Modesty for women and men

[johnnyjones]

I’m not sure that I understand what you meant by this… can you explain a little more clearly? Are you saying we should adopt islamic dress? or merely that islamic dress would clearly be modest?

What do you mean by "How about those in favor of conservative dress having “more in common with the sexually sexual depraved " than they let on” ???

Are you saying that those in favour of conservative dress have more in common with the sexually depraved than they think? Or do you mean something else?

Your last paragraph makes it sound as though with you agree with my suggestion. Is that right? or do you think it needs to be tweaked in some way?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

You made an observation that one poster was are over the top for you. I referenced an over the top post directed at me. The quote about the 'sexually depraved" was directed at me by LOST Wanderer, which was beyond the pale. Go back please and read that exchange, between myself and that poster, it is shocking, and then it is justified by the poster.

Isalamic dress on woman covers them entitrely and men have nothing to look at, but it is extreme. We are now at the entire other end of Islamic dress, half naked stimulus. That half naked stimulus was at one time saved for the bedroom. Modesty has a place, the scriptures make that clear, some can not figure out what that is anymore. We should use the nowadays 'innocent" braided hair and necklesses to see how stunningly far we have come. If St. Paul saw a man in a speedo or a woman in a bikini, what would he think?

 

[OurBeloved]

Before addressing your post would just like to ask again whether or not you agree with me that the universal is making reasonable efforts to avoid temptation. You were not clear in your response as to whether or not you are happy with this.

I agree with this but add the caveat. The universal is to make a reasonable effort according to the best possible options available to avoid causing temptation.

I added the ‘best possible options available’ since someone might adopt arbitrary standards for themselves which is is not that great but try to make reasonable efforts within such framework. So someone who would say ‘I am going to rely on my personal experience to decide what is modest’ would fall under this category of error.

I know you are not going to like hearing this, but I cannot answer as to whether or not these are the only two ways because I am still unsure about what you mean by traditional values. Please look at my replies to Portrait if you want to see what my opinion of the process of determining what the correct way to live is. It is possible that we are in agreement, but I cannot say for sure.

If you can refer to a specific post where you discuss this, I can take a look.

As for this recurring question of “I don’t know what traditional values are”, this seems really problematic. Are you telling me that if you dig up past sermons, homilies, advice, talks given by Popes to society in a time where modesty was a core value of culture, you get nothing? What you get from these are traditional values. Those standards they talk about, the advice they give, all of these things are traditional values and standards.

Even the things you received from your grandparents or parents are traditional values, given that they grew up in a culture where modesty was a core value or had those values passed down to them from grandparents who did grow up in such a culture.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I have nowhere claimed, nor did I ever intend to say that there is something inherent in following traditional values which leads people down a self-destructive path. What I did say is that if you simply tell someone to follow traditional values and leave it at that then it is easy for them to take your well-meaning advice the wrong way and end up in a self-destructive lifestyle. The main reason being that what is meant by traditional values is unclear.

But as I pointed out to you, what you are saying can be said about religion as well. If I just tell someone to be a religious person, or be a good Christian, the person might end up becoming a fundamentalist Christian with some destructive tendencies and hates the Church.

In the end of all this, it seems to be a problem with the individuals rather than a problem with what is being said.

The problem isn’t really with traditional values being unclear either. If that were the case, then they would be spending lot of time researching and finding them out rather than self-destructing anyway. And seriously, this is not something difficult like obtaining an academic degree or anything. These values used to be passed down, from parents to children and so on. After you receive such values, you just follow them. Easy as that.

Problems usually arise when you decide you want to wear something that doesn’t agree with those values and then you choose to make your own call on which one of these values you will keep or throw away. Or, you simply end up throwing them all out and decide to build up your own set of values. Both these systems can either end up leading a person to immodesty or over-scrupulosity.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree with this but add the caveat. The universal is to make a reasonable effort according to the best possible options available to avoid causing temptation.

I added the ‘best possible options available’ since someone might adopt arbitrary standards for themselves which is is not that great but try to make reasonable efforts within such framework. So someone who would say ‘I am going to rely on my personal experience to decide what is modest’ would fall under this category of error.

I do not understand why you add this caveat. If, as you claim, traditional values are the correct way to determine what is reasonably modest, isn’t it sufficient to say that the universal is to make a reasonable attempt to avoid tempting others?

