Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So, are you making the statement that womens slacks are wrong? Coullottes? Skirts...I've seen them long, short and micro-mini this past week. Modest apparel doesn't necessarily rule slacks out. Just looking for clarification. Thanks.

It was meant "in general". If the whatever the clothes make one look "provocative", especially with intent, then yeah, I'm saying it's wrong to dress in such a way as to knowingly look provocative to the opposite sex.

But as to what Bro Scott just mentioned; it is a different matter. I say that if, in our culture, "pants" have been historically men's wear and "skirts" or dresses were traditionally women's then yes, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is "cross dressing" or whatever you want to call it. In my opinion, that has contributed to the feminization of our men and the masculinization of our women because this and other factors have caused the distinctions of what it means to live, look, dress and act like a man to be blurred to say the least,. No wonder we have so many effeminates and homosexuals. But, again, that's another subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here is a very serious set of questions on the matter of standards in general (and thus also on the matter of standards in the realm of clothing) --

Is it possible for us to mandate a "standard" in a given area (not simply for our own behavior, but over the behavior of others) that is more strict than the Lord our God Himself would mandate?

Is it possible for us to mandate such a "stricter standard" than the Lord our God, and even base that standard on principles from God's own Word?

If it is possible for us to so mandate such a "stricter standard" than the Lord our God, how bad of a thing is it for us to do?

(Note: Consider 1 Timothy 4:1-3 -- "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; fobidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

It was meant "in general". If the whatever the clothes make one look "provocative", especially with intent, then yeah, I'm saying it's wrong to dress in such a way as to knowingly look provocative to the opposite sex.

But as to what Bro Scott just mentioned; it is a different matter. I say that if, in our culture, "pants" have been historically men's wear and "skirts" or dresses were traditionally women's then yes, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is "cross dressing" or whatever you want to call it. In my opinion, that has contributed to the feminization of our men and the masculinization of our women because this and other factors have caused the distinctions of what it means to live, look, dress and act like a man to be blurred to say the least,. No wonder we have so many effeminates and homosexuals. But, again, that's another subject.

 

I can agree with that to a point. In the beginning, when women started wearing pants, it was usually utilitarian...so they could work their land, ride their horses in a manner that was more efficient than side-saddle. The pants began to change, and eventually had two distinct styles...one for women with different buttoning, fitting, etc. I do agree, however that it was the beginning of the women becoming more masculine and the men becoming more effeminant. Sad, really. But, in and of themselves, the slacks are not sinful. Depends upon the way they do or don't reveal the human form. I've seen some this past week that looked like the people wearing them (both men and women) were poured into them rather than having them put on. Remember, I was raised with my parents owning a Western store, promoting womens and mens jeans and styles. This was a huge point of contention for me when I was at Fellowship Baptist College in E. Peoria, Il and Christian Brothers Western Store tried to hire some of the students from the college. They were barred because "the owners wives wore tight jeans and looked like sluts." This was uncalled for on the part of the administration of the college and the pastor of the church, as it wasn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 Seems the gang that hollers the most about POW are pentecostals. one of the most-legalistic pseudo-quasi-Christian gangs around.

  Yeah, I know there are many branches of pentecostals, but most are more-concerned with "speaking in tongues", etc. than steering people to Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My Baptist pastor friend was once a Holiness preacher and his wife's Holiness church had two women preachers who would screech at the same time (literally, they would preach at the same time hollering over each other) during the service and would constantly preach against the evil of pants on women while usurping the pulpit.

They also would screech:

1) No toes.

2) No hose.

3) No  shows.

Women would go to hell if they wore toeless shoes or wore pantyhose and everyone would go to hell if they watched TV or went to a movie theater. 

That's all the bible they knew 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

My personal preference is dresses and skirts: I find them to be much more feminine and womanly. My wife, bless her, never wore pants in her adult life, even when working the farm, milking the goats, slaughtering animals, whatever. In winter she might wear sweatpants under her skirt, but that was it. Oddly, it was, before she was saved, a homosexual friend that convinced her that wearing dresses and skirts was more womanly.  

