Question??

[SpiritPsalmist]

I am sorry someone treated you so unkindly sister.
You are always sweet and kind... which is the best clothing of all!

Thank you diddy That was a kind thing to say.

 

[Henhouse]

Henhouse, I am glad you posted. Thanks for giving me a verse to back up your position. I thought that would be the verse that some would use and I tend to agree with Quaffer, their were robes for men and their were robes for women. Their are pants for men and their are pants for women.

I tend to think that verse you quoted was more for cross dressing folks...those who dress to look like a woman or vice versa. MHO.

Welcome.

I did admit that the verse is open to interpretation. And I do believe it's a principle to be applied within your culture (as has been alluded to). In certian 'native' tribes, it would mean the woman wears a flap front and back, instead of just the front (or whatever). I personally can't see the difference between men's and women's mid-eastern type robes, but I assume people within that culture can...

I think most people in western society, when asked to describe a distinctly feminine article of clothing, would more likely describe a dress than a pair of pants. Maybe not; I don't think that point is worth debating.

If you want to do some reading on the subject, go here: http://www.momof9splace.com/sermon.html.

Okay, what about the rest of Deu 22?
We still have 'Lost and found."
We still want hunters to be ethical (don't kill mama and babies).
We don't put a handrail on our roofs, but you bet we have accident insurance.
There are lots of people dedicated to non-hybrids. And anyone who's tried open-pollinated corn will tell you don't plant 2 kinds together.
There are still lots of people who'd rather have clothes 100% fiber, than 60/40.
There are still consequences for adultary.
We still don't like incest.

But the best answer to that argument (in my mind) is the fact of cross-dressing being an abomination. The rest of it is just civil law stuff.

HTH.

 

[Henhouse]

Oh, just wanted to add that I don't think we ought to be legalistic about it, saying "all Christian women must wear skirts at least 4 inches past the knee, hemline being at least twice the waistline, in the style of the early American pioneers, only in light pink or yellow, no zippers, etc."

And I would never doubt a woman's salvation because she didn't wear a modest dress/skirt, or deny her entrance to a church building or anything like that.

I just think as a woman grows in her walk with the Lord, and reads scripture (esp. 1Tm 2, 1Pt 3, and Titus 2) she will have a greater desire to please the Lord in her dress. This may manifest itself in many ways, but I would think in general the change would be towards 'modesty' (in what degree, and from what stage to what stage will depend on the woman and her situation). To me, the ideal in woman's modesty (in western society, anyway) is 'long' 'loose' dress or skirt, 'non-revealing' top, and head covering of some sort. But you see that even in that narrow ideal there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Every few months I will put on clothing that I had no problem wearing just recently, and find it is now 'immodest' to me. It's a process, and there cannot be an absolute definition without losing the freedom, rule of Spirit, and personal conscience.

 

[clinzey]

To me, the ideal in woman's modesty (in western society, anyway) is 'long' 'loose' dress or skirt, 'non-revealing' top, and head covering of some sort.

How is a long dress more modest than say, khakis and a polo shirt?

 

[cherokeehippie]

Would it shock anyone if I was to share a dream that 14 yrs ago the Lord came to me in a dream and He annointed me with a amber golden oil that dripped all the way down upon my jeans! I was wearing jeans in the dream!! Lara

 

[AlabamaMan]

Awesome dream Cherokeehippie!

HenHouse, thank you once again for clarifying even further your position. I do understand what your saying.

 

[LynneClomina]

Oh, just wanted to add that I don't think we ought to be legalistic about it, saying "all Christian women must wear skirts at least 4 inches past the knee, hemline being at least twice the waistline, in the style of the early American pioneers, only in light pink or yellow, no zippers, etc."

And I would never doubt a woman's salvation because she didn't wear a modest dress/skirt, or deny her entrance to a church building or anything like that.

I just think as a woman grows in her walk with the Lord, and reads scripture (esp. 1Tm 2, 1Pt 3, and Titus 2) she will have a greater desire to please the Lord in her dress. This may manifest itself in many ways, but I would think in general the change would be towards 'modesty' (in what degree, and from what stage to what stage will depend on the woman and her situation). To me, the ideal in woman's modesty (in western society, anyway) is 'long' 'loose' dress or skirt, 'non-revealing' top, and head covering of some sort. But you see that even in that narrow ideal there is still a lot of room for interpretation. Every few months I will put on clothing that I had no problem wearing just recently, and find it is now 'immodest' to me. It's a process, and there cannot be an absolute definition without losing the freedom, rule of Spirit, and personal conscience.

i think what you wrote here is really beautiful. i kinda feel the same way about modesty being a process... yet i do not believe in dresses only or head coverings and stuff... i wear jeans and stuff, and just try to look like a woman and not a man, and not be a stumbling block in any sexual way to anybody. i wear a tank top under my sweaters because these days, they are just a little too low in the neckline. i try to never let any skin in any untoward places show. in the summer when i wear shorts, they are usually below the knee, but if i *could* i would wear them just above the knee, but not much shorter than that. i think its all covered in Jesus' commandments to love Him and love others as yourself...

i also think that because we are in the world, we should "blend" somewhat with the world, not dress in such a way as to alienate those we are trying to reach out to. we are not of the world yes, but that refers more to our make-up, ie. who we are in principles, beliefs, where they originate, what we are born "of" (spirit).... and yet we are in the world, which implies to me that we are not obviousely different...

i find it interesting that when convents first started up around 1000 years ago give or take, they studiously dresses as the common folk did... then they never changed the style of dress, and it became a uniform.... the "habit" was originally intended to help people blend in, not stand out like it does today!!!

