Pants Or No Pants

[Scarlett O.]

In Iraq, women are required to cover themselves head to toe. Does that make me immodest because I disagree with their definition of modesty? Of course not.

And these women who cover themselves from head to toe are still raped, assaulted, violated, and lusted after. It appears that their modest-to-a-fault attire has nothing to do with the heart of a man.

Does that mean that we, in the United States, can go around in micro-minis and bikinis and say that it's alright.....that men are going to lust anyway?

Nope!! In fact that's pretty stupid. I don't believe in showing more skin that you are covering.

I believe in common decency and modesty for both men and women.

But we as Christians have got to get the notion out of our heads that if women wore skirts all the time that men wouldn't have a sin problem.

Men need to take care of their own lust problem. Women need to dress with dignity and decency.

The two don't necessarily and don't always include each other.

 

[abcgrad94]

Well said, Scarlett!:thumbs:

 

[tinytim]

Yes, well said....

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ABC: This is my point exactly. With the exception of BapMom, I have never, ever met anyone who believed in "skirts only" who didn't have a better-than-thou attitude about it. We are to glory in the cross, not ourselves for the way we dress.

HP: Sorry, but I wonder seriously about your abilities to judge the motives of others. Could the possibility exist that the attitude we judge others with could be a reflection of our own? Just asking.

ABC: I wonder, as TT said, if people were horrified when men stopped wearing robes and donned pants instead.

HP: One needs to be careful who they listen to and the extent to which their comments are accurate. TT needs to read up a bit on the practice of ‘girding up.’ He has made some remarks that I for one do not believe are not in keeping with the way things really have been as far as any general practice of the dress of men.

ABC: In Iraq, women are required to cover themselves head to toe. Does that make me immodest because I disagree with their definition of modesty? Of course not.

HP: I agree, but what does that have to do with the question of whether or not you or anyone else is dressing modest? ‘Those that compare themselves to themselves or among themselves, are not wise.’

It would appear that the heathen often have a more keen sense of modesty than much of the Christian church world. Possibly there might be something we could learn from them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SO: And these women who cover themselves from head to toe are still raped, assaulted, violated, and lusted after. It appears that their modest-to-a-fault attire has nothing to do with the heart of a man.

HP: I would venture to guess that the crime rate between the two societies have little in common. That would be an interesting study for someone to provide for the list.(Countries that legalize such things as prostitution exempted)

SO: I believe in common decency and modesty for both men and women.

HP: When one leaves the confines of some well established moorings, modesty becomes relative. The issue we are dealing with is pants on women. Regardless of how one might feel today, I believe I can say without question that when then mooring of women wearing skirts went out the window, modesty was soon to follow its path on a grand scale. We have seen a decline in public modesty like no other generation has seen on such a scale. I for one believe that the pants issue was a watershed issue that set the course to immodesty in high gear.

SO: But we as Christians have got to get the notion out of our heads that if women wore skirts all the time that men wouldn't have a sin problem.

HP: If there was one issue that would be a boon to the spirituality of Christian men everywhere, it would be modesty of dress on women. It certainly would not end the sin or lust problem, but it would sure lessen the impact and distraction of temptation. As for skirts, we should all know that they can be as immodest as anything. Length, material, and fit all bear into tha equation.

SO: Men need to take care of their own lust problem. Women need to dress with dignity and decency.

HP: Sure men need to take care of their lust problem. I cannot help but believe God will judge women just as severe for their chosen attire as he will men for their lust, and we know how he will judge the man for certain.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I had a man in my congregation verbally attack me once because I wouldn't condemn an elderly lady for having short hair (very feminine cut, btw) and wearing pants when it was -24 in a blizzard.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I had a man in my congregation verbally attack me once because I wouldn't condemn an elderly lady for having short hair (very feminine cut, btw) and wearing pants when it was -24 in a blizzard.

I hope you put that busybody in his place.

