Featured Pants on Women

Sure they do. Do you think sin stops at the Church door? Women show off their body just as men show off their wealth in Church.

We have a gift from God called the Holy Spirit. He gives us discernment. He tells men it's not a good idea to go to a woman's house alone and he tells women it's not a good idea to dress like a harlot. If someone drinks alcohol in front of a former alcoholic who then backslides then the original drinker is responsible for tempting his Brother. Again, argue with God all you want about the Weaker Brother principle.

Are you aware that YOU are a perverted man? Your sin nature is entirely corrupted and YOU are perverted. You are perverted, I am perverted, he, she, them, they, all of the people on God's earth are perverted. We are all corrupted by the fall in every way.

Do you think God gave multiple examples of harlots in Proverbs because they're rare or because they're common?
Do you think God through Paul had to tell women to dress modestly precisely because the women were already doing it?

Prov 6:23-26 and Prov 7:10-13 are just two of multiple examples. They even mention "the attire of a harlot" meaning that there IS a way of dressing where women are tempting men and at fault. Argue about it all you want with God.

Men are perverted by the fall in that they ALL (including YOU) are drawn to loose women. Likewise women are perverted by the fall in that they ALL will feel a draw to show off to men that they find attractive. Look at modern culture and babies out of wedlock for all the evidence you could possibly want.

 

No, people that do that, including I and millions of other Christians, don't have a problem. We are the solution. As husbands we are RESPONSIBLE for everything that our household does. If my wife tempts a Brother then she is at fault, but I am RESPONSBILE. Just as WE as sinners are at fault, but Christ is responsible and has thus paid our sin debt.

I can't pay my wife and children's sin debt as Christ did, but I am called to IMITATE it regardless of if I can and part of that is directing my household toward God.

That is what Male Headship means even though far too many egalitarian women nowadays don't want to hear it. The husband is the absolute head of house in all decisions and in all ramifications meaning that sin that occurs in his household, whether it be by the wife flaunting herself or refusing to submit, the children disobeying their mother, the husband himself sinning, the husband not properly setting boundaries with the world, etc. The buck stops with the husband in a family.

The flow of Authority in a family goes Christ -> MAN -> WOMAN -> Children and the reason our country is in the mire is because Men have not exercised their God-given authority and because Women have a massive Feminist sized hook in their cheek.

 

Sure. Because they were likely infected with Feminism or Egalitarianism, which are both directly contradictory to both Complementarianism or Christian Patriarchy?

 

I hope you realize there are very wealthy women entrepreneurs.
Here you show us your own cultural stigma that is oozing into how you read the Bible.
Just take responsibility for yourself and I will take responsibility for myself. Women must also take responsibility for their actions. This is biblical. But I observe you continually attempting to cast stones at women while you try to avoid your own responsibility.

Yes we do. Discern your own judgmental thoughts here and deal with your own temptations instead of blaming others.

Bible text please.
Here, I suggest you are adding your cultural moré to the Bible and thus force your legalism upon others in judgment.

I have no argument with God. My argument is with your judgmental spirit that blames women for your lusting heart.

Perhaps the most honest thing you have said so far. I am keenly aware of the fight against sin. But, I don't blame women for my wretchedness.

Do you think you cannot be a harlot and those verses are meant for you?!

Do you think you are the judge, jury, and executor of what modesty is? You seem to live in "Brigadoon" world and thus expect everyone to join you.

I won't argue with God. I will argue witj you and your legalism.

Well, you don't know me, so telling me I am drawn to "loose" women is purely your own temptation being projected upon me.
We are both, correctly, perverted by the fall.

Yes, the perversion is in all humanity, male and female. Not all women "show off to men" as not all women are attracted to men. (Just as not all men are attracted to women [see Paul in 1 Corinthians]).

I have no clue how babies would tempt me.
You realize that sinners have sex outside of marriage and they have since the time of Cain. Are you surprised that Godless rebels are sexually active? I am grateful if they at least don't abort their babies.

My point in this dialogue is to agree that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And also, reprimand you for blaming women for your own problem. Own your problem.

 

Sure, that's easy:
"And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart." - Prov 7:10

If you want a text on going to a woman's house alone read about Potiphar's wife.

A legalist is someone who follows the Bible more strictly than you do. To the Amish I am a Liberal and to you I am an evil legalist haha.

Good thing I don't either. Golly that would be heretical.

Correct, I am a "he" not a "she".
Proverbs 7:10 Hebrew Text Analysis

No, God's crystal clear word is. I expect everyone proclaiming to be a Christian to listen to His Word.

"Legalism", are you aware you are a legalist compared to a Pagan?

I don't need to know you. God knows you and God knows men and God tells men to not be drawn by harlots. Thus men are drawn by harlots or loose women. Again, argue with God in Proverbs all you want.

And clearly that .1% of the population, which is an exception and is acting in outright rebellion to God's design, means that the point doesn't stand anymore. The sky isn't blue either because in the winter there can be grey clouds!

That is my final word on this subject in regards you and I's discussion. I will, however, happily answer any other queries from others if asked.

 

Personal point of experience; daughter came home one day with a new pair of jeans - tight jeans! She asked me about how she looked, & I told her exactly what I thought.
Very unhappily she replied, “Oh daddy, you are so old fashioned”!!!
She was in Jr Hi at the time, & her younger brother was 2 years behind her, so she asked him his thoughts.
All I ever heard of that conversation was that he told her “what a boy thinks when he sees a girl dressed like that”.
Apparently she trusted him more than me (surprise, surprise) ‘cause next day she returned the jeans & she never considered such attire again. I can only assume he was far more blunt with her than I was or she did not, at her age, fully understand modesty & lust.
She is mid 50s now and a very modest lady, happily married with 2 adult children.

 

...only 2...?

 

JonC?

 

This is one of the 'old' issues here that doesn't get discussed as often as it used to. Most of the pro-dress/pro-suit faction seems to have conceded that the conflict is hardly there any more. I think all scripture says about it is a passage already referred to which tells women not to be known for expensive clothes and jewelry and hair style, and in James about not showing favoritism to a well-dressed man. The tradition of "Sunday clothes" is likely related to having Sunday off for farm folks or others who got dirty in their work. If you don't do your regular work, then wear your "good" clothes that day, maybe all day.

Yet it's hard to deny that clothes do have a relation to the importance placed on the event or proceeding. Members of a wedding party still generally dress up; many exuberantly. Does scripture say anything about this? Yes-- the ending of the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22:11-14. But we can get into many weird theologies if we take the parables for more than their simple message. But what, then, are the wedding clothes the guest wasn't wearing? and why did this deserve outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth?... Clothes? I don't think so. I think it's accepting the invitation to the Kingdom, then not showing the world that he cares about the Kingdom and the Lamb's Wedding Feast. He "accepted" in vain.

 

I can't speak to that particular Amish community as I've never personally interacted with any Amish. I have interacted with Mennonites. My community has approximately 20 to 25 houses in a high-elevation valley here. Those neighbors are split 70/30 Baptist (Independent, Southern, and Missionary)/Mennonite respectively.

My initial impression of my Mennonite Brothers was as you mentioned in bold here. After years of discussion with them I've realized that it's not feeling "spiritual" by outside dress. Rather they view it as an act of submission in letting God's word determine their dress rather than letting themselves choose it. They view it as one fruit of Salvation.

I don't think Christ has an issue with outward appearance at all. Christ has issues when the outward appearance does not match the inward with the Pharisees, I.E whitewashed tombs. So if people wear Conservative dress to look spiritual, but are not born again, then Christ's comment would apply.

However, in the case of my Mennonite neighbors it's a case of the outward being affected by the inward renewal, they're not whitewashed tombs. Just like how good works are produced outwardly from the inward renewal. I think their modest clothing style is itself a good work. In a way it's a reminder to them that they are bought by Christ and their modest clothing publicly identifies them with Christ, and thus keeps them accountable in public as others will be watching.

 

Now, what would be a garment that's exclusively male? In our culture, a jockstrap. Exclusively female? In our culture, a bra. Different cultures have their own gender-specific garmants or bling. I believe God had perverted crossdressing in mind when He gave Israel the command against it.

 

This parable is interesting because the garments were to be provided by the King to guests. The man who is cast out does not wear the mark of the King. It is similar in nature to the sheep and the goats. To the persons there, the difference may not be noticeable, but to the Sovereign one, it is the mark of the redeemed vs the damned. We see this similar theme in Revelation where the believers are marked by God before his destroyers go out to bring judgment upon the beast and those he has marked in a cheap imitation of our King.

 

Why not? Womens' pants are not male attire.