Pants on Women

[sageoffools]

Hey all, thanks for your thoughts and insights on this issue. Sorry I had to leave, I can only connect while at work (which I was happy to leave ).
GEL, I'm not trying to attack you, but you seem to be the only person defending the no-pants position, which is why I am directing my questions to you.
Both the verse and the issues that you brought up go back to the gender-identity issue that I mentioned in my OP, a woman should not wear something that pertains to a man. Well, don't you wear a shirt (maybe I don't want to know the answer ). So does a shirt pertain to a man or a woman? What about shorts? Are they "male" or "female" clothes?
I think the answer is that they are both. The key is that they are each made differently, to distinguish which gender they are designed for. There are mens shirts and there are womens shirts. If we apply the pants logic to shirts would we not have to say that either men or women should stop wearing shirts, because they belong to the other gender? Do pants really "belong" to men?
I think the key is that men should wear mens pants and mens shirts and mens shorts, and women should wear womens pants and womens shirts and womens shorts.

I would love some more thoughts on this. Especially if you are of the opinion that women should not wear pants.

 

[Wade Smith]

I am not Baptist, but i am a Christian. You can ignore my answer if you choose.

I see woman not wearing pants as a cultural thing. Back in Bible times dressing like a woman meant wearing a dress. In todays culture dressing like a woman means wearing shorts, skirts, pants etc. They have woman's dept and mens dept. for clothes. Pants are perfectly acceptable for woman to wear.

Scripturally speaking, you need to look at the culture, history, and the intent of the passages regarding women's clothing.

Women not wearing pants is just a legalistic rule that is manmade and it isn't a biblical mandate. Some churches in the past have preached: no card playing, no going to movies, no dancing, etc etc. Those are just legalistic rules.

The Holy Spirit speaks to each one of us individually. Watching a certain tv program is something that might be fine for me to do, but if the Holy Spirit spoke to you about NOT watching that program then in obedience you surely shouldn't watch it. God knows us individually. God knows our heart, our circumstances and our past.

Seek God as to whether its ok for your wife to wear pants. Don't seek mans answers.

God bless.

It is true that there is nothing biblically wrong with women wearing pants, but God is no respector of persons.

There is no such thing as an activity being "wrong" for one person and "right" for another. God has one standard of righteousness, and one law, both for the freeborn and the slave, for those born at home or abroad, for those rich or poor, there is one law and one standard.

Moral relativism is the lie that the serpent told that started this whole mess in the first place.

 

[sageoffools]

It is true that there is nothing biblically wrong with women wearing pants, but God is no respector of persons.

There is no such thing as an activity being "wrong" for one person and "right" for another. God has one standard of righteousness, and one law, both for the freeborn and the slave, for those born at home or abroad, for those rich or poor, there is one law and one standard.

Moral relativism is the lie that the serpent told that started this whole mess in the first place.

Hi Wade,

While I appreciate your caution regarding moral relativism, being that it is a very slippery slope, I will interject that even Paul was a believer in moral relativism. The problem with moral relativity, as we define it today, is that it purports that all morality is relative, which is unBiblical. There are many, many things that are specifically defined in the Bible as right and wrong, on those issues there is no relativity, it is wrong regardless, because God says it is. However, there are things that are not clearly defined in the Bible. In Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 Paul gives several examples of these things. He says that some people think that it is wrong to eat meat that is offered to idols, and for them to eat it would be wrong, some people however, do not think it is wrong, so it is not wrong for them to eat it. The same thing is true for people that feel that certain days are more important than others. To boil it down, Paul says that if someone is convinced that something, not clearly defined as right or wrong by God, is wrong, they are wrong for partaking in it, but that does not mean the act or thing itself is wrong, it is simply wrong because they think it is wrong. (Hopefully that makes some sense).

 

[Wade Smith]

Hi Wade,

While I appreciate your caution regarding moral relativism, being that it is a very slippery slope, I will interject that even Paul was a believer in moral relativism. The problem with moral relativity, as we define it today, is that it purports that all morality is relative, which is unBiblical. There are many, many things that are specifically defined in the Bible as right and wrong, on those issues there is no relativity, it is wrong regardless, because God says it is. However, there are things that are not clearly defined in the Bible. In Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 Paul gives several examples of these things. He says that some people think that it is wrong to eat meat that is offered to idols, and for them to eat it would be wrong, some people however, do not think it is wrong, so it is not wrong for them to eat it. The same thing is true for people that feel that certain days are more important than others. To boil it down, Paul says that if someone is convinced that something, not clearly defined as right or wrong by God, is wrong, they are wrong for partaking in it, but that does not mean the act or thing itself is wrong, it is simply wrong because they think it is wrong. (Hopefully that makes some sense).

I'm familliar with romans 14, and the sad thing is the entire chapter has been used for nothing throughout history except to justify ungodly behavior that the Bible specificly says not to do.

About half the discussions I have bothered to involve myself in on this forum end up being somebody using Romans 14 as an excuse to break biblical commandments.

 

[sageoffools]

I'm familliar with romans 14, and the sad thing is the entire chapter has been used for nothing throughout history except to justify ungodly behavior that the Bible specificly says not to do.

About half the discussions I have bothered to involve myself in on this forum end up being somebody using Romans 14 as an excuse to break biblical commandments.

Hey Wade,
To be quite honest, I am slightly confused by your two posts. In your first post, you state that it is not wrong for women to wear pants. But then you attack the use of Romans 14 and I Cor 8, stating that people use that to try to justify sin. So are you saying that people that think that women wearing pants is wrong are sinning? And is it right for ALL women to wear pants, since you state that it is not unBiblical, but there is no relativity to unclear things?
I would appreciate some clarification to this.
Thanks!

 

[Wade Smith]

Hey Wade,
To be quite honest, I am slightly confused by your two posts. In your first post, you state that it is not wrong for women to wear pants. But then you attack the use of Romans 14 and I Cor 8, stating that people use that to try to justify sin. So are you saying that people that think that women wearing pants is wrong are sinning? And is it right for ALL women to wear pants, since you state that it is not unBiblical, but there is no relativity to unclear things?
I would appreciate some clarification to this.
Thanks!

Romans 14 is not really addressing whether a "thing" is right or wrong, but rather faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." and "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Therefore, if you believe something is sinful and do it, then you are sinning yet the more.

The reverse, however, is not true. If you believe something to be "good" when in fact it definitely is a sin, then you are still sinning when you do it.

The real issue in Romans 14 regarding people believing evil something which is not evil, is a matter of faith.

Secondly, Romans 14 doesn't address clothing at all anyway, so regardless of your stance on the topic of clothing, Romans 14 cannot properly be applied to clothing.

Romans 14 is also not an excuse to eat blood or strangled animals, nor things sacrificed to Idols (see the letter James and Paul wrote in Acts).

Romans 14 is also not an excuse to drink alcohol or use drugs (sorcery, "Pharmikai").

 

[sageoffools]

Romans 14 is not really addressing whether a "thing" is right or wrong, but rather faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." and "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Therefore, if you believe something is sinful and do it, then you are sinning yet the more.

The reverse, however, is not true. If you believe something to be "good" when in fact it definitely is a sin, then you are still sinning when you do it.

The real issue in Romans 14 regarding people believing evil something which is not evil, is a matter of faith.

Secondly, Romans 14 doesn't address clothing at all anyway, so regardless of your stance on the topic of clothing, Romans 14 cannot properly be applied to clothing.

Romans 14 is also not an excuse to eat blood or strangled animals, nor things sacrificed to Idols (see the letter James and Paul wrote in Acts).

Romans 14 is also not an excuse to drink alcohol or use drugs (sorcery, "Pharmikai").

Wade, Well, this has gotten a little off topic, and I really don't want this to turn into a debate, so I will simply make one more statement regarding this issue, and leave it at that.
I agree with you, that just because you believe that something is not sin, does not make it right, but that is not the issue that we are discussing. It is not that God has said "Women shall not wear pants", and we are trying to justify it with Romans 14. The issue at hand, women wearing pants, is not directly addressed in the Bible, it is a "gray area" just as the meat offered to idols, or holding up certain days that Paul talked about. When faced with "gray areas", things that are not clearly defined in the Bible as right or wrong, we must look to the principles found in other passages to find an answer. Although clothing is not directly addressed in this passage, I believe that the principle is there, regarding what to do when faced with "gray areas", not justification of committing sin.

 

[ByWayofLight]

Come as your are dressed. Don't come dressed in a way that makes others fall. Be modest in your choices. Do not dress to be seen or admired for your fashion. So many rules and dress codes. It's all man's law to me.

You don't need to dress up or dress down just come and worship.

 

[apsalmistspraise]

personally I like being pantless.

Sorry, I personsonally do not believe that showing a breastfeeding moment in your avatar while also stating you like being pantless while we are speaking of modesty was an accident. It has been duely noted that sometimes God;s handywork is better left to an imagination and your post of nudity has also been noted.

 

[sageoffools]

Hey Psalmist, sorry Shelby, I'm with her. I have nothing against breastfeeding, (I think every woman should, if possible) experienced it with all three of my kids, but that doesn't mean that I want to share it with others.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Sorry, I personsonally do not believe that showing a breastfeeding moment in your avatar while also stating you like being pantless while we are speaking of modesty was an accident. It has been duely noted that sometimes God;s handywork is better left to an imagination and your post of nudity has also been noted.

I am sorry that giving a child sustenance offends you.

 

[sageoffools]

I am sorry that giving a child sustenance offends you.

Miss Shelby, giving a child sustenance does not offend me, any more than a husband and wife consummating their marriage offends me, but that does not mean that I want to see pictures of it...

 

[Miss Shelby]

Miss Shelby, giving a child sustenance does not offend me, any more than a husband and wife consummating their marriage offends me, but that does not mean that I want to see pictures of it...

well than do not go to the zoo on the days that I am there. I breast feed in public all of the time. I refuse to hide in the toilet because people like you are offended by the natural feeding of a child.

 

[sageoffools]

well than do not go to the zoo on the days that I am there. I breast feed in public all of the time. I refuse to hide in the toilet because people like you are offended by the natural feeding of a child.

Wow, this is waaaaaay off track from the OP. Final comment on this from me.
I don't expect breastfeeding women to refuse to feed their children while in public, nor do I expect them to go to the bathroom to do it, any more than I would want to eat my meal in the bathroom. However, there are plenty of ways to breastfeed without completely exposing yourself in the process (my wife did it for all 3). One example: http://shop.bebeaulait.com/shop/originals.

 

[cobweb]

It is quite possible to breastfeed modestly in public. I nursed both of my sons 2-3 years each. I know it can be done.

 

[Miss Shelby]

so much focus on the bare skin and none on the delighted little baby.

 

[apsalmistspraise]

I am sorry that giving a child sustenance offends you.

give me a break. giving a child sustenance should be cherished but not thrown out on christian forums because whether or not you care, boobs, whether the nipples are covered or not, are private parts. and we are speaking of modesty on this forum and your avetar ain't modest.

 

[apsalmistspraise]

It is quite possible to breastfeed modestly in public. I nursed both of my sons 2-3 years each. I know it can be done.

and her way is not modest.
I see women breastfeeding in public WITH A blanket or something covering their breast and sorry her breast ain't covered. it is nudity. If i had a picture of my breast there no overing but a star on my nipple it would be considered as nudity and improper.

 

[Sanchez]

I think the photograph of the suckling child is the beautiful art of God. Could what be more pure than woman and child? Such is not the evil, such is beauty of God. If you see the immodest in suckling photograph, perhaps eyes of devil you see through.

 

[BereanTodd]

As long as the thread is going off topic I have to address this foolishness:

Romans 14 is also not an excuse to drink alcohol or use drugs (sorcery, "Pharmikai").

Drinking alcohol is not a sin, and never was. Wine is spoken of in the OT as a blessing and a symbol of God's covenant blessings. It is an intricate part of the festivals of God and of the OT sacrificial system; Jesus turned water to wine, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. Drunkeness is a sin, alcohol is not, and never was.