Modest appearal

[John81]

Did not mention anything about cost. Tilt=everyone dresses to look good for other or to meat or exceed the standards of others.

Such tends to cost money.

In any event, those who dress to impress have other sin issues in their heart they need to deal with but if they are dressed modestly, then that sin isn't one of them.

[Anon]

Kitagrl,

I will restate: There is NO scriptural basis for saying that a woman wearing pants is in sin.

In order to come to this conclusion, one must take Scripture either out of context or mis-interpret it. We have had this discussion and we have shown how the Scriptures used have been mis-interpreted. We can certainly do it again if you would like.

You feel I misinterpret...while I feel you underinterpret...but no need for another discussion.

I have Biblical basis for my beliefs, and you evidently do for yours. But I'm not saying you don't have it, and you really shouldn't say I don't have it... :saint

[PastorHarrison]

ok... this is one of those where ya gotta preach and then duck....

But here's a thought - Britches = pants. Is that a given blatantly obvious issue or do we gotta hash that too? Next, britches only appear on men in scripture which kinda makes'em fall into that "pertaineth unto the man" catagory in Deut 22 {rather obvious}.

So if then women can't wear something pertaining to men and the men vice versa, why is it that we presume God was kidding about that whole "abomination unto the Lord" thing he said about those who violate said dress code?

Herea another plaguing thought - today, in our culture, as carnal & wicked as its become, we still hold to the "writ of divorcement" practice set in place by Moses in the law of the OT. Yes it's changed quite a bit, but ultimately the foundation of divorce in society was born in the desert of Sinai under Moses authorship. Men and women all over today fight, kill, and set up families built around that original precept that divorce is permissable - just give her or him a writ of divorcement.

So, my question is, since most women and unstudied preachers claim pants on women is no longer a sin because thats old testament / law, why do those same folk run screaming to Granddaddy Moses's system to get one of those fancy old divorces in accordance with the law? Remembering of course that Jesus said "fornication" (Deut 22:13-21 pre-marital sex) justifies divorce and that from the beginning it was not "always so".... in other words, God never intended it. Boy that'll start a nice brawl won't it? :cool I note that the disciples, upon hearing just how really harsh God regarded the matter, said "man...better off to not get married at all".

Nope.... you got preachers, liberals, backslidders, unlearned, unstudied and just plain "ain't gonna submitters" in the fray on one side. On the other you got that big hairy piece of God's word over there saying Men can't wear womens clothes and women can't wear mens clothes and them that do so are an abomination..... not exactly the casual indifference we take to it today I'd say. ABOMINATION.... shewh....pretty hard to confuse that one eh? (Deut 22:5)

But the ladies don't like it, it ain't cool in these last 500 yrs fashionably speaking, so the world says "no God" and then the liberal Christians follow the chant "no God we won't put up with that" and so over time we pull the teeth out of that rascal using the same de-fanging guidelines they used in Mark 7:13 and VIOLA! 3000 yrs later women are dressing like men, men are dressing like women and we're celebrating grace and laughing at old Moses little Deut 22:5 and Paul's little comments on modesty.....

:hide But just some thoughts....

[IM4given]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Our salvation does not depend on how we dress, but how we dress reflects our beliefs.

Someone who is in the military knows how important it is to wear the right uniform - not to outdo each other, but to show whose side they are on. That is what Christians do when they dress according to the scriptures - they are showing the world whose side they are on. God's side. If people cannot tell whose side you are on or can't distinguish you from the rest of the crowd, how can you possibly present yourself as a living witness?

Now it all boils down to whether or not you believe ion what the Bible has to say:

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

God is the same to day, yesterday and forever, right? what was an abomination all those centuries ago is still an abomination to Him today. I do not see how this verse can be misinterpreted by anyone. It is as plain as the nose on my face.

Ladies, if you wear your hair cropped short, and you dress in pants, then from a distance you may look like the women in the latest fashion magazines, but if you wear your hair long, and you wear a modest dress, then from a distance you will certainly look different from the rest of the world and people will be able to see whose side you are on.

:wvlf"

[PastorHarrison]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Our salvation does not depend on how we dress, but how we dress reflects our beliefs.

Someone who is in the military knows how important it is to wear the right uniform - not to outdo each other, but to show whose side they are on. That is what Christians do when they dress according to the scriptures - they are showing the world whose side they are on. God's side. If people cannot tell whose side you are on or can't distinguish you from the rest of the crowd, how can you possibly present yourself as a living witness?

Now it all boils down to whether or not you believe ion what the Bible has to say:

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

God is the same to day, yesterday and forever, right? what was an abomination all those centuries ago is still an abomination to Him today. I do not see how this verse can be misinterpreted by anyone. It is as plain as the nose on my face.

