A gun may be used to murder/maim but provocative clothing is only used for one purpose. There are no conservative bikinis,for ex. -no brainer. Making provision for the flesh would be tuning into or going around places where one knows they cannot avoid seeing that which would be a stumbling block. If someone continues to place themselves at such settings,they have been desensitized. I doubt that the people who watch programs that have scantily clad women in them would also watch the same programs if there were scantily clad sodomites. No wonder there are "gay parades". We've allowed naked women to be on display for our children...so it's judgment on the nation. Wedding cakes can be generic...one can easily identify such by the tiers or bells. Wedding invitations cannot be (generic) as they include the names specifically. Modesty is,of course,a heart issue but it is also most definitely an outward issue as well. Those who are selfish will flaunt themselves and be a stumbling block/those who are not bothered by it have heart issues. One may be lost and modest but one will not be saved and stay immodest or compromise with the same.
@Buckeyes- I meant that it's easier to just bake a generic cake than to print out details on an invitation.
@ hate- The design of a dress,the kind of material,the fit,etc....can indeed be vulgar. You can't figure this out? I think that you could figure it out better if your pastor,if you have one,would choose to dress in football yoga pants to give a sermon ( for ex.)
Wayfarer,maybe the vulgar dress designer was asked because he is a vulgar dress designer. It's not as though the people who were making the request display much taste in womens attire. Wouldn't it be nice if the designer who does design said dress be conservative? On the other hand...too much attention is given to the next first lady's dress du jour. Of course,this was the goal,wasn't it? PR is "a beautiful thing" for those who love the limelight. ...back to topic...invitations require little more detail than cakes so the news stories are becoming more relevant,so it would appear.
Jeremy,the commercial is consistent with the foolishness of the "holiday". B. Mc.,thank you for the resource. "church" member,...is a hypocrite in judging B. Mc. Some how whenever a woman posts comments which cannot be contested then she is seen as a feminist with an agenda when she may just be very well versed in Scripture. There is a difference between presenting/defending Scripture and usurping authority,especially on a forum such as this.
I am making no assumptions just agreeing with Scripture in regards to not making provision for the flesh. I doubt that Job would have continued to tune into the weather station if it had immodestly dressed women on it. Period. If one would not physically invite most of what they see on the television to their physical houses,why would they invite them in at all? Connor,a serious look at Scripture would help in discerning what is or is not modest. Jeans that define the shape of ones body would be immodest. Jeans that cover the body and do not define ones shape,on the other hand,would be modest. Not all that difficult. If unsaved women can choose what to wear for the express purpose of being provocative,then it shouldn't be too difficult for Christians to be able to discern either. I am not surprised that we face a sodomite agenda in this nation. What I am surprised with is that it took this long considering how long the country has been peddling overt sensuality.
So,Unprofitable,Job had it wrong? And...aren't there Scriptures in regards to not making provision for the flesh? ...not the s c world that you have a problem with...seems to be loose use of God's Word.
@ Connor- I doubt that you would ask the same question in regards to someone taking license with too many other sins. You certainly wouldn't ask that question to someone who had just expressed a concern over sodomy or drunkenness. The flip side of your point is that if we do love the Lord accordingly then we will be more conscientious of what we do set before our eyes and how we dress. In answer to your question as to what God's Word says about it,there are many Scriptures to which to look.
@ Connor- How about the highest standard of modesty by God's Word which B.Mc and I would try to honor? Just because one can get used to and overlook immodesty doesn't mean that it isn't there any more than one cannot see the forest for the trees. Ex. the attire associated with sports- tantamount to that of underclothing.
@ Unprofitable- No one has to get the church to do any of the things which you mention because Satan has already been very successful in getting a lot of the church to do them. At minimum,he has convinced much of the church to be comfortable with them. ...a little alcohol-not so bad even for communion,immodest dress...not so bad-have to consider the "progression" of society after all...never mind that most CCM "artists" dress like the world or many performers at church do so likewise, Adultery-allowed in acceptable forms (remarriage) and there always is every form of media to pander to that (looking upon someone to lust is the same)but many will watch the likes of duck dyn (a bunch of "christians")and be entertained,etc. The sodomite "agenda" is merely the invention of those who will use it for their grander plans... Create a problem,present a solution and ultimately,take over. However,it is yet the judgment on a nation which has sold out its chil
Most of us should be as well versed and as gracious.
Interesting comments about modesty. While it's true that one may not dress according to their convictions,it is more common than not that those who are depraved inwardly will also be so outwardly. There aren't too many Christians who are dressing modestly who are feeding on depravity. Usually we become what we choose to take in. Christian women who watch dancing with the stars,for example,will start dressing less modestly. Men who say that they are Christians and have no problem with sports figures showing their bodies have been desensitized. Another inconsistency- I wonder why many Christians are not equally as upset that the next commander approached a sodomite fashion designer to design his girl's dress. They complain when the designer passes but don't consider that he was an option by choice. Let's just pray that whichever dress is selected,that it be modest...whoever designs it. The next first lady is too quick and comfortable to be exploited. I hope that we are not so apathetic in regards to women being used as objects.If we are,we should be silent then in regard to other sexual depravity.
While he may be a homosexual,Tom Ford may not design such racy clothes. It's not as though the next first girl in the house is all that modest. Ladybug,I was not trying to be self-righteous but the news over the last past few decades would support my view of the church,generally speaking. I don't doubt that there are Christians who don't compromise but,in this nation,they are rare. ...just that Christians have been so zealous in speaking against sodomites in comparison to other hetero depravity is case in point. Doesn't it occur to be poetic justice to us in regards to who will be taking office? If he was a sodomite,we would never hear the end of it but a playboy with a wife who is indiscreet with her body...not so bothersome. Unprofitable-apparently you and yours are the exception. I'm guessing that the sports in which the children partake of require the girls to wear more than what would pass for underclothing. If not,perhaps one may not just randomly select a verse and have license with it. I further doubt that there are few Christians who are ignorant in regards to "holidays". That they are unaffected by the truth and opt for traditions over it...true.
Jeremy,I am surprised that,after all of the information available,Christians will still follow after the RC even to the extent that they use their blasphemous expression "christmas". Those who preach against RC doctrine and the mass have no qualms in using the word "mass" for "their devotion" to Christ. No wonder that many RCs don't get it. None seem exempt from following after the flesh even in the name of our Lord. We all,including myself,need to be careful when following after our "hearts" and emotions. Tradition is no excuse.
@ Unprofitable, If the church was as it should be then it wouldn't be looking and acting like the world. ...celebrating like the world,watching the same things which the world does,dressing like the world,etc. Vile magazines have been at check out counters for a long time,Christians gave encouraged their children to participate in sports dressing immodestly,etc. ...and,of course,probably due to ignorance or naivete,we still become "RC" a few days of the year...never mind the liturgical calendar by which most churches follow...and the false images of "Jesus"...etc. There isn't enough space here to cover how the church,well meaning or not,mocks God and have paved the way for further depravity. We've taken marriage lightly so that divorce is common among Christians and we wonder why we're being judged with those who ought not to be married,getting married.
@narrow- Ellen DeGeneres and others who are infamous for their waywardness and who have "prospered" in such,including the next nation's commander,would question your immediate conclusion. ...never mind all of the porn giants and baby murderers... There is wrath stored up but I'm not so sure that it will poured down on the wicked any time soon. What is for sure is judgment,which even we are experiencing.
Zales is just keeping up with the "times". The market place has been pandering to all kinds of depravity for a long,long time. Things are only progressing according to the foundations which had already been laid. It's difficult to uproot something after a very prolonged period of acceptance/compromise. We needed to come against those things,which Y I A notes,a long time ago. We are in a downward spiral...fast now. Of course,Scripture speaks to this. And...how fitting that we should have elected a playboy type into office. While we need to keep him and his in prayer,one cannot escape the poetic irony. He and his wife/family are very representative of this nation.
Wolves in sheep clothing usually try to fool someone by watching what they speak. Out of the mouths speaks that which is in the heart. Most any one reading these comments can readily discern a person's proclivity,especially,when there is a pattern. We can only sow the seed.The Lord will take care of the rest. His word never returns void. One never knows how God may use it but we can be assured that He will. an aside-Christians don't care for drugs or porn. Too bad the same zeal which is used for false accusations isn't used for addressing the specific errors of the RCC...there has been ample information given but,not surprisingly,no defense. We know that there is none.
...have to agree with B.Mc,I haven't seen any nitpicking either just sound observations based on Scripture. Many of us were probably passionate about a few things when we first came to faith which we have since laid to rest.