 

[Brother Bob]

It seems to me the attraction to the opposite sex is built into all of us. That doesn't mean we have to let it get to the point of lust.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I hope you put that busybody in his place.

Pretty much.

Still didn't change his views, though, even though he couldn't show me where it was in the Bible.

This is one of the men that flat out told me (over a different subject), "I don't care what the words [in the Bible] actually say!"

 

[Hope of Glory]

It seems to me the attraction to the opposite sex is built into all of us. That doesn't mean we have to let it get to the point of lust.

Just like I don't think it's a sin to notice that someone is "sexy" (generically used, as in "attractive"), but it's easy to go over the line into lust. For example, the winner of a beauty contest over in Nanwalek was absolutely beautiful physically. Looked very nice in the dress.

But, she could cuss louder, spit further, and drink more than any guy in town.

It was easy to see the beauty without any attraction at all.

Come to think of it, that was in Port Graham, not Nanwalek. The girl from Nanwalek, while not physically ugly, wasn't beautiful, but she was a wonderful young lady.

So, I think it comes down to where a man's heart is: Can he see beauty without lusting?

The attraction is built in, that much is true, but does it manifest itself in an evil way or a pure way?

 

[Scarlett O.]

So, I think it comes down to where a man's heart is: Can he see beauty without lusting?

Hope of Glory,

I said this in another thread: "We have confused beauty with overt sexuality."

What we call "beautiful women"....(i.e. beauty pageant contestants in evening gowns/bathing suits, Playboy bunnies, Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, pin-up girls, college girls on the beach with very little on).....aren't actual displaying great beauty, but are more so about displaying their sexuality. And sexuality attracts. Like butter on a biscuit! :laugh:

It's easy for men to mistake sexuality for beauty because they are visually stimulated.

It's not beauty that leads to lust. It's the heart focusing on the overt sexuality of another person. And that can happen if one is beautiful or ugly or fully clothed or naked.

 

[abcgrad94]

Sorry, but I wonder seriously about your abilities to judge the motives of others. Could the possibility exist that the attitude we judge others with could be a reflection of our own? Just asking.


ABC: I was raised in a "skirts only" home and attended "skirts only" churches and Christian schools for most of my childhood. If I sound judgemental, it's because I saw firsthand the hypocritical attitudes of those who constantly belittled or name-called anyone who did not have their same strict "standards." I heard sermon after sermon (from my pastors and also from my dad) about how women should dress modestly and be submissive. I heard few sermons on the heart, and most of those contained opinions based on man's preferences instead of scripture. I conformed only because I HAD to please man or risk harsh punishment at home.

If someone wants to be "skirts only" that's their business and God's. I just don't want to be labeled as immodest simply because my definition is different from theirs.

HP: One needs to be careful who they listen to and the extent to which their comments are accurate. TT needs to read up a bit on the practice of ‘girding up.

ABC: I think we can agree on one thing. In Biblical times, men wore robes or robe like garments and today they wear pants instead. At some point in time the fashion changed. I can't help but wonder why it's an issue for women but not for the men? If it's wrong for women to change from dresses (robes) to slacks, then men should go back to wearing robes, too.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
It seems to me the attraction to the opposite sex is built into all of us. That doesn't mean we have to let it get to the point of lust.
HoG;
Just like I don't think it's a sin to notice that someone is "sexy" (generically used, as in "attractive"), but it's easy to go over the line into lust. For example, the winner of a beauty contest over in Nanwalek was absolutely beautiful physically. Looked very nice in the dress.

But, she could cuss louder, spit further, and drink more than any guy in town.

It was easy to see the beauty without any attraction at all.

Come to think of it, that was in Port Graham, not Nanwalek. The girl from Nanwalek, while not physically ugly, wasn't beautiful, but she was a wonderful young lady.

So, I think it comes down to where a man's heart is: Can he see beauty without lusting?

The attraction is built in, that much is true, but does it manifest itself in an evil way or a pure way?

If someone sees a very attractive opposite and thinks they are attractive, that is not lust. We would have to be "brain dead", if we did not notice.

