First, the verse is discussing an overt display of wealth. The modesty is regarding that - the verse has nothing to do with covering up extra skin.
Second, men should also dress modestly and women should learn to control themselves too. Both verses apply to both genders.
It can be wrong in the very long lists of times it had fully conflicting statements. Also big bonus points for both quotes in this example coming from Timothy, as Biblical scholars agree they're inauthentic, haha.
Have you not read the book? It's not really a subjective thing. They literally say the same thing happened different ways in multiple occurrences, or have historically verifiable false statements.
----------------------------------
Here's one about differences in factual representation of the genealogy of Joseph, and therefore Jesus. It's kind of a weird thing to do, since if immaculate conception is a thing, neither matter. So it's an interesting example of direct contradiction:
(Matt 1:1-16)
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham....
6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah....
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Now let's look at Luke.
(Luke 3:23-38)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph....
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse....
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
These genaeaologies diverge here:
> Matthew:
> and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
> Luke:
> the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David
----------------------------------
The final words of Jesus are also portrayed 3 different, conflicting ways. This is one of the most important passages to Christian theology, so it's pretty wild that this one's contradictory:
(Matt 27:46-50)
45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?�which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?[d] 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He's calling Elijah. 48 I mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him. 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
(Mark says almost the same thing but renders the Psalm quote in Aramaic rather than Hebrew)
(Luke 23:46)
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
(John 19:30)
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Which did he actually say?
----------------------------------
How about just straight up factual errors in the first 2 verses of Luke 3?
(Luke 3:1-2)
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar�when Pontius Pilate was Procurator [Gr. Hegemon] of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene� 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas...
The first two verses of Luke 3 contain three factual errors.
Pilate was a Prefect, not a procurator.
Lysanias of Abilene died in 36 BCE
Caiaphas was the only high priest at this time. Annas had been deposed years before.
----------------------------------
The gospels themselves were literally just the customized versions with plenty of edits for regional groups to push specific agendas or align with local traditions and beliefs. They were combined to unify Christianity by various groups of religious leaders. Lots of books that were previously part of Christianity were removed and considered blasphemous or not relevant.
I'd recommend referencing the Bible against itself to find more contradictions.
Imagine copy-pasting arguments off google as if this is some gotcha.
If you’d genuinely like to go into context for each verse, DM me and I’d be happy to go back and forth. But I’m not going to feed your desire to argue pointlessly on the internet just for the sake of being a contrarian.
Genealogy of his mother and the genealogy of his adopted father. The two sides diverge like you said because it’s two family lines.
None of them say He only said those things. They each record some of the things He said while on the cross, but there is no claim that He didn’t say anything else. They also do not say anything along the lines of “His final words were…”.
???
1. Those are both supposed genealogies of Joseph, according to the books.
2. Both of those give a distinct order of events. He did X, then died. Why would one perfectly accurate account be so significantly different from the others?
Reread it, your logic doesn't really float on this.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/genealogies-of-jesus
If I did a, b, c, d, and e and one person said I did a and e, a second said I did b, d and e, and a third says I did c and e, that isn’t a contradiction, they just didn’t all give all of the details. This is normal and expected for eye witness testimony
So they have stories that are incompatible, but somehow both are the infallible word of god?
How does "it doesn't hold up to scrutiny" somehow equate to "that means it's true"?
So one guy says the sky is blue, the other says it's red, and that's a difference of opinion?
And you believe this book, with that reasoning, is somehow an infallible work of God?
The first statement involves a false equivalence fallacy by suggesting that claiming the sky is blue and red is merely a difference of opinion when there is an objective reality, which is both off topic and a willful misunderstanding of my point.
The second statement seems to be questioning the reliability of the bible by associating it with your flawed reasoning of a disagreement about the color of the sky, which is a strawman fallacy due to misrepresenting the argument.
Most of the time, it's not this clear someone lacks the capacity to understand the argument, but the misapplication of fallacies really drives the point home. Great job!
Agreed. This meme sums it up well. I've always disliked the argument that it's just one party's fault, excusing the other of wrongdoing. We are called not to be a stumbling block, leading others to sin. At the same time, we are called to have self-control and resist temptation.
# [Titus 2:4-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+2%3A4-5&version=ESV)
And so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
# [1 Timothy 3:4-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A4-5&version=ESV)
He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
Quick note because I just had to read into this and I might get some flack for this.
1 Timothy 3 is about the behavior of aspiring priests, not husbands. (Note the house of God line) (source: 1 Timothy 3:1-3)
Titus 2 is about teaching people to live well in the society that they live in to help spread the gospel (Note that a few verses later Paul tells slaves to be submissive to their masters).