If you can refer to a specific post where you discuss this, I can take a look.

Here is my conversationi with Portrait.

Portrait:

Dear thewanderer,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The problem is, dear sister, that we either resort to traditional values as a benchmark on what constitutes decorous clothing, or we take are cue from the prevailing culture, which at the present time is in a dire state of moral deterioration and which has completely lost its way, morally speaking. … (snip)

Me:

I think the bolded part is where we disagree. I do not see these as the only two options. We should look to the past to learn what wisdom we can from it, but we must always be careful to remove the folly from the wisdom. Therefore we do not just accept that which is old because it is old, but we carefully examine it to remove the good from the neutral and bad, so that the wisdom from other cultures can be purified and become even more worthwhile. The Church seeks the Truth. No one culture has anything completely right, which is why the church will always be countercultural, it must always point out to each culture where it falls short. So, as I have said before, while I have great respect for the past and the wisdom to be found in other cultures, I am not going to accept something unquestioningly simply because it is old. If I were to do that it is likely that I would fall into errors that that previous culture was subject to. So wee must do our best to discern the Truth, with the hellp of the Church and constant prayer. That is my position.

As for this recurring question of “I don’t know what traditional values are”, this seems really problematic. Are you telling me that if you dig up past sermons, homilies, advice, talks given by Popes to society in a time where modesty was a core value of culture, you get nothing? What you get from these are traditional values. Those standards they talk about, the advice they give, all of these things are traditional values and standards.

Even the things you received from your grandparents or parents are traditional values, given that they grew up in a culture where modesty was a core value or had those values passed down to them from grandparents who did grow up in such a culture.

The problem I have with this is that it is possible to look at the way people dressed at different times and come away with very different understandings of what is ok. According to the method you have just given me I have determined that according to traditional values there is nothing wrong with knee length skirts, shorts that come to roughly the mid-thigh, necklines that are roughly four fingers below the collar bone, and sleeveless shirts and dresses. However, I highly doubt that that is what you and portrait envision as modesty according to traditional values. Which is why I say that you have not yet defined it very clearly.

But as I pointed out to you, what you are saying can be said about religion as well. If I just tell someone to be a religious person, or be a good Christian, the person might end up becoming a fundamentalist Christian with some destructive tendencies and hates the Church.

In the end of all this, it seems to be a problem with the individuals rather than a problem with what is being said.

Yes. you hit the nail on the head exactly. That is why you should not just tell a person to be religious but help to show them the correct way to be religious.

In the same way you should not just tell a person to dress modestly, but actually help them to do so.

If this is ‘in the end just a problem with individuals’ why is the problem of lust not ‘in the end just a problem with individuals’? Both are problems with individuals, yes, but in both cases it is a matter of charity to try and help those individual avoid those problems.

(continued…)

 

[thewanderer]

(… continued)

The problem isn’t really with traditional values being unclear either. If that were the case, then they would be spending lot of time researching and finding them out rather than self-destructing anyway. And seriously, this is not something difficult like obtaining an academic degree or anything. These values used to be passed down, from parents to children and so on. After you receive such values, you just follow them. Easy as that.

Problems usually arise when you decide you want to wear something that doesn’t agree with those values and then you choose to make your own call on which one of these values you will keep or throw away. Or, you simply end up throwing them all out and decide to build up your own set of values. Both these systems can either end up leading a person to immodesty or over-scrupulosity.

No, extra research is not going to help make them more clear. The point is that you are making a claim that everyone who researches types of dress down through the ages will somehow be able to tell the difference between fashion and modesty even if you don’t give them a nice solid principle for doing so. Also, they are going to be able to distinguish between standards of dress that come from modesty and standards of dress that come from other cultural traditions. Since you have given no clear guideline for determining the difference between these, it is possible for different people to study past modes of dress and come up with different standards.

 

[johnnyjones]

The scriptures are “old” and they hold the key. Modesty had a purpose, and as we were possibly coming to an understanding, we need to reflect on the words of old. Based on where people were societally, adorning themselves with necklesses and braided hair to entice (otherwise why would they be told not to do that) we can see where we have fallen. (Please read my past two posts).

