Modesty

[4His_glory]

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.

The reason they tucked up their garments was not to be modest but rather to not be hindered and restricted in battle or work.

 

[Brother Shane]

Lyndie...

Natural observation is not saring at a woman long enough to notice the form of her breast.

Then what is it? Who said anything about staring? I believe it's nothing else than natural observation when you look at a women and her breasts are so formed that when you look at her you notice them. There is a difference in women that cover theirselves and the ones that don't. I won't be around a woman that is showing herself or even is tight-fitted yet covered. 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.

Why on earth would you be looking there in the first place?

That's not the question, Lyndie. The question is "why would I woman dress like that... in the first place?"

 

[Brother Shane]

The reason they tucked up their garments was not to be modest but rather to not be hindered and restricted in battle or work.

Exactly! So, when they DID tuck in their robes or coats, they had on breeches underneath that kept them modest. I really don't think they got phone calls when it was time to fight and went home to change into breeches... they had them underneath them the whole time, which is exactly what those scriptures describe.

 

[4His_glory]

Exactly! So, when they DID tuck in their robes or coats, they had on breeches underneath that kept them modest. I really don't think they got phone calls when it was time to fight and went home to change into breeches...

You totally missed to point. You are reading into the reason they tucked up their garments. It was not to fight "modestly". It was to not have a piece of garment loose that could hinder them and cost them their life.

Soldiers did not say: "Ok everybody we want to be modest while we slay a few Egyptians so lest tuck up our robes." No they wanted to be prepared and ready to fight with no loose ends of clothing getting in the way.

 

[4His_glory]

Lyndie...

That's not the question, Lyndie. The question is "why would I woman dress like that... in the first place?"

No Lyndie is right. You are responsible for your own actions. If you are staring at woman improperly that is your fault not hers. It does not matter how immodestly she may be dressed, you need to do what is right and not focus on that part of a woman´s body.

 

[4His_glory]

Oh and by the way, for all we know, only the priests wore the breeches underneath.

 

[Lyndie]

Brother Shane said-I believe it's nothing else than natural observation when you look at a women and her breasts are so formed that when you look at her you notice them.

That means you were looking, unless they are on her face somewhere or they defy the law of gravity somehow. When I talk or look at someone I look at thier face, and I probably couldn't even tell you what thier clothes look like, cause I make it a point not to look, unless its blatantly obvious. No one can notice a woman's form unless they are looking at whatever part of said body. That would be like me saying 'his pants are too tight in the front.' How would I know unless I was looking somewhere I shouldn't have been?

 

[Brother Shane]

You totally missed to point. You are reading into the reason they tucked up their garments. It was not to fight "modestly". It was to not have a piece of garment loose that could hinder them and cost them their life.

Soldiers did not say: "Ok everybody we want to be modest while we slay a few Egyptians so lest tuck up our robes." No they wanted to be prepared and ready to fight with no loose ends of clothing getting in the way.

If anyone has missed the point, glory, it's you! The men back then were modest! The scriptures say that the breeches were "underneath the coats" and were "upon the flesh". The argument here is that these "breeches" are only found in regards to men and they were not todays underwear, so to speak. When the man would need to work or fight, all he would have to do to keep from the coat or robe getting in his way is to tuck it in, and still follow the Bible's command of modesty.

No Lyndie is right. You are responsible for your own actions. If you are staring at woman improperly that is your fault not hers. It does not matter how immodestly she may be dressed, you need to do what is right and not focus on that part of a woman´s body.

...and for me to determine "how immodestly she may be dressed" I must have to see her.. which is what Salamander was talking about. You and Lyndie took it to a whole different level by saying we were staring at them and looking upon them improperly. Same thing with donnA... false accusations. Look, I can take those all day because there is one Man who knows the truth, OK? So you two can drop the allegations that someone was "focused on that part of a woman's body." Sadly, that your only focal point... accusations. False ones at that.

 

[Brother Shane]

That means you were looking, unless they are on her face somewhere or they defy the law of gravity somehow. When I talk or look at someone I look at thier face, and I probably couldn't even tell you what thier clothes look like, cause I make it a point not to look, unless its blatantly obvious. No one can notice a woman's form unless they are looking at whatever part of said body. That would be like me saying 'his pants are too tight in the front.' How would I know unless I was looking somewhere I shouldn't have been?

This is getting unexplainable. I guess if someone was standing in front of you and their breast were hanging out, you wouldn't know it huh? And if their shirt was so tight it was like it wasn't even there.. you wouldn't know it huh?

Really, if you can look at someone and do all this... I applaud you. You have a gift.

 

[Brother Shane]

Oh and by the way, for all we know, only the priests wore the breeches underneath.

Then the priests faught the battle, huh?

 

[annsni]

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.

It is always used in relation to a certain KIND of man - a priest.

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.

