Modest appearal

[IM4given]

Let's look at the things God hates: (yeah I know the Bible is just chock-a-block full of HATE SPEECH these days! :roll )

Proverbs 6
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

(I have seen people take the seventh thing "soweth discord among brethren" to squelch all dissent against the other six - now that is not right is it?)

Here is some more:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

(does God still continue to hate this? Is God REALLY the same yesterday today and forever?)

Deuteronomy 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
Deuteronomy 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

(How many people do you know have little Buddah's in their yards to accent their chinese zen garden? Or maybe have some other goddess effigy on their coffee table because it matches their decor? Rubbish - God still hates such things, if he is REALLY the same yesterday, today and forever.)

Leviticus
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer

[Pastorj]

Let me state that no one is throwing out any Bible passage. In order to hold to something as a Biblical conviction and not just a personal preference, Scripture must be clear on that subject.

We have Deut. 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.

Pastor Harrison's only ascertation that proves women should not wear pants is that the priest wore britches under their outer garments.

I stated previously, in order to use this verse, one must prove that pants are "Men's" clothing. If we use the argument above, then all of you women who wear culottes are in sin, because they orginated as "men's" clothing also.

What the Bible is teaching in this passage is distinction. For much of time, there was a distinction between men's and women's clothes in every culture. Remember, we can't just look at American culture. The Bible covers every generation and culture, even when culture changes. Many will now use the verse that God doesn't change and that is true. However, application of Scripture most certainly changes depending on the culture and generation you are in. How an American in 2008 would apply a passage might be different than someone living in the Phillippines or Africa. How an Amerian in 2008 applies Scripture could be different than how an American in 1776 would apply it. Unfortunately, in recent years, men's and women's clothing has become increasingly similar.

In Bible times, both men and women wore robes. These robes were distinctly different in their appearance. There was no wondering whether someone was male or female. Go to the mall and you will have a difficulty determining who are the men and who the women are. Women are to dress so that people will know they are women and men should dress so that people will know they are men. No matter the culture or generation.

What else does the Bible teach about this subject:

1 Tim. 2:9-10 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Here the Bible is clearly teaching that the clothes they wear should be "Modest". I don't have time to fully develop this, but your welcome to study it out. To be considered modest, you should have yourself covered in clothes from the neckline to the knees. Above your thigh is considered naked. Women's dress should not only be modest, but humble in appearance. God also covers hair, jewelry and other topics, but this thread is about clothes.

The two principles of distinction and modesty will apply to every generation and every culture. The issue is not about pants. If it were, God would have said in Deut. that women should not wear pants and men should not wear dresses.

[IM4given]

This is a historical picture of the very first pantsuit worn in America. This is Amelia Bloomer - and in case any of you are wondering - she was a leading activist in the Women's Liberation Movement (yes one of those women who believed women should look like and act like men and be their equals - if not BETTERS). Todays modern "ladies pant suits" have Grandma Amelia to thank. But Bloomers, as that style was called, did not really catch on (even though it is " modest" by our standards) - it wasn't until Hollyweird came along in the 20th century and Hollywood actresses started wearing men's suits that the Women's Lib movement really caught ahold of our society. Even then it was considered "shocking" for a woman to parade about town in her men's attire. But somehow eventually the shock wore off, until now it is quite "shocking" to see women wearing modest dresses again - like women did throughout most of history.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

I just wonder why modest = 3 piece suit. Many women find men overwhelmingly more attractive in a suit are those of you that sport these 3 piece suits on Sunday providing some with a stumbling block? Modest is modest not dressed to the tilt it is not a contest to get GOD's attention.

I agree that we should not dress to draw the attention of others. But I do believe that we are ambassadors for Christ and that means in our dress as well as every other aspect of our lives.

[John81]

If we are speaking of only modesty then I must say that I've see women (Christian women) wearing women's slacks with a nice flowing blouse which hangs down well below the waste (completely covering the buttocks area, and more in some cases) which were indeed modest.

They were obviously dressed as women and they were modest in appearance.

[IM4given]

That was my point John, both Ms. Bloom and Ms. Hepburn were dressed "modestly" - i.e. they had their bare skin covered, but they chose to wear clothing that was contrary to what the scriptures say - they wore that which pertaineth to men - and they were quite proud of their new fashionable look I might add. Just because neither one of them was struck down by a bolt of lightening does not make what they were doing okay with God. Since then scores of women Christians have copied this look (but not so much until the past 20 years or so) - and I think it is but one more foothold the Devil has gotten into our society as a whole. If you just go back one generation and look at what most women wore in the 60s - you will see MOSTLY dresses. They wore them because they were obedient to the scriptures. The peace, love, dope crowd were as ungodly as humans can be and they wore clothing to show the rest of the word their rebellion to "the establishment" and to God.

[John81]

If I recall correctly, Hepburn was wearing actual mens suits and they were not wore in a modest manner. Marlene Deitrich (and others) wore such as well and they were wore in a manner to look sexy while they attempted to prove they were the equal (or betters) of men.

The women I was referring to were wearing women's slacks, obviously not men's pants, and as far as one could tell, they were not form fitting in the least. As well, the blouses the women wore hung below the buttocks, providing further modesty for that area, and the blouses were of modest design so as no improper upper body skin was showing and they were not form fitting at all. These women were obviously not trying to look sexy nor were they trying to look like men.

[kevinmiller]

Co-ed pool events seem to be much more popular and acceptable among Christians now as well and the swimsuits are anything but modest (for both male and female).

Would you have a problem with men and women swimming together if their swimsuits were modest?

[bzmomo7]

That was my point John' date=' both Ms. Bloom and Ms. Hepburn were dressed "modestly" - i.e. they had their bare skin covered, but they chose to wear clothing that was contrary to what the scriptures say - they wore that which pertaineth to men - and they were quite proud of their new fashionable look I might add. Just because neither one of them was struck down by a bolt of lightening does not make what they were doing okay with God. Since then scores of women Christians have copied this look (but not so much until the past 20 years or so) - and I think it is but one more foothold the Devil has gotten into our society as a whole. If you just go back one generation and look at what most women wore in the 60s - you will see MOSTLY dresses. They wore them because they were obedient to the scriptures. The peace, love, dope crowd were as ungodly as humans can be and they wore clothing to show the rest of the word their rebellion to "the establishment" and to God.[/quote']

I would argue that women's clothing has been going downhill a lot longer than that. I once heard a woman at my old church brag about these wonderful little children's books that she'd found at the used book store we were at. (I'm not trying to pick on her here.......I really liked her a lot, but the story illustrates my point) The books were old, and portrayed all women and little girls in skirts. I was new to the IFB movement and as I looked at the books the first thing I noticed was not the dresses, but how short they were and how much of the little girls legs were showing.....well above the knees. I think that women may well have been wearing skirts and dresses primarily in the 60's, but if they allowed the little girls to wear their dresses shorter than their knees then they were still immodest, and that is just as bad as wearing pants; though not an excuse to wear pants, either. I would post Scripture on why dresses need to be down to the knee but I can't seem to find the Scripture I'm thinking of. Something about uncovering of the thigh being nakedness or something like that......anyone know where that one is? I remember reading it and saying to myself, "Aha! THAT is where that standard of knee length dresses came from! It needs to cover the thigh." I'd better go back under my chair before I get myself in trouble again. :hide

[Pastorj]

That was my point John' date=' both Ms. Bloom and Ms. Hepburn were dressed "modestly" - i.e. they had their bare skin covered, but they chose to wear clothing that was contrary to what the scriptures say - they wore that which pertaineth to men - [/quote']

No man would dare to be caught in what she was wearing. She may have been doing it with a rebellious attitude, but bloomers would be distinctly a woman's piece of clothing and would also be modest, which is what Scripture requires. Her motives are obviously wrong, but if a woman wanted to wear bloomers today, it would not be a sin. They might look ugly, but so be it.

[Anon]

Bloomers are underwear.

[pneu-engine]

Bloomers are underwear.

Yes, they are, and that is a trend today amongst the "fashionable" women. ...to wear nothing but that which classifies as underwear.

[trc123]

Yes, they are, and that is a trend today amongst the "fashionable" women. ...to wear nothing but that which classifies as underwear.

So, do you think there were multiple layers of clothing or most likely just one garment layer during Abraham's day?

[John81]

Would you have a problem with men and women swimming together if their swimsuits were modest?

I see by my quote that I failed to mention I was talking about youth co-ed pool events, which is what I was originally meaning. With their hormones already in overdrive, in a world saturated with sexual messages, these co-ed youth are having pool parties wearing very immodest swimwear.

As to your question, it would likely depend upon the circumstances, who was involved, where and if the swimsuits were truly modest.

[John81]

I would argue that women's clothing has been going downhill a lot longer than that. I once heard a woman at my old church brag about these wonderful little children's books that she'd found at the used book store we were at. (I'm not trying to pick on her here.......I really liked her a lot, but the story illustrates my point) The books were old, and portrayed all women and little girls in skirts. I was new to the IFB movement and as I looked at the books the first thing I noticed was not the dresses, but how short they were and how much of the little girls legs were showing.....well above the knees. I think that women may well have been wearing skirts and dresses primarily in the 60's, but if they allowed the little girls to wear their dresses shorter than their knees then they were still immodest, and that is just as bad as wearing pants; though not an excuse to wear pants, either. I would post Scripture on why dresses need to be down to the knee but I can't seem to find the Scripture I'm thinking of. Something about uncovering of the thigh being nakedness or something like that......anyone know where that one is? I remember reading it and saying to myself, "Aha! THAT is where that standard of knee length dresses came from! It needs to cover the thigh." I'd better go back under my chair before I get myself in trouble again. :hide

This is part of what I was talking about in a previous post. I notice many women within the IFB churches who wear short skirts. Sometimes they are just above the knee, but (as you know) such go up when sitting. Some of these shorter skirts are also very form fitting (how do women walk in those things!) too and such tend to ride up even more than a more flowing skirt.

Along with this seems to be a trend to wear blouses and such that, while they cover the body, they are very form fitting, and thus not modest.

Off topic to an extent, but I've noticed in many gatherings of IFB women that a lot of the women dressed like this also have short hair, sometimes very short. Of course, this may not actually be off topic as oftentimes one sin leads to another.