Are Coulottes "Spiritual"?

Dear HCL,
From that list it sounds like you and your daughters are prevented from a lot of pleasure in life, including but not limited to swimming, running, playing ball, riding horses, bicycling,
ballet, and gymnastics.

Karen [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Did you read, and more? I did not list every activity that we do. But, to do be frank with you I do not raise my children so they can experience pleasure, but so they can learn to live for Jesus.

Sad that it seems that is your motivation for doing an activity.

 

With all due respect HCL, it is sad that you believe living for Jesus means your children cannot experience the joys of life that don't by their nature exclude living for Jesus. They only have one shot at childhood.

This is not meant to be disrespectful of your beliefs, but I would make sure you are not putting them under some legalistic rules and denying them the joys of their childhood.

 

My children do enjoy their childhood, but not in the way that Karen suggested that we should be seeking pleasure and teaching them to seek it.

Because the Word of God says: 2 Timothy 1, 4, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. Traitors, heady, highminded, LOVERS OF PLEASURE, RATHER THAN LOVERS OF GOD."

Yes, though I do agree that children ought to be allowed to be children and experience their childhood in a beautiful way.

 

BTW, I haven't even seen coulottes since about 1972. I thought they went out with fish net stockings.

 

Though I usually find myself in the opposite situation, but I'm with ColoradoFB on this one. I not only find nothing wrong with childhood being a period of savoring some of those joys but that childhood is both a period of being taught values and a time to enjoy being a child, for its own sake.

 

Yall, HCL said they do fun things. We are getting off the topic I think.

As for coulottes, my best friend in high school was the daughter of a United Pentecostal pastor. Interesting match we made, but our lives were and still are enriched from our friendship. She saw wearing coulottes as being a compromise, but she did wear face powder, lip gloss, and clear nail polish, and she spent hours on her (permed) hair!

 

Dear HCL,
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
I agree with you that the point of life is not pleasure. But I do disagree that girls should necessarily be restricted from any activity they cannot easily do in a dress.

Karen

 

I didn't assert anything about the text. I only said that using this text to show that God forbids women to wear pants is a bad use of the text.

I was referring to your personal preference that women not wear pants. Colors make no difference to me, although that is a matter of preference as well, as is style. But your demand that women wear dresses only is a matter of personal preference, not a matter of revelation or command from God.

 

I don't wear pants , cuulottes or shorts all for the same reason. I have had my eyes opened to the truth and therefore I think it is wrong.

I also feel like there is no difference between pants, shorts or coulottes except the lenght.

 

No disrespect meant HCL. But why can't they do both? God is the One who created pleasure and ALL things God created are good. Nothing becomes a sin unless we put it before God.

God never asked us to forgo all pleasure in order to be able to live for Jesus. Christians are supposed to have fun.

Your inference that we parents who allowed our children to experience pleasure, therefore we did not raise them to live for Jesus, is entirely false.

Blessings,
Sue

 

Because the Word of God says: 2 Timothy 1, 4, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. Traitors, heady, highminded, LOVERS OF PLEASURE, RATHER THAN LOVERS OF GOD."

Sue,
Are you sure you mean nothing becomes a sin unless we put it before God?

 

Showard,
I do not wear any of the above mentioned clothing either for the same reason. And it is true that the women's room door still shows a lady with a dress on and the men's door has a male with pants on.

That is interesting that your mom noticed that things got worse in America when the women began wearing the pants both figuratively and literally. From what I have read it seems to be true and I think we are just now reaping the sowing done in the last two generations of women who left their homes.

 

I was referring to your personal preference that women not wear pants. Colors make no difference to me, although that is a matter of preference as well, as is style. But your demand that women wear dresses only is a matter of personal preference, not a matter of revelation or command from God. [/QB][/QUOTE]


You claimed that the only reason that God clothed them was because of their need of a Savior, nothing else. That is not in the text.

So, why was it only the men who were wearing breeches in the Bible?

Why did women originally wear pants in America? Was it to glorify the Lord? Can you prove this?

 

Luke 9
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

certainly if comes down to a choice between having fun and obeying god, we obey god. if there's no modest way for a girl to do some fun activity, she shouldn't do it.

 

Somebody needs to go back and read what I actually said. What I said was,

1. They did not need clothing at that point necessarily. They were man and wife. Nakedness is perfectly fine and even encouraged between man and wife.

2. God did not show that he was displeased with the amount of skin that their fig leaf coats covered. He may have been. But the text does not say that and that is why we should not say that.

3. God gave them coats of animal skins because the wages of sin is death, not fig leaves. The very first death that Adam and Eve saw was the direct result of their sin.

I should add that this "distinction" argument (i.e., that women should wear dresses so as not to look like a man) falls apart in the garden. God apparently made Adam and Eve the same type of garment. He did not see the need to make them distinct clothes.

[qutoe]So, why was it only the men who were wearing breeches in the Bible?[/quote]Don't know. Haven't studied it. Give me some references and let's look it up.

I don't know. I don't know. No. And what difference does it make?? Let's talk about the substance of the matter, not the circumstances of it. If some women wear pants out of rebellion, that does not mean that all do. That is faulty argumentation. There is nothing rebellious about pants, in and of themselves. If a person wears them to be rebellious, we should be addressing the sinful attitude.

Again, I say, we need to say what the Bible says and allow differences in areas where the Bible does not prescribe a particular thing. That is the case here. The Bible nowhere forbids women from wearing pants. Neither should you.