However, men did not wear breeches - only priests did. If all men wore them, why would God have to tell the priests to put them on? You're wrong in this interpretation. It is well known that only priests wore breeches.

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.

[/quote]

Since breeches only were worn by priests, you have no worries. I never wear men's clothing - I only wear things that are made for women. And if you say that pants should only belong to men, I challenge you to go into the ladies department of a store and purchase pants there. You should have no problem since you feel pants are men's clothing.

 

[annsni]

Exactly! So, when they DID tuck in their robes or coats, they had on breeches underneath that kept them modest. I really don't think they got phone calls when it was time to fight and went home to change into breeches... they had them underneath them the whole time, which is exactly what those scriptures describe.

OK - So you're now saying that an item of clothing that was only worn by priests was worn by the men who fought?

Those Scriptures describe nothing more than this:

#1 - Priests wore breeches.
#2 - Men going to wore tied up their robes so that they would not injure themselves or get it caught on something when fighting.

It doesn't help your interpretation to stand at all.

 

[4His_glory]

If anyone has missed the point, glory, it's you! The men back then were modest! The scriptures say that the breeches were "underneath the coats" and were "upon the flesh". The argument here is that these "breeches" are only found in regards to men and they were not todays underwear, so to speak. When the man would need to work or fight, all he would have to do to keep from the coat or robe getting in his way is to tuck it in, and still follow the Bible's command of modesty.



...and for me to determine "how immodestly she may be dressed" I must have to see her.. which is what Salamander was talking about. You and Lyndie took it to a whole different level by saying we were staring at them and looking upon them improperly. Same thing with donnA... false accusations. Look, I can take those all day because there is one Man who knows the truth, OK? So you two can drop the allegations that someone was "focused on that part of a woman's body." Sadly, that your only focal point... accusations. False ones at that.

The did not tuck their garments into their breeches but rather folded them between their legs and tied it up with itself. So yes you are not even getting the point. "Girding up ones loins" had nothing to do with modesty but with preparedness for battle.

Besides that- this whole britches thing is part of levitical regulations. Lets interpret them within context instead of tearing them out to make some obscure point about modesty.

I am all for modesty. But I believe true modesty flows from a humble heart that seeks to glorify God in all things. Therefore a modest person will not judge others.

 

[Joe]

First of all, you did not read the whole thread. I NEVER said that, somehow words someone else said were attributed to me.


Secondly, wait until you are 52. I remember being a teen (believe it or not) and at least in my case age does not temper temptation to look. I still must choose not to lets my look linger when I see immodesty. I would think that most 50 year olds will agree with me.

We appear to agree if that is alright with you. Here it is again....

"At 52, imo, most men (not all) do not experience near the level of tempation as teenagers do, or even very young adults."

 

[annsni]

Then the priests faught the battle, huh?

There are 5 passages where "breeches" is used in the KJV:

Exodus 28:42 - God is telling Moses to make breeches for Aaron's sons "so that they may serve me as priests". Vs. 43 says "And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy [place]; that they bear not iniquity, and die: [it shall be] a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him." Remember that the clothing that a priest would wear to come near into the altar were not everyday clothing but special clothing set aside to wear only in the tabernacle.

Exodus 39:28 - describes the making of the clothing that was going to be for the priests. These were different clothing than the ordinary Israelite wore.

Leviticus 6:10 - 11 - "And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place." Obviously again, breeches were for priests and only to be worn at the altar. He was to take OFF these garments when he left to go outside the camp.

Leviticus 16:3-4 "Thus shall Aaron come into the holy [place]: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these [are] holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and [so] put them on." Again, this was for the priest and note "these are holy garments". Breeches are holy!

Ezekiel 44:18 is very clearly again about the priest going into the sanctuary as per vs. 15.

Your argument falls way short when you want to use "breeches" to mean something all men wear and only men. God's Word is clear - and you are denying that.


By the way, Scripture doesn't only speak of men "girding their loins". Read Isaiah 32:11.

 

[donnA]

Ann, People like this never care what the bible really says. Only what they twist it to say.

 

[annsni]

Ann, People like this never care what the bible really says. Only what they twist it to say.

I know, Donna. I know....

 

[Lyndie]

This is getting unexplainable. I guess if someone was standing in front of you and their breast were hanging out, you wouldn't know it huh? And if their shirt was so tight it was like it wasn't even there.. you wouldn't know it huh?

Really, if you can look at someone and do all this... I applaud you. You have a gift.

If you'd go back and read my post, I said unless it was blatantly obvious.

 

[gb93433]

A non christian should not be serving in the church. This is unbiblical.

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?

 

[annsni]

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?

Any person serving in the church represents that church. Anyone on the worship team, Sunday school teachers, ushers, and greeters should all be members of the church. A member of the church should be a believer.

A child handing out a cookie to a table mate is not what Donna is talking about. This was a person serving on the worship team leading the congregation in worshiping our Lord. Don't you think they should have a relationship with Him?