Featured Pants on Women

And I encourage you to exhort your Christian sisters to dress modestly.

 

I can.

I view the harlot as one willing to use their body for personal gain.

I have witnessed women who would (despite dressed modestly) be provocative and more then one present themself available if the man were inclined.

Women are naturally attracted to men of authority and power, and are aware from their youth the cues used to ensnare.

This in no means gives excuse to any man, but reason to all the more take the Scriptures into every situation and live in the Spirit so as not to fulfill the lust of the flesh.

 

Well they didn't wear skirts in the first century so....

 

May I ask what is the purpose of this? Seriously asking. Dresses can be just as immodest as form fitting pants.

 

I have not experienced a person such as that in any of the churches I have attended. I have been more aware of the sleezy man who is lusting for women and looking for one who is vulnerable. I have even observed that sleezy behavior in a pastor. While I don't doubt a woman could be in the church, doing what you claim, I find that men are often to blame for not controlling their lusts and fantasies. Men need to be held accountable.

 

Sure, I'll be happy to be explain, we call it "plain clothing". We do this in my family for a few reasons:

1. To pushback against modern culture and show a clear dichotomy between male and female. Men ought wear men's clothing and women ought wear women's clothing. This idea extends to hair as well.

2. To show a difference from the world and to submit to the verse I quoted above about modesty, plus some other reasons seen here. That's concerning the Amish, we are not Amish, we are Baptists, but we share similar reasons.

No doubt dresses can be revealing. Here are the dresses that are akin to what we use:
-For my daughter: Girls' Basic Dress Pattern Sizes 12345678 | Etsy
I can't find one for my wife online, but she wears loose, high-top, "flowing" dresses as she calls them down to her ankles.

 

My wife got into an almost-heated argument over the issue of POW with her bro's mother-in-law who's some sorta pentecostal, whose women always wear skirts, pastel colors, no makeup or hair cuts. (Plus, they're also KJVO)

One day she mentioned this to my wife, quoting Deut. 22:5. My wife replied that womens' pants don't pertain to men, that she'd worked for years in Corbin, Ltd. in Huntington, WV making both mens' & womens' pants, & that there are many differences between them. And remember, at that time, all the Israelis wore robes, regardless of gender. My wife also asked her why she followed the religious teachings of men, not found in Scripture. The lady became offended & walked off.

I told my wife, "Good that you defended your belief, but please don't hold a grudge. I don't know if that lady's a Christian or not, but let's assume she is, & remember what Paul wrote concerning meat offered to idols; if it seems wrong to you to eat it, don't eat it, But don't criticize those who do eat it because to them, it seems OK. In these matters, God gives different perceptions to different people. Let her stew in her own grease, while we just keep on keepin' on."

That's my view of POW.

 

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”[1 Samuel 16:7]

 

They do. Now deal with your own temptations and stop blaming women for your sinful thoughts.

 

And Lot lived in Sodom.

We are in the world, and its times, not of them.

 

The clothes fashioned by the first, and arguably most enlightened, society in the world did not meet God's standards, so He made them coats from skins. However, their eyes were opened enough to see the first reason for clothing, to shield one's body from the sinful stares of others.

It's not just Christian men as pure in heart as @AustinC that will be looking upon our women.

 

What do you mean "our" women. Unless you have them as slaves and in bondage, they are God’s, not yours.
Most women I know dress in blue jeans and t-shirts, just like the men. It's functional, not provocative.
Men have to take responsibility for their lusting and stop pushing the responsibility on to women. In other words, stop committing the sin of Adam by not taking responsibility for their own lustful actions.

 

Again, I have not observed women trying to be provocative in church. I have seen men, wolves in sheeps clothing, prowling on innocence. I have seen men abusing women and blaming women for their insecurities and lustfulness.
It's time men take responsibility for their wretchedness, instead of blaming women.

 

You know exactly what I mean, your spinning wheel notwithstanding.

Look at what I said. Clothing isn't about curbing the sins of others. It doesn't. It's about protecting the sanctity of one's body.

The furniture and vessels of the Tabernacle we're covered when in transport.

Both Adam and Eve were covered.

Why do you speak as if women are innocent?

 

Men should watch their lustfullness women should not put themselves in a position to be lusted after. Both are true both are equal problems. Even if women have not intended to be provocative but have acted carelessly they are still provocative none the less.

The responsibility lies on both sides. Also women are just as lustfull. That isnt a one sided problem.

 

Most women don't put themselves in that position, especially in the church. Moreso, how would they actually know when some perverted man is going to lust after them? Rev, us men have to stop shirking our responsibilities with our temptations. Women are not responsible for men being perverts and they cannot be expected to prophetically know what does and doesn't make a man aroused.
Men are responsible. Pluck out your eyes if you must, but don't blame women for your problem.
Sadly, blaming women is a significant problem in fundamentalist churches in America, while men just keep being perverts in the church.

 

Gee, does that mean I should not park my chauffeured Hudson right in front? (Hat tip to Driving Miss Daisy)

 

If you are going to attempt to use Romans 14, please note that the persons who didn't eat meat were weak in the faith and one refrained from eating meat because those weak brothers needed to be slowly built up in the faith. Paul was sensitive to their weakness and thus encouraged those strong in faith to bear with their weak brothers.