Lets dig into why God tells the people of old not to wear necklesses and braided hair. Vanity can be one reason. Luring, tempting others (men) to be attracted based on the outer self. Sure, we have "evolved’ to think that concept is overly puritan. We are supposedly beyond that, but have we really made strides in the reflection of the outer self?. The purpose of restraint of skin is to not sell the outer self.

 

[OurBeloved]

I do not understand why you add this caveat. If, as you claim, traditional values are the correct way to determine what is reasonably modest, isn’t it sufficient to say that the universal is to make a reasonable attempt to avoid tempting others?

The caveat, as I explained, was to make sure someone doesn’t try and come up with their own standard instead of following traditional values. Then they would try to do the best according to their own standard.

I think the bolded part is where we disagree. I do not see these as the only two options. We should look to the past to learn what wisdom we can from it, but we must always be careful to remove the folly from the wisdom…

This is actually what I disagreed with. Because this requires you to bring in your personal experience to disregard something as folly or wise. But since you are speaking from your limited personal experience over your lifetime, it is most likely an incorrect decision.

The problem I have with this is that it is possible to look at the way people dressed at different times and come away with very different understandings of what is ok. According to the method you have just given me I have determined that according to traditional values there is nothing wrong with knee length skirts, shorts that come to roughly the mid-thigh, necklines that are roughly four fingers below the collar bone, and sleeveless shirts and dresses. However, I highly doubt that that is what you and portrait envision as modesty according to traditional values. Which is why I say that you have not yet defined it very clearly.

So where did you get these traditional values about four fingers below the neck line and mid thigh for shorts? I am very much interested in reading this homily by this great Pope or Bishops who uttered these things.

Yes. you hit the nail on the head exactly. That is why you should not just tell a person to be religious but help to show them the correct way to be religious.

In the same way you should not just tell a person to dress modestly, but actually help them to do so.

Well sure, but if I was actually here to try and help you be modest, this conversation would be very different. I will pass down the values that my parents taught me instead.

The discussion over here was more on what to follow, as in should you even follow my advice to begin with or just make up your own.

If this is ‘in the end just a problem with individuals’ why is the problem of lust not ‘in the end just a problem with individuals’? Both are problems with individuals, yes, but in both cases it is a matter of charity to try and help those individual avoid those problems.

So ok, I think you are speaking here from a very deep personal experience you had. It might help if you do share it so that I honestly know what you are talking about when you say things like “spiral in to self-destruction”. If you want we can continue this discussion via PM as well.

No, extra research is not going to help make them more clear. The point is that you are making a claim that everyone who researches types of dress down through the ages will somehow be able to tell the difference between fashion and modesty even if you don’t give them a nice solid principle for doing so. Also, they are going to be able to distinguish between standards of dress that come from modesty and standards of dress that come from other cultural traditions. Since you have given no clear guideline for determining the difference between these, it is possible for different people to study past modes of dress and come up with different standards.

Seriously, lets put it this way.

Take a traditional dress from a time and culture that had upheld modesty for a long time in any part of the world. Then see what it covers and what it uncovers. Follow that to judge the attire you wear. That should be a mighty fine standard compared to anything you can come up with in your life-time of personal experiences.

OR, go read the homilies of Pope’s and Bishops. I don’t know which ones you read but I don’t know of any who talked about mid-thigh level shorts. So it is quiet possible that you are really turning to some bad resources or someone is really misleading you.

The best way would have been if your parents passed down some traditional values to you. But it has not happened and therefore you are at a loss. Right now, there is a bit of a vacuum. So unfortunately you will have to settle for something like the above.

But I will have to say this again however, extra research, study and thought will make it clear. Your insistence that it won’t is equivalent to saying we can never know the standard of modesty for an example of year 1920. Something seems horribly wrong from a historical perspective to say something of such nature.

 

[thewanderer]

The caveat, as I explained, was to make sure someone doesn’t try and come up with their own standard instead of following traditional values. Then they would try to do the best according to their own standard.

I understand that, but my point is that if you are correct about traditional values as you understand them being the determining factor for what is reasonably to be expected in terms of modesty then it is completely superfluous to add this caveat. It is already included in the definition we are using. Because of this it makes more sense to leave the definition as is and instead try to explain, as you have been doing, why traditional values as you see them are the correct determining factor. If someone disagrees with you they will not accept this caveat, if they do there is no need for it.

This is actually what I disagreed with. Because this requires you to bring in your personal experience to disregard something as folly or wise. But since you are speaking from your limited personal experience over your lifetime, it is most likely an incorrect decision.

I’m not sure why you talk about bringing in personal experience. I’m talking about discerning truth. Learning. It seems that this, then is where our disagreement stems from. I believe it is importnat for each person to seek to understand the truth fully in and of itself with the guidance of the church to help ensure it does not fall into error, whereas you seem to think that a person should simply accept the knowledge of those gained before him because of the danger that he might fall into error.

So where did you get these traditional values about four fingers below the neck line and mid thigh for shorts? I am very much interested in reading this homily by this great Pope or Bishops who uttered these things.

As you allowed for anyone who lived in society before what you consider to be the break in our societies attempt at purity, to help in forming the standard I used the example and standards of some of the most intelligent, learned, thouroughly orthodox and traditional people I know, all of whom are old enough to be my grandparents and so have experienced this other culture of which you speak and all of who vehemently oppose the idea of a break with tradition or change for its own sake.

Well sure, but if I was actually here to try and help you be modest, this conversation would be very different. I will pass down the values that my parents taught me instead.

The discussion over here was more on what to follow, as in should you even follow my advice to begin with or just make up your own.

So ok, I think you are speaking here from a very deep personal experience you had. It might help if you do share it so that I honestly know what you are talking about when you say things like “spiral in to self-destruction”. If you want we can continue this discussion via PM as well.

actually, I was very lucky, as I said, to be pulled out of it before it went on long enough for me to have felt its full effect, but the point is that having seen the beginning I can see where it would lead. The point is that if you allow the exterior appearance of your body to become too important, and start worrying about your external appearances too much, it is very destructive. And putting too much emphasis on women dressing modestly without enough emphasis that it is only required within reasonable boundaries can very easily lead impressionable young pious women whos self-image is still developing into worrying about their exterior appearances too much. The same can be said for giving them a vague standard which can be continually taken to a further and further extreme. While you have stated that pants were a matter of fashion whereas other things are a matter of modesty, other peole looking at the way people havve dressed in the past have claimed that not wearing pants is a matter of modesty, not fashion. So until you can give a pracitcal way to understand this difference what you mean by traditional values will remain unclear.

Seriously, lets put it this way.

Take a traditional dress from a time and culture that had upheld modesty for a long time in any part of the world. Then see what it covers and what it uncovers. Follow that to judge the attire you wear. That should be a mighty fine standard compared to anything you can come up with in your life-time of personal experiences.

OR, go read the homilies of Pope’s and Bishops. I don’t know which ones you read but I don’t know of any who talked about mid-thigh level shorts. So it is quiet possible that you are really turning to some bad resources or someone is really misleading you.

The best way would have been if your parents passed down some traditional values to you. But it has not happened and therefore you are at a loss. Right now, there is a bit of a vacuum. So unfortunately you will have to settle for something like the above.

But I will have to say this again however, extra research, study and thought will make it clear. Your insistence that it won’t is equivalent to saying we can never know the standard of modesty for an example of year 1920. Something seems horribly wrong from a historical perspective to say something of such nature.

I am not “coming up with” anything. I am telling you the standards I have received from those from a previous culture which upheld modesty who have been faithful, orthodox catholics their whole lives and always held tradition in very high esteem, as well as the virtues of modesty and purity and every other christian virtue. Isn’t this exactly the way you told me to determine what is modest and what is not?

 

[OurBeloved]

I understand that, but my point is that if you are correct about traditional values as you understand them being the determining factor for what is reasonably to be expected in terms of modesty then it is completely superfluous to add this caveat. It is already included in the definition we are using. Because of this it makes more sense to leave the definition as is and instead try to explain, as you have been doing, why traditional values as you see them are the correct determining factor. If someone disagrees with you they will not accept this caveat, if they do there is no need for it.

This is really a weird debate. I want to capture everything in the definition. You want to leave it out for explanation. I think its a matter of choice.

I’m not sure why you talk about bringing in personal experience. I’m talking about discerning truth. Learning. It seems that this, then is where our disagreement stems from. I believe it is importnat for each person to seek to understand the truth fully in and of itself with the guidance of the church to help ensure it does not fall into error, whereas you seem to think that a person should simply accept the knowledge of those gained before him because of the danger that he might fall into error.

Learning would be based on your experiences, will it not be?

The church does guide you. If you do follow the traditional values endorsed by Pope’s and Bishops and Priests of the time where modesty was a core value, you would indeed be modest.

As you allowed for anyone who lived in society before what you consider to be the break in our societies attempt at purity, to help in forming the standard I used the example and standards of some of the most intelligent, learned, thouroughly orthodox and traditional people I know, all of whom are old enough to be my grandparents and so have experienced this other culture of which you speak and all of who vehemently oppose the idea of a break with tradition or change for its own sake.

I see. I see. Well, if they say that midlevel thigh shorts are traditional, I can see how you went down quiet the spiral.

actually, I was very lucky, as I said, to be pulled out of it before it went on long enough for me to have felt its full effect, but the point is that having seen the beginning I can see where it would lead. The point is that if you allow the exterior appearance of your body to become too important, and start worrying about your external appearances too much, it is very destructive. And putting too much emphasis on women dressing modestly without enough emphasis that it is only required within reasonable boundaries can very easily lead impressionable young pious women whos self-image is still developing into worrying about their exterior appearances too much. The same can be said for giving them a vague standard which can be continually taken to a further and further extreme. While you have stated that pants were a matter of fashion whereas other things are a matter of modesty, other peole looking at the way people havve dressed in the past have claimed that not wearing pants is a matter of modesty, not fashion. So until you can give a pracitcal way to understand this difference what you mean by traditional values will remain unclear.

I think a practical way has been given. But it appears that the environment you are growing up in and the intelligent people that surround you, don’t really fit the values of the times in which modesty was a core value of culture.

So your best bet, as I said before, is to use the wisdom to do research and learn what the traditional values were like. When a historian asks the question “what did the traditional values on modesty look like in a certain period”, there is a way to go about and find the answer to that question. I can only suggest you do that too.

I am not “coming up with” anything. I am telling you the standards I have received from those from a previous culture which upheld modesty who have been faithful, orthodox catholics their whole lives and always held tradition in very high esteem, as well as the virtues of modesty and purity and every other christian virtue. Isn’t this exactly the way you told me to determine what is modest and what is not?

As someone who has done some research on traditional values, I can safely say that the ones you speak of are anything but traditional, especially with shorts up to mid-thigh. So as I said once, the safest bet for you is to approach this matter academically and investigate the values of a time in which modesty was a core value.

 

[thewanderer]

This is really a weird debate. I want to capture everything in the definition. You want to leave it out for explanation. I think its a matter of choice.

Let me restate my point. We are in an intellectual discussion. There are two things that are fundamental to any intellectual discussion.

1. Everyone must define their terms clearly so that there is no misunderstandings due to a different undersatanding of a term being used.
2. Everyone must find a set of common principles from which they can have a discussion

The reason I keep asking you to give a clear definition of what you mean by traditional values is because of the first of these. If the terms are not clear you cannot have a real discussion. The reason I want you to leave out the caveat is so that we can have some common principle to which we both agree. You agree with the definition without the caveat as do I. However, I do not necessarily agree to the definition with the caveat added. So, for the sake of this conversation it makes more sense to agree to the definition without the caveat as our common principle and to base our discussion on this principle.

Learning would be based on your experiences, will it not be?

The church does guide you. If you do follow the traditional values endorsed by Pope’s and Bishops and Priests of the time where modesty was a core value, you would indeed be modest.

I see. I see. Well, if they say that midlevel thigh shorts are traditional, I can see how you went down quiet the spiral.

I think a practical way has been given. But it appears that the environment you are growing up in and the intelligent people that surround you, don’t really fit the values of the times in which modesty was a core value of culture.

So your best bet, as I said before, is to use the wisdom to do research and learn what the traditional values were like. When a historian asks the question “what did the traditional values on modesty look like in a certain period”, there is a way to go about and find the answer to that question. I can only suggest you do that too.

As someone who has done some research on traditional values, I can safely say that the ones you speak of are anything but traditional, especially with shorts up to mid-thigh. So as I said once, the safest bet for you is to approach this matter academically and investigate the values of a time in which modesty was a core value.

