Bible Modesty - Part 1

[Amy.G]

We could all settle this argument once and for all and become Amish. White shirts or colors? :tonofbricks:

[Reference to deleted post removed]

 

[J. Jump]

There is the rub isn't it. Some would say I am doing that because I do not see that the Scripture prohibits women from wearing slacks. While I believe they are doing that by adding their legalistic requirements to the Scripture in forbidding such.

That is definitely a rub for a group of folks that is truly searching for what the Scriptures say, because ultimately there is a right and wrong. What I am speaking of is those that have bought into so much church tradition without ever checking to see if it's true or not. While they wouldn't admit to you they don't value what Scripture says it shows in their actions.

And it shows in my actions when I disobey what Scripture has said!

 

[Bro Tony]

That is definitely a rub for a group of folks that is truly searching for what the Scriptures say, because ultimately there is a right and wrong. What I am speaking of those is those that have bought into so much church tradition without ever checking to see if it's true or not. While they wouldn't admit to you they don't value what Scripture says it shows in their actions.

And it shows in my actions when I disobey what Scripture has said!

All I can say to your post is ----AMEN:thumbs:

Bro Tony

 

[rsr]

OK, folks. Let's keep the comments seemly.

 

[Bro Tony]

OK, folks. Let's keep the comments seemly.

Is that In-seemly as in trousers, or seemly as in a skirt?:smilewinkgrin:

Bro Tony

 

[Herb Evans]

And THIS type of absurd "thinking" causes me to thank God daily that I understand grace and not caught in OT legalism.

The "leap" of Deut 22:5 to "unisex" and then another leap that unisex = women wearing slacks is byond laughable. It is the worst dregs of ifbX and sickens me.

Bro. Herb, don't you have somewhere to go to offer a bullock or tithe your mint and cummin? :BangHead:

I was not asking anyone to understand grace or to engage in legalism. I was asking folks to consider principles of Bible modesty. Now, if your insulting sarcasm is designed to provoke me, I will refrain from rendering evil for evil, for I already know how that will turn out from previous experience. Your bias against Independent Fundamental Baptists has been duly noted. -- Herb Evans

 

[Rufus_1611]

Yes I do. Even in the cultures where men wore kilts the women wore long flowing dresses. Then you are showing how ridiculous you can be.

If the truth is on your side, don't you believe you can address the issue without calling other people's beliefs names? A man who has a problem with other men walking around in skirts does not a ridiculous position make, but perhaps it suggests that he has a greater heterosexual tendency then the men who are apparently alright with it.

If you ever see a woman in the Bible told to gird up their loins like a man, I might become closer to your definition of sane.And I would agree with you if you could prove that women's slacks are intended to make the women look masculine or provocative. It seems you guys can't make up your minds which one it is.

They are intended to be both as they are that which pertains to men and they display the feminine form in various degrees of tight and various degrees of provocation. Tell me sir, what pertains to men if not pants?

Do you have a problem with men who wear men's dresses? This is such a stupid question, it really doesn't deserve an answer. But, I will give you one so you can understand, Yes I think it is wrong for a man to wear a dress. This has nothing to do with a woman wearing slacks that are for women.[/

This is such a stupid answer as it has much to do with this issue. The same fashion industry that brought us women's pants is now bringing us men's dresses. If you are convicted that it is alright for women to wear pants then you better be prepared to accept men wearing men's dresses. If you are not alright with it, then you will need to come up with an argument that does not use scripture from Deuteronomy. Wouldn't want you to become legalistic

 

[Herb Evans]

The absurd "responses" to this thinking causes me to thank God daily that I understand that we are to be a holy and separated people.

The lack of understanding that while it is universally acceptable that men shouldn't wear dresses but it's alright for women to wear slacks is beyond laughable. It is the worst dregs of Laodicean, soft on sin but warm to licentiousness churchianity and it sickens me.

Phenomenal post brother Herb...stick around.

Thanks! I don't know how long I will be able to stay around if I don't cowtow to the belief systems of the powers that be and refuse to be intimidated by them. Good point! Know this that I am not a member of the Marshmallow Baptist Fellowship or the Powder Puff Baptist Convention. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Amen, Herb!

