Is it supportable exegesis

[jochanaan]

The key concept here is entitlement. Shechem, David and Ammon felt they were entitled to follow the "lust of the flesh" (for lack of a better phrase). Many Muslim men may feel entitled to exercise what they believe is Allah's judgment against "whores." (Note all the qualifiers!) But God says "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay." We absolutely are not entitled to exercise our violent desires on any other person whatever s/he is or isn't wearing or doing.

[Quitosam]

During a Bible study one evening some friends and I came up with this: actions do not determine destination, destination should determine actions.

No amount of rules governing actions (the modesty culture) is going to affect the heart, as has already been said here as a man thinketh in his heart so is he. I Romans 13:10 Paul says "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."(KJV) In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul lists a number of good things to do but without love they mean nothing.

I am convinced that the first and greatest commandment (Matt 22:37 and others) must be the foundation for the christian life. The second most important commandment (also in Matt 22) builds on that foundation. If we love God like the command says and love "that" pretty woman as we love ourselves lust will not be an issue. The rub is at least for me, while I do not have a serious problem with lust, I am not sure my foundation is very strong.

[balaam]

Lustful intent? Isn't intent the main word here. Just seeing someone naked isn't what makes glances lustful, it is what you do with it.

But I cannot see the connection with nudity here. This may be just me, but I am just as capable of lusting after a clothed woman as I am a naked one, sinner that I am.

[Petros]

Given that for a good few millennia most women in most cultures most of the time are clothed when encountered, lust would be seriously handicapped if nudity were requisite.

[OzTech]

I suspect that society's reaction to nudity is largely culturally based. English culture (in reaction to the immorality prior to the reign of Queen Victoria) has largely shied away from any thing they perceived might encourage such activity... you know... like... public nakedness. We then see within the movie industry, perhaps largely from America, a sexual association with nudity. Australia was established as a British colony so we get their 'morality' within our laws but we also get the American TV shows and movies so we tend to take on their culture as well. America also was established from British colonisation so it would have a large portion of Britain's attitudes towards nakedness. Many of the European countries seem less influenced by Anglo/American culture.

[jochanaan]

...(in reaction to the immorality prior to the reign of Queen Victoria)...

It would be foolish to suppose there was no "immorality" during Victoria's reign. Indeed, from things I've read (no time now to look for sources, but they're out there), there was lots of extramarital or otherwise immoral sex happening, including lots of BDSM, but it was all "underground" and not to be spoken of, at least not in upper-crust society.

[OzTech]

Ah, Jochanaan... I do not say there was no immorality during Queen Vicky's reign but, as I understand it, the moral credibility of the Monarchy at the time she took the throne was quite low within the eyes of the Brits so it fell to her to try and re-establish some standards for her peers to follow. This meant introducing more 'puritan' clothing expectations. Unfortunately whenever there is large issue to resolve people tend to go to extremes in the opposite direction (e.g. if people were perceived society to be insufficiently modest at some point in history then they would tend to become overly modest in reaction). I think this attitude still, largely, permeates our societies. It's where you get extremists from.

[jochanaan]

True that, Oz.

[natman]

Ah, Jochanaan... I do not say there was no immorality during Queen Vicky's reign but, as I understand it, the moral credibility of the Monarchy at the time she took the throne was quite low within the eyes of the Brits so it fell to her to try and re-establish some standards for her peers to follow. This meant introducing more 'puritan' clothing expectations. Unfortunately whenever there is large issue to resolve people tend to go to extremes in the opposite direction (e.g. if people were perceived society to be insufficiently modest at some point in history then they would tend to become overly modest in reaction). I think this attitude still, largely, permeates our societies. It's where you get extremists from.

Unfortunately, the tendency to jump toward more "puritan" clothing, that is, covering up the body, only resulted in hiding a "symptom" of the problem. The REAL problem was/is in the way we are taught to perceive the human body, as merely an "object" rather than the EXTRAORDINARY "image and likeness of God" which God intended it to be. It would have fared better to teach men, in particular, but also to women, that unless they are married to a person, that person belongs to someone else. If the person is married, then they belong to their spouse. If they are not married, then they belong to God.

Unfortunately, our western culture has removed the value of virginity and/or purity before and in marriage. The social pressure appears to be toward sexual experience at an early age, otherwise you are considered "ignorant". Further, much of the music and programming presents women in very degrading terms, referring to them as "B's..." , "Ho's...." and "C's..." (a word I cannot bring myself to say). What I do not get, in this day of "Women's rights", is that young women seem to listen to and even ENJOY this type of thing.

Reading much of the political banter on sites such as Facebook, I believe that we become less and less "Civilized" every day.

[Maverick]

Reading much of the political banter on sites such as Facebook, I believe that we become less and less "Civilized" every day.

I don't do New Year's Resolutions, but I'm not going to spend nearly as much time on FB this year as I did last year. I know who I agree and disagree with politically and don't need to be reminded of it daily. I'll read a real book instead.