But again, while we do see the issue of men not wearing that which pertains to a woman, and vise-versa, we do need to consider how that fully plays out. Proper pants, looser-fitting, comfortable and neat, can be fine on a woman in the right circumstances and times. But it is true that in most societies, for hundreds of years, pants have generally been considered men's clothing, and dresses, women's clothing.  I believe we ought to seriously consider: What will best bring honor to God in my decisions? How far should the gap be made between male and female in the area of clothes, considering God created us male and female and expects us to show that clearly in all areas, including hair length and clothing styles. What will glorify God, not please my flesh?, that is what the real question is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

My personal preference is dresses and skirts: I find them to be much more feminine and womanly. My wife, bless her, never wore pants in her adult life, even when working the farm, milking the goats, slaughtering animals, whatever. In winter she might wear sweatpants under her skirt, but that was it. Oddly, it was, before she was saved, a homosexual friend that convinced her that wearing dresses and skirts was more womanly.  

But again, while we do see the issue of men not wearing that which pertains to a woman, and vise-versa, we do need to consider how that fully plays out. Proper pants, looser-fitting, comfortable and neat, can be fine on a woman in the right circumstances and times. But it is true that in most societies, for hundreds of years, pants have generally been considered men's clothing, and dresses, women's clothing.  I believe we ought to seriously consider: What will best bring honor to God in my decisions? How far should the gap be made between male and female in the area of clothes, considering God created us male and female and expects us to show that clearly in all areas, including hair length and clothing styles. What will glorify God, not please my flesh?, that is what the real question is.

This is one area that my wife and I agreed on years ago. I would PREFER she wear dresses and skirts, but the jobs we had didn't allow for her to do that at all times. As we got older because of certain physical challenges after her accident in 2015, she has worn nothing but jeans. They're proper fitting, and that is fine by me. Outside of that, we don't believe it's anyone else's call. We don't see anything wrong with it, and if I wanted her to, I'm sure she would put on a dress if she still owned one that wasn't pretty much ruined by being in storage. We could always buy one. Even in our church, women wear mostly slacks or jeans. Some do get pretty tight/revealing, and sometimes there has to be something said about it. But, it's usually kept to a minimum. I've yet to see a man come in wearing a dress...though we have had a homosexual couple come a couple of times, and one was dressed more "feminine" than most of us men were used to seeing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
Guest Anonymous
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2018 at 3:48 PM, Katherine Solarte said:

The question that I would like to raise is whether or not it is considered sinful for Christian women to wear pants, and why that is the case.

The controversy within this community regarding women's apparel has manifested itself countless of times whether it be in small local churches, such as my own, or large scale conventions and conferences where the attire of an individual, typically a woman's, is criticized or condemned. Personally, I believe that one should place more emphasis on behavior/actions and our faith than in the triviality of appearances. However, I am aware of the fervent stance that many of us have regarding this issue and I would like to hear/see our opinions on the matter, and whether they differ at all.

I found this old post in the basement and found it very interesting. I personally believe that a woman looks beautiful in a dress, the length is important, when going to church, maybe at home a little shorter will be OK for me, but those that wear pants all the time, well they look nice, but all the time it does not. This is my personal opinion, humble opinion.

dress better disney princess GIF by Disney

Edited by TheGloryLand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you care about what God says, you can study out what type of clothes they wore in the Bible (the men in Moses time wore breeches, which are pants - only some wore robes; there was never a unisex robe they all wore), and also the history of clothes/pants during the last hundred plus years - where they came from, when women started wearing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

I have studied what type of clothes they wore throughout the time of the Old Testament; and in all five cases wherein breeches are mentioned, they are a type of underwear, NOT outerwear.  In all five cases they are a part of the holy garments of the High Priest of Israel, which he was to wear ONLY when he was engaging in his holy service.  For the outerwear of the High Priest, the garment which God Himself designed for the High Priest included the "skirt" of his robe for the lower half of his body. (See Psalm 133:2)  In fact, an interesting study throughout the Old Testament is to consider who all wore a "skirt."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Skirt, as used in the Bible, means the edge of a garment - not a skirt like women wear today.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary states this about Breeches:

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers.

