Are Coulottes "Spiritual"?

[Headcoveredlady]

Diane,

I think you forgot to mention that after Adam and Eve sinned they made aprons for themselves. But, God came and made them coats. He clothed them, because what they chose for themselves was unacceptable to Him. I know that many say that this was done to point to Christ and I believe that is so also. But, why do you think that God gave them coats and did not just leave them in their aprons?

Note how God clothes in Mark 16:5, "And entering into the sepluchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were afrightened."

And if you read through Revelation you will see that we will wear white robes in Heaven, we will not be nude there either.

In Jesus' day they wore two garments. I do not believe that Jesus would have been prancing around nude in front of HIs disciples while He washed their feet.

Also in Revelation 1:13 we see how Jesus covers Himself, "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about with paps with a golden girdle."

Have you checked out the attire of the Babylonian harlot in Revelation 17:4? She is full of filthiness and fornication.

I think Romans 12:1-2 sums it all up perfectly, "I beseech you therefore my the mercies of God, that ye PRESENT YOUR BODIES AS LIVING SACRAFICES, HOLY, ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove whatis that good, and acceptable, perfect will of God."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Edifier:
Can you spell "straining at a knat and swollowing a camel"?

Yes I can (but actually it is "swallowing" not "swollowing"). The bigger question is, Can you spell "Missed the sarcasm"????

Pastor Larry: "Seriously, wearing coulottes does not make one spiritual."

This is correct. And wearing dresses does
not make one spiritual.

The little word "seriously" should have pointed out to all that I was speaking "unseriously." What we wear does not make us spiritual. It may well indeed reflect spirituality. But pants vs. coulottes is not really an issue worthy of discussion.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
I think you forgot to mention that after Adam and Eve sinned they made aprons for themselves. But, God came and made them coats. He clothed them, because what they chose for themselves was unacceptable to Him. I know that many say that this was done to point to Christ and I believe that is so also. But, why do you think that God gave them coats and did not just leave them in their aprons?[/qutoe]Because the wages of sin is not tree leaves, it is blood. There is nothing to indicate that God was displeased with their clothing. Why would he be?? They were man and wife. Nakedness was perfectly fine for them. There was no need for them to cover up for the sake of avoiding nakedness.

And if you read through Revelation you will see that we will wear white robes in Heaven, we will not be nude there either.

Have you seen anyone arguing that we should be nude?? I haven't. So this comments is irrelevant to this discussion.

The bottom line is that Scripture does not address the specifics of the kind of clothes that we wear. They are to be modest and fitting for believers. That does not leave room to argue for skirts only or coulottes only or no pants or any such thing. What is "modest" for some things is not for others. What is appropriate for some things is not for others. What we need to keep in mind is what Scripture commands for us. Realize that the application for some may be different and the work of the Holy Spirit in some people may be different than in someone else.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
......And you really think a skirt would be more modest??? The snow might get on the thighs, but it certainly doesn't go any higher with culottes on rather than a dress.
.......

Dear Sue,
We each read it differently. I thought he was saying wear ski pants.

Personally, most culottes just look like shorter, baggy pants to me. Although depending on the individual wearing them, not always baggy.

Karen

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
. But, why do you think that God gave them coats and did not just leave them in their aprons?[/qutoe]Because the wages of sin is not tree leaves, it is blood. There is nothing to indicate that God was displeased with their clothing. Why would he be?? They were man and wife. Nakedness was perfectly fine for them. There was no need for them to cover up for the sake of avoiding nakedness.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And if you read through Revelation you will see that we will wear white robes in Heaven, we will not be nude there either.

Have you seen anyone arguing that we should be nude?? I haven't. So this comments is irrelevant to this discussion.

The bottom line is that Scripture does not address the specifics of the kind of clothes that we wear. They are to be modest and fitting for believers. That does not leave room to argue for skirts only or coulottes only or no pants or any such thing. What is "modest" for some things is not for others. What is appropriate for some things is not for others. What we need to keep in mind is what Scripture commands for us. Realize that the application for some may be different and the work of the Holy Spirit in some people may be different than in someone else. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Genesis 3:7, "And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Genesis 3:10, "And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten ..."

Genesis 3:21, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, AND CLOTHED THEM."

I will take this literally that God clothed them because the tiny fig leaf aprons were not sufficient. He does care about what we wear, He wants His children clothed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
I will take this literally that God clothed them because the tiny fig leaf aprons were not sufficient. He does care about what we wear, He wants His children clothed.

I take it literally too. But it literally says nothing about being insufficient in terms of covering. That is simply not in the text. Do not add it in to support your own personal preferences.

No one here is arguing taht God doesn't want his children to be clothed. That is not the point. Let's get past that OK??

 

[Ed Edwards]

Pastor Larry: //The bigger question is, Can you spell
"Missed the sarcasm"????//

[sarcasm]I never could spell that [/sarcasm]

Pastor Larry: "The bottom line is that Scripture
does not address the specifics of the kind of clothes
that we wear. They are to be modest and fitting
for believers. "

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

 

[hsmom3]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
But it was a funny night the night the youth group went snow skiing and the girls had to wear culottes. You talk about immodest and uncomfortable. That snow on the inner thigh ain't a good thing.

This is something that I have a real problem with. Our church expects little girls to come to church activities in culottes and play outside in 30 degree weather in them. I do not mean to be rebellious at all, but my girls will always be in pants in those circumstances. They will not be getting pneumonia for anyone. If there are some perverts who lust after a 6 year old in pants, then THEY are the ones who need psychiatric help!

hsmom3

 

[donnA]

The way it should be taken is that leaves are not a perment lothing, clothing made from skins is. Man now had a new need, a need he evidently could not supply for himself(he didn't know how seeing that no one had ever worn clothing before), God in His goodness supplied that need. The deeper meaning of course is that God was denomsrating that the sin of man was costly, and blood was going to be needed to be shed becasue it. An animal had to die becasue Adam and Eve disobeyed, and even tually God's own Son would die because of it.

Frequently someone keeps taking biblical text out of context just to support their own views, so that their views become more biblical. I think this is gettting way out of hand, and is no different then any cult trying to use scripture to support their views. You have to take scripture as it is and line your personal views up with it, even if it doesn't support your views any longer, or even disproves your view. What is more important, what you want, or the bible?

 

[donnA]

Originally posted by hsmom3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
But it was a funny night the night the youth group went snow skiing and the girls had to wear culottes. You talk about immodest and uncomfortable. That snow on the inner thigh ain't a good thing.

This is something that I have a real problem with. Our church expects little girls to come to church activities in culottes and play outside in 30 degree weather in them. I do not mean to be rebellious at all, but my girls will always be in pants in those circumstances. They will not be getting pneumonia for anyone. If there are some perverts who lust after a 6 year old in pants, then THEY are the ones who need psychiatric help!

hsmom3

</font>[/QUOTE]Well I agree with you, no need for punishing little girls becasue they were born female.

 

[greek geek]

hmm - so coulottes are more spiritual than pants. i guess i could agree because when you wear coulottes while playing sports and you fall you are immediatly humbled when your tidy whites show!! (the same happens with wind gusts) and after all God tells us to be humble so that means coulottes are 'spiritual' cause they humble women. not to mention it tests the guys resistance to sin as they see the falls.

if a woman wants to wear coulottes - go for it! just make sure that you take precautions from being 'humbled'

 

[Dr. Bob]

Wow. Didn't know this would stir up such a discussion! (Well, I kinda hoped it would).

Coulottes are some of the most immodest pieces of clothing I've ever seen. Saw more bare thighs up to the groin from our Christian girls who thought they were being modest doing rock climbing and work at camp. It was embarrassing to me, a married man, and I can only imagine what was running through the minds of the boys.

Who invented those evil contraptions, anyway?

 

[Jim1999]

Apparently, they were created in France, and grew acceptance on the tennis tour, when women were previously wearing Victorian gowns and girdles on the court. The coulottes were a "way" to maintain modesty on the court and yet give the freedom of movement required to play tennis. They were followed by short trousers and pretty skimpy stuff to-day.

They did, however, catch on in the rest of the world for the same reasons given for tennis. Funny we shoud think they are imodest, immoral and indecent. Perhaps we ought to raise our vision and our minds, in my opinion. They never troubled me.

That was the best information I could dig up on the net.

Cheers,

Jim

Perhaps nearsightedess is a gift from above and we ought to pray for this upon more men.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I take it literally too. But it literally says nothing about being insufficient in terms of covering. That is simply not in the text. Do not add it in to support your own personal preferences.

Neither is what you asserted in the text. And it is not my personal preference.

You have that wrong. My personal preference in clothing is that I like pastel calicos. I also like pink. But my husband prefers blue, so I make most of my dresses blue to suit him. I never told anyone else that they must wear blue like me. Or that they must like pink like me.

Furthermore, my personal preference is to wear sweat pants when I walk because they are comfortable, but I will not wear men's clothing so I do not wear them.

 

[dianetavegia]

Headcovered lady said:

I will take this literally that God clothed them because the tiny fig leaf aprons were not sufficient. He does care about what we wear, He wants His children clothed.

HCL... My point was missed! It isn't the human body (which God created) that causes sin! It's the mind of those viewing the body! God didn't clothed them before sin entered into the world. God was not insulted by their nakedness until they were embarassed by their nakedness. It was sin and satan who put the evil thoughts into their minds and made what God created 'ugly'!

Just as some men and women will lust when they see someone dressed in less than enough clothes, there are men and women who will lust after someone who is well covered. It depends on the heart condition of that person. All we can do is dress how WE feel convicted to dress. For ME, it does not include long dour dresses (little house on the praire material) and head coverings.

Culottes are baggy shorts that give the illusion of a skirt. Try crawling around on the church nursery floor in a dress or skirt or playing dodge ball, pass the baton (through your legs) with the AWANA kids in a dress. I am MUCH more modest in my jeans than a woman would be in her culottes or dress!

Diane

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Originally posted by hsmom3:
This is something that I have a real problem with. Our church expects little girls to come to church activities in culottes and play outside in 30 degree weather in them. I do not mean to be rebellious at all, but my girls will always be in pants in those circumstances. They will not be getting pneumonia for anyone. If there are some perverts who lust after a 6 year old in pants, then THEY are the ones who need psychiatric help!

hsmom3

[/QB]

That sounds terrible that moms and dads would allow their daughters to play outside like this. For us we wear heavy tights underneath and winter boots. I would not allow my daughters to play outside in only their dresses and no tights in cold weather.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Diane,
I do understand what you are saying that it was not until they sinned that they needed to be covered. But, the fact remains that we are in this same state as they were when they left the garden and indeed clothing is a reminder of our sinfulness.

Also, I wanted to add that in Hosea 2:3, "Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness..."


Hosea 3:9, "Therefore will I return, and take away my corn, and wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax GIVEN TO COVER HER NAKEDNESS."

And when this man, possessed by the devil and many demons got saved, the FIRST thing he did was PUT CLOTHES ON:

Mark 5:2, "And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with unclean spirits."

Mark 5:8, "For he said unto him, Come out of that man, thou unclean spirit."

Mark 5:15, "And they came to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and haD the legion, sitting, CLOTHED, AND IN HIS RIGHT MIND; and they were afraid."

 

[ColoradoFB]

I can just about guarantee that somewhere there are guys who have a kink about looking at a little old granny in a bonnet and Amish attire. I agree with Diane on this one...it is in the heart of the person.

 

[Headcoveredlady]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:

It depends on the heart condition of that person. All we can do is dress how WE feel convicted to dress. For ME, it does not include long dour dresses (little house on the praire material) and head coverings.

Culottes are baggy shorts that give the illusion of a skirt. Try crawling around on the church nursery floor in a dress or skirt or playing dodge ball, pass the baton (through your legs) with the AWANA kids in a dress. I am MUCH more modest in my jeans than a woman would be in her culottes or dress!

Diane [/QB]

For me it does include wearing long loose dresses, (modest apparel, 1 Tim 2:9-16) and headcoverings, (head covered while praying and prophesying 1 Corinthians 11:1-16).


Diane, I think you are forgetting that I am a mother too. I do the activities you mentioned very well with long loose dresses on. I excercise (walk), garden, sew, cook, shop, bend down to play with children, carry children, run errands for my husband, homeschool and more all in my long loose dresses.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
........
Diane, I think you are forgetting that I am a mother too. I do the activities you mentioned very well with long loose dresses on. I excercise (walk), garden, sew, cook, shop, bend down to play with children, carry children, run errands for my husband, homeschool and more all in my long loose dresses. [/QB]

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