I will again set aside the fact that since the understanding of traditional values I have come to from the guidelines you set down to determine what they are is not to your liking you assume that I am completely misguided in my ability to judge the characters of others by assuming that the people I have put forward as wonderful, holy, intelligent, traditional, faithful Catholics are actually the ones that led me down the wrong path and clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

I have a question for you. Why do you assume that your opinion that traditional values(as defined by you) is the correct way to determine modesty is better than my opinion that one should seek the Truth always, and so, under the Church’s guidance look to the wisdom of the ages without accepting the folly from other cultures and generations?

I know that you keep saying that the reason is that mine is simply an opinion and so is simply based off of personal experiences. However, the problem is, what led you to believe that your method is the correct method? Surely, if as you say knowledge only comes through ones personal experiences which are of little worth, how do you know that your opinion is correct? To answer this you cannot say that it is because you are following the guidance of many generations of people and so that gives more certitude as that is the very opinion that we are seeking the truth of. It would be ridiculous to say ‘x is true’ and when someone asks you why x is true to respond, ‘because of x’. So please do not use this answer in your response as to why you believe your opinion is more likely to be correct.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We are called to become aware and act in a way that does not lead others to temptation. So a person who does not do so is not guilty on his part for leading others to temptation. Rather, they will be guilty of not being considerate of their fellow brothers and sisters to the level required by biblical standards. If the fellow brother who would have been put in temptation does end up falling and loosing salvation as a result, the careless and thoughtless act would have lead to the loss of a soul.

I’m afraid you’re setting up our religion as irony if you persist with this. On one hand, you have people telling us to live apart from the world. This easily translates into a disregard for what society thinks and then further into disregard on how people view you externally.

For instance, you refuse to dress according to the fashion standards of our day and dress up like someone from the 1950s. People make fun of you and wonder if you’re aware of your own time period. You don’t care.

However, how is that different from the goth wearing a sleeveless top or even just some dark eyeliner to Church and not caring what the grumpy old ladies are whispering?

You might think you’re concerned more for their souls and know your modest dress prevents them from sin. What’s the point of that if they commit the sin of unkindness? Worst still, given that men in the Middle East, despite the pervasiveness of the burka, are still cited for horrendous rape statistics. In conclusion, not only does dressing along the lines you imply tempt people to uncharitable thought, it’s still not a barrier to lust.

So to add upon this, when we see a young woman clad in immodest clothing, the problem is not that she is out to tempt, though it might well be the case. Rather, the problem is that she is leading others to temptation and she was inconsiderate of others.

Well this is a bit confusing. Nerd, Creep etc aren’t judgements of modesty, as far as I know.

No but they invoke sinful thoughts. Lust isn’t the only deadly sin.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here. If the piece of art is trying to describe Satan as the good person who rescues women from lust of men, it would indeed be a lie.

See this is EXACTLY what I mean. You’re using your presupposed, visual notions that just because something has horns, breathes fire, and has non-feathery wings it means its something bad. But then again, even Satan dresses up as an Angel of Light. And who are you to assume the being depicted is Satan at all? What if Satan is in fact the knight?

The immediate question I would have is that since Roland seems to address the issue of literature, and not specifically Art, what leads you to believe that similar framework is true of Art as well?

Art seems to fall in to the same category as such a work. The artist, when he produced a piece, has intent on communicating something to the viewer. The piece of art would be great or rubbish depending on how well it communicates the artistic intent. The ethical and moral questions surrounding the piece of art would depend on the question of whether the artist’s intentions were true to the subject to begin with.

Yes, I’m aware I’m applying literary theory here but literature is still part of the arts and the basic logic of Roland’s perspective (along with a good deal of post-modernist analysis) is that author intent need not be binding.

Remember, we’re talking interpretation here. The creator’s is just one of them. Art, like literature, is also about communication. However, it’s logically unfair to have an artist suffer criticism just because he/she didn’t ‘communicate’ their intent while the writers go Scott free because their take on their work is just one way to view it. There’s no reason to be biased against mediums here. The basic logic applies. Intent isn’t always a factor.

For example, if I drew a picture of a hooded youth wearing pentagrams on black gloves and he’s kissing a shorter girl dressed in acolyte’s robes. I could get all sorts of interpretations ranging from “Star-crossed lovers” and “typical fantasy romance” to “the boy’s height over the girl’s depicts a symbol of sexual superiority and pedophilic chauvinism” and “a symbol of how ecumenism is a corrupting influence on the Church”.

