Modesty rules!

“Dress how you want other women to dress around your husband.”

Kim Doebler

10 thoughts on “Modesty rules!

    • Someone said, “The flesh of the godliest saint is no more dependable than the flesh of the vilest sinner.”

      We want to protect marriages because temptation lurks around every corner, therefore we must build hedges around our marriages to protect them, and modest clothing is one such “hedge.”

      Christians can (and do) fall morally and this ought not to be. In the New Testament, we read of sins that should not be named among saints (Christians,) and the Apostle was referring to sins of the flesh. Adultery is easily avoided by those who loathe it and see the consequences of it throughout society. Dressing modestly helps men who fight a daily battle with “the lust of the eyes.”

      • Nonsense…………… Maybe if you dressed less modestly your husband would see you as a woman rather than as a harridan…… .

        If you have to create a hedge then you really don’t have much of a marriage.

        • This reply is to Dave, Daniel and Anne-Marie.

          The quote from Kim Doebler which we posted has a general application i.e it does not address any woman in particular but applies to all women everywhere, Christian and non-Christian alike.
          You have personalised it in applying it to us.
          To you, Dave, we say, address Mrs.Doebler’s comment and cease to personalise it and draw nonsensical and absurd conclusions from it.
          You are very dismissive of the need to protect marriages yet it is absolutely essential to do so if a marriage is to remain pure and undefiled. Look at society and see what happens when married couples do not love their marriages enough to protect them.
          Are you really saying that modesty in a married woman could cause a husband to stray?

          Nonsense, the opposite is true, immodest, flirtatious married woman are potential adulterers and their husbands know it, whereas the husband of a modest woman who loathes adultery can safely trust in her.

          Immodest, provocative clothing can lead to assaults on women. We have already quoted a detective in the USA in one of our previous posts who stated that in most cases of sexual assaults against women, provocative dress was a factor.

          • Mrs White,

            You really have to get off your high horse. Who are you to tell me what to do? Who are you to put words in my mouth?

            I have never been dismissive of marriage – that is just something you have made up.

            If personalise things it is because I see people as individuals rather than stereotypes.

            Your argument for modesty is the same argument put forward by some fundamentalist muslims to justify the burka or hijab, that women are a temptation to men and so have to cover up so not to inflame their lust. If two people are really in love and committed to each other then what other people (or themselves) wear is irrelevant. If hedges are required then the marriage is not based commitment.

            It is interesting that in the US it is the christian fundamentalists which have the highest divorce rate despite believing marriage is sacred. 80% of divorced born again christians there believe marriage is sacred yet they have the highest divorce rate – there has to be a problem with their version of marriage for that to be the case. Now who is dismissive of marriage?

            Trust is based on trust not clothing – ………………………

          • We did not say that you were dismissive of marriage, we said that you were dismissive of the need to protect marriages.
            If you wish to quote our words, please quote us accurately.
            Will you kindly respond to the quote we posted from Mrs.Doebler, because virtually all you have done is to personalise her quote and applied it, and your comments, to us.
            We have edited your previous comment, because we will not allow you, or anyone else, to make inaccurate statements.
            We note that you ignored our comment about the US detective’s view of the dangers of immodesty.
            Regarding the divorce rate among Christian fundamentalists in the US, we already knew that this sorry situation is a reality in the US, although we didn’t have the actual divorce figures. The situation in the UK may not be much better, sadly.
            Christians should have the most loving, most faithful, most secure marriages of all people on earth. However, we know that this is not the case for many professing Christians.
            We can say that some marriages break down because some professing Christians were not true Christians at all.
            However, some true Christians can and do sin against their spouses and the marriages break down.
            Sin is the problem, and a lack of Church discipline. Many Ministers and Pastors are at fault here because they do not watch their congregations closely and warn those married men and women who are playing with fire i.e flirting with and lusting for someone other than their spouse.
            Such behaviour is easy to spot at its earliest stages and should be dealt with, and, if the offenders will not heed the warning, they should be put out of the Church.
            Sadly, many Pastors lack discernment and miss potentially dangerous liasons forming in front of their very eyes. In such cases, chaos and tragedy is not far away. It has to be said that some Pastors and Ministers have also made shipwreck of their marriages.
            What more can we say?
            Every married couple, Christian and non-Christian alike must take heed and be very straitlaced and circumspect in their conduct toward and contact with the opposite sex, lest they fall by giving in to temptation.

          • We have not approved your most recent comment about homosexual “marriage” because we (and our readers) have heard it all before.

            You did not address our reply to your previous comment about the quote about Modesty, in which you misrepresented our words i.e you stated that we said you were “dismissive of marriage.”

            You know that we actually said that you were dismissive of the need to protect marriage, and, of course when we speak of marriage we mean the union of one man and one woman.

            We will not permit anyone to misrepresent us (or anyone else, for that matter.)

          • I have heard all you have to say on marriage as well but you retain the right to repeat yourself ad nauseam whilst denying others the same freedom. (and you also assume all your readers have “heard it all before” which is a bit arrogant – or patronising – of you).

            As for misrepresentation – I thought you had the monopoly on that. If you wish to split hairs then you are correct but any normal person would accept that if I was accused of being dismissive of the need to protect marriage then I would be dismissive of marriage but if you wish to split hairs then so be it – I misrepresented you.

            I am well aware of what YOU mean by marriage. Fortunately it is not down to you, or your mythical god, to define marriage. It is down to people and people are more and more defining and accepting marriage as more than just one man and one woman. Whether you accept that widening definition is irrelevant.


    • The Apostle Paul, in speaking to Timothy, gave the following advice, “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” 1 Timothy ch.5 verses 1&2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s