BBob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SO: It's not beauty that leads to lust. It's the heart focusing on the overt sexuality of another person. And that can happen if one is beautiful or ugly or fully clothed or naked.

HP: Lust is simply a strong desire. It does not have anything necessarily to do with sex, although it is often used in that context. You can lust after a meal of quail. You can lust after any object desired, and for whatever selfish purpose, can you not? Why could not one lust after another for their beauty, their money, their power, etc., etc.?

 

[Eric B]

HP: When one leaves the confines of some well established moorings, modesty becomes relative. The issue we are dealing with is pants on women. Regardless of how one might feel today, I believe I can say without question that when then mooring of women wearing skirts went out the window, modesty was soon to follow its path on a grand scale. We have seen a decline in public modesty like no other generation has seen on such a scale. I for one believe that the pants issue was a watershed issue that set the course to immodesty in high gear.

The real watershed was the Fall, and so-called "christians thought they basically reversed this with their own "civilizations" under Church rule. But they then implemented all of these rules, many hlf-biblical, like this, and others outright unbiblical (beards, etc), and then forced them all tyranically, while sinning in many other areas (regarding other peropls as part human and thus worthy to be oppressed, etc, and all the other hypocrisy). This led to eventual rebellion, as no man has the absolute power to get away with stuff like this forever. So again, the real watershed was the fallen condition of man, and people who think their religion overcame the fall, yet now some outside force has wrecked it, leading to a new fall, basically, will always look for some "watershed" or catalyst for decline in some particular action of others.

 

[abcgrad94]

The real watershed was the Fall, and so-called "christians thought they basically reversed this with their own "civilizations" under Church rule. But they then implemented all of these rules, many hlf-biblical, like this, and others outright unbiblical (beards, etc), and then forced them all tyranically, while sinning in many other areas (regarding other peropls as part human and thus worthy to be oppressed, etc, and all the other hypocrisy). This led to eventual rebellion, as no man has the absolute power to get away with stuff like this forever. So again, the real watershed was the fallen condition of man, and people who think their religion overcame the fall, yet now some outside force has wrecked it, leading to a new fall, basically, will always look for some "watershed" or catalyst for decline in some particular action of others.

:thumbs: Good insight, Eric B.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eric: The real watershed was the Fall, and so-called "christians thought they basically reversed this with their own "civilizations" under Church rule. But they then implemented all of these rules, many hlf-biblical, like this, and others outright unbiblical (beards, etc), and then forced them all tyranically, while sinning in many other areas (regarding other peropls as part human and thus worthy to be oppressed, etc, and all the other hypocrisy).

HP: What rules are you talking about? Why would they have any watershed affect upon the Church that simply the fall of man was not responsible for? What beard rule, or any others, are you suggesting that have been implemented by the Church since the fall of man that have had an impact on the Church? I always thought ‘the Church’ basically started as we know it under the NT dispensation. Would you consider the advent of Christ and the establishment of His Church a ‘water shed’ issue?

Eric: This led to eventual rebellion, as no man has the absolute power to get away with stuff like this forever. So again, the real watershed was the fallen condition of man, and people who think their religion overcame the fall, yet now some outside force has wrecked it, leading to a new fall, basically, will always look for some "watershed" or catalyst for decline in some particular action of others.

HP: So everything that has affected the Church has been affecting it since the fall of man. I am not saying that sin has not affected the Church detrimentally, or that all evil, immoral, indecent, practices are not in some sense a result of the fall, but one has to be blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other not to see that there have been some well established practices instituted by society for hundreds, even thousands of years, that once broken down, have opened the floodgates of confusion as to what is and what is not modest, moral, etc. Certainly movies, TV, and the advent of the computer age are other watershed issues as well that have made their impact upon decency and morality in the church and our world, or would you flat line all these issues as well and delegate them as irrelevant as far as to their impact upon the decline of morality?

