Modesty

[menageriekeeper]

I'm 100% positive that when I 'notice' it that I didn't sin, yet I believe the woman has because she is dressed like that.

It is not up to you to decide what is sin for another person.

It is not up to you to decide what is sin for another person.

It is NOT up to YOU to decide what is SIN for another person.

It is NOT up to YOU to decide what is SIN for another person!

Judge not lest ye be judged by the same measure. (Cindi's paraphrase of Matthew 7:1-4)

 

[tinytim]

If the guy looks, the guy sinned!

Shane is excusing sin by blaming women... geesh!

 

[Steven2006]

If the guy looks, the guy sinned!

Shane is excusing sin by blaming women... geesh!

You don't believe it is possible that someone can notice, then turn away without lusting and therefore sinning?
(Not that I agree with blaming women)

 

[donnA]

Do you also closely examine every person including every child who helps serve punch and cookies too?

So not every child at VBS should serve anyone or help in anything?

closely examine? You don't have to when they say they are unbelievers. Serving God through a church is for believers, not unbelievers. Just who are they representing if they don't know Jesus, not Him, what purpose can they have in serving God in a church, not to glorify Him.

 

[Brother Bob]

Are you saying that if a woman bares her breast and a man looks to see if what he is seeing is for real or not, when he sees that it is, he turns away, that it is lusting? Gimme a break! Another woman would look to see if what she was seeing is for real or not.

BBob,

 

[Brother Shane]

Ann, my point wasn't only priests wore breeches, it's the fact only men in the Bible wore breeches - whether they be priests or the ordinary Joe. No where in the Bible do you find a woman wearing breeches! Before Hollywood, it was well known that a woman was to wear a dress and men are to wear pants. Look at your universal bathroom symbols.. what is the man wearing? Pants! What is the woman wearing? Dresses! I think most of the women these days are going in the wrong room!

It's a sin for a women to wear men's clothing.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

It is also a sin for a woman to wear immodest clothing that draws attention to her body rather her heart!

1 Peter 3:3-5 - "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands"

I know you still don't think that pants are men's clothing because then you'd be forced to give up your pants, but I must ask you... if pants aren't men's clothing, what is?

It sickens me to walk around and see women dressed like men! Wake up, America!

Ann, I will not accept your challenge. You know good and well how sick and perverted America has gotten today... I can not walk into a women's store without seeing pants! Just because a "store" makes pants for women doesn't mean they are right in God's eyes! Amen! Stores make p*rn tapes, etc., but does that mean it's right? I'm sure many stores in California make "certain" dresses for men... does that mean it's right? If I were to challenge you, it would be to go back in time when America had standards and you'd be shocked at how women NEVER wore pants and what others would have thought about her had she done that. A similar example is all the pregnant teenage women! I don't have two classes without one girl who is with child.. and back in the old days, it was a SHAME for a girl to get pregnant before marriage! Today, the teachers want to know "when are you due?" They're even praised!

Lyndie, thanks for that clarification.

menageriekeeper, until you find a scripture for me that says it's a sin for a man to even look at a women and tell she's immodest and look away that he has committed adultly or sinned for that matter, I will refute your point I sinned. In fact, I only see scripture thats says if a man LUSTS after that women he has committed adultery.. how else are we to witness to that person?

Matthew 5:28 - "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I have a Bible that tells me what's right and wrong and what's sin and what's not, thank ya ma'am! So, no, it's not left up for me to determine what's sin and what's not... it's up to God. And we find it no where God calls that a sin.

So you want to take issue about judging, eh? Well, do your homework first. Go back and reread Matthew 7:1-6 and you'll understand the rules of judging. "Judge not" means nothing to me because that's nothing more than a lie made up by people who are too weak-minded to address the issue at hand! The Bible doesn't say not to judge, it reminds us how to judge. You're guilty of judging me right now, by the way, of judging. Seems your philosophy doesn't work too well after all?

If the guy looks, the guy sinned!

Shane is excusing sin by blaming women... geesh!

