Modesty

[donnA]

shane=

Are you seriously asking me for scripture

shane does not believe in taking any one's word for anything as a witness, (see thread in news forum for his exact words)why then does he say he doesn't need proof from scripture. He is asking, demanding people believe whatever he says, no proof, and bashing people who ask for proof.
This is contradictory.

 

[Salamander]

Did the shoe fit?

What "shoe"?

Your definition isn't an honest one. It is used more as an arrow shot at those with whom you disagree.

It is one of the most ungodly practices with which a bitter person is usually identified.

Modesty isn't defined through liberalism but is yet rather attacked by it.

God bless you.

BTW, I'm not Cinderfella!

 

[Salamander]

I don't understand the point about "Entering into my rest." Are you saying that when Christ says that, we are no longer unprofitable?

Huh?

And when does Christ say that? I assummed that Christ would say "Well done" at his Judgement seat.

Um, "Well done" is when we enter into His rest.

I do believe that believers are blessed, and in ways the world cannot understand.

I have a difficult time saying we are blessed due to our obedience. Lets assume that we are blessed based on our obedience.

Let's assume that we should be found disobedient, then what?

Is this obedience with respect to lining up to standards of dress, the point of this thread? And even if we are blessed with all heavenly blessings because we line up to standards of an outward dress code, whose code? Mine? My pastor's? I think your response would be "Scripture." Then if I have to line up to Scripture with respect to modesty in the outer man, where do I find more in Scripture than that which deals with the heart?

You might as well admit you already know the Scriptures and then deny them. I won't be playing your little game.

This brings to mind the Pharisees. They gave tithe of all. Fasted. Prayed. Look at Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Unless our righteousness exceeds theirs, we cannot see heaven.

Yeah, and my righteousness is of God through Christ and not being upheld by pride.

Christ is our righteousness. Period. Therefore, to those of us who are convicted that something is unclean, to him it is unclean. As for me,

Rom 14:13 Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister.
Rom 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean.

Where have I judged anyone? Again, you do not understand, but arecplaying games.

Helping others understand the ethical practices of holiness as God commands us is never placing a stumblingblock before our brethren, but a steppingstone to go forward in our walk with the Lord.

Your view sounds as if anyone who decides they want to go around nearly naked is alright except some pharisees would be offended:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Best quote of the thread.

One can be against immodesty without showing contempt and hatefulness toward the other person.

Or....at least....one should.....

Nice judgement call, only if you measured up to what you mete out.

You're too quick to draw the lance, friend.

 

[rbell]

Well, Sal's decided to go into attack mode. Guess a thread closure's coming.

That's it for me. :wavey:

 

[Salamander]

We are supose to take shane's word with no scriptural proof, which is putting him on the level of being scripture, which can not be questioned. Not only that but but we are to be attacked and run down for asking for scripture. What is up with that, testing against scripture is wrong according to shane and we should just beleive him instead.

Um, that was uncalled for, Brother Shane seems to expect most Christians to already know what he has already learned:thumbs:

 

[Salamander]

was Bro. Shane, that women didn't wear pants in the bible, well, neither did men.

define "breeches" for us if you actually believe what yuou just said.

So that argument seems irrelevant. As for being tempted to look, there are some men, that a women could walk in wear a tent, and they would still oggle.

It's not "oogling" as you think, it's called natural observation of the opposite gender. God knows it/ His children need to learn it.

The bible say if your eye or hand causes you to sin, then cut it out/off. Seems like it would be the person who is tempted would have the responsibility to prevent themselves from sinning, not laying the blame on the actual thing/person.

Seems you don't know your Bible very well. Laying a stumblingblock before men by a woman's exposing as much skin as she can without being arrested for nudity is sin.

Nothing can 'make' you sin, except your flesh giving in to said temptation.

Providing the means for others to sin is sin, that can be viewed as "making" others sin, although prudence would make the wise avoid the snare and thereby make the simply beware by their warning them of the snare.

