Women in pants

[Gina B]

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:

 

[Salamander]

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.

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:

My wife even admitted to lusting after me everytime I wore a new uniform:saint:

We've had four children: each time I changed jobs and got a new uniform.....:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

Anne, I had never thought of that 'till I looked up the word...have to study that more!

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.

I battle spiritually when seeing a women wearing immodest apparel.

Maybe I should go and bury my head in the sand and become absolutely of no use to tell others about Jesus!:tongue3:

Get thee behind me satan!

 

[Salamander]

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.

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.

What I've seen right in our own church is how the knee-length skirt and dress is supposed to be atleast two inches below the knee while sitting, yet many times the regular ladies trio and others skirts are above the knee while standing!

Nothing is ever said.:type:

 

[sag38]

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.

 

[gb93433]

My wife even admitted to lusting after me everytime I wore a new uniform

I am quite sure that if you were to get a job with a tallow works that would not happen.

 

[bodyofchrist32]

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.

I am not trying to condone lust by any means. But, the sad fact is, that it is a sin that all men struggle with. That is why God instructed women to dress modestly, so they would not become stumblingblocks.

 

[Spinach]

Seeing my husband in a suit drives me wild. Should he not wear one?

Some of these posts had me cracking up, especially the one about the coat.

 

[pinoybaptist]

horse, I command you, rise !!

 

[EdSutton]

no comment! Not worth it.

One of the best posts in this thread. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Good night, Mrs, Calabash, wherever you are...............:applause:

Cheers,

Jimmy

A second good post! :thumbs:

Ed

 

[Spinach]

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?

 

[annsni]

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?

Actually, if you study the word "breech" in the Scriptures in context, you'll see that they were worn against the skin to cover the nakedness. In other words they were tighty-whiteys (although probably more like boxers).

So ladies, make sure you don't wear your skiivies!

 

[Spinach]

Snort

 

[Mexdeaf]

Of all the asinine things that have been bandied about in IBF circles, the 'pants on women' one has to be the worst... after 'wire-rimmed glasses', 'guitars on the platform', computers in the church office', and a host of other no-no's that have been hobby horses of IBF in the past.

I have lived long enough to see that many of the pastors who so fervently preached against 'pow' have gone liberal and their wives now wear pants.

I used to work with a Pentecostal woman who thought 'pow' was immodest, but she thought nothing of climbing up on a ladder in the stockroom and showing off her size XL undies to all the poor guys who just happened to be in the vicinity. Gag!!!!!!!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I would never inquire of a woman whether or not she was wearing pants . Its none of my business.

(UK English joke)

 

[Dale-c]

Mex, as I am sure you know, legalism invariably leads to inconsistency.

 

[Dale-c]

I would never inquire of a woman whether or not she was wearing pants . Its none of my business.

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.

When I went to college, there were some people there that were a little more extreme on the issue and one day my mom and dad were talking to another pastor who was a good friend that taught at the school.
They were talking about churches they knew of who would not allow women to come into the service in pants and how pathetic that was.

Well, this guy agreed but he was a little more opposed to that then they were.

He said "well, if a lady came into my church in pants I would take them off........."

My mom about died laughing.
What he MEANT to say (he had had a looong day) was that he would quietly take "them" (the people) off to the side and explain to them.
But that is not how it came out

 

[robycop3]

It's this simple-An acquaintance of my wife's told her she shouldn't wear pants because "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man". My wife immediately answered, "These womens' pants DON'T pertain to a man. Now, wouldn't my hubby look awful silly wearing these pink, flower-embellished britches, let alone the fact that they wouldn't fit him?" (The woman with whom my wife was speaking is a mamber of one of the local cults-Jabroney False Witlesses, Penny-Pinchers, etc.)

 

[Salamander]

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.

Ah, yes, the all too extreme point of view as if it means anything at all.:sleep: