselves, (God’s beloved children,) in a way that causes ease, not distress or gossip.

It’s sad to see that many people choose to appear everywhere in clothing that, in another bygone era, were considered suitable only for cleaning out the garage.
*

My own father was so beautifully Lincoln-esque, a brilliant man from a midwestern farming family, whose later journalism career found him in the presence of presidents and military heroes. My mother knew a great man when she saw one, and she met him at the* beginning **of his career when he was struggling and quite humble in circumstances. She wasn’t about to let him get away.

It was often those in the most humble circumstances that always seemed so presentable. Most of us knew how to re-work a dress or jacket that was wearing out, and found creative ways to stretch our clothing allowance. But we did not purposely “dress down” until the 1970’s, when alas, the jeans came out for a decade and replaced the collegiate skirts and tailored look that, from time to time, seems to make a real comeback!

I hope this helps and appreciate the question very much!

Kathryn Ann:heaven:

I love everything about this! My best friend and I often talk about how women and men no longer dress to look nice, but only dress for convenience. As much as I like a good pair of jeans, I wish people would see them more as the exception than the rule.
 
But this is not what this issue is about. If a woman cannot dress a certain way or becomes more careful about what she dresses, it is not the end of the world. She will be rewarded by God for her consideration of her fellow brothers. At the same time, men should try to develop more self-control as well.
But this concern should not be all-consuming or a perpetual source of worry. A woman should be able to think, “Do not wear exceedingly revealing clothing,” and this should be enough, along with accompanying behavior."
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
  1. is definitely true; 1) needs caveats. I need not cover my feet because some men are sexually attracted to feet. I need not cover my eyes for the same reason.
Apart from the glaring problem here that women should put the love of dress above the desire to not be a stumbling block for someone else, such a harmony is not possible due to the existence of concupiscence. John Paul II makes this very clear in his Theology of the Body and so do all the saints through the Tradition of the Church.
The problem is that 1) is undefined. What constitutes clothing that is a stumbling block? What is immodesty? The problem is that the question is not answered explicitly by the Church, and thus people must decide on their own. Then you have people like Portrait claiming that women in good conscience and who are well-formed would not wear X, and that such a decision is “common sense,” and then you have a problem for reasons that should be obvious to the critical thinker.
Yes , there is a continual desire to go back to focusing on only what the man is doing and placing a woman into zero accountability status. If one plans temptation, whether successful or not, they have sinned.
If a woman is attracted by the innocuous way in which I walk, I hardly think that I have sinned, so you need to refine your statement.
 
Thanks for your response.

What I meant by showing some skin is a sleeveless shirt, a highcut strapless dress, or a skirt or pair of shorts a bit above the knee, depending on leg length. Nothing too short, on either end of the torso.

Yes, I know many women wear revealing clothes to catch men, which I why I said I did not mean those who bared their breasts and backsides.

Yes, women should most definitely be aware of their sexuality. I read that you noted your Islamic dress was an extreme example, which is why I can’t understand you bringing it up. We shouldn’t be dealing with extremes. And the idea of using the Islamic way of dressing to back-up your argument, even as an extreme, is still disturbing to me. The track they are on does not have to do with modesty, but with control, which is why I don’t believe it helps your argument at all. And because of that example, I read your argument that a fashionable woman who wants to look good = immodest dress.
Thank you as well, you seem like a very sensible woman. Yes, ultimately Islamic clothing does equal control. The reason I brought up the extreme is because our society has gone to the other extreme. Our culture has been reducing woman to body parts and sex objects for ages now. Most of it stemming from fashion. The less clothes or the tighter the outfit is a way to push that. Hey, fashion is cool, I’m all for it. Sometimes when you discuss a topic like this a person can come off as ultra non hip or trapped in a puritan worldview, not the case with me.

The point about Islamic clothes was very early in the thread and your right, may have confused some. Please read though this thread, you will find some obstinate conclusions on a relatively simple concept. Many views are similar to mine as well.
 
Yes , there is a continual desire to go back to focusing on only what the man is doing and placing a woman into zero accountability status. If one plans temptation, whether successful or not, they have sinned.
I see more of a desire for both men and women to be accountable, not just women.
 
Thank you as well, you seem like a very sensible woman. Yes, ultimately Islamic clothing does equal control. The reason I brought up the extreme is because our society has gone to the other extreme. Our culture has been reducing woman to body parts and sex objects for ages now. Most of it stemming from fashion. The less clothes or the tighter the outfit is a way to push that. Hey, fashion is cool, I’m all for it. Sometimes when you discuss a topic like this a person can come off as ultra non hip or trapped in a puritan worldview, not the case with me.

The point about Islamic clothes was very early in the thread and your right, may have confused some. Please read though this thread, you will find some obstinate conclusions on a relatively simple concept. Many views are similar to mine as well.
Now we understand each other better! Have a great day. 🙂
 
I think you need to read this which you might have missed. The issue here might be that you have also fallen in the mentality of men vs. women when the goal is harmony to help us all attain SALVATION!

**

I think we all need to step back and realize what Modesty and other things are all about. It is for our salvation and for us to not impede in the salvation of others.

Once we keep that in mind, and that it is our sole goal of our lives, I think we will have much perspective on handling this issue.

Right now, it seems that many are approaching this issue from the perspective of trying to win more freedom for women or trying to win more freedom for men etc.

But this is not what this issue is about. If a woman cannot dress a certain way or becomes more careful about what she dresses, it is not the end of the world. She will be rewarded by God for her consideration of her fellow brothers. At the same time, men should try to develop more self-control as well.

So the harmony between men and women is established in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Such form of harmony is good because both have the goal of salvation in perspective.

But from what I understand in this thread, many are seeking to strike a harmony in this way
  1. women get to wear anything they want as long as they don’t directly wish to tempt
  2. men should try to develop self-control to endure anything a woman dresses
Apart from the glaring problem here that women should put the love of dress above the desire to not be a stumbling block for someone else, such a harmony is not possible due to the existence of concupiscence. John Paul II makes this very clear in his Theology of the Body and so do all the saints through the Tradition of the Church.

We need only consider the case of the mighty David and Solomon, ones who were exemplary men in their time and very close to God. But we all know how these very pious men, still ended up acting on temptation. David, murdered a person and married his wife as a result of seeing her while bathing. Solomon, had a large number of wives.

What we must keep in mind is that while men must try to do better than them, it would be pride in us that lead men to the same moments of temptation and expect men to walk away due to self-control.

Therefore, we have no choice but to pursue harmony between men and women in this issue by
  1. women trying to dress as much as possible in a way that does not lead men to temptation.
  2. men trying to develop more and more self-control
Only one thing is important, SALVATION!

**


I raised my family – to respect. To respect the person – for the human being the person is. To respect the person – no matter the color of the sin, the clothes worn etc… To have the same respect for the short wearing/mini skirt wearing woman – as they would have for the one dressed in so called “modest attire”. To respect the woman – who may have had one drink to many – and not take this as an open door – to take advantage of her. To not use derogatory language-- towards another human being. In my Christian view – this will enable my family – to ward of giving in – to seeing others as objects --to be demeaned via the mind and/or outwards acts. This is the harmony – which is now being instilled in my grandchildren.
 

I raised my family – to respect. To respect the person – for the human being the person is. To respect the person – no matter the color of the sin, the clothes worn etc… To have the same respect for the short wearing/mini skirt wearing woman – as they would have for the one dressed in so called “modest attire”. To respect the woman – who may have had one drink to many – and not take this as an open door – to take advantage of her. To not use derogatory language-- towards another human being. In my Christian view – this will enable my family – to ward of giving in – to seeing others as objects --to be demeaned via the mind and/or outwards acts. This is the harmony – which is now being instilled in my grandchildren.
You can respect the woman in the mini skirt or thong if you want, and you should. You can respect the man that lusts as well. However, both the man and woman’s outward & inward actions based on intent don’t change magically into non sin because you respect them.
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
I raised my family – to respect. To respect the person – for the human being the person is. To respect the person – no matter the color of the sin, the clothes worn etc… To have the same respect for the short wearing/mini skirt wearing woman – as they would have for the one dressed in so called “modest attire”. To respect the woman – who may have had one drink to many – and not take this as an open door – to take advantage of her. To not use derogatory language-- towards another human being. In my Christian view – this will enable my family – to ward of giving in – to seeing others as objects --to be demeaned via the mind and/or outwards acts. This is the harmony – which is now being instilled in my grandchildren.
You can respect the woman in the mini skirt or thong if you want, and you should. You can respect the man that lusts as well. However, both the man and woman’s outward & inward actions based on intent don’t change magically into non sin because you respect them.

If we learn to see others through the eyes of God – “sin” – would not “implant” itself in our hearts and minds. The shedding of our Lord’s Blood – not only brought about our redemption – but offered to us the Grace to restore ourselves overcoming Pride/concupiscence.

What I am seeing here – is a fight --against this restoration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top