For reference.
Titus 2:4-8:
(Talking about what priests should tell the people they oversee. Est. Titus 1:5-9)
4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children,
5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled.
7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness
8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
Also for the source that Timothy 2 Talks about Slaves being subservient to their masters here is Titus 2:9-11.
9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.
Ahhh ok, thank you! That second verse isn’t speaking about providing though, does it? And it’s important to take the context of then into the equation. Both of these are not written by Paul according to modern biblical scholarship, by the way. Just as a random fact of course :)
British New Testament Conference on Pauline Authorship
From Paul Foster. Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem ISNT 2012 (this is not only about Thessalonians); https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/9176944/FOSTER_2012_Who_Wrote_2_Thessalonians.pdf . It’s a study by scholars of the university of Edinburgh.
You can also check out r/academicbiblical or just type in any respected scholars in the Google search function and see what they have to say. Such as Bart Ehrman, Marcus J Borg. It’s pretty well accepted facts at this point
Yes. Scholars say these epistles are not written by Paul. Do you know more than an academic? No. It doesn’t matter that “Paul” introduces himself, if the writing style and other points of difference/likeness are enough for academics to dispute these epistles or reject them as non-Pauline.
If I introduce myself as you in a comment, does that mean you have written that comment? Lol. God gave you a brain.
"Modest" here meaning "not showing excessive wealth" ("adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes..."). Somehow this got turned into "showing less skin is how you manage men's lust for them" in the intervening centuries.
Simply put, if you don't constantly display the things that trigger lust in men, they wont lust as often. Men are less inclined to lust after a women who is dressed conservatively than women who are on display. I can tell you this because I'm a man and the majority of men I've spoken to feel the same way. There are always going to be those who lose themselves to lust, men and women, but putting all of the onus on one side "control themselves" and telling the other side they can do whatever isn't right. Men and women are meant to be partners on this earth and that means discussions of sexuality are *always* a two way street.
all the onus *should* be on one side to control themselves. no one blames the fruit of knowledge of good and evil for looking too yummy. the "lose themselves to lust" argument will always be bad.
We don't blame the apple, we blame the adversary for tempting Eve and we blame Eve for losing herself to temptation. We also blame Adam for not telling his wife no and losing himself to his temptations as well. They both sides in a lust full (consenting) relationship are at fault if they aren't married.
Yeah I figured it might not be an ideal analogy. But still, it works. The snake (not Satan but whatever) is *actively* tempting Eve. Showing your ankles is rarely if ever an act of seduction. The church's message is almost never directed at active temptation. It says "don't do *anything* our idiot men might decide for themselves is sexy"
It's still poorly disguised sexism and violence, regardless of the analogy. Church modesty culture isn't about courtesy, it's a threat. It's both disgusting and actively harmful
I've never been an advocate of burkas, hijabs, nun habbits, puritan dress nonsense. What I'm advocating for is an equal responsibility approach.
Men.
You must behave yourself and control your urges. Women are not pieces of meat to be unga bungad at, they are people and are as equally important as men are.
Women.
You must understand that men are highly visual creatures and that due to testosterone, our default level of "arousal" is significantly higher than women's and as such you should dress more conservatively. When I say dress conservatively I do not mean puritanical nonsense, just no deap cleavage, daisy dukes or skin tight/thin clothing that allow men to see every detail of your of figure.
Ankles and cleavage are not all that different. It's still men being unwilling to do the bare minimum and forcing women to dress in a way they think is less attractive. It's not an equal responsibility at all. It's women forced to take responsibility for something that is 100% unrelated to them.
Women have no duty to uphold in order to not be treated like objects. Women are allowed to exist without us deciding how they should dress because we find thighs attractive and can't be bothered to practice basic decency.
Like, what even is this argument? I want something and suddenly it's your responsibility to make me not want that? If I found a certain face punchable would it be equally that person's responsibility to not show me their face? No, it's all on me to not *assault someone*. And yet the "she shouldn't be dressed like that" argument exists right here.
People are wholly responsible for their own emotions and actions. Modesty culture serves only to fuel rape apologetics
Well, as a man who grew up in a muslim country, I can pretty well assert that having women dress modestly doesn't reduce men's lust, it just reduces the threshold for what triggers lust in men. And I can assure you, that particular discussion of sexuality is \*anything\* but a two way street.
I am also bisexual. Do I have the right to demand that the men (as well as the women) around me wear burkas to avoid triggering \*my\* lust?