No matter how many times you argue, there’s no end to the debate. Throw me in and it won’t help either because all I’m doing is giving my take.

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)

I have a question for you.** Why do you assume that your opinion that traditional values(as defined by you) is the correct way to determine modesty is better than my opinion that one should seek the Truth always, and so, under the Church’s guidance look to the wisdom of the ages without accepting the folly from other cultures and generations?**

I know that you keep saying that the reason is that mine is simply an opinion and so is simply based off of personal experiences. However, the problem is, what led you to believe that your method is the correct method? Surely, if as you say knowledge only comes through ones personal experiences which are of little worth, how do you know that your opinion is correct? To answer this you cannot say that it is because you are following the guidance of many generations of people and so that gives more certitude as that is the very opinion that we are seeking the truth of. It would be ridiculous to say ‘x is true’ and when someone asks you why x is true to respond, ‘because of x’. So please do not use this answer in your response as to why you believe your opinion is more likely to be correct.

Let me make a correction. The question is why should we accept that it is always better to do what has been done before rather than to learn from what has been done before?

I am making this correction because I realised that this is the step you keep using to justify your understanding of traditional values as being the standard of modesty that i do not agree with. I recognize that you answer the question “why must we turn to traditional values” with the answer “because we must always trust the many rather than the few” but it is this statement that I do not agree with.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly Beloved Friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

May I submit for your perusal the following passage from the renowned Protestant Commentator, Matthew Henry:

“First, Religious people should take care that all their external behaviour be answerable to their profession of Christianity: They must be holy in all manner of conversation. Secondly, The outward adorning of the body is very often sensual and excessive; for instance, when it is immoderate, and above your degree and station in the world, when you are proud of it and puffed up with it, when you dress with design to allure and tempt others, when your apparel is too rich, curious, or superfluous, when your fashions are fantastical, imitating the levity and vanity of the worst people, and when they are immodest and wanton. The attire of the harlot can never become a chaste Christian matron”. (Commentary, Acts to Revelation, Hendrickson Publishers 2000, p. 823, emphasis mine).

“He being dead yet speaketh” (Heb. 11: 4).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Baelor]

“First, Religious people should take care that all their external behaviour be answerable to their profession of Christianity: They must be holy in all manner of conversation. Secondly, ]The outward adorning of the body is very often sensual and excessive; for instance, when it is immoderate, and above your degree and station in the world, when you are proud of it and puffed up with it, when you dress with design to allure and tempt others, when your apparel is too rich, curious, or superfluous, when your fashions are fantastical, imitating the levity and vanity of the worst people, and when they are immodest and wanton. The attire of the harlot can never become a chaste Christian matron”. (Commentary, Acts to Revelation, Hendrickson Publishers 2000, p. 823, emphasis mine).

So, modesty is good. I am glad that that was cleared up.

Also, emphasis obviously mine. I just thought that that part was really funny. Especially since the book was written in 2000 (after reading that, I was expecting something written in the 1700s or something).

 

[Walking_Home]

Portrait:

Originally Posted by Portrait View Post
“First, Religious people should take care that all their external behaviour be answerable to their profession of Christianity: They must be holy in all manner of conversation. Secondly, ]The outward adorning of the body is very often sensual and excessive; for instance, when it is immoderate, and above your degree and station in the world, when you are proud of it and puffed up with it, when you dress with design to allure and tempt others, when your apparel is too rich, curious, or superfluous, when your fashions are fantastical, imitating the levity and vanity of the worst people, and when they are immodest and wanton. The attire of the harlot can never become a chaste Christian matron”. (Commentary, Acts to Revelation, Hendrickson Publishers 2000, p. 823, emphasis mine).

So, modesty is good. I am glad that that was cleared up.

Also, emphasis obviously mine. I just thought that that part was really funny. Especially since the book was written in 2000 (after reading that,** I was expecting something written in the 1700s or something)**.

---

It was. The protestant commentator that “Portrait” is peddling —Matthew Henry (18 Oct 1622 – 22 June 1714).

 

[mcrow]

I’m in late on this one and didn’t read the whole thing but I’m a litle old school on the subject of bathing suits for men. Personally, I think that men should wear swimming shirts and not go shirtless, it’s no better than a woman wearing a two-piece bikini.

 

[Baelor]

---

It was. The protestant commentator that “Portrait” is peddling —Matthew Henry (18 Oct 1622 – 22 June 1714).