I never read that. I only read if he lusts, he sins. You know, you people contradict yourselves quite a bit. First, if I notice that she is dressed immodestly, you want me to pull her aside and take her shopping and give her coffee, now you say I'm sinning by even LOOKING at her. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

I love each and every one of you, and I pray today that you'll let God come into your hearts about this issue and ask him... "what do you want me to wear, Lord?" You'll never understand the truth until you want to understand it. Trust me, I've been down that road on the same issue.

 

[tinytim]

Are you saying that if a woman bares her breast and a man looks to see if what he is seeing is for real or not, when he sees that it is, he turns away, that it is lusting? Gimme a break! Another woman would look to see if what she was seeing is for real or not.

BBob,

I am not sure you directed that ? to me.. but I will answer it...

I am only talking about lusting..

In your scenario, I don't think the guy would be sinning.. since he didn't lust.

If a woman/man dresses in a way that she "intends" to make men lust.. it is a sin for her.

If a woman/man lusts it is a sin for him.

And why are we only focusing on women's dress...

What about women watching football games and looking at the players' um.... well you know... there are a lot of puns I could use.. but I will refrain from them...

 

[Brother Shane]

If the guy looks, the guy sinned!

Shane is excusing sin by blaming women... geesh!

This statement contradicts your last post.

 

[gb93433]

closely examine? You don't have to when they say they are unbelievers. Serving God through a church is for believers, not unbelievers. Just who are they representing if they don't know Jesus, not Him, what purpose can they have in serving God in a church, not to glorify Him.

In most cases I would agree with you. Your opinion was the same opinion of two of the deacons who were responsible for inviting the Mormon bishop to come and preach for about the previous 25 years.

If I strictly adhered to your opinion then what purpose would kids have in serving in a church at any function if they do not know Christ?

The gentleman never stated that he was an unbeliever. He would have said that he believed in God but did not know that he needed to make a decision for Christ. Making a decison for Christ was a process of several smaller decisions for him.

At the time he was in a Bible study I was leading and it was no powder puff study. It required about four to six hours of study each week plus meeting for two hours each week to discuss what they studied. Each day they were to read their Bible and at the study they were to bring something new they learned from their Bible reading. The fact is that he was the only person who had everything done each week. He made the Christians look lazy. After about four weeks he did become a Christian. He never said anything or every led anything during that time. All he did was to play instrumental music. The other fact is that he was asked to join the music team. He did not ask them, but they asked him. He was one of several others. Basically he provided some instrumental music. Within a few weeks he did become a Christian. After that, that young man went with me every week to go visiting and follow up on people who visited the church. He also had to be at work at 4:30 AM.

While the deacons were inviting the Mormon bishop to come and preach year after year before I came, it was he, myself, and some others who stood against the deacons. It was the same deacons who complained about him that were the very same people who thought it a good thing to invite the Mormon bishop.

 

[menageriekeeper]

menageriekeeper, until you find a scripture for me that says it's a sin for a man to even look at a women and tell she's immodest and look away that he has committed adultly or sinned for that matter, I will refute your point I sinned. In fact, I only see scripture thats says if a man LUSTS after that women he has committed adultery.. how else are we to witness to that person?

Shane, honey, you gotta quit confusing me with other folk. I never said that you sinned. Period. I have never addressed your sin. I have addressed your arrogance and know-it-all attitude and even this idea you seem to have that you must be right and the rest of us wrong. But I have not accused you of sinning.

Now as far as this whole judging thing, let me quote YOU:

I have a Bible that tells me what's right and wrong and what's sin and what's not, thank ya ma'am! So, no, it's not left up for me to determine what's sin and what's not... it's up to God. And we find it no where God calls that a sin.

Now, I really think you need to reread your own words and consider that everyone else on this board own a copy of God's word and are perfectly capable of deciding these same issues for themselves.

But yet, you continue to put yourself forth as the authority on what God's word says and the rest of us, evidently, just don't know how to read.

On the pants issue: You have already been informed that the word breeches does not equal the word britches when used in the OT descriptions of preistly garments. Breeches were clearly described as undergarments, most closely compared to b*xer shorts in our culture.

Will it surprise you much, Shane, to discover that women wore no such thing that could be compared to p*nties in the day that the Bible was translated? Will it also surprise you that men wore "dresses" and "hose" in that same day? (and I'm not talking just kilts either, but even a kilt fits the definition of the word skirt!) Will you be even more surprised to discover that the first "pants" were "pantaloons" worn by Arabic women back in the day of harems and were considered strictly women's wear?

:laugh: Before you go off all rantly on the subject of women's clothing and sin, you should do some research!

 

[gb93433]

Ann, my point wasn't only priests wore breeches, it's the fact only men in the Bible wore breeches - whether they be priests or the ordinary Joe. No where in the Bible do you find a woman wearing breeches! Before Hollywood, it was well known that a woman was to wear a dress and men are to wear pants.

You are absolutely right when you state, “No where in the Bible do you find a woman wearing breeches!” You forgot to add men to that. Women and men never wore breeches during any time of the OT or NT. Long before Hollywood (in the OT and NT) men and women wore clothes that did not even come close to resembling pants or a dress. It was much closer to what Muslim women wear today. Men wore loincloths. Both sexes wore a tunic and sandals. The women wore jewelry if they could afford it.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Follow the link for this fella. He has a really cool mini-sk*rt(to big to post):
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13444/13444-h/images/full087.jpg

This pic from this link:

http://www.geocities.com/anahita_whitehorse/ottofemcloth.html

where the pic is dated within the article.

Shane the above are just a few examples of the different way the same basic garment has been used over the centuries. Google is your friend!

Ladies, why are we NOT surprised to find out that hose were an invention of men? :laugh:

 

[gb93433]

In certain other countries women and men show a lot more skin but America leads the way in the pornography.

 

[Brother Shane]

menageriekeeper, you didn't need to say it at all. Just because I have 300 posts doesn't mean I don't know how things roll 'round here, okay? You don't have to say it to mean anything. Your attitude speaks for itself. The way you came in and addressed what I said -- said it all.

Men never wore dresses! Yes, they wore robes, but you never found a man in the Bible wearing a dress! If that's what breeches were back then, so be it! That doesn't make your point valid! The fact is that pants are men's clothing, not women! And lastly, pants were a clothing item from men back in the 15th-16th century... and women picked up the style in the 20th century. So no, they were not designed for women. Men wore the pants first! <--- that's what "research" does for ya!


Oh, and... :laugh:

 

[Brother Shane]

You are absolutely right when you state, “No where in the Bible do you find a woman wearing breeches!” You forgot to add men to that. Women and men never wore breeches during any time of the OT or NT. Long before Hollywood (in the OT and NT) men and women wore clothes that did not even come close to resembling pants or a dress. It was much closer to what Muslim women wear today. Men wore loincloths. Both sexes wore a tunic and sandals. The women wore jewelry if they could afford it.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Shane honey, you are simply being hard headed. If the pics of the men above don't show them wearing dresses and hose, exactly what are they wearing? And the last pic is of a woman from Persia in a time period similar to that of the men. All time periods are between 14th and 17th centuries. I repeat: Google is your friend!

You simply choose to believe yourself and refuse to consider any other viewpoint.

Your attitude speaks for itself. The way you came in and addressed what I said -- said it all.

This here, cuts both ways. So if you think you are cutting me, you better watch out for the back swing! (meaning you need to take a long look at your own attitude)

LOL! take a look at the google ad for the Tudor Shoppe! :laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This thread is 26 pages long!

 

[Brother Shane]

menageriekeeper... I don't do pictures. I do facts. Those pictures don't prove to me that women wore pants before men. Again, if pants aren't men's clothing, what is? If dresses aren't women's clothing, what are? Today, men and women mix clothing and that's an abomination to God. Quit justifying the sin that women are wearing pants! You can fill this thread up to page 50 in pictures... it doesn't do me a bit a good. I know what the word says! Those pictures may have been drawn from the looks of the 14-20th centuries, but men wore the pants first. Google is your friend.

 

[donnA]

Shane you've been given facts over and over and you mock and refuse them. You've been given scripture and you mock and refuse them too.
What you want isn't bible, it's to be right no matter the cost, even if the cost is properly interpeted scripture.

 

[Brother Shane]

Good morning donnA! So it's a fact that women wore pants before men?