Members DaveW Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don't disagree with your premise - but I know some who are more concerned with conformity that conversion (if you will excuse the alliteration ) These are such that make whited sepulchres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wretched Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Curious if anyone here has an example in the apparel differences between men and women when Deuteronomy was penned? Curious why one would think Deuteronomy would apply to your Christian walk during this time of the Gospel of Grace? Shifting gears a little from the above. My contention with women's clothing and modesty is far more in the fit of the clothes and not the type of clothes. Why I am just as fully capable of lusting after a women in a snuggly fitted dress/skirt as I am when she wears a snuggly fitted pair of jeans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GraceSaved Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Adam and Eve wore fig leaves and coats of skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Adam and Eve wore fig leaves and coats of skins. But they were of course "his" and "hers" designs. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members prophet1 Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Curious if anyone here has an example in the apparel differences between men and women when Deuteronomy was penned? Curious why one would think Deuteronomy would apply to your Christian walk during this time of the Gospel of Grace? Shifting gears a little from the above. My contention with women's clothing and modesty is far more in the fit of the clothes and not the type of clothes. Why I am just as fully capable of lusting after a women in a snuggly fitted dress/skirt as I am when she wears a snuggly fitted pair of jeansDepends. Do you want the Renaissance painter's version, or do you want to look at what they still wear now, in the Middle East? Anishinaabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wretched Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Depends. Do you want the Renaissance painter's version, or do you want to look at what they still wear now, in the Middle East? Anishinaabe I suspect it is neither but don't know for sure, curious if anyone would have a reliable and accurate description. I am guessing there was not much difference and seriously doubt pants even existed but am not sure so a sincere question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 I've read and heard pastors preach about the difference between the robe men wore and robe women wore was more a matter of ornamentation than anything else. The robes themselves were basically the same. In more modern terms it would be akin to a married couple having two robes of identical style, but hers is pink with a flower design and his is camouflage with a deer design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 I wouldn't know; never seen a 2000 year old set of his and hers robes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Most of these arguments are very worn and tiresome. It is not unusual to use a good thing the wrong way. Of course the work that God does in our hearts will result in changes on the outside. Pastors have a responsibility to reprove, rebuke, and exhort; if these conflict with beliefs inside someone's home, so be it. My emphasis is on the connection with feminism. Modesty is a very broad term with more than one application, and context determines the exact application. Feminism is by no means a dead movement even though younger women may be participating unwittingly. My point here is that it is our job as preachers is to lay open before people what is happening so they do not walk in darkness. Witnessing does not make a sinner lost, it warns him that he is lost and presents an alternative. It is our job to confront and expose sin to the end that we can bring people to repentance. I am reading your responses with great interest. Thank you. You should preach against all types of sin, including immodest dress. And you should encourage and exhort. Doing so will HELP the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeffrey Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 How did this ever get to be an issue to begin with? Should we accept defeat in this battle? Is this a dead issue or an issue of the past? Before the fight began in America the only issue we had to preach on much was modesty. The idea of a woman wearing pants was as unthinkable to the church member as a man wearing a dress. All a pastor had to preach was that it is an abomination for a man or woman to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender, and the issue was settled. What changed? Who changed? Somewhere the pressure from carnal women in the church became more than the preachers could survive. Somewhere in time church members began deciding to get up and walk out of church services at such offensive preaching. Somewhere church members decided to move their membership over this one subject. Somewhere it became too costly for preachers to defend any longer. Somewhere it became impossible for a pastor to get a church unless he would let go of his conviction. How did this happen? When did right preaching become wrong? When did Godly standards become legalism? Somehow we have been conned into thinking that if these last few preachers will just drop the issue, it will just go away. Our US Attorney General is taking the same approach to homosexual marriage. Eric Holder has encouraged state attorneys general not to defend their states' gay marriage bans in hopes that they will go the way of the old laws which are still on many state's books regarding adultery and fornication. But right and wrong do not just fade away with the memories of past generations. God still lives, and He still makes the rules. God will hold me accountable for what I neglect to preach just as He will hold you accountable for what you neglect to heed. Do the arguments not make sense anymore? Of course they do; we are just willing to suspend them in favor of being accepted by the lost we seek to save. The ungodly have made a very successful run at blurring the distinction between gender specific garments. Women's garments are more masculine and men's garments are more feminine than ever. That is by design, a design to prove God wrong about the differences between the roles of men and women. I know the masses do not move by their own design, but they are being moved by someone's design. Why do we want to surrender this argument to the world so badly? Should we not be more concerned than we are about defending God's position regarding the roles of men and women? The same arguments are made here that are made with music about garments or genres being neutral. The professionals in both the design and music worlds both acknowledge that this is not true. Why have church members created this argument for themselves? It is to justify their desire to be worldly without leaving the church. Did we get beaten or did we surrender? Can we reclaim this ground? For the sake of all the church members who cannot figure out why their families are falling apart, can we not help them to reclaim their proper roles at home and begin to repair the broken structures of their families? What is the connection? Different clothes emphasize the differences between the genders. God made an issue of that, so it must be important to him. That's right! God made an issue out of gender-specific clothing, because it is important to acknowledge to differences between the genders and the roles that He designed for them. That is why the devil wants to minimize the contrast. Do we want to be on the wrong side of that? Is it that important? The modern independent, fundamental church has lost most of its influence, and the presence of God's power is less prevalent than the presence of pride. In my area of the country (northern WV) there is no understanding among church members of how to salvage or preserve the Christian home. Every man and woman does that which is right in his own eyes and excuses the results because everyone seems to be going through these struggles these days. The point is that we should not be, and we do not have to be. Does it all hinge on what the women are wearing? No, it hinges on an attitude of submission to God's idea of what our roles are. Men refuse to submit to their role in leading, and women rebel against the men. The fact that pants have become the common garment is the evidence that we have surrendered to the world whether on purpose or not. It is a symbol of the success of the feminist movement in America. If you do not believe this, try changing into a dress from now on and see what reaction you get, ladies. What do I think should happen? What do you think should happen? What should you do about this? You give up at Fighting fundamental Forum, so you brought the debate here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeffrey Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 The obedience of a child of God is not measured merely by what clothing we wear, but by our Christian walk - conversation - which includes what we wear. So if a woman wears a "modest dress" and is a quite, meek woman, but her heart is far from God, is she still OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Jeff, that's not what salyan said - not even close. ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeffrey Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Jeff, that's not what salyan said - not even close. ...... Focus seems to be what a woman wears is a measure of her spirituality,.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ukulelemike Posted February 27, 2014 Moderators Share Posted February 27, 2014 I think the main issue here, in the cothing area, is that a woman should mlook like a woman, and a man like a man. One of the reasons a man should have short hair and a woman long hair. Now, many of the styles are clearly feminine and some are clearly masculine, but nowadays there are many that seem to cross genders; women wear jeans and t-shirts and men wear high-water hip huggers with no socks and tiny, slipper-like shoes. So, I am not totally against women's pants, so long as they are not form-fitting or masculine. Nor am I against a man in a kilt, though it should be past the knees, and worn with a proper Prince Charlie, so he is clearly male. Or a great kilt. Again, men should mlook likie men, women like women. My wife wears only dresses and skirts-completely her choice, one she made actualy before she was saved at the urging of her gay friend, believe it or not. She has had trouble finding nursing dresses to wear at her job at a nursing home, because its almost all scrubs anymore. She was making her own with the various scrub materials, but her boss told her she could ony wear dresses if they were white. So what a trial finding them for her, and she's a big girl, so that makes it even harder. And even when she does, they are too short. But she is strong in her conviction. She even wears dresses during her farm work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted February 27, 2014 Members Share Posted February 27, 2014 Focus seems to be what a woman wears is a measure of her spirituality,.. If she knows better it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.