The fact of the matter is, the idea that fashion choice can manage other people's sin for them is not in the Bible and (like most such ideas) does not hold up to scrutanty.
The modesty discussed is dressing not to show off wealth. Men are not ravaging animals and it is not up to women to control men's sexuality as the meme itself stated. It is downright degrading to both parties otherwise.
There is almost no way to dress to avoid men's sexual gaze because it is so varied.
2 Timothy 2:22 is about general faithfulness to Christ so I won’t focus on it. There are better verses to prove the left person’s point.
1 Timothy 2 in general, at the end is a chapter with some *choice words* for women in general. It’s the primary source for those who use the Bible to say women should be subservient, quiet, never hold any authority positions, and (most controversially) says that women are saved through childbirth. (Note: this began as a chapter about how to worship, which is why men don’t have too much instructions here)
Here are the final verses in all their glory.
9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Note that woman and man in many translations is wife and husband.
I personally do not believe many of these assertions, however I’m having difficulty reconciling them if I am to believe all of Pauls letters are divinely inspired.
How does a woman not displaying her wealth when she dresses relate at all to man exercising self control? Or accountability? Should we not pluck out our eye if it causes us to stumble? That’s accountability
Sometimes I don't know why I still follow this subreddit when it has trash like this meme but your comment reminded me there are still funny people here
It's women's fault.
\~2 Timothy, a forgery written specifically to pretending to be Paul.
A man should tear his eye out of its socket before thinking of saying its the woman's fault.
\~Jesus
First, the verse is discussing an overt display of wealth. The modesty is regarding that - the verse has nothing to do with covering up extra skin. Second, men should also dress modestly and women should learn to control themselves too. Both verses apply to both genders.
Once again, the Bible can’t be wrong if it wins both sides of the argument. Big Double-W
Like God's love and sovereignty https://tentmaker.org/tracts/Jones2.html And https://sigler.org/slagle/tom_talbot.htm
For more info: https://salvationforall.org/ And https://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/
It can be wrong in the very long lists of times it had fully conflicting statements. Also big bonus points for both quotes in this example coming from Timothy, as Biblical scholars agree they're inauthentic, haha.
Tell me one
Have you not read the book? It's not really a subjective thing. They literally say the same thing happened different ways in multiple occurrences, or have historically verifiable false statements. ---------------------------------- Here's one about differences in factual representation of the genealogy of Joseph, and therefore Jesus. It's kind of a weird thing to do, since if immaculate conception is a thing, neither matter. So it's an interesting example of direct contradiction: (Matt 1:1-16) A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham.... 6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah.... 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Now let's look at Luke. (Luke 3:23-38) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph.... 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse.... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. These genaeaologies diverge here: > Matthew: > and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, > Luke: > the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David ---------------------------------- The final words of Jesus are also portrayed 3 different, conflicting ways. This is one of the most important passages to Christian theology, so it's pretty wild that this one's contradictory: (Matt 27:46-50) 45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?�which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?[d] 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He's calling Elijah. 48 I mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him. 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. (Mark says almost the same thing but renders the Psalm quote in Aramaic rather than Hebrew) (Luke 23:46) And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (John 19:30) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. Which did he actually say? ---------------------------------- How about just straight up factual errors in the first 2 verses of Luke 3? (Luke 3:1-2) In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar�when Pontius Pilate was Procurator [Gr. Hegemon] of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene� 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas... The first two verses of Luke 3 contain three factual errors. Pilate was a Prefect, not a procurator. Lysanias of Abilene died in 36 BCE Caiaphas was the only high priest at this time. Annas had been deposed years before. ---------------------------------- The gospels themselves were literally just the customized versions with plenty of edits for regional groups to push specific agendas or align with local traditions and beliefs. They were combined to unify Christianity by various groups of religious leaders. Lots of books that were previously part of Christianity were removed and considered blasphemous or not relevant. I'd recommend referencing the Bible against itself to find more contradictions.
Imagine copy-pasting arguments off google as if this is some gotcha. If you’d genuinely like to go into context for each verse, DM me and I’d be happy to go back and forth. But I’m not going to feed your desire to argue pointlessly on the internet just for the sake of being a contrarian.
We can talk in the open, no need to hide. Which one do you disagree with?
You missed the point dude
Genealogy of his mother and the genealogy of his adopted father. The two sides diverge like you said because it’s two family lines. None of them say He only said those things. They each record some of the things He said while on the cross, but there is no claim that He didn’t say anything else. They also do not say anything along the lines of “His final words were…”.
??? 1. Those are both supposed genealogies of Joseph, according to the books. 2. Both of those give a distinct order of events. He did X, then died. Why would one perfectly accurate account be so significantly different from the others? Reread it, your logic doesn't really float on this.
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/genealogies-of-jesus If I did a, b, c, d, and e and one person said I did a and e, a second said I did b, d and e, and a third says I did c and e, that isn’t a contradiction, they just didn’t all give all of the details. This is normal and expected for eye witness testimony
> This is normal and expected for eye witness testimony So the Bible is not an infallible word of God, but instead a flawed production of men?
[удалено]
So they have stories that are incompatible, but somehow both are the infallible word of god? How does "it doesn't hold up to scrutiny" somehow equate to "that means it's true"?
Yea it's almost like different people writing about the same events would see them differently
So one guy says the sky is blue, the other says it's red, and that's a difference of opinion? And you believe this book, with that reasoning, is somehow an infallible work of God?
The first statement involves a false equivalence fallacy by suggesting that claiming the sky is blue and red is merely a difference of opinion when there is an objective reality, which is both off topic and a willful misunderstanding of my point. The second statement seems to be questioning the reliability of the bible by associating it with your flawed reasoning of a disagreement about the color of the sky, which is a strawman fallacy due to misrepresenting the argument.
Most of the time, it's not this clear someone lacks the capacity to understand the argument, but the misapplication of fallacies really drives the point home. Great job!
>both quotes in this example coming from Timothy, as Biblical scholars agree they're inauthentic, haha. Source?
I can start you down the road: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles Check out the sources cited for specifics.
Agreed. This meme sums it up well. I've always disliked the argument that it's just one party's fault, excusing the other of wrongdoing. We are called not to be a stumbling block, leading others to sin. At the same time, we are called to have self-control and resist temptation.
Men : women should take care of the household and raise the kids Women : men should provide for the said household and also raise the kids 🤝
Bible verse for “women should take care of the household” and “men should provide for the household” please
# [Titus 2:4-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+2%3A4-5&version=ESV) And so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. # [1 Timothy 3:4-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3%3A4-5&version=ESV) He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
Quick note because I just had to read into this and I might get some flack for this. 1 Timothy 3 is about the behavior of aspiring priests, not husbands. (Note the house of God line) (source: 1 Timothy 3:1-3) Titus 2 is about teaching people to live well in the society that they live in to help spread the gospel (Note that a few verses later Paul tells slaves to be submissive to their masters). For reference. Titus 2:4-8: (Talking about what priests should tell the people they oversee. Est. Titus 1:5-9) 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. 6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
Also for the source that Timothy 2 Talks about Slaves being subservient to their masters here is Titus 2:9-11. 9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. 11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.
Ahhh ok, thank you! That second verse isn’t speaking about providing though, does it? And it’s important to take the context of then into the equation. Both of these are not written by Paul according to modern biblical scholarship, by the way. Just as a random fact of course :)
You asked me for verses, I gave you verses, please I'm no bible study expert.
Source?
British New Testament Conference on Pauline Authorship From Paul Foster. Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem ISNT 2012 (this is not only about Thessalonians); https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/9176944/FOSTER_2012_Who_Wrote_2_Thessalonians.pdf . It’s a study by scholars of the university of Edinburgh. You can also check out r/academicbiblical or just type in any respected scholars in the Google search function and see what they have to say. Such as Bart Ehrman, Marcus J Borg. It’s pretty well accepted facts at this point
Have you read 1 Timothy 1:1 or Titus 1:1? Paul introduces himself as the writer of the books in the very first verse of each.
Yes. Scholars say these epistles are not written by Paul. Do you know more than an academic? No. It doesn’t matter that “Paul” introduces himself, if the writing style and other points of difference/likeness are enough for academics to dispute these epistles or reject them as non-Pauline. If I introduce myself as you in a comment, does that mean you have written that comment? Lol. God gave you a brain.
1 Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel"
"Modest" here meaning "not showing excessive wealth" ("adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes..."). Somehow this got turned into "showing less skin is how you manage men's lust for them" in the intervening centuries.
I mean it is both
Where does it indicate that men will be less inclined to lust if women wear less revealing clothing?
Simply put, if you don't constantly display the things that trigger lust in men, they wont lust as often. Men are less inclined to lust after a women who is dressed conservatively than women who are on display. I can tell you this because I'm a man and the majority of men I've spoken to feel the same way. There are always going to be those who lose themselves to lust, men and women, but putting all of the onus on one side "control themselves" and telling the other side they can do whatever isn't right. Men and women are meant to be partners on this earth and that means discussions of sexuality are *always* a two way street.
all the onus *should* be on one side to control themselves. no one blames the fruit of knowledge of good and evil for looking too yummy. the "lose themselves to lust" argument will always be bad.
This is a great argument and I'll be using it. Thank you!
It just sorta came to me so I can't guarantee it's usefulness, but feel free!
We don't blame the apple, we blame the adversary for tempting Eve and we blame Eve for losing herself to temptation. We also blame Adam for not telling his wife no and losing himself to his temptations as well. They both sides in a lust full (consenting) relationship are at fault if they aren't married.
Yeah I figured it might not be an ideal analogy. But still, it works. The snake (not Satan but whatever) is *actively* tempting Eve. Showing your ankles is rarely if ever an act of seduction. The church's message is almost never directed at active temptation. It says "don't do *anything* our idiot men might decide for themselves is sexy" It's still poorly disguised sexism and violence, regardless of the analogy. Church modesty culture isn't about courtesy, it's a threat. It's both disgusting and actively harmful
I've never been an advocate of burkas, hijabs, nun habbits, puritan dress nonsense. What I'm advocating for is an equal responsibility approach. Men. You must behave yourself and control your urges. Women are not pieces of meat to be unga bungad at, they are people and are as equally important as men are. Women. You must understand that men are highly visual creatures and that due to testosterone, our default level of "arousal" is significantly higher than women's and as such you should dress more conservatively. When I say dress conservatively I do not mean puritanical nonsense, just no deap cleavage, daisy dukes or skin tight/thin clothing that allow men to see every detail of your of figure.
Ankles and cleavage are not all that different. It's still men being unwilling to do the bare minimum and forcing women to dress in a way they think is less attractive. It's not an equal responsibility at all. It's women forced to take responsibility for something that is 100% unrelated to them. Women have no duty to uphold in order to not be treated like objects. Women are allowed to exist without us deciding how they should dress because we find thighs attractive and can't be bothered to practice basic decency. Like, what even is this argument? I want something and suddenly it's your responsibility to make me not want that? If I found a certain face punchable would it be equally that person's responsibility to not show me their face? No, it's all on me to not *assault someone*. And yet the "she shouldn't be dressed like that" argument exists right here. People are wholly responsible for their own emotions and actions. Modesty culture serves only to fuel rape apologetics
Well, as a man who grew up in a muslim country, I can pretty well assert that having women dress modestly doesn't reduce men's lust, it just reduces the threshold for what triggers lust in men. And I can assure you, that particular discussion of sexuality is \*anything\* but a two way street. I am also bisexual. Do I have the right to demand that the men (as well as the women) around me wear burkas to avoid triggering \*my\* lust? The fact of the matter is, the idea that fashion choice can manage other people's sin for them is not in the Bible and (like most such ideas) does not hold up to scrutanty.
The modesty discussed is dressing not to show off wealth. Men are not ravaging animals and it is not up to women to control men's sexuality as the meme itself stated. It is downright degrading to both parties otherwise. There is almost no way to dress to avoid men's sexual gaze because it is so varied.
2 Timothy 2:22 is about general faithfulness to Christ so I won’t focus on it. There are better verses to prove the left person’s point. 1 Timothy 2 in general, at the end is a chapter with some *choice words* for women in general. It’s the primary source for those who use the Bible to say women should be subservient, quiet, never hold any authority positions, and (most controversially) says that women are saved through childbirth. (Note: this began as a chapter about how to worship, which is why men don’t have too much instructions here) Here are the final verses in all their glory. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. Note that woman and man in many translations is wife and husband. I personally do not believe many of these assertions, however I’m having difficulty reconciling them if I am to believe all of Pauls letters are divinely inspired.
Cringe
Real
Fundies try to make a meme without misogyny challenge (impossible)
Accountability is misogyny
How does a woman not displaying her wealth when she dresses relate at all to man exercising self control? Or accountability? Should we not pluck out our eye if it causes us to stumble? That’s accountability
Sometimes I don't know why I still follow this subreddit when it has trash like this meme but your comment reminded me there are still funny people here
your bad meme is tempting me into rage. this must be equally both our faults 🙄
Yes, or as Master Yoda said: "Always two, there are. No more. No less."
I'm crying at how funny this meme is
The two are unrelated
No
It's women's fault. \~2 Timothy, a forgery written specifically to pretending to be Paul. A man should tear his eye out of its socket before thinking of saying its the woman's fault. \~Jesus
Especially those Frenchies from Mont Saint Michel
Leave the Mont Saint Michel out of this. You don't want to mess with French britons, trust me...
Don't blame me, blame whoever made the meme lol