Basically I never thought much of it until I saw a very good and decent Catholic Priest posting about how they were inappropriate. No knocks on him personally as I know him personally and he is a good and decent man who cares deeply about his parishioners. So my question is did anyone else notice what he noticed? Was I blind one? Thoughts
Well I think a posted image of what you refer to and/or to this priest's comments would help. I suppose what this priest wanted was to see was less bare flesh. However, one would see as much bare flesh at one's local swimming pool or on the beach. There is a time and place for everything and I do not think swim wear is inappropriate in the places I've mentioned. I understand that one of the reasons for minimal amount of material in swim wear is to help increase the swimmers' speed. Therefore, as much as he does protest I do not think this priest will find that the IOC or any other sporting organisation is going to alter its regulations on swim wear to his satisfaction.
I'm not sure what to say about some of the bathing suits that we have been exposed to with the Olympics! I’m thinking that you know to what I am referring and if you don’t it won’t take much searching to find out! I’m not posting any pictures! It has somehow become The Thing for women to wear bathing suits which ride up their back side. Sometimes when people cross the line there is a blessing however. Boundaries are pushed too far and it causes people to ask themselves what do I think about that? Speaking for myself I think these women have crossed a serious line. There is no way that those kinds of suits could possibly be comfortable and yet they seem to be the rage with some women. Such suits scream to everyone around “check this out”. For the sake of a little humor I guess I am probably just jealous and can’t wait for someone to invent one of these for us men! After all we should be able to show off our backsides as well. I say all of this out of concern for all girls teens and women. It can’t be easy to dress modestly when you see so many bad examples put forward by people who have such influence. I am praying for all of you and all women. May there be an increase in modest dress even regarding bathing suits. And may all men treat women with the greatest respect as human beings created in the image and likeness of God. Additional explanation. I’m not sure that all of you are aware of how prevalent this problem was at the Olympics. Here is my personal tally. At least one American surfer wore a g-string or thereabouts so I had to quit watching that. The divers wore inappropriate suits. And as we all know the beach v ball players did as well. Finally the commercials on NBC steaming showed swimmers with these suits as well. All some of us are trying to do is watch some athletic competitions. Lots of us and especially our children don't need all the other nonsense.
I tend to suspect that with modern fashion trends as they are, females won't be wearing any clothing at all in another decade. The same goes for males to a slightly lesser degree. Personally, I find women who dress more modestly to be far more attractive. It is no doubt the case that our extremely sexualized culture is far more degrading to females. Regarding the Olympics, I haven't been paying the slightest attention.
True story. On my first date with my wife we went to a football game. The college woman walking in front of use wore a skirt so high cut that with every step you saw her panties
I didn't notice anyone wearing anything different this Olympics from what athletes have worn since 2000. If anything I noticed quite a few more female sprinters this year wearing running shorts instead of the running underwear, and there was that controversy around women's beach handball wanting to be allowed to wear shorts like the men instead of being forced to wear bikinis by regulation. I think the trend (for athletes) is moving in the opposite direction.
When Adam was impressed with the wonderful job God had done for him and said: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman," He was not looking at even a scanty bathing costume. Demanding the covering up of the outer human form is symptomatic of an inner spiritual vacuum. It only became necessary AFTER we lost our innocence. Clothing and the extent of it is a matter for the athletes and the sporting authority to decide upon. Lechery is a sin of the lecher, not the undresser. In Victorian times it was considered indecorous for women to show a bare ancle. Matt.5:28. The original Olympic games were performed entirely in the nude, though women were not permitted to compete. I would suggest this priest, whoever he was, should examine his own heart motives before complaining about God's wonderful workmanship being revealed to him. He seems to be discomfited by being confronted with things within his own heart which he would rather not were there for others to see. It is his own loss of innocence that disturbs his spiritual poise, not the mere sight of bare female buttocks. .
I believe some of this may not be the fault of the individual athletes. Some of what they wear is imposed on them. I have no interest in sport to any inaccuracies that follow relate to that rather than to the veracity of what I am about to write. One woman's team was at least criticised, may be even penalised, by either the IOC or the particular sport's governing body because the female athletes wore shorts in a volletball game whereas the rules required them to wear bikini bottoms. These ladies complained about the sporting body sexualising women. So I think we need to look carefully at where the blame really lies. I think it more likely a committee of men or dominated by men that came up with that rule.
It sounds as if you'd be fine with public nudity wherever it's socially accepted, is that right? To be naked among men, women and children at a clothing-optional hot spring, for example. Or, if it were to become socially acceptable, nudity at the grocery store or walking down the street. Is that correct? What of Romans 14:21? It is good not to...do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
Not at all. I'm merely of the opinion that Jesus never said anything about nudity being a sin. He was executed in the nude and was not guilty of any offense at all. Heb.4:15 Adam and Eve were both naked and had nothing at that time of which to be ashamed. Gen.2:25 Jesus only mentioned the sin of lustfully looking at others. I agree though that the displaying of some bodies in public, might in many cases of nudity, be regarded by those who have to view them, as an assult upon the senses and an offence against of one's aesthetic appreciation. Birthday suits are generally for birthdays and other special occasions only. .
Oh. Things are only sinful if Jesus said so? That opens some possibilities... Yes, they stripped Him as further degradation and embarrassment. Similarly, the Israelites were led bare-rumped out of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's army as an embarrassment to them. Adam and Eve, once they knew the difference between good and evil (as do we), hurried to cover their nakedness. I suppose one could distinguish in some fashion between sin and the feelings of shame & embarrassment; but then Adam & Eve had just become sinful when they encountered these feelings, so there seems to be a connection. And one could make a point about being forced to disrobe versus voluntary bodily displays, but once again Adam & Eve were free agents (not forced to go naked) and felt wrongness about it once they knew the difference between good and evil. I'm not concluding that nudity is sinful per se. Rather, I'm raising the question of nudity (as well as of showing large amounts of not-usually-seen skin, as with g-string bikinis which are actually more alluring than full nudity) in a public setting. Stepping naked into a privacy-fenced back yard is probably okay. Showing up naked in a crowded grocery store is probably a moral violation (in most locales, at least). But what about the topless beaches of the Riviera, the clothing-optional hot springs, the nude group saunas (as in Russia, where one sweats a while and then runs in the snow for a bit), or even the clothing-optional streets and stores of Cap D'Agde, France? Moral violation? Or morally acceptable? And what of the morality concerning the wearers of those g-string bikinis, when they know that the sight will cause men's eyes to snap to them like rubber bands? Romans 14:21.
I think the Gospels record ALL the real issues that Jesus was concerned about, which degrade human beings, and nudity was not one of them. Nudity in front of your kids is forbidden by God's Law though. Lev.18:6-19, Lev.20:11, Lev.20:17-21. Though this is all about something rather more than just being seen in one's birthday suit. An intention to expose another person to shamefaced embarrassment is a greater sin than the nudity that their victims are having forced upon them. I think you may be very much mistaken about both Adam and Eve having actually gained knowledge of the difference between good and evil as is also true of many others down through the ages since Adam and Eve were promised they would, BY SATAN himself, who is a well known liar. Because they had sinned and were now afraid of God, just like sinners are today. The connection is loss of innocence i.e. guilt, it always follows sin though some have consciences so seared that they no longer even notice it. Again, they were promised that by Satan, not by God . . . read the story again. Do you believe you know the difference between good and evil? Then you believe what Satan told them too, I suppose. He can't be trusted you know. You could call this a Pubic Nuisance, which I believe would be true. Morally by what standards? A violation of whom, presuming everyone attending such events are there voluntarily and no one is compelled to be there. Who would be offended. Certainly not God, because God was not offended by the sight of Adam and Eve in their naked - natural - state, God made them that way, but it must have been warmer all year round then and there in the Garden. And what of the morality of people eating lobster or pork in public, (both an abomination according to the law), driving really expensive sports cars and living in really luxuriously expensive mansions, inviting and wanting others to covet their possessions and flaunting their wealth in front of the poor. Is that any less sinful than mooning by baring your bum to the president. Sorry, baring your butt, for you American-English speakers.
Knowing the difference between good and evil is of the devil? First time I've ever read such a statement. I thought the Holy Spirit counsels us as to what is right and what is wrong. Since when is the conscience demonic? Now, there is a Freudian slip if ever I saw one! BTW, when I ask about the morality of going naked or little-clothed among other people, I mean moral by God's standards. Because His standard is the one that matters. I think it's too simplistic to say, "God is not offended by nakedness," because if we violate His moral standard of conduct we are in sin, and sin offends God. When a young woman goes out with a too-short skirt that shows her panties at every step, if she is aware of the situation, she must know that she is a cause for temptation and for others to stumble in the sin of lust, so how is that not sinful for her as well? If I know that you are an alcoholic, and I come to you and say, "Let's go to the pub, I'm buying all you can drink!" Am I not sinning?
Clearly a statement revealing a lack of understanding of the difference between the knowledge of good and evil possessed by the average unbelieving reprobate and the revelation of 'sin, righteousness and judgment' obtained through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Do you believe this? "But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” John 8:44. It is all a lie spoken by a habitual liar. Sinners do not know the difference between good and evil, they have only been convinced by Satan that they do. You are either deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote or accidentally doing it, which is it? Is a Feudian slip the same as a scantly revealing negligee? You should keep your mind in check about all this nudity you know. Freud would definitely make something of all this repression. Ahh! That's OK then. In their innocent Christ-like state Adam and Eve were naked when God made them, like Jesus Christ was when he came into the world and went out of it. Nakedness according to God's moral Standards is therefore not actually sinful. I guess that must mean that not waring clothes is not actually sinful, just socially unacceptable in public, according to some societies standards, some stricter or more lenient than others. Taliban Muslims are really strict about clothing, (especially for women), and Olympic swimmers and some spectators aren't so strict about clothing. I think I may have got it now? Have I?
That does not actually enduce any gratification for me, but I admit I wrote it wearing only my underpants. .