 

[donnA]

Um, that was uncalled for, Brother Shane seems to expect most Christians to already know what he has already learned:thumbs:

If he demands proof, he should have to give proof. Unless theres 2 sets of rules, one for him, one for everyoen else.
He hasn't learned much if he thinks he can make it up and expect people to beleive whatever he says as if he is scripture talking.

 

[Salamander]

Well, Sal's decided to go into attack mode. Guess a thread closure's coming.

That's it for me. :wavey:

[PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED]

 

[Salamander]

If he demands proof, he should have to give proof. Unless theres 2 sets of rules, one for him, one for everyoen else.
He hasn't learned much if he thinks he can make it up and expect people to beleive whatever he says as if he is scripture talking.

It's not made up. Maybe some one should follow the advice they've been giving and search the Scriptures with an open Bible and not a closed mind?

I learned awhile back at all the old timer's idioms they've passed down through the years to find most of them are Bible facts colored with common talk.

I've found alot of the principles taught by precept while reading through my Bible. I've also found that most of what Brother Shane says about modest apparel to also be the truth.

A man wen in unto a "harlot" once, gave her his signet. After her act was pronounced that she played the harlot, sentence was passed down and she gave him back his signet. She was declared as more righteous than he, but the precept is she dressed like a harlot which allured the man to treeat her as one.

Much can be learned about a woman's dress by the precept taught here.:godisgood:

 

[annsni]

define "breeches" for us if you actually believe what yuou just said.

Exodus 28:42 "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:"

Leviticus 6:10 " And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh"

Leviticus 16:4 "He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh,"

Ezekiel 44:18 "They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird [themselves] with any thing that causeth sweat."

Hebrew - miknac - meaning "underwear, drawers, trousers, a) a priestly undergarment of linen"

In other words, they were.....TIGHTY WHITIES!! They were Fruit of the Looms - skiivies - undershorts - briefs (or maybe they were more like boxers).

So I'll make sure I start spreading the word - women are not to wear underwear because it's supposed to be for men!

Oh wait - that's right, MEN aren't to wear them because in each of these cases, it was just the priest who was told to wear them. Hmmmm - I wonder if that means that hubby is OK to still wear them since he's a pastor?

 

[Salamander]

Exodus 28:42 "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:"

Leviticus 6:10 " And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh"

Leviticus 16:4 "He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh,"

Ezekiel 44:18 "They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird [themselves] with any thing that causeth sweat."

Hebrew - miknac - meaning "underwear, drawers, trousers, a) a priestly undergarment of linen"

In other words, they were.....TIGHTY WHITIES!! They were Fruit of the Looms - skiivies - undershorts - briefs (or maybe they were more like boxers).

So I'll make sure I start spreading the word - women are not to wear underwear because it's supposed to be for men!

Oh wait - that's right, MEN aren't to wear them because in each of these cases, it was just the priest who was told to wear them. Hmmmm - I wonder if that means that hubby is OK to still wear them since he's a pastor?

I think you are perverting the Scripture here.

"Miknac" is trousers or pants, or as you say, undergarments, but that is a priestly battlegarment, not to be worn by women, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD.

Once you made a statement about the bonnets worn by the priests as if to mock men today if they wore what we refer to as a feminine type of bonnet. You perverted the Scripture then and you also pervert the Scripture now.

 

[annsni]

I think you are perverting the Scripture here.

"Miknac" is trousers or pants, or as you say, undergarments, but that is a priestly battlegarment, not to be worn by women, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD.

Once you made a statement about the bonnets worn by the priests as if to mock men today if they wore what we refer to as a feminine type of bonnet. You perverted the Scripture then and you also pervert the Scripture now.

I do not pervert the Scriptures - they say what they say. Undergarment is underwear, drawers is underwear. It covers the nakedness. They had robes also, so their nakedness was covered by that but they had a further garment that needed to be worn that the general public did not. Even if you call this "pants", which there is no evidence of, only priests wore it.

Oh - and I don't recall ever saying anything about bonnets in the past so please don't accuse unless you're telling the truth.

