Paul of Eugene
New Member
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.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
should women wear dresses/skirts all the time
- Thread starter Barbara R.
- Start date
Bound4Glory
New Member
http://www.momof9splace.com/modesty.html
This is a very good site..written by a women, about this very topic.
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.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
oops, wrong thread 
Kidz-4-HIM
New Member
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)
(KJV)
OK, I gave it a try. I read it with an open mind.
It's ridiculous.
She actually believes that one of the reasons that pants are men's garments only, is because of the univeral symbols for "men" and "women" on bathroom doors.
I'm glad that she gave up her miniskirts and daisy duke shorts, but to say that a sack dress is all that we can wear or we are an abomination to God in the "same manner as a homosexual" because we are causing men to "lust" is ludicrous.
I wonder if she understands that a man will lust after an attractive woman even if she IS dressed modestly.
A handsomely dressed woman in nice slacks or a modest skirt or shorts should NEVER, ever be made to feel that they are the reason that men have feelings of lust. That is also ridiculous.
But then again, listen to her own closing words....
"If you look at it, youll find it was usually the woman that leads in the matter of sin and error. You can begin at the garden through Israel's idolatrous apostasy and even into recent history with cults, Charasmania, and other errors...."
Yeah, lets just keep on blaming the shape of women's bodies for all of the sins of the world. I wonder what else we can say and do to make women feel more shame and disgrace?
And the site that she links you to is even worse. The man's testimony there that he "told" his wife how to dress and said "because I said so" is beyond my understanding.
He said there were a lot of fights over this issue.
I'm sure there were.
He feels more spiritual now and morally justified because he is "backing up" his commands with scripture and now his wife dresses the way he tells her too "not begrudgingly anymore, but willing".
Yeah...willingly.
I wonder if he understand the concept of bully and abuse of power.
Whew!! Neither opinion holds up with me. Sorry I couldn't agree with them or with you as to the validity of these documents.
Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><
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
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
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
"Clowns" are going to oogle women no matter what they wear.
Some men are going to lust after women, if they are nude or if they are in a nun's habit. It doesn't matter.
Here is the truth....
There are modest pants, decent skirts, and long walking shorts that are perfectly acceptable to wear just as their are immodest dresses that are not acceptable.
Not all pants are tight. Not all skirts and shorts are revealing. Women should NOT have to wear a SACK because men are stimulated visually and as YOU say, are weak. I didn't say that, you did.
Let me give you evidence in where this doesn't work.
Every year women by the thousands in the Middle East are sexually threatened, assaulted, and raped just as they are in America.
And these women are covered from HEAD TO TOE!!!
And the women there who are raped are often times murdered by the male members of their families for disgracing the family by being raped.
Can you imagine a woman being raped and her own flesh and blood brother choking her and killing her and then boasting that he saved the family honor by doing so?
What were the men "oogling" that started the "lustful" thoughts that lead to adultry then soliciting prostitutes then to sexual assault and/or rape?
Nothing was showing on these women except their eyes and hands.
Here is the ultimate question? Where does the problem lie? In a man's evil heart or woman's body?
As long as a woman is not dressing to draw attention to herself in a sexual manner to the general public and she is not wearing tight fitting clothing, then she is NOT confined to a dress!!!!
I will say this again and again as long as people are being legalistic and ridiculous...
Women should NEVER be made to feel ashamed of their bodies nor humiliated by being "told" they must wear sack-type dresses because men can't control themselves. And by confining us to a sack-type dress then then proclaiming that "God ordained it to be so...", then you are heaping mound and mounds of shame on women simply because the shape of their body is different from a man's.
I am sick of it.
Women having enough problems and enough confusion by being told that they don't measure up to men's standards of beauty....then they are told that they have to "cover up, cover up!!", because they are a stumbling block to men.
Gosh....you can tell by the length of this thread that we are just beating a dead horse here....
I am exhausted. No more for me.
Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><
Some men are going to lust after women, if they are nude or if they are in a nun's habit. It doesn't matter.
Here is the truth....
There are modest pants, decent skirts, and long walking shorts that are perfectly acceptable to wear just as their are immodest dresses that are not acceptable.
Not all pants are tight. Not all skirts and shorts are revealing. Women should NOT have to wear a SACK because men are stimulated visually and as YOU say, are weak. I didn't say that, you did.
Let me give you evidence in where this doesn't work.
Every year women by the thousands in the Middle East are sexually threatened, assaulted, and raped just as they are in America.
And these women are covered from HEAD TO TOE!!!
And the women there who are raped are often times murdered by the male members of their families for disgracing the family by being raped.
Can you imagine a woman being raped and her own flesh and blood brother choking her and killing her and then boasting that he saved the family honor by doing so?
What were the men "oogling" that started the "lustful" thoughts that lead to adultry then soliciting prostitutes then to sexual assault and/or rape?
Nothing was showing on these women except their eyes and hands.
Here is the ultimate question? Where does the problem lie? In a man's evil heart or woman's body?
As long as a woman is not dressing to draw attention to herself in a sexual manner to the general public and she is not wearing tight fitting clothing, then she is NOT confined to a dress!!!!
I will say this again and again as long as people are being legalistic and ridiculous...
Women should NEVER be made to feel ashamed of their bodies nor humiliated by being "told" they must wear sack-type dresses because men can't control themselves. And by confining us to a sack-type dress then then proclaiming that "God ordained it to be so...", then you are heaping mound and mounds of shame on women simply because the shape of their body is different from a man's.
I am sick of it.
Women having enough problems and enough confusion by being told that they don't measure up to men's standards of beauty....then they are told that they have to "cover up, cover up!!", because they are a stumbling block to men.
Gosh....you can tell by the length of this thread that we are just beating a dead horse here....
I am exhausted. No more for me.
Peace-
Scarlett O.
<><
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
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...
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.