Ladies, if you wear your hair cropped short, and you dress in pants, then from a distance you may look like the women in the latest fashion magazines, but if you wear your hair long, and you wear a modest dress, then from a distance you will certainly look different from the rest of the world and people will be able to see whose side you are on.

:wvlf"

Good comments sister! It is simply a matter of "will ya obey God even when you don't like it, when ya don't agree, when ya don't understand why?" Will ya surrender all? Does all include your clothing or not? OK God...you save me but leave my life alone...thats mine... and oh... yes, stay out of my closet, thats mine.... ohh and don't open the movie cabinet and uhh, stay out of the wine cabinet too.... yes Lord I love you, but would you just mind not changing me any? Yes, Lord...you can wash me clean inside, but lets leave the outside for the rapture, I want to fit in here till then.... oh, hey Lord, remind me, what were the words to that hymn? oh oh yeah I remember.... I surrender all.....I surrender all...all to Jesus I surrender....

[rancher824]

May I differ with whomever said it was during Roman history that trousers came about? Refer to Ex 28:42, Deut 22:5, Ex 39:28-29, Lev 6:10.... Those predate the Roman empire by what, like 2000 yrs?

1. The premise that men & women dressed the same is rather humorous in light of the fact that Bible says God himself specified it an Abomination for such to be done. Rather however contrary to popular argument, they've never been the same nor dressed the same since God dressed them in the Garden.

2. Saying Robes are robes and they all looked the same, is like saying shoes are shoes and they all looked the same.... only NOT.

I'll let everyone fight with the modesty argument, but the pants (trousers / breeches / britches / pants) issue is unquestionably a male clothing item in the Bible. Sorry ladies..... no offense meant. Shall I put the noose on myself or would you all like to do it for me? :pray

Sorry, I do not want in on the argument about if women can or cannot wear slacks. But I feal I should answer this post. Please look closely to the verses given. First off, I will give a weak argument. The verses in Ex and Lev are not speaking of men in general, but the priest. So is it saying that other men must wear breeches?? Or are they something like the catholics use their backwards collars to stand out as a "priest"?? Then to my main argument. Look closely at the things of the priests clothing. They include a robe. look at the description of the breeches "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach." They do not even cover the knee. If this is what they were wearing outwardly, that would mean it is alright for men to wear shorts. But they were not wearing them outwardly, but under their robes. Know you said that breeches are unquestionably a male clothing, correct. What do you call something that is worn under the clothing?? Does this mean the ladies are to wear nothing under their dresses??? As I say, I am note arguing as to women and slacks. I am arguing that the breeches argument takes us to places we realy do not want to go!!!! If I am wrong show me how they are not undergarments.
On your statement number 2. You say the argument of "robes are robes" is not allowing for mens robes and womens robes, like shoes. But are you not doing the same with pants are pants??

[kevinmiller]

But here's a thought - Britches = pants. Is that a given blatantly obvious issue or do we gotta hash that too? Next, britches only appear on men in scripture which kinda makes'em fall into that "pertaineth unto the man" catagory in Deut 22 {rather obvious}.

Britches, as Rancher pointed out, were most likely underwear, since they were used to cover their "nakedness" and were worn under their normal clothing. Does that mean that we should only wear pants under long robes? But wait, men and women wore robes, right? So are robes sinful because they are unisex clothing? No, because there was a distinction in the robes between that of a man's and that of a woman's, just like one could easily tell the difference between a man's pair of pants and a woman's pair of pants. The principle of not wearing what pertains to the opposite sex was cross-dressing.

So, my question is, since most women and unstudied preachers claim pants on women is no longer a sin because thats old testament / law, why do those same folk run screaming to Granddaddy Moses's system to get one of those fancy old divorces in accordance with the law? Remembering of course that Jesus said "fornication" (Deut 22:13-21 pre-marital sex) justifies divorce and that from the beginning it was not "always so".... in other words, God never intended it. Boy that'll start a nice brawl won't it? :cool I note that the disciples, upon hearing just how really harsh God regarded the matter, said "man...better off to not get married at all".

The bolded part is something that has been bothering me in your posting. I don't think it's right to assume that, because a person came to a different conclusion than you, that they are unstudied. There are a lot of educated people in this world that take opposite sides of issues. Obama is a very well educated man, he graduated from Harvard. Yet, he has different views on many issues than myself. Does that make him uneducated? No, it means he came to a different conclusion than I did. The truth is, our views are usually affected early on by influences around us, assumptions, and teachers in our lives. Did you come to these conclusions by simply starting with no assumed ideas and studying the Bible from cover to cover? I doubt it. You probably had a preacher tell you or some other Baptist teacher who gave you the ideas and then found his Scripture to back up what he had been taught.

Nope.... you got preachers, liberals, backslidders, unlearned, unstudied and just plain "ain't gonna submitters" in the fray on one side. On the other you got that big hairy piece of God's word over there saying Men can't wear womens clothes and women can't wear mens clothes and them that do so are an abomination..... not exactly the casual indifference we take to it today I'd say. ABOMINATION.... shewh....pretty hard to confuse that one eh? (Deut 22:5)

Again, please refer to what I wrote above. It is very rude to assume that someone who takes a different position on this than you is somehow less Christian, backslidden, uneducated, or liberal.

But the ladies don't like it, it ain't cool in these last 500 yrs fashionably speaking, so the world says "no God" and then the liberal Christians follow the chant "no God we won't put up with that"

Or maybe they studied it out and came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with pants according to Scripture. Have you ever talked to a lady who wears pants to find out what she thinks about it? Do you have any kind of previous experience to know that the above quote is indicative of a woman's view who wears pants or are you just shooting from the lip?

[Anon]

:hide (Leaves discussion)

[bzmomo7]

:hide (Leaves discussion)

Is there any more room under that chair?? :hide

[Anon]

Is there any more room under that chair?? :hide

*scooting over*

Come on in....

[bzmomo7]

*scooting over*

Come on in....

*scrambles for cover*
Bring any cake with ya? We could be stuck under here awhile..........the last time they went on for 53 pages didn't they?

[Anon]

*scrambles for cover*
Bring any cake with ya? We could be stuck under here awhile..........the last time they went on for 53 pages didn't they?

:lol:

[PastorHarrison]

Sorry, I do not want in on the argument about if women can or cannot wear slacks. But I feal I should answer this post. Please look closely to the verses given. First off, I will give a weak argument. The verses in Ex and Lev are not speaking of men in general, but the priest. So is it saying that other men must wear breeches?? Or are they something like the catholics use their backwards collars to stand out as a "priest"?? Then to my main argument. Look closely at the things of the priests clothing. They include a robe. look at the description of the breeches "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach." They do not even cover the knee. If this is what they were wearing outwardly, that would mean it is alright for men to wear shorts. But they were not wearing them outwardly, but under their robes. Know you said that breeches are unquestionably a male clothing, correct. What do you call something that is worn under the clothing?? Does this mean the ladies are to wear nothing under their dresses??? As I say, I am note arguing as to women and slacks. I am arguing that the breeches argument takes us to places we realy do not want to go!!!! If I am wrong show me how they are not undergarments.
On your statement number 2. You say the argument of "robes are robes" is not allowing for mens robes and womens robes, like shoes. But are you not doing the same with pants are pants??

I'll give ya this.... talking about women not being surrendered to God in pants is for sure one place many, many Christians don't want to discuss! As for the undies contention - sure, that could be argued...and of course if it couldn't there'd be some other loop hole, but we've still got one itsy weencie glitch in the loop-hole and that is -- BRITCHES are mentioned EXCLUSIVELY pertaining to men (i.e. males).

2. If those men being priests is our loophole, then we miss the priesthood of men in the house, priesthood of men in the church on and on and on..... Kinda smacks of Rom 14:22 to me (personally).

3. Sure... men's garments / women's garments were different, thats the whole discussion isn't it?

My observation is still that putting women in pants still ends ya up dismantling the word of God and setting an Abomination at naught. I don't know, I am inclined to think that men and women showing their undies wasn't the abomination God was addressing - but hey, thats me.

[PastorHarrison]

Actually yes, my wife & daughter, grandmother, aunts, sister all wore pants all their lives...and I saw nothing wrong with it for a long time...then I studied it, on my own, whole Bible...cover to cover as you say (but I imagine you doubt it right?).
As for what women in pants think about women in pants, it really doesn't make any difference in the least. We should be concerned more with what God thinks about it. When my wife and daughter and I got this in God's order - the pants went to the dump. Before that however I shared your position and defended it too.... I surrender all.....remember.

[PastorHarrison]

I support the ladies who have the guts to put on a modest dress and walk out into this world of "take it all off" mentality! I support the ladies who love God and dress according to his standards and not Hollywood's or France's standard. I say bravo to the ladies with the courage to ignore foolish men and women, carnal preachers and apostate churches that laugh at them, point at them, scoff and demean and insult them and call them religious zealots!

It takes courage for them to dress right in these days..... it takes guts to stay with it!

The ladies face something we men don't have to....we don't suffer ridicule for Jesus' sake for how we dress. The ladies who do, could do some testifying here if they had time and inclination. Make us men ashamed of our selves for hard-timing them about it too.