Possibly you do not see that state of man any worse now than at the fall? Will things wax more evil before the coming of Christ? Are there any issues you see that have affected the church other than 'their own rules' you allude to, what ever they were?

I have seen a dramatic shift in the way the church looks upon divorce and re-marriage ‘in my brief lifetime.’ This is yet another watershed issue that has led to our present moral decline, or would you have us to believe that the Church since the fall has held the same opinions as we do today on this issue, or that the same problems on the same level within the Church have existed since the fall of man?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

By the way, just who is it that wears the pants in your family? :wavey:

 

[Eric B]

HP: What rules are you talking about? Why would they have any watershed affect upon the Church that simply the fall of man was not responsible for? What beard rule, or any others, are you suggesting that have been implemented by the Church since the fall of man that have had an impact on the Church? I always thought ‘the Church’ basically started as we know it under the NT dispensation. Would you consider the advent of Christ and the establishment of His Church a ‘water shed’ issue?

My response wasn't aimed solely at you, so you or your church background may not be guilty of everything I mentioned. However, it is the perception that all was once well or even "better", in the Christendon paradigm, until some "watershed issue" or series of events, caused by outsiders wrecked it all; I was getting at.

There were planty of ridiculous, unnatural and unbiblical rules in the past. Sex, even in marriage, was once looked down on as dirty. That created a lot of unnartural repression, so people rebelled and went to the opposite exteme, and said that it should be OK whenever and with whomever. In the early days of TV, "pregnant" was a dirty word. Why? It stemmed from the other belief I just mentioned. So that was rebelled against too, and people decided to bust all taboos, even truly inappropriate things. Much of the convservative Church condemned beards and mustaches on men. Now that is the natural masculine feature, so why would that be condemned? This was enforced right along with strict male hair and female skirt lengths, which have more biblical basis. the heck out of kids, especially when pictures of Jesus and others violated the rules). So there too, they rebelled against everything. The rule of some other Churches on no pants for women and head coverings also had partial biblical bases, but went out with the other stuff. And let's not forget about the doctrine that certain races of people were "chosen", and should be dominant, while others were "cursed", and should be subjugated. Tied to this were doctrines of "acceptable music", and an infallible Bible version, and various political stances; all drawn along ethnic lines. Male-female roles were also often pushed to unbiblical extremes, with fathers/husbands acting as if they were God. So the kids rebelled against all of this, and now not only do you have to accept all people, but their beliefs, preferences and lifestyles as well, and they want everything to be "equal".

The Church then complained about how society "no longer knew right from wrong", but then the old time Church didn't either, by enforcing all of those rules in the name of the Bible, when they turned out not to be biblical at all. Of course, people will apologize for the old religious order and say "well, they were just imperfect humans". Well, then, so were all the rebelling later generations, and it all began with the Fall, so that is actually the Watershed of history.

HP: So everything that has affected the Church has been affecting it since the fall of man. I am not saying that sin has not affected the Church detrimentally, or that all evil, immoral, indecent, practices are not in some sense a result of the fall, but one has to be blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other not to see that there have been some well established practices instituted by society for hundreds, even thousands of years, that once broken down, have opened the floodgates of confusion as to what is and what is not modest, moral, etc. Certainly movies, TV, and the advent of the computer age are other watershed issues as well that have made their impact upon decency and morality in the church and our world, or would you flat line all these issues as well and delegate them as irrelevant as far as to their impact upon the decline of morality?

Are there any issues you see that have affected the church other than 'their own rules' you allude to, what ever they were?

I have seen a dramatic shift in the way the church looks upon divorce and re-marriage ‘in my brief lifetime.’ This is yet another watershed issue that has led to our present moral decline, or would you have us to believe that the Church since the fall has held the same opinions as we do today on this issue, or that the same problems on the same level within the Church have existed since the fall of man?

