Question women and dresses

Helen writes:

To Islamic fundamentalists virtually all American women dress lewdly (even when they are dressed entirely acceptably per prevailing IFB standards), simply because their faces, arms, and calves are visible.

Here's a situation where a segment of the world upholds a more rigid standard than we American Christians do. How are we therefore supposed to "show HIS holiness in our lives" in such a situation? To be an example of Godliness or holiness to those people (according to their beliefs and standards), we'd have to insist that Christian women dress in burkhas also.

Since I don't see that happening, it seems clear to me that we must demonstrate holiness in ways other than those which are strictly "external". I'm happy that you recognize that in these sentances:

Externals should never become our primary measure of what constitutes holiness.

 

Let me get this morality = wearing a dress?

We look in the Bible and I see that nowhere.

My pastor doesn't preach in sandels and a robe!!! Jesus did.... I guess he is out of touch with Biblical morality?

God looks at the inside and not the outside of a person. Let's lead them to Jesus and not the Dress Barn.

 

Unfortunately, some folks do just that.

 

Odd how y'all are shocked at my use of words, but not at the sodomites themselves. You all should be outraged. When we hold the aborted baby pics, that's exactly the same reaction we get. The people are appalled at the photos, but not the act that was committed to those innocent babies.

I have not cursed. Meaning of firebrand (Bible word) and synonym fagot/faggot found in the Webster's 1828...

firebrand...A piece of wood kindled or on fire. An incendiary; one who inflames factions, or causes contention and mischief.

fagot...A bundle of sticks, twigs or small branches of trees, used for fuel, To tie together; to bind in a bundle; to collect promiscuously.

Amos 4:11 I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. (and three other places in the Bible).

LarryN, don't put words in my mouth I did not say.

 

Since the sodomites don't seem to have anything to do with that pants style, what are we supposed to be outraged over? If you'd like, I can go spend a minute being outraged over promiscuous homosexuals.

I hate to break it to you, but in the general population the terms "faggot" and "fag" have taken on a quite different meaning in the last few decades. Language does change with the times, and in order to avoid causing unecessary offense I think we should be aware of these changes.

 

Unfortunately, some folks do just that. </font>[/QUOTE]Not to hijack this thread, but here's an example of an incident that happened to me:

I once visited an IFB church that admittedly I knew to have a big focus on the externals. I walked in that morning wearing custom-tailored dress slacks, a white button-down dress shirt (w/o a tie), and a nice sweater. As I was sitting down, one of the ushers approached me. Thinking he was coming over to greet me, I stuck out my hand. It turns out that in fact he was instead coming over to scold me for being "not properly dressed for church" (yes, in those very words)!

The thing that struck me as funny at the time was that my ensamble likely had cost more than his off-the-rack suit. He had no idea what my spiritual condition was. Had I been a typical unsaved person, what would my reaction to his words have been? I'm guessing that I wouldn't have been very receptive to the Gospel that day; and in all likelihood my impression of Christians in particular (and Baptists in general) wouldn't have been very favorable!

 

Okay, so you're telling me that my wife and I were dressing inappropriately.

I'm a bit at a loss. It sounds like you're accusing them (and me) of being pretentious. We did not attend church for the sake of saying we went to church. We attended church on our vacation because we wanted to thank God for allowing us the privilege of enjoying what he created in Hawaii. And for that, I get the judgemental finger from you. How dare you.

Then you acknowlege that culture plays a part. I was taking part in the local culture of a small church in Maui. And for that you are unrigheously judging me and all the others who attended.

God created us as sexual beings. Reasonable attention is that which is non-lustful. And yes, it's possible to be appropriately sexual without being lustful or carnal. For example, a woman who wears her hair nicely is not being unreasonable in the sexual attention brought to her.

No, it's not unheard of. It's also not required. In fact, the last time I was in Hawaii, I regularly attended a church in Oahu. Their summer choir wore mumus. The mumus were sleeveless (Some here will argue that bare shoulders are inappropriate). And what did I wear then? A hula shirt and shorts. Were my shorts inappropriate? Most fo the women in my travellling party likewise wore shorts and sleeveless aloha tops. Were they being immodest?

BTW, does the mumu have to cover the ankles for it to be modest?

I do? Examples please. On the contrary. It seems that the legalistic Christian world looks for excuses to condemn any attitude and activity they don't approve of and label it "worldly". Unfortunately, it's easier to be a legalistic Christian than it is to defend oneself from the legalists.

If what your'e saying were true, I'd be saying it's okay to wear a bathing suit in St Patrick's Cathedral. Clearly, I'm not saying that at all.

We're called out from the inside, not from the outside. Many dress their bodies, but not their hearts. Many also judge others' hearts based on what's on the outside.

I don't debate that. I only debate that some apply unholiness to something which is nothing of the sort.

Good question, but it does not excuse legalism and self-righteous judging.

No arguement there. That's not the issue. The issue is one of those who decide what qualifies as holiness for others. Legalism is one of the results of that. There was nothing offensive, sexually immoral, immodest, or unscriptural about how people were dressed at the beachside service in Hawaii. I was there, you weren't. Yet you are making a judgement over something you did not witness.

 

Granny writes: "LarryN, don't put words in my mouth I did not say."

How did I do that Granny? You said "whores", and I merely gave a sidebar example of certain segments of IFBism who say exactly what I said they do. I didn't say that *you* personally would say such a thing. Just that I know of some others who would.

 

Okay, now I know what you mean. I just think they are ugly and appear stupid. I've never heard of them being associated with homosexuals.

Basically, the clothing styles today are bad just like they were in the "70's" when I was a teenager. We never learn from our mistakes.

 

Whoa, chill. Not a single person here condones sexual immorality. Neither do we condone your inappropriate use of language.

However, even if we were all condoning homosexuality, it is still no excuse for use of such language.

 

It always amazes and saddens me that these churches exist and bear the name "Baptist".

 

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

John 13:35

 

FYI, LarryN, I am not an IFBer. And JohnV, you gonna scorch me for using Bible terms to describe something that God calls an abomination...they are NOT gay, nor is homosexual used in the Bible...yet, how many threads here, have I had to bypass because of inappropriate topics that shouldn't even be discussed on an open board and/or in mixed company? Chill yo'self, lol.

Jeffrey H, those sodomite britches are rampant here, as are drugs, sex, and sodomites. The preachers have quit preaching "repent or perish".

 

In another thread, someone was chastized by a moderator for usint the term "media wh*r*". The word was deemed to be inappriate. It is likewise inappropriate here.

We were not even discussing issue of fornication here, nor were you referring to it when you used it. So I'm a bit at a loss as to why you're getting your feathers ruffled.

 

Granny writes:

Good to know. I don't believe I ever said you were. I think you read into my example a link between what I said about certain extremist IFB's & you personally- a link which I neither made nor intended. The sole reason I referenced your quotation is because it prompted me to think of their egregious behaviour. You'll notice that I never referred to you personally even once in my remarks.

 

I thought YOU were upset with the usage of fag...btw, whore is a Bible word too. I remember a preacher once in a church we visited who claimed he couldn't preach from the kjBible because of some the words "offending" the people. Puh-leeze!

 

Granny,

Fag pants clarify, please. What are they? Granny,

face it fashion has gotten trashy. All we can do is try and change lives, with the gospel of Christ. Before you see outward change, there must be an inward change. I am in youth ministry and I give very specific guidelines when we go somewhere about how they are to dress.

I have even had to go as far as female chapornes checking lenth of shorts. My guys don't "bust a sag". They know what is allowed.

Granny we live in a day that the world ridicules the church. Many churches are more worried about politics and external things than the condtion of one's heart. They see us as bitter.

Let's help them grow spritually, then the modesty will come on it's on. Saying they dress like whores aren't going to endure them to want to be a part of a church.

 

Granny, if I said you were being a pain in the a**, it would not be appropriate, just because that word appears in teh bible.

But since we're on bible words, you should be aware that the word "sodomite" in scripture does not refer to a homosexual.

 

Granny you need to start listening to more preaching. I know many preachers who still preach the word. I tell my kids about the consequenses of not following Christ as do most preachers I listen to on a regular basis.