Never thought I'd hear that from you! Isn't it strange that the gainsayers follow me around on the threads, moderators included? I'm flattered. Thanks! -- Herb Evans

 

[Bro Tony]

If the truth is on your side, don't you believe you can address the issue without calling other people's beliefs names? A man who has a problem with other men walking around in skirts does not a ridiculous position make, but perhaps it suggests that he has a greater heterosexual tendency then the men who are apparently alright with it.Again, comprehension problems...what I consider ridiculous is the thought that kilts are skirts that are women's wear.

They are intended to be both as they are that which pertains to men and they display the feminine form in various degrees of tight and various degrees of provocation. Tell me sir, what pertains to men if not pants? Pants that are made for men are men's wear, slacks that are made for women are women's wear. Kapeesh?

This is such a stupid answer as it has much to do with this issue. The same fashion industry that brought us women's pants is now bringing us men's dresses. If you are convicted that it is alright for women to wear pants then you better be prepared to accept men wearing men's dresses. If you are not alright with it, then you will need to come up with an argument that does not use scripture from Deuteronomy. Wouldn't want you to become legalistic How can I deal with such logic? You are right I change my whole stand. No more slacks for women, then we wont have to worry about lesbianism and we will know that men ought not to wear women's dresses. Thanks for helping me:BangHead:

This whole thread just makes you want to go---hmmmmmm.

Bro Tony

 

[Herb Evans]

2 points:

1. No one wore pants in the OT.
2. Most of us are sinning right now...we're wearing cotton/poly shirts...that's a no-no in Leviticus.

1. True, but there were distinctions enough to tell the apparel of a man.
2. True, but it was not a gender distinction and it was not an abomination.

--Herb Evans

 

[Rufus_1611]

Thanks for helping me

You bet. Glad you're coming around.

 

[swaimj]

Rufus_1611 said (o so many pages ago):

The only one of those words that are not in the Bible is "crotch". Does the Bible take your mind into places that it should not go?

Are you suggesting here that it is impossible to take any biblical word and have sinful thoughts with it?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611 said (o so many pages ago): Are you suggesting here that it is impossible to take any biblical word and have sinful thoughts with it?

No. *******

 

[swaimj]

Then I fail to see the point of your question.

 

[Herb Evans]

Pardon me Herb, but the language you use here is as sexually provocative as the attire about which you are complaining. Reading this sentence took my mind places that it should not go. It makes me wonder what you spend your time thinking about.

Right! You are exactly the kind of man that needs protected by an article like mine. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Is this even Herb's work or is it copied from some place?

This is herb's work and can be found in:

Maranatha Baptist Watchman - May 1984, p. 6
Baptist Examiner - March 21, 1981, p. 1
Flaming Torch - Aug/Sept 1982, p. 5

 

[Herb Evans]

Incredible that anyone would think that a woman wearing slacks is trying to dress like a man... Also incredible that the thought of women in slacks automatically sends some men into a sexual frenzy....I believe that speaks more of the man's heart condition than anything the woman is doing.

The biblical instruction is modesty...There are certainly modest women's slacks, thus this remains a non issue except in the mind of the legalist.

Bro Tony

Then, I guess you would not be offended at a man dressed in drag or a dress ( as long as the zipper was on the front) for the sake of consistency. -- Herb Evans

 

[Bro Tony]

Then, I guess you would not be offended at a man dressed in drag or a dress for the sake of consistency. -- herb Evans

It really shows the difference in how we think Herb, I see nothing consistent about associating a women wearing slacks designed for women and men dressed in drag. I am really glad that my understanding of Scripture is not dependent on your thinking, and I am equally sure you are glad that your's is not dependant on mine.

Bro Tony

 

[Herb Evans]

Amen to Dr Bob, 100%. What a ridiculous concept, Herb. Really Herb, you should go back over your posts, you left some rules out. You know, God gave us Scripture as the Living Word to know Him better. He also gave us a brain with common sense.

Hey, now here is an idea. Herb for President and Rufus for VP on the Pharisee ticket 2008.

Thanks for the encouraging one liner as an answer to a 3 part article. -- Herb Evans