 

I meant nothing GOOD that God gave us for enjoyment. He created us for His pleasure and He created pleasure for us to enjoy. Only when we put pleasure before God does it become sin because then pleasure becomes our God.

Example: God gave us so many beautiful things in nature in which to find pleasure. When we get so into creations and forget the Creator; then it becomes sin.

 

Luke 9
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

certainly if comes down to a choice between having fun and obeying god, we obey god. if there's no modest way for a girl to do some fun activity, she shouldn't do it. </font>[/QUOTE]just wanted to add, that beyond this i certainly don't want to teach my children that the purpose of life is to have lots of fun and entertain themselves. ultimately, any activity that does not bring one closer to god is a waste of time and should be avoided, i think.

 

I don't know. I don't know. No. And what difference does it make?? Let's talk about the substance of the matter, not the circumstances of it. If some women wear pants out of rebellion, that does not mean that all do. That is faulty argumentation. There is nothing rebellious about pants, in and of themselves. If a person wears them to be rebellious, we should be addressing the sinful attitude.

Again, I say, we need to say what the Bible says and allow differences in areas where the Bible does not prescribe a particular thing. That is the case here. The Bible nowhere forbids women from wearing pants. Neither should you. [/QB][/QUOTE]


1. If they did not need clothing at this point than why did the Father clothe them?

2. Again if he was happy with their fig leaves why did He clothe them in coats?

3. I agree with what you wrote here.

4. Breeches: Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 6:10, Ezekial 44:18.

5. I believe it to be tremendously important to determine why women began wearing pants in the first place. It was not to glorify the Lord. It was a symbol of rebellion. Here is a quote and related article:


"The feminine liberation movement had a strong effect on women's fashions. Most importantly, the corset was discarded! For the first time in centuries, women's legs were seen. A more masculine look became popular, including flattened breasts and hips, and bobbed hair."


http://www.lindyhopping.com/fashionhist.html

Now, does that seem like godly Christian women who were trying to glorify the Lord? Not to me.

How about this:

"Women's sportswear was influenced by a more masculine style. Sport suits, leather jackets and middy slacks became popular."

And how about this from another link:

"The Masculine Silhouette of 1920's Females
After the war when women's dress became more mannish, each year seemed to get more severe in line which almost emphasised the feminine woman beneath. Female clothes became looser and more shapeless in fit. The bust was suppressed, the waist disappeared, the shoulders became broader and hair shorter and shorter. Narrow boyish hips were preferred. The silhouette emphasised a flattened chest and womanly curves were eliminated as the line became more simplified."

"Short Hair
The 1920s saw a universal fashion for short hair a more radical move beyond the curtain styles of the war era. Hair was first bobbed, then shingled, then Eton cropped in 1926-7. An Eton crop was considered daring and shocked some older citizens, since hair had always been thought a woman's crowning glory. Only maiden aunts and elderly dowagers avoided the severe shorter styles, but by the 1930s softer waved hairstyles were a refreshing change."


It seems that it is true that the original intent of unisex styles was so that the ladies could do what the men do. Isn't that part of feminism?

"Unisex Styles
Chanel had introduced the world to the jumper and it was worn by both men and women. Knitted garments for men really took off in the twenties and women eagerly wore the same knits too. Fair Isle patterns became very popular for both sexes.

Free from corsetry and wearing simplified clothing modern women were able to indulge in sports. Soon swimming, golf and tennis along with keep fit were the passions of young ladies. Shorts became acceptable wear for cycling and for skating normal dresses were roomy enough for movement. The fashionable modern women of the twenties unlike their Edwardian laced and boned mothers truly belong to the twentieth century."


The above from: http://www.fashion-era.com/flapper_fashion_1920s.htm#The%20Masculine%20Silhouette%20Of%201920's%20Females

The Bible does say that I am not to conform to the world. And the world is where these unisex fashions came from, they did not come from the Lord.

 

I have never stated that having fun was the purpose of life. I said that nowhere in the Bible will you find where God forbade us to have fun along the way.

That sounds like a monk or a nun. Eating and sleeping doesn't bring us closer to God, but I don't consider either of them a waste of time or something I would care to avoid.

Coloring or riding a bicycle will not bring your children closer to God; do you forbid that also? Do your kids have ANY fun?

 

That sounds like a monk or a nun. Eating and sleeping doesn't bring us closer to God, but I don't consider either of them a waste of time or something I would care to avoid.

Coloring or riding a bicycle will not bring your children closer to God; do you forbid that also? Do your kids have ANY fun? </font>[/QUOTE]without food or sleep, i would not be able to follow god's commadments or study his word. i eat and sleep to the glory of god (or at least i should).

my kids have bible coloring books, and for my young son coloring helps develop muscular control that will be useful in serving the lord one day. funny sounding, but true

my kids don't have bikes, i see no reason to allow them such freedom of movement at this time, especially in my neighborhood.

everything is for christ: this is the standard i apply (imperfectly) to my entire household for everything.

yes, my kids have fun. my daughter loves studying bible with me, for example. she also enjoys "playing mommy" with my young son, and really enjoys learning hymns on the piano, and talks about perhaps playing in church one day. she also asks at least a couple of times a week if she can make dinner, as she really likes cooking.

i'm also teaching her chess, i think her mind needs a little development in the thinking and planning ahead and playing what-if? departments. again - so one day she can use her mind to better serve god.

my son is 2, and my daughter is 11.

she's been homeschooled and we don't have television so she's never learned how "demeaning" or "boring" most of these activities are, lol.