Jkdbuck76 said:Uhm, Gina. If I did that, the internet would melt from the horror!
Mmmm. Melted internet. I wonder if it goes good with a glass of ice cold milk. :laugh:
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!
Jkdbuck76 said:Uhm, Gina. If I did that, the internet would melt from the horror!
The figure isn't, but the heart of man that still has the depraved nature attached to it is SINFUL! If it wasn't, God would not have said it was deceitful and desprately wicked.:sleep:sag38 said:Good grief! The female figure is not sinful. Perhaps those who can't handle it revealed in a modest fashion should stay at home or move into a monestary.
It all has to do with those who are in the spiritual battle against the powers of darkness and everything that exalteth itsself against God as priests.Beth said:Anne, I had never thought of that 'till I looked up the word...have to study that more!
The reason you call it a "bummer" is due to the carnality of most congregations having to have this spelled out for them as what the expectations of the church is concerning apparel. This is usually so the pastor won't get accused of "hammering" the issue.HaveSwordWillTravel said:Are people still talking about this?
What happened is that somewhere along the line, Fundamentalism decided that it was easier to tell it's people what they should and shouldn't wear, as opposed to teaching the people Biblical modesty, and they took it hook, line, and sinker. So, now we have people who don't allow the Spirit to control their actions, but instead, have to check their churches handbook to tell them what can and can't wear.
Bummer.
I am quite sure that if you were to get a job with a tallow works that would not happen.Salamander said:My wife even admitted to lusting after me everytime I wore a new uniform
sag38 said:Again, good grief! Why not put the women in burkas and be done with it? Or, maybe you need to attend an all male church so that your flesh isn't tempted.
One of the best posts in this thread. :thumbsup:Jim1999 said:no comment! Not worth it.
A second good post! :thumbs:Jim1999 said:Good night, Mrs, Calabash, wherever you are...............:applause:
Cheers,
Jimmy
Spinach said:It is my understanding (limited though it may be) that pants come from "breeches", which men in the Bible wore. I've heard preaching that anything with a breech was meant for men and not women.
So here are my random thoughts on the subject:
1. Would that include panty hose?
2. According to Webster's 1828, breeches are like shorts and not pants. Perhaps they were a man's underpants?
My parents were always somewhat opposed to pants on women, yet my dad as a pastor never once preached against it and always left that for families to decide for themselves.I would never inquire of a woman whether or not she was wearing pants . Its none of my business.
Ah, yes, the all too extreme point of view as if it means anything at all.:sleep:sag38 said:Again, good grief! Why not put the women in burkas and be done with it? Or, maybe you need to attend an all male church so that your flesh isn't tempted.