Question women and dresses

i thought i was the only one thinking bathing suits in church were immodest. phewwwwww

 

This verse is talking about priestly clothing.

 

Actually Exodus 28:42 doesn't say anything about what the minimum requirements for covering nakedness are.

What it does say:

1. The purpose of the clothing was to cover nakedness

2. Clothing from the loins to the thighs achieves # 1.


Now, it never said that the clothing prescribed was the bare minimum or not. It may be, but it equally might not be.

 

ok i think we are in agreement that wearing pants is not a sin just as long they are modest. what are some verses that i can use concerning modest dressing.

 

well, we know from Pauls letter to Timothy that women are to dress modestly (this includes not wearing jewelry that would be too flashy), we know from Exodus that when the priests were to cover thier nakedness the description went so far as to say the thighs and loins should be covered, we know that looking on someone's nakedness is considered a bad thing in the bible... there isn't much GREAT detail on the subject. we know that men and women aren't allowed to wear clothing made for the opposite sex.... if you found something I didn't feel free to clue me in

 

Minor detail--it said covered to the thighs. To me this sounds like mid-thigh. If the thighs to are covered, I'd say that's to the knee.

And yes, this does not say if it is considered the minimum standard for me or not. Nevertheless, going by this reference you can't say that swim trunks are immodest because they cover this area.

And you still need a verse that says that women can't go shirtless. Apparently men are allowed to!

 

Why is it that when dress is discussed it's almost always aimed at women? Yeah, I know we have more variety of what to wear than men.

My dh went to a legalistic Baptist church that taught women had to wear dresses and other rules. Well one Sunday two women can in. One wearing slacks and the other a tight, short dress. Guess who was talked about? The one wearing pants who was more covered than the one in the dress.

This church even insisted that if they went swimming they needed to be fully clothed. Very dangerous--especially if in the ocean. The weight of the clothes would be a hindrance. I wear a very modest swim suit and am comfortable in it.

And another way I see it, the world we live in is not safe--especially for women. I am more safe if I am out in pants than a dress, b/c if I am attacked I have a better chance of not being totally violated b/c the pants may protect me a little more. I know that may be extreme--but women are attacked all the time.

I know how to dress properly for all occassions. But I won't be wearing a dress to play volley ball or when I go white water rafting.

Take care.

Linda

 

By GrannyGumbo:

I wonder what those look like?? I haven't a clue

 

I agree, 25% of women are visual,so for them men's dress matters. But it doesn't appear too to a lot of men.
By the way, I'm one of the 25%, so the way a man dresses matters to me, there is modest and unmodest dress for men too, believe me. But we never seem to discuss that.

 

Granny, do you mean those off the butt with the fancy drawers britches?

 

Around here, they are called 'fag pants'...and yes, they hang down to their kneecaps; I won't go into detail as to why they are made that way, but the sodomites do have an agenda. I'm fed-up going to the store and having to tell 'em to pull their britches up so I don't have to see their drawers. I'm sick of seeing half-naked little girls. I'm disgusted seeing mamas dressed like whores. And we wonder what's wrong with America...where's the publick outcry? Can God's judgment be very far?

 

Well, I think it is sick to walk around with your underware showing like that.
And I think someone needs to teach girls how to dress. Pants or not, there is nothing modest about it.

 

Says who? Says society, not scripture.

I agree. However, is dressing up required? Also, who sets the standard for what is considered dressed up? Society, not scripture.

Is a pair of shorts appropriate attire in church? I wore that this past Sunday.

When I was vacationing in Hawaii, I wore board shorts and a tank tee (the church service was about 100 yards from the beach). My wife wore her bathing suit and a sarong. Several beachgoers joined the service, quite literally, by walking up from the the beach. Some of the golfers from the local course joined likewise, in shorts and tee shirts, or golf shirts, or whatever they wore. No one was deemed to be immodest or sexual. Perhaps they might be so if it was a church in, say, Atlanta or Seattle, but it was not immodest or sexual at all to the folks who were there. In fact, if you came to this service in a suit and tie, you'd be quite out of place.

Yes, I think it is wrong to show off, because it brings attention to one self pretentiously. However, I can find no scripture that makes "dressing up" a requirement. Yes, we typically do it out of custom, but not out of scriptural mandate.

I would disagree only slightly. I would say that anything that draws unreasonable attention in a sexual manner is inappropriate. Again, a bathing suit at St Patrick's Cathedral would apply. However, a bathing suit at a church service on a Hawaiian beach typically does not.

Good observation. I, too, have a problem ith certain types of dress, but that is strictly my problem. Unlike some, I don't inflict "my problem" upon others via legalism.

True. However, views on what fashions are acceptible to qualify as honoring and respecting to God do indeed chance.

 

Pretty vulgar for a granny, don't ya think?

I must have missed something...where does it say you have the authority or were required to tell other people what to do, especially other people's kids?

I agree with modesty, but you are not the authority to say who is dressed like a "whore" or not. From your background, 99% of people dress like "whores".

People with this kind of attitude, not showing love, only condemnation and hatred to what you don't agree with, especially when there is no scriptural basis for dress except "modesty".

No it's not, but your's has already arrived.

 

I don't belittle your opinion, but I think your use of inappropriate language is a little uncalled for. It's a bit distrubing when you complain about America, yet you, a granny nonetheless, use inappropriate language.

 

Granny writes:

I know of some nutcase extremist IFB's (Jim Vineyard, for example) who've made statements that amount to: "Any woman who wears pants is dressed like a whore".

So if my elderly mother- on a brisk subzero January morning here in Minnesota- decides to wear a pantsuit to church because with her circulation & arthritis it helps in keeping her warm, she's dressed like a "whore"?

If someone were to say that to my face, all bets would be off as to how civil my reaction would be.

 

Well, I went in search of the origin of baggy pants, and I found the "sodomite pants" myth! It's on Snopes, they believe it to be false. I'll let you look it up on your own if you're interested.

It looks like the pants may originally have been taken from prison garb where the prisoners were issued badly fitting clothes and not allowed to wear belts (suicide risk). With hip-hop and rap "artists" constantly hopping into and out of prison, the style moved to the outside world. Then from there it amplified--if somewhat baggy pants are cool, really baggy pants must be really cool!

Currently the style is popular among teenagers and young men in inner cities and among those who are avid hip-hop fans or skateboard/snowboard. A good number of the people wearing this style are insecure while simultaneously wanting to be perceived as macho. If people started actually believing that wearing baggy pants meant one was homosexual, we could probably kill this fashion dead.

 

Johnv, God dressed Adam and Eve to hide their nakedness better than they could do with fig leaves. Bathing suits reveal nakedness and therefore are HIGHLY inappropriate at church, no matter where you are.

As far as those who went to church off the beach in Hawaii, how considerate of them to take an hour off from their vacation for the sake of saying they went to church while in Hawaii! Suits and ties are not necessary, but there is the issue of showing honor and respect to God (and others) even within the culture you live in. In our culture, here in America, bathing suits are not considered either to hide nakedness or to show honor and respect in church.

You stated that "anything that draws unreasonable attention in a sexual manner is inappropriate." Excuse me, but what is REASONABLE attention in a sexual manner? Certainly, covering one's body with a muu muu is not unheard of in Hawaii!

John, you seem to find excuses for all manner of worldly attitudes and activities and still call them OK for Christians. Aren't we supposed to be CALLED OUT from the world? If we don't hold a simple standard of holiness up, who will ever ask the questions that we are told to have an answer for? When someone who calls themselves a Christian acts and talks just like any ordinary non-Christian, who is going to ask them questions? Who is going to notice that those who belong to the Lord have something going for them the rest of the world doesn't?

Words don't cut it. Words come cheap. It's the way we live that the world sees. The way we behave. The way we respect and honor God. The way we show HIS holiness in our lives.

The way we are different.

And I do agree with you about Granny's language. That certainly does not show something the world would see as holy.

 

Are you a mind reader? How do you know their motivations? Perhaps they were perfectly acceptable!

These are your opinions.

We're supposed to be different in matters of morality, not be different simply for the sake of being different. That flirts with legalism. We are given no absolute standard of modesty in the Bible, and we shouldn't make one up arbitrarily.

Here I would think it was unacceptable for a man to come to church in swim trunks, but if I were in an non-air conditioned church near the equator, I think I'd feel differently.

 

Who cares who comes to church in what? If someone who is lost came in with a thong on, do we deny him the gospel and opportunity to have eternal life? Our opinions of dress in church are nothing BUT legalism!