You're looking at an outward appearance of behavior. We think "when we had all those rules, that kept society good, but when the rules changed, society then went downhill". But the cracks were there. As long as all those things I mentioned were allowed and condoned, how do you think that would keep society in a moral state forever? Again, they did not reverse the effects of the Fall, but instead went often into ubiblical extremes, creating confusion (as I showed), yet the sin that was being repressed (not cleansed out of people's hearts) would simply burst out eventually. That is this "floodgate" and and others talk about. But it did not come out of nowhere all of a sudden. It was there, hidden, and often in different forms. Part of the church's problem is that they looked on sexual immorality as practically the only sin, so when that was more covered up, and then suddenly burst out in the open, it looks like some "floodgate" was opened, but that is an illusion from placing so much focus on one kind of sin, and ignoring all the others.

Possibly you do not see that state of man any worse now than at the fall?

"Worse" than at the Fall? You have to be careful with that. Fallenness is fallenness. Sin is sin. Nobody, whether individual, nor especially groups such as nations and generations, isgoing to have any merit by not being "as bad as someone else". Again, you are looking at outward behavior. At the Fall, there were only two people on the earth. Of course, there is not going to be as much sin, compared to billions. But with the very next generation, things rapidly begin going downhill, just as worse as anything you see today, minus the technology to carry it out. By the time of Noah, it was bad enough that God wanted to wipe out the earth then. He wiped out most of it, and strted over, but sin quickly filled the earth again. He then ruled over a nation, but they still had just as much sin as anyone else. By the time of the NT, they went to the opposite extreme of their fathers, and tried to hide behind legalism, but they were just as wicked. So God was teaching us that none of those methods of controlling sin (exterminating, theocracies, etc) work, yet so many today long for elements of that to try to "restore" what they think was a less fallen golden age of "Christian" Western civilization.

Will things wax more evil before the coming of Christ?

Some aspects of behavior may get worse. But all the sin is in the people's hearts today, and comes out in different ways.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eric: However, it is the perception that all was once well or even "better", in the Christendon paradigm, until some "watershed issue" or series of events, caused by outsiders wrecked it all; I was getting at.

HP: It would appear to me that there are some times in history that our Churches have indeed been better off, at least in certain areas of solid revival efforts and the periods of time directly during and following. We have not seen such a moving of the Holy Spirit for about 150 years.

Eric: Much of the convservative Church condemned beards and mustaches on men.

HP: Only in recent times has that been true. What is interesting is that even in some groups that today preach and teach against them, their founders, years ago, wore them. I think many would turn over in their grave to see what is held by their followers today.

Eric: the heck out of kids, especially when pictures of Jesus and others violated the rules).

HP: Certainly we can draw no inferences from the drawings of even ungodly men that have no earthly idea as to His hair length.

Eric: But with the very next generation, things rapidly begin going downhill, just as worse as anything you see today, minus the technology to carry it out.

HP: Technology today certain does have the ability to magnify and increase the opportunity of evil behavior. Such comes the Scriptural notion of things waxing worse and worse as the end approaches.

Eric:The Church then complained about how society "no longer knew right from wrong", but then the old time Church didn't either, by enforcing all of those rules in the name of the Bible, when they turned out not to be biblical at all. Of course, people will apologize for the old religious order and say "well, they were just imperfect humans". Well, then, so were all the rebelling later generations, and it all began with the Fall, so that is actually the Watershed of history.

HP: I almost hear you insinuating that the evil in the world is due to the enforcement of certain rules concerning dress and conduct by conservative churches of the "old religious order." At least that gives the Jews a needed break on being dubbed the perpetrators of all evil.

Eric: You're looking at an outward appearance of behavior. We think "when we had all those rules, that kept society good, but when the rules changed, society then went downhill".

HP: No, rules in and of themselves make no one better. Just the same, I find a sense of thankfulness and appreciation for those that find it within themselves to dress in in such a way as to bring upon themselves the ridicule of the modern and often immodest church world. May their numbers increase. I for one believe if nothing else that they help add needed balance to a church that has all but rejected biblical and reasonable modesty.