I know many people have said that any
more discussion about modesty is beating a dead horse and we need to
stop and focus on more important issues. Modesty in the church is still an issue, therefore I think it still needs to be discussed and once
again I will throw in my two cents about modesty. I love studying the true historic meaning of words, and this post is based upon my study of words. English has lost so much strength in our time, so many words have been corrupted, changed or lost meaning, it is amazing how the King James Bible comes to life when you study it with an old dictionary on hand.
We know that in Genesis, God calls
nakedness a shame, so building on that we know that we need to wear
some clothes. I think all of us would agree that we as Christians
should be wearing something, where the modesty debate starts to get
bloody is when we ask how much is enough. How much skin? How tight?
Which skin? In Leviticus we are commanded not to look on other
peoples nakedness.What is nakedness anyway? Paul says that women should be modest. What is modest? In Genesis
Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness after they ate the fruit
and they made aprons, an apron usually covered the
front of the body to protect the clothes, it could be from the neck
down to mid thigh or lower, or it could start lower, like at the
waist, think blacksmith's apron. God did not think this covering was
sufficient, and I would like to say, if he considered it
insufficient, then could it be that the apron is classified as
nakedness? I don't know, I still need to study that word. Anyway,
God made them coats. What is a coat? We all have them, a coat by
the old definition and most modern definitions is a piece of clothing
that goes from the collar bone/neck to mid thigh length or lower and
is usually worn for warmth or protection. So, a piece of clothing
that covers from the collar bone or so, to at least mid thigh is
sufficient. That is what God considered sufficient, seeing he could
have made anything, and that is what he chose. We need to then think
of the details. If we assume this person in a coat is standing, we
can assume everything under the fabric is supposed to be covered. So
the coat must be sufficiently tight and long to prevent movement
causing exposure of that which is meant to be covered. We should
also keep in mind that a coat is not tight or form fitting. We need
to realize that form fitting clothing can be often just about as
revealing as no clothes at all.
In conclusion, God wants us in modest
clothing, and he gave us a standard to follow, we should just obey
him. If we are upset at his standard and want to push against it, we
need to ask, why? Here is another thought, there is no “less
modest” or “more modest” it is rather, are you sufficiently
covered that is, modest, or are you insufficiently covered, that is,
naked. I may be wrong but I think it is defined that simply in
scripture. BTW, I am not speaking to girls only here, guys you need
to keep your shirt on too. You need to get rid of your skinny jeans
and your speedos and wear some clothes. Us guys tend to get away
with a lot, we need to man up and set the example. We need to stop
telling girls to dress modestly when we are taking our shirts off and
saying modesty for men doesn't matter. Okay, well, let the flames
fly, I did it, I said there is actually a standard that we need to
follow in dress.
P.S. I did more study and came up with some new information since I wrote this, so I decided that I will write a part 2.
“All Muslims are terrorists, we need
to just kill them all so the world can be at peace.” Such
statements send cold chills down my spine, especially when spoken by
professing Christians. We have to remember that Muslims are just
lost sinners like everyone else. All of them are going to hell just
like everyone else. (Oh, and not every Muslim follows the Quaran,
just like most Christians don't follow the Bible. So, not all
Muslims want to kill everyone.) You did not believe at on time in
your life, you spit in Christ's face too. Think of Paul, he did what
he could to destroy the Church of God, he murdered innocent men, and
women. I also think of Muslim fanatics that got saved they said they
were fanatics because they were desperate to find God. They were
looking for him desperately and they eventually found the true God.
See what I am getting at here? Now another angle. What difference
is there between us and them if we say to kill all of them? Many of
Muslims want to kill all of us, we call that wrong. Hitler wanted to
purge the Jewish menace from the earth, we say he was wrong for
picking the Jews out and killing them. What difference is there
between us and him? We picked out a group of men, women and children
and want to kill all of them regardless of guilt? We want the
heathens to not try to kill all of us Christians and to walk on our
rights, yet we would do the same to the Muslims. The real issue with
Islam is that they need Christ. They need to experience the love of
God, something they have never seen as their god does not love.
Remember this, everyone ever killed on this earth is a living soul
either bound for hell or heaven, it is irrelevant what they have
done, but only what they believe. It grieves me every time I hear of
someone dying, if they were not saved, they are one more soul in
hell. That cuts me to the core when I really think about it. Think
of the all the souls in the middle east, all those lost souls, all
those who are seeking for God desperately but only know their god of
violence. Please, whenever you read something of Muslim violence, in
your anger don't forget, they need Jesus too.
P.S. I hope this post doesn't go
misunderstood, Islam is evil, I just don't want people to forget the
human side of it.
Recently my family and I watched The
Battle of Five Armies, I've decided that while it is still fresh in
my mind I would write down some thoughts I have had concerning it.
I really liked it as a movie. Lots of
battle scenes, not a lot of sappy commentary, mostly just pure
battle. The battles were fun, and at least for me the story was
almost impossible to guess. The one on one fights tended to be
exciting, but also very unreal. Legolas' fight with Azog's spawn was
particularly unreal, though still very exciting. Anyway, it was an
action movie so, I won't question it too much. On to more major
things. I have three major problems with this movie, one of them
really carries to all of the Hobbit/LOTR movies, one of them is
specific to the Hobbit series and one is specific to The Battle of
1. The “spiritual warfare” scene in
TBFA, I was shocked at how satanic the “good guys” looked,
especially Galadriel. I mean, she was supposed to be a good guy, and
she looked totally shockingly satanic. It just kinda shocked me to
see that. Seems to be one more effort of the media to blur the lines
of good and evil and call evil good and good evil.
2. The ring. In LOTR, the ring is
evil, it cannot be used for good, and anyone who has it or uses it
will be corrupted by it. This may be nit-picky but, in The Hobbit
series, Bilbo is constantly using the ring for good, and never gets
taken over by it, though he does lie about it every chance he gets
which is never condemned. So, which is it, is the ring evil or good?
It can't be both, and I don't think we can use evil for good. Very
3. There is no God. At all. Everyone
draws from their own strength and power to do anything. It is all
about are you more powerful than the force you are fighting. For us
we have God, we can pray for strength, we have spiritual tools that
do not draw from our own strength to battle the forces of evil.
Praise God for that too, I can't imagine facing what we are facing
today without the power of God and the knowledge that he wins.
There, that gets that off my mind, now
maybe I should write a post about why I think Frodo was a traitor and
why I don't like him at all. That should start a war, LOL.