Brother Shane
New Member
Post #1
Part 2
Funny that you don't give me another option in your arrogant list of reasons to sit on the first pew! I sit there so I'm not distracted. Did you copy that? I bet when you go to a concert you want to be on the first row... don't you? Why is it any different in God's House? Well, after all, I guess it would be with you because I doubt you'd wear your farm clothes to a concert anyway. I want to be there so I can get the best seat... you stay focused. You feel the heat coming off the preacher, so to speak, lol.
I saw as much leg as I needed to see. I saw enough leg to say it was all, OK? It doesn't need to be 100% all of her leg for it to be immodest, does it? I called it a trash bag because it was slouchy. It looked like it needed to be in the trash. And yes, the thing hugged her "other parts" of her body so much that I was embarrassed for the girl to even get out of her seat. Maybe a trash bag would have been more modest... maybe the commercial kind my school uses... heavy duty too to make sure it's all covered!
Why would I recognize her role as a mother? I didn't know the woman, never seen her before, and to be correct, I never saw her child. Nor did she come back for church that night. The nerve of some people, huh? It's not my duty to recognize her role of a mother. In fact, while we're on this issue, how come you observe mother's day when that's no where in scripture and they want to bring it into the church, yet you need scripture to dress up for the King? You'll dress up for mother's day, though. You'll dress up for yourself and everyone else, but not the King. I'm puzzled.
Just what about a bare-back to I find distressing? The same reason I find bare-legs, bare-stomach, bare-breasts, and so forth distressting... NAKEDNESS! Do you think God would approve of you going around dressed like that? Why uncover the back? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? DID YOU HEAR??? WHY??!!
So you're telling me that an uncovered back is okay just because it won't cause a man to stumble? Well, it causes me to stumble. Know why? Because an uncovered woman goes against God's law. That's why! Do I need a better reason? I don't think 1 Timothy 2:9 allowed the exception of the back, do you? I'd hate to know it thought the naked back was modest. Actually, that would contradict the whole verse!
What I find disturbing is your alleged claim that I may find a bare-back "sexual" in a "small child." Ma'am, I'll ask that you refrain from such comments. I never once said that the child's dress ran "sexually" through my head yet I said that it was wrong and I pitied the mother. In fact, I even refuted donnaA's claim that I "ogled" the girls. That comment was out of line totally! No evidence supported your allegation when actually it shot it down.
Ed... I'm not getting to details about what "modest" means and how it is referenced in the Bible, but read this...
[ source: http://www.momof9splace.com/talkmodesty.html ]
And the skirt you were referring to was not 'a skirt' that women wear today; it is the end of something.
From the genuine Webster 1828-
SKIRT, n.
1. The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Sam.15.
2. The edge of any part of dress.
3. Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town.
I'm not addressing the footwear issue any longer. For the very first post, everything I said about footwear was taken out of context. I will remove my claim that they didn't wear them to God's House. There is no telling what footwear they wore back then, but with the footwear we have today, there is no excuse to go almost "barefooted."
C4K... see above.
Beth.. do you really think I haven't seen those scriptures before in my fight for what's right? Perhaps you should read my answer back to him, OK?
Part 2
Funny that you don't give me another option in your arrogant list of reasons to sit on the first pew! I sit there so I'm not distracted. Did you copy that? I bet when you go to a concert you want to be on the first row... don't you? Why is it any different in God's House? Well, after all, I guess it would be with you because I doubt you'd wear your farm clothes to a concert anyway. I want to be there so I can get the best seat... you stay focused. You feel the heat coming off the preacher, so to speak, lol.
I saw as much leg as I needed to see. I saw enough leg to say it was all, OK? It doesn't need to be 100% all of her leg for it to be immodest, does it? I called it a trash bag because it was slouchy. It looked like it needed to be in the trash. And yes, the thing hugged her "other parts" of her body so much that I was embarrassed for the girl to even get out of her seat. Maybe a trash bag would have been more modest... maybe the commercial kind my school uses... heavy duty too to make sure it's all covered!
Why would I recognize her role as a mother? I didn't know the woman, never seen her before, and to be correct, I never saw her child. Nor did she come back for church that night. The nerve of some people, huh? It's not my duty to recognize her role of a mother. In fact, while we're on this issue, how come you observe mother's day when that's no where in scripture and they want to bring it into the church, yet you need scripture to dress up for the King? You'll dress up for mother's day, though. You'll dress up for yourself and everyone else, but not the King. I'm puzzled.
Just what about a bare-back to I find distressing? The same reason I find bare-legs, bare-stomach, bare-breasts, and so forth distressting... NAKEDNESS! Do you think God would approve of you going around dressed like that? Why uncover the back? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? DID YOU HEAR??? WHY??!!
So you're telling me that an uncovered back is okay just because it won't cause a man to stumble? Well, it causes me to stumble. Know why? Because an uncovered woman goes against God's law. That's why! Do I need a better reason? I don't think 1 Timothy 2:9 allowed the exception of the back, do you? I'd hate to know it thought the naked back was modest. Actually, that would contradict the whole verse!
What I find disturbing is your alleged claim that I may find a bare-back "sexual" in a "small child." Ma'am, I'll ask that you refrain from such comments. I never once said that the child's dress ran "sexually" through my head yet I said that it was wrong and I pitied the mother. In fact, I even refuted donnaA's claim that I "ogled" the girls. That comment was out of line totally! No evidence supported your allegation when actually it shot it down.
Ed... I'm not getting to details about what "modest" means and how it is referenced in the Bible, but read this...
What does the Greek word “katastole” (apparel) mean? In our modern society, the word apparel could mean a bikini! Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words tells us “katastole” is connected with “katastello,” which means "to send or let down, to lower" (kata, "down," stello, "to send"), was primarily a garment let down; hence, "dress, attire," in general (cf. stole, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank.) This describes a long, flowing robe-type garment.
The only time the word “katastole” is used is when it is describing how a woman is to dress AND it is a verse that is specifically addressing modesty. It describes a LONG, FLOWING, LOOSE, outer garment. All other references to “apparel” in the New Testament are gender neutral. They simply mean “clothing” or “to clothe.” We are to understand that as women, our clothing should be long, flowing and loose.
[ source: http://www.momof9splace.com/talkmodesty.html ]
And the skirt you were referring to was not 'a skirt' that women wear today; it is the end of something.
From the genuine Webster 1828-
SKIRT, n.
1. The lower and loose part of a coat or other garment; the part below the waist; as the skirt of a coat or mantle. 1 Sam.15.
2. The edge of any part of dress.
3. Border; edge; margin; extreme part; as the skirt of a forest; the skirt of a town.
I'm not addressing the footwear issue any longer. For the very first post, everything I said about footwear was taken out of context. I will remove my claim that they didn't wear them to God's House. There is no telling what footwear they wore back then, but with the footwear we have today, there is no excuse to go almost "barefooted."
C4K... see above.
Beth.. do you really think I haven't seen those scriptures before in my fight for what's right? Perhaps you should read my answer back to him, OK?
Last edited by a moderator: