should women wear dresses/skirts all the time

By the way, if ome man out there is under the impression that women's slacks "pertain to a man" he should try putting on a pair of women's slacks some time and see how they fit and feel. They are very different.

 

http://www.momof9splace.com/modesty.html
This is a very good site..written by a women, about this very topic.

 

That's all well and good, except the Bible never mentions pants as we know them today. Both men and women wore robes, but they had distinctions between them. Modesty is the issue - not whether one wears pants or not. Pants can be modest or pants can be immodest (for both men and women). Dresses and skirts can also be modest or immodest.

 

No.

 

oops, wrong thread

 

If anyone thinks clothing "that pertaineth to" is part of a covenant in effect today, they should go by the rest of the rules: no shrimp, no catfish, no mixing seeds in the yard, a flat roof with a fence around it.....

See Acts 10.

 

But those are not an abomination to God. De 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.
(KJV)

 

Long thread, huh?

I am still single but will give you my .02 worth.

Look at what Kidz-4Him posted. This is NOT Jewish law per se'. Abomination..... for a man to wear clothes that pertains to a woman and vice versa.
My church is the same as the folks up there at Crown College. Same thing. i dont say I agree with them on everything.. but one thing is sure...
a DRESS is the most modest clothing a woman could wear. Yeah, you say well some dresses could be most immoral.. i know that.. but the goal.. and the point in modesty of course is what is the most modest.

As a single man with a bad track record as a young fellow.... trust me... the day a woman wears pants is the day she reveals her body to men. You can take that for what its worth. The shape of her body becomes quite clear when she wears pants. The women that wore dresses around me when I was young actually FRUSTRATED me because their body was a mystery.
My wife will wear a dress.
Two points..first.. its most modest, and second, I dont want to offend God with her clothing or mine.
Even if i couldnt use the passage above about abomination, I'd still say the most modest is a dress.
Dennis Corle.. a man most of you would hate if you knew him..wrote a book "The Chemistry of Separation". He is a smart man..read the book.. just read it.

tim

 

Another good one by Dennis Corle is "The Philosophy of Soul Winning".
I like the man.
Thanks for reminding me that I need to re-read his book Dr.Tim.

To the OP;
Yes they should.

Forget cultural norms. Cultural norms is not what we should be basing our actions on. Our actions should be Biblically directed.
Men are inherently weak in this area. Women should consider that and act appropriately. If not for their own conscience then at least for the sake of any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along. Christian men should strive to conquer that area of their lives. But! Christian women should be aware that it is just not Christian men who will see them. Many a lecherous soul is out there in this world of ours.
Ladies? Do you REALLY want some clown oogling you?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The problem is a man's evil heart NOT a woman's body!

God did not make man's heart evil. He DID, however, make the woman's body.

Are you saying that He made a mistake? Why didn't he just make us look like sticks?

Because he knew a man would lust - regardless.

This kind of thinking is exactly why more rape victims do not come forward.

Many are made to feel like they did something to 'cause' a man to rape her.

Men rape old women, little girls AND little boys. Did any of these 'cause' the man to lust? No! The man had an evil heart.

It doesn't matter what a woman wears. If a man is going to lust, he is going to lust.

It's about time the men stood up and took responsibility for their lustful thoughts and stop blaming the women for being who God created them to be...

 

Scarlet, you missed the point, dear. I said pants show a womans body, i didnt say anything about rape. You wear what you want to wear, but the day you put on some Levis is the day people will see your body, more so than if you were wearing a dress. And, I was talking about 20 years ago, not today. I am from New Orleans, I seen it all.

 

I see some Oneness Pentecostals in our village who wear nothing but dresses down to their ankles, and split up the back to their,,you know where. Now try to tell me that is modesty!

I think a woman looks just as attractive in a nice pant suit as they do in a flowing dress. A godly woman is a godly woman regardless of what she wears.

Now rape has nothing to do with gender. It is an act of violence; simple as that. Get your minds out of the gutter, gentlemen, and start to see the person. It is really not that hard to do.

Cheers,

Jim

Old enough to have been through the dress and hat revolution.

 

Mind aint in the gutter jim.. and I never said anything about a woman wearing pants being ungodly, either. The issue is the "abomination" passage posted above and modesty. The Pentecostals down here, I hate to say it, the younger ones.. they can wear some tight stuff and its worse than pants a lot of times.

I guess even if you get over one of the two problems, the other one hits you in the face. A woman wearing pants but with a long shirt (u know what I am talking about) is modest, but does her clothing pertain to that of a man? See, it's modest, for sure, but is she wearing a man's clothing.
Another issue, in another culture, maybe the opposite, the women wear pants and the man wear skirts... all those things are issues. I am not dogmatic about it but lean more towards playing it safe.
Been preaching 20 years, never preached a message on pants, ever.

 

No! When Deuteronomy 22 was written, both men and women wore robes - like they still do in some middle-eastern lands today. The man wore a man's robe and the women wore women's robes - w/o violating the command to not wear that which pertains to the other. Pants as we know them are a fairly modern invention - although they were found on women in China long before they were found on men in America.

What we see in this passage is that there is to be distinction between what men and women wear. In ancient times, the robes that men and women wore had those distinctions and today there are mens pants and there are womens pants and they have distinction between them. We need to quit reading into the passage what we want. Another things is why do you want to hang onto some commands and ignore others? Do you shave? Do you cut your hair or round the corners of your head (whatever that means)? Do you eat pork or lobster or shrimp or any other unclean animal? Do you wear mixed clothing (cotton and polyester, for example)? Do you build battlements around your roof so that no will fall off of it?

 

No... the difference were the britches... the men wore britches. As for the rest of your argument, I told you before, you are talking about LAW. I am talking about what God called an abomination.

 

It was still a part of the LAW. It was listed in Deut. 22 which is in a list of various laws commanded by God.

Leviticus 20:25
Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (KJV 1769)

 

Definitely a gray area.. we could argue day and night all year long. That is why I dont criticize the other side. Divorce and Remarriage.. another issue of endless debate. This one, the pants issue, is certainly one I wont be dogmatic about. Some other issue.. maybe doctrinal,, yeah. But this one, no.I dont believe that a person can stand in a pulpit and preach about something so gray. Strange, a few weeks ago, the hearing church assistant pastor and I (he is fluent in sign language) discussed this issue. He thinks, as I do, we are probably more along the line of being careful than being dogmatic. If we think it is something God hates, then its reason to really ponder what to do with it.
If you can get Dennis Corle's book, I have not read it all yet, and have just skimmed over parts of it, GET the book and read it.. "The Chemistry of Separation". Even if you dont like it, it is a good reference book for Ind Baptists because of the issue of Separation. Ind Baptists put emphasis on separation.

tim

 

Sorry Dr. Tim, thats playing a little fast and loose with the Scriptures.

Pretty clear there that God views cross-dressing as an abomination. Nothing about pants, clearly as men at the time that was written didn't wear them either.

If you are saying it depends on the culture, well, thats an easy one too. Maybe in the 1960's jeans had more cultural signifcance on women, but modest jeans on a woman today are not that which pertains to a man. At least not that can be supported from the scriptures. If you want to hold the position personally I have no problem with that from the perspective of safety, but there is no scriptural support for it, and the verse you are citing is clearly a reference to transvestism, not slacks.