Thanks for letting me know! I guess the edition was from 2000.

 

[Portrait]

So, modesty is good. I am glad that that was cleared up.

Also, emphasis obviously mine. I just thought that that part was really funny. Especially since the book was written in 2000 (after reading that, I was expecting something written in the 1700s or something).

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Matthew’s Henry’s Bible Commentary may well be archaic and its mode of expression a little quaint, dear friend, nonthesless, it is replete with holy wisdom and much sound practical instruction on the life of faith.

As the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church well says, “His Exposition of the Old and New Testaments (1708-19), a devotional commentary on the whole of the OT and the Gospels and Acts, is notable esp. for its good sense, pregnant thought, and felicitous expression” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Eds. F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, OUP 1997, p. 755-6).

Unless, dear friend, a man is prejudiced against anything that was written the day before yesterday, he will gladly avail himself of the wisdom and insight of bygone times, be it from Catholic or Protestant sources. Thus the passage that I cited from Henry’s exposition continues to be very applicable to our own decadent age, where men and women, especially the latter, have all but abandoned the putting on of modest attire.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

---

It was. The protestant commentator that “Portrait” is peddling —Matthew Henry (18 Oct 1622 – 22 June 1714).

I found that whole quote hilarious.

 

[johnnyjones]

Maybe a person who feels modesty can’t be gauged could go to the Vatican either by themselves or with a lady friend wearing short shorts. When no admittance is given, the topic could be vigorously debated. You could state that you don’t believe your shorts are too short, and how could showing more skin in that area be a problem.

As well you could point out that God knows what we look like underneath clothing. You could inform anyone who says the shorts are distracting to just turn their head. Tell the powers that be that if these shorts are good enough to be worn in the general public, they should be good enough for God.

 

[Portrait]

Maybe a person who feels modesty can’t be gauged could go to the Vatican either by themselves or with a lady friend wearing short shorts. When no admittance is given, the topic could be vigorously debated. You could state that you don’t believe your shorts are too short, and how could showing more skin in that area be a problem.

As well you could point out that God knows what we look like underneath clothing. You could inform anyone who says the shorts are distracting to just turn their head. Tell the powers that be that if these shorts are good enough to be worn in the general public, they should be good enough for God.

Dear johnnyjones,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

May I say that is a very good observation, my dear friend, for it shows that the Vatican is not indifferent respecting such matters as vesture. Indeed, how can such provocative style attire be deemed acceptable and modest in public places and yet not be so within the confines of the Vatican? God is omnipresent, so if unseemly garments such as mini-skirts and shorts trespass the bounds of propriety at the Vatican, then clearly they do so everywhere and in all places. How can such obviously indecorous clothing only be immodest and disrespectful in conscecrated places? If it is immodest it is immodest, full stop.

Moreover, it also lays to rest the fallacious reasoning that God is not really interested in appearances but only in what is in the heart, for if this were true then the Vatican would not forbid people admittance if they are dressed indecently and neither would St. Paul have enjoined that women “adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (I Tim. 2: 9). Sometimes the text in I Samuel 16: 7 is wrenched out of context and turned into a pretext to lend support for the wearing of immodest clothing, but apart from making it conflict with the plain instruction of St. Paul, it is also the result of unsound exegesis for polemical purposes. There is a definite distinction to be drawn between physical features and stature, over which no one has any control (e.g. in the context of the I Samuel passage, countenance and height v. 6) and one’s choice of clothing. In the case of physical features and height, one has no choice, thus, for example, a short man cannot help being short and a facially ugly women cannot help being facially ugly, for they were born that way. However, whilst our clothes do form part of our appearance (which is why they cannot be a matter of indifference) we do, nonetheless, have a choice as to the sort of clothing with which we are clad. Thus if we choose to don unseemly clothing that is too revealing, then we are culpable as regards trespassing the boundaries of propriety and not allowing modesty to inspire our clothing choices.

The I Samuel passage is only a rebuke to those who would judge men and women on the basis of their physical features or height, over which people have no choice, instead of looking upon their hearts. After all they may be earnestly religious and full of good works towards their fellow-men, even though they are short and ugly. However, this passage does not even remotely address the issue of modest attire, as this is something over which men have a choice as those endowed with free will.

God bless, my dear brother.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax