What kind of clothing should Christians wear when in public?

[NorrinRadd]

Pondering this further... Some have opined that it is immodest or a sign of vanity for athletically-built men to go about shirtless. Does the same hold if they wear "tank tops" to show off their "guns"? What about sleeveless T-shirts?

At the other end of the spectrum, what about fatties who wear big. blousy clothing to obscure their unsightly bulges? Are they also showing "vanity" in trying to portray themselves as less Jabba-the-Huttish? (Personally, I dress mostly for comfort and convenience, and don't worry about the flopping folds of flab.)

[NorrinRadd]

I like to wear overstuffed cargo shorts, held up by goofy industrial-strength suspenders, accompanied by a T-shirt with either a smart-aleck saying (e.g. "Sarcasm: Just another service I provide") or something intellectually elitist that disparages other people's shortcomings (e.g. "There and their -- They're not the same").

[princesa]

I believe God does care if attractive women with shapely bodies wear tiny bikinis to be a stumbling block for married men. But they may not purposely do it just for married men you might say. It doesn't matter, only those with a certain relationship with Christ will understand that modesty in this sense means knowing you, by the worlds standards are hot, men will no doubt admire you, even the man to whom this is a real internal struggle between him and God and wants to be even mentally pure for his wife and before God. Therefore, that is enough that you cover up those attributes that you've gotten compliments on because modesty begins with the internal self and ones relationship with Christ.

And I hear the objection of well he doesn't have to look but if the woman raises that objection than her relationship to Christ is different than mine. My brothers in Christ are more important to me than showing off my body for appreciation. That is vanity and once I know that, I am without excuse.

[Jedidiah]

Lens, I sent you a Personal Message about this, but Biblical Ethics is among those fora that are limited to Christians only. Check your PMs.

[Lens]

• Edited by a Moderator •

This forum is for Christians only.

[NorrinRadd]

On 1 Cor. 11, Payne has material (PDF) available online here and here.

[NorrinRadd]

I can find a grand total of one place where the Bible instructs anyone to dress "modestly." It is applied only to women, and it is defined as the opposite of fancy ostentatious clothing and hair ornamentation.

If Scripture is our guide, God doesn't care whether women choose to wear bikinis or men choose to go shirtless, but he might possibly care if the clothes we *do* wear are ostentatious and potentially demeaning to those of lower economic ranks.

"Modesty" is mostly cultural.

[KingsGambit]

You know what? I agree with Mr. Kott's post.

[Catholicity]

I call a serious thread necro. Oh good grief. I wear what is in my closet. Which is maternity clothes right now.........

[Sparko]

The Bible says that we should dress modestly. That means do not dress like the world dresses...with worldly values in mind. Dress with Biblical values in mind.

Yes!!! Thank you, Mr.Kott.

I make sure I dress biblically, and so should others.


















This is what I wear:

POLYFOAM-high-quality-cartoon-mascot-costume-holly-bible-mascot-costumes-book-mascot-costumes.jp.jpg

[Mr.Kott]

This is a topic that really isn't that clear to me.

Say that you are going to the beach. Should a male be wearing just a boxer shorts or pants leaving his entire top uncovered? Should a female wear just a bikini?

The Bible says that we should dress modestly. That means do not dress like the world dresses...with worldly values in mind. Dress with Biblical values in mind.

[Paprika]

[QUOTE=KingsGambit;188485I only meant it as an example of how some of Paul's references are somewhat creative in nature[/quote]
It remains to be shown if his references to the OT is 'creative' in the sense you suggest.

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/di...s.3.three.html

In Epictetus's quote, at least, the lines between nature and nurture seem to be blurred somewhat.

Noted.

[KingsGambit]

I'll need you to elaborate that, given the varying ways scholars use and interpret 'typology'.

But by my understanding of typology it doesn't apply at all; Paul isn't alluding to how some past person/thing/event prefigures a later one, he appeals to φύσις, the way things are by their very created nature since the beginning.

I am thinking of typology in the context of reappropriating OT referents outside of their original context. I recognize this is not an example of typology; I only meant it as an example of how some of Paul's references are somewhat creative in nature; possibly even references to then-current maxims. It's not meant as an airtight argument, obviously.

I do find it striking how similar Paul's words are to those of Epictetus, who seems to draw an opposite conclusion from nature:

Adorn yourself then as man, not as woman. Woman is naturally smooth and delicate; and if she has much hair (on her body), she is a monster and is exhibited at Rome among monsters. And in a man it is monstrous not to have hair; and if he has no hair, he is a monster; but if he cuts off his hairs and plucks them out, what shall we do with him? where shall we exhibit him? and under what name shall we show him? "I will exhibit to you a man who chooses to be a woman rather than a man."

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/di...s.3.three.html

In Epictetus's quote, at least, the lines between nature and nurture seem to be blurred somewhat.

[Paprika]

I was hoping you would interact with my analogy with the general principle of typology earlier

I'll need you to elaborate that, given the varying ways scholars use and interpret 'typology'.

But by my understanding of typology it doesn't apply at all; Paul isn't alluding to how some past person/thing/event prefigures a later one, he appeals to φύσις, the way things are by their very created nature since the beginning.

By the way, I hope you see that your argument that we would lose a prooftext for homosexuality is fallacious.

It's an observation. Not everything is a logical argument.

[KingsGambit]

I was hoping you would interact with my analogy with the general principle of typology earlier; it's generally accepted that the usage of Old Testament referents was used outside of their original contexts throughout the NT, resulting in logic that may not seem "airtight". I think the same basic principle can be applied here. Paul's appeal to nature may not be strictly accurate by modern strands of logic, but for rhetorical purposes, it served its purpose.

By the way, I hope you see that your argument that we would lose a prooftext for homosexuality is fallacious. This does not have any objective effect on how we ought to interpet 1 Corinthians 11 (and as I've reiterated, other arguments for homosexuality's sinfulness can be made apart from Romans 1).

I do recognize you've presented some strong arguments here; I've been mulling over them today; thus the delay.