 

[Brother Shane]

I have to come in on this one...

From the faithful Webster 1828...


BREECHES, n. plu. brich'es. [Low L. braccoe.]

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

You're welcome!

 

[donnA]

I do not pervert the Scriptures - they say what they say. Undergarment is underwear, drawers is underwear. It covers the nakedness. They had robes also, so their nakedness was covered by that but they had a further garment that needed to be worn that the general public did not. Even if you call this "pants", which there is no evidence of, only priests wore it.

Oh - and I don't recall ever saying anything about bonnets in the past so please don't accuse unless you're telling the truth.

Some people never care about what scripture actually says. We've been through these same verses many times here, they always ignore true facts of scripture when it does not agree with them.

 

[donnA]

I have to come in on this one...

From the faithful Webster 1828...


BREECHES, n. plu. brich'es. [Low L. braccoe.]

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

You're welcome!

She gave a biblical defination. Do you argue against a biblical defination and use of a word?
Yes.
The bible describes a garment worn under clothing, not on the outside as pants are.

 

[donnA]

It's not made up. Maybe some one should follow the advice they've been giving and search the Scriptures with an open Bible and not a closed mind?

I learned awhile back at all the old timer's idioms they've passed down through the years to find most of them are Bible facts colored with common talk.

I've found alot of the principles taught by precept while reading through my Bible. I've also found that most of what Brother Shane says about modest apparel to also be the truth.

A man wen in unto a "harlot" once, gave her his signet. After her act was pronounced that she played the harlot, sentence was passed down and she gave him back his signet. She was declared as more righteous than he, but the precept is she dressed like a harlot which allured the man to treeat her as one.

Much can be learned about a woman's dress by the precept taught here.:godisgood:

He advocates long and flowing dresses, I checked, no flowing in scripture having anything to do with clothing, only water, as in river. Not clothing.
So no, most of what he says is not true.

 

[annsni]

I have to come in on this one...

From the faithful Webster 1828...


BREECHES, n. plu. brich'es. [Low L. braccoe.]

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

You're welcome!

Well, you're not going to get a "thank you" since "breeches" in 1611 is very different than "breeches" in 1828. Men in the Bible didn't wear britches - only priests did. So I'll go by the Biblical definition, thank you very much.

 

[Lyndie]

define "breeches" for us if you actually believe what yuou just said. It's not "oogling" as you think, it's called natural observation of the opposite gender. God knows it/ His children need to learn it. Seems you don't know your Bible very well. Laying a stumblingblock before men by a woman's exposing as much skin as she can without being arrested for nudity is sin. Providing the means for others to sin is sin, that can be viewed as "making" others sin, although prudence would make the wise avoid the snare and thereby make the simply beware by their warning them of the snare.

From Eastons Bible dictionary-Breeches(Exodus 28:42), rather linen drawers, reaching from the waist to a little above the knee, worn by the priestsSounds more like shorts to me.

Natural observation is not saring at a woman long enough to notice the form of her breast. Why on earth would you be looking there in the first place? So anytime someone sins, its not thier fault? Sounds kind of like Adam blaming Eve for sinning.

As a matter of fact, I probably don't know it as well as you, but I'd rather have someone LOVINGLY correct me than make themselves seem more intelligent than myself.

1Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Seems I went from the frying pan into the fire by leaving another board (because of put downs and rudeness) and coming here.

 

[Brother Shane]

annsni... use it in the Biblical way -- very well. You better know what you're talking about. "Breeches" in the Bible appears five times -- it is always used in relation to a man.

For your information...
Job 40:7 - "Gird up now thy loins like a man.."

Breeches kept a man modest. The men wore their long robes and coverings, but underneath he wore breeches. What if he needed to run, work, or fight? He could tuck in his coat/robe and yet still remain modest. This is where you get "undergarments" from -- they were "under" him.

Now let's think about this right here... and remember that "breeches" only referred to men in the Bible, always, never women... and think about all the pants-wearing women and then read Deuteronomy 22:5.