Also, the word is related to britches - which is also pants. Even (for the sake of the argument) it referred to undergarments - they were undergarments ONLY certain men were to wear, not women. And if this is what turned into britches, trowsers, pants (as history does show), then they are men's clothing, according to the Bible and therefore an abomination for women to wear.

Again, God is not going to have a unisex garment - such as robes - for everyone to wear (and only SOME PEOPLE wore robes in the Bible - not like in a supposed Biblical movie where everyone is wearing them), and then command this:

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.

And, again, for the sake of the argument, if there was some unisex garment that was created by mankind to wear somewhere along the way, that would contradict God's Word (the word abomination signifies a greater sin against God than other sins, and those sins that are abominable to Him were never done away with in the sense that those commands no longer apply today), AND therefore should be avoided by children of God today - or else those that ARE blurring those lines and wearing unisex clothing or clothing intended originally for the opposite gender are committing an abomination today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2022 at 1:21 PM, Jerry said:

Skirt, as used in the Bible, means the edge of a garment - not a skirt like women wear today.

"Skirt," according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, means --

1.  "The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Samuel 15:17"
2.  "The edge of any part of dress."
3.  "Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town."
4.  "A woman's garment like a petticoat."
5.  "The diaphragm or midriff in animals.

Of these definitions three of them relate to a type or part of clothing -- #1, #2, & #3.  In relation to a robe type garment, definition #1 & #2 would have application.  Now, all of the references to a "skirt" in the Old Testament are as follows:

Deuteronomy 22:30 -- "A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt." (Man's wear)

Deuteronomy 27:20 -- "Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Man's wear)

Ruth 3:9 -- "And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Man's wear)

1 Samuel 15:27 -- "And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent." (Man's wear)

1 Samuel 24:4-5 -- "And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt." (Man's wear)

1 Samuel 24:11 -- "Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it." (Man's wear)

Psalm 133:2 -- "It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments." (High Priest's wear, fashioned by God Himself)

Jeremiah 2:34 -- "Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Jeremiah 13:22 -- "And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Jeremiah 13:26 -- "Therefore will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Lamentations 1:9 -- "Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the nation of Israel is represented as a woman)

Ezekiel 5:3 -- "Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts." (Man's wear, that of the prophet himself)

Ezekial 16:8 -- "Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." (God's wear, as this is a portrayal of God Himself)

Nahum 3:5 -- "Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame." (Woman's wear, by implication in that the city of Nineveh is represented as a woman)

Haggai 2:12 -- "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No." (Priest's wear)

Zechariah 8:23 -- "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Man's wear, concerning Jewish men during the Millennial Kingdom of our Lord)

Now, as per each context, it does not seem accurate to claim that in every one of these cases the word "skirt(s)" simply means the hem or fringe.  This may be accurate for some of the above cases, but it does not at all seem accurate for all of the above cases.  Furthermore, by definition any reference to robe-wear implies skirt-wear, since a robe includes an open bottomed portion below the waist (as per the 1828 Webster's meaning #1 above, which he specifically applied to the passage in 1 Samuel 15).  So, how many references to robe-wear are there in the Holy Scriptures; and who all is portrayed as wearing a robe?  Because every reference to robe-wear is by definition and implication also a reference to skirt-wear.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The word "skirt" is derived from an old German word that does refer to the lower edge or border of a woman's dress. It's also why the word sometimes can be used like "Stop skirting around your responsibilities" or "Outskirts of the city" which suggests the edge.

The word also seems to be etymologically related to the root word used for "shirt" and "tunic".

Of course, the word has changed overtime to refer to the whole garment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In 2 Samuel 6 we find David leaping and dancing before the Lord. He comes home to a very unhappy wife, Michal. She tells him he was shamelessly uncovering himself before the maidens as one of the vain fellows. Now if most men were wearing pants or breeches, how was he uncovering himself? 
in judges 3:16 Ehud strapped a 1 cubit knife under his clothes on his thigh. Now if he was wearing pants and a shirt this would either be impossible to get to, or obvious to all around him. But if he had a robe with a skirt, it would work out nicely. 
you read the description of the garments of Aaron where the linen breeches are mentioned, and you also find a robe. The robe would have hang down to around his knees. So with him climbing the steps, he needed something under the robe for modesty. The breeches were in fact under garments. Now Bro Jerry, if you truly believe these could be undergarments that over time became pants ( I think that’s what you were saying) and that they pertain to men as pants do today, does this also mean you do not believe in women wearing undergarments that would in any way resemble these? I don’t mean this as a vulgar question, but that is the logical conclusion. Also, can you give me historical writings that agree that they did not all wear robes? I know I have heard stories of a Arab man getting something spilt on his robe and someone offering him a clean robe, but he was offended that they offered him a women’s robe. I had a man once tell me that even Wikipedia said that Jews wore pants. I went to the article he provided and a little ways down it said that (and this is not word for word as I don’t want to take the time to look it up) for the last 100 years the Jews have dressed much like the western world, but before that they dressed much like the Bedouin Arabs. Trying to put our culture onto the Jews of old is arrogant. And as has been pointed out, our culture has changed a lot in recent years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rancher824 said:

In 2 Samuel 6 we find David leaping and dancing before the Lord. He comes home to a very unhappy wife, Michal. She tells him he was shamelessly uncovering himself before the maidens as one of the vain fellows. Now if most men were wearing pants or breeches, how was he uncovering himself? 
in judges 3:16 Ehud strapped a 1 cubit knife under his clothes on his thigh. Now if he was wearing pants and a shirt this would either be impossible to get to, or obvious to all around him. But if he had a robe with a skirt, it would work out nicely. 
you read the description of the garments of Aaron where the linen breeches are mentioned, and you also find a robe. The robe would have hang down to around his knees. So with him climbing the steps, he needed something under the robe for modesty. The breeches were in fact under garments. Now Bro Jerry, if you truly believe these could be undergarments that over time became pants ( I think that’s what you were saying) and that they pertain to men as pants do today, does this also mean you do not believe in women wearing undergarments that would in any way resemble these? I don’t mean this as a vulgar question, but that is the logical conclusion. Also, can you give me historical writings that agree that they did not all wear robes? I know I have heard stories of a Arab man getting something spilt on his robe and someone offering him a clean robe, but he was offended that they offered him a women’s robe. I had a man once tell me that even Wikipedia said that Jews wore pants. I went to the article he provided and a little ways down it said that (and this is not word for word as I don’t want to take the time to look it up) for the last 100 years the Jews have dressed much like the western world, but before that they dressed much like the Bedouin Arabs. Trying to put our culture onto the Jews of old is arrogant. And as has been pointed out, our culture has changed a lot in recent years. 

Not to mention Peter mentioning just a loincloth which was probably the only piece of clothing the men wore working in the field. 

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
58 minutes ago, SureWord said:

The word "skirt" is derived from an old German word that does refer to the lower edge or border of a woman's dress. It's also why the word sometimes can be used like "Stop skirting around your responsibilities" or "Outskirts of the city" which suggests the edge.

The word also seems to be etymologically related to the root word used for "shirt" and "tunic".

Actually, the word "skirt" is derived etymologically from the Old Norse word "skyrt," which means "shirt."  Following etymologically back from the Old Norse, we have the following:

Old Norse - skyrt, meaning "shirt"
back to Middle Low German - shorte
back to Old Saxon - skurtia
back to Proto-Germanic - skurtijo, meaning "skirt, apron"
back to Proto-Germanic - skurtaz, meaning "lacking, deficient, short."

Indeed, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary presents the following etymological information:

"Sw. skiorta, a shift or close garment; Dan. skiort, a petticoat; skiorte, a shirt, a shift. These words seem to be from the root of short, from cutting off."

For the sense of "border, edge" (such as in "outskirts," etc.), such a usage we find first recorded in the late 15th century.

However, the most relevant word here is the Hebrew word from which the English is translated, which is the Hebrew word "kanaph."  In its most basic verb form, the Hebrew carries the meaning "to cover, to cover over."  In its noun form, it carries two ideas from this basic verb meaning -- 1. The wing or wings (dual) of a bird; 2. The skirt (edge or extremity) of a garment.  Yet in both of these ideas, the Hebrew always retains the sense of "covering," which is why we find some Biblical contexts wherein the word "skirt" may involve only the hem or fringe, but others wherein the word "skirt" more necessarily encompasses the fullness of the lower portion of the robe-garment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is not a hill I would die on or a hobby horse I am riding (not saying anyone here is saying or implying anything like that - I don't have any specific reason to die-hard debate my opinion/beliefs in this area, beyond stating them in general as the subject comes up). I just offered my opinion on what I had studied out around 20-22 years ago.

But more important than my personal position on this issue is this:

IF the robes were worn by both sexes, where is the distinction that God commands and that is an abomination to Him if it is crossed? Regardless of where we all stand on this, BIBLICALLY, whatever clothing they DID wear 3500 years ago and afterwards was distinct enough for God to say to the men, "Don't wear that - that is a women's garment," and vice versa. However, most people teaching that all wore robes in Bible times do not teach any distinction between them - and any portrayal of robes in tv shows and movies and plays all show basically both sexes as wearing the same general garment. Why would God call it an abomination, stating very clearly it was against Him, and then there not be a CLEAR distinction? There had to be one, even if many cannot see it or understand it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Jerry said:

This is not a hill I would die on or a hobby horse I am riding (not saying anyone here is saying or implying anything like that - I don't have any specific reason to die-hard debate my opinion/beliefs in this area, beyond stating them in general as the subject comes up). I just offered my opinion on what I had studied out around 20-22 years ago.

But more important than my personal position on this issue is this:

IF the robes were worn by both sexes, where is the distinction that God commands and that is an abomination to Him if it is crossed? Regardless of where we all stand on this, BIBLICALLY, whatever clothing they DID wear 3500 years ago and afterwards was distinct enough for God to say to the men, "Don't wear that - that is a women's garment," and vice versa. However, most people teaching that all wore robes in Bible times do not teach any distinction between them - and any portrayal of robes in tv shows and movies and plays all show basically both sexes as wearing the same general garment. Why would God call it an abomination, stating very clearly it was against Him, and then there not be a CLEAR distinction? There had to be one, even if many cannot see it or understand it today.

Maybe all the men wore blue robes and the ladies wore pink? Probably not but I'm with you; there was some kind of distinction. I've seen pictures of "primitive" peoples all over the world and in virtually every one there is a marked distinction between ladies and men's clothes. I mean, for example an Eskimo man's parka looked like a man's parka and visa versa. (I know they're called Inuit now). I guess that would fit in with the verse about people "without the law doing the things of the law by nature"(paraphrased). It's just "natural" for a guy to want to wear guy clothes...or should be. Ok, I ran that rabbit a ways.... 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

What if Deut. 22.5 is not referring strictly to clothing at all? Note the wording and the difference in such, as they pertain to both men and women. Particularly the differences.

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man”   

“neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:“

A "garment", is certainly clothing, but can we say with certainty that "that which pertaieith to a man" is also clothing?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

I would say based on the Hebrew parallel that the same thing is being said for both sides - not to wear the garments pertaining to the other sex.

Not trying to be argumentative, but if you think it has another meaning, it is up to you to state it and show any proof for it. Otherwise, I think the normal/regular interpretation will still stand. But, even if it applies to other things AS WELL, it still certainly directly applies to clothing. God certainly is not saying it is an abomination for a man to wear women's clothing, but it is okay for a women to wear man's clothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...