It pains me to be in disagreement with you because I honor and respect your opinins on just about everything.
I purposely didn't reply to your first post to me. I read it and chose not to respond.
The big -- and it is huge -- diff between Christianity (evangelical, charismatic, the type I live) and the Taliban is that the Holy Spirit indwells the congregants, motivating them to cling to the Word of God and His standards dispersed among mankind over thousands of years and whose worth is proven. The type of Christianity of which I write is the type where the Spirit lives in, and law of God are written in, the heart, internally governing the actions of the believer, with the help of the standards of God's Word; the Taliban try to control from the outside while leaving the heart as corrupt as ever.
I don't understand why it is so unbelieved that women do tempt men by the way they dress. This does not excuse men who commit crimes against them, but I am addressing the responsibility of every godly woman to dress in a manner that neither offends God nor stumbles men. Women are as responsible for the way they dress as men are responsible for the way they interact with them. Isn't personal responsibility a core component of conservatism?
Our society has departed so far from modesty that we see this thread going the way it is, making the simple desire to see a beautiful young woman clothed more modestly seem ridiculous, even to some, outrageous. It reminds me of the frog and the slowly-heated water story.
Although I don't approve of revealing clothing styles, and am long past the age where any immodest dress on my part would tempt anyone, I merely wanted to point out to you that I think you are focussing too much on outward appearance.
The clothes the Bush daughters are wearing are NOT barebacked; both are wearing cover-ups. The skirts are long. It is not their fault that the wind whipped the skirts against their bodies.
I think there is a place for discussion of appropriate dress. I also think that people are being WAY too critical of these outfits. And I think that there is a fine line which you are drawing over your atiitude.
After all, you think you are right because of the Holy Spirit. The Taliban think THEY are right. But both of you are blaming women, which was my point.
If I were to discuss Demetrius' daughter, I could point out that this is not necessarily considered a modest dress. In 1910, it would have been considered scandalous. It would not be acceptable in most Muslim countries. In fact, as late as 1955, it would have been considered way too short.
Standards of decency vary from country to country, and from time to time. Paul admonished women not to wear gold in church, nor to wear their hair uncovered.
I think it wise to not look so much at the external, but rather the heart, and it seems to me that these are two good girls who went to church and visited the wounded.
Instead, you and a couple of others are nit-picking their dress. I don't think this is right.
I have often read your posts with respect, but on this one I must disagree. I am sure we will come to agreement on other matters, but on this one I must part company.