 

[Heinrich]

1 Timothy 2:8-9 NKJV
"I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly things"

Accept for this saying that lifting up hands is biblical
This says a few things I guess commenly misunderstood.

Why did Paul write this? What is the reason for this? "in like manner" == has something todo with holyness.

Lets just think for a moment here. What could be wrong with a women walking around in a bikini in church? Well accept that she might get a cold, it would GREATLY DISTRACT THE MEN!!! yes people Paul talks about the lust of the eyes! Just like in Pauls time there are today many many men that struggle with lust that are in the church. Many men come out of porn addiction affairs and all sorts of messed up things. We don't need girls running around in clothing that says: Look at me! ect. ect.

What is wrong with women wearing pants? well I guess it depends on the cut.
What is wrong with women wearing shirts? well I guess it depends on the length.

I hope this makes sense

 

[LynneClomina]

1 Timothy 2:8-9 NKJV
"I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly things"

Accept for this saying that lifting up hands is biblical
This says a few things I guess commenly misunderstood.

Why did Paul write this? What is the reason for this? "in like manner" == has something todo with holyness.

Lets just think for a moment here. What could be wrong with a women walking around in a bikini in church? Well accept that she might get a cold, it would GREATLY DISTRACT THE MEN!!! yes people Paul talks about the lust of the eyes! Just like in Pauls time there are today many many men that struggle with lust that are in the church. Many men come out of porn addiction affairs and all sorts of messed up things. We don't need girls running around in clothing that says: Look at me! ect. ect.

What is wrong with women wearing pants? well I guess it depends on the cut.
What is wrong with women wearing shirts? well I guess it depends on the length.

I hope this makes sense

i agree. i think all dress prohibitions per se are about modesty and not being a stumbling block. are we allowed to french braid our hair? yes. are we allowed to dress like prost*tutes? no. in that day, how did prost*tutes dress? braided hair and elegance. now? they dress cheaply and sexily. same principle, applies differently in different eras.

 

[Jim B]

i agree. i think all dress prohibitions per se are about modesty and not being a stumbling block. are we allowed to french braid our hair? yes. are we allowed to dress like prost*tutes? no. in that day, how did prost*tutes dress? braided hair and elegance. now? they dress cheaply and sexily. same principle, applies differently in different eras.

Yes Lynne, but most Charismatic preachers dress like Mafia hit men - Versace suits, Mezlan loafers, Italian silk ties and French shirts.

\o/

 

[LynneClomina]

Yes Lynne, but most Charismatic preachers dress like Mafia hit men - Versace suits, Mezlan loafers, Italian silk ties and French shirts.

\o/

yes, and i frankly think they are hypocrites, and not living right anyways. i do not "watch" charismatic preachers. i dont think they are right.

but what does preachers dressing like hitmen have to do with women's clothes?

 

[LynneClomina]

Yes Lynne, but most Charismatic preachers dress like Mafia hit men - Versace suits, Mezlan loafers, Italian silk ties and French shirts.

\o/

oh, and i was talking about how prost*tutes dress, i am not saying that ppl CAN'T be immodest by dressing *rich*. when its showing off ANYTHING, its immodest.

 

[Henhouse]

i think what you wrote here is really beautiful. i kinda feel the same way about modesty being a process... yet i do not believe in dresses only or head coverings and stuff... i wear jeans and stuff, and just try to look like a woman and not a man, and not be a stumbling block in any sexual way to anybody. i wear a tank top under my sweaters because these days, they are just a little too low in the neckline. i try to never let any skin in any untoward places show. in the summer when i wear shorts, they are usually below the knee, but if i *could* i would wear them just above the knee, but not much shorter than that. i think its all covered in Jesus' commandments to love Him and love others as yourself...

i also think that because we are in the world, we should "blend" somewhat with the world, not dress in such a way as to alienate those we are trying to reach out to. we are not of the world yes, but that refers more to our make-up, ie. who we are in principles, beliefs, where they originate, what we are born "of" (spirit).... and yet we are in the world, which implies to me that we are not obviousely different...

i find it interesting that when convents first started up around 1000 years ago give or take, they studiously dresses as the common folk did... then they never changed the style of dress, and it became a uniform.... the "habit" was originally intended to help people blend in, not stand out like it does today!!!

Hey, that's cool. There are a lot of women that just give their clothing no thought, or think because we have freedom in Christ we can look however, and if a guy has a problem it's his problem. Ya know?

I didn't know that about the nuns. Glad to learn something.

 

[Jim B]

oh, and i was talking about how prost*tutes dress, i am not saying that ppl CAN'T be immodest by dressing *rich*. when its showing off ANYTHING, its immodest.

I was just joking Lynne (sort of). I know their is immodest dress which includes gold, etc., according to 1 Timothy. Just so I know where this discussion is going, would, say, Dino (the pianist, not the dinosaur) be considered immodest by his Liberace-like appearance?

\o/

 

[LynneClomina]

I was just joking Lynne (sort of). I know their is immodest dress which includes gold, etc., according to 1 Timothy. Just so I know where this discussion is going, would, say, Dino (the pianist, not the dinosaur) be considered immodest by his Liberace-like appearance?

\o/

oh, ok, JimB. good to know. but i have a question.

Dino, who?

seriously, i dont know who that is.

Lynne

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Dino is the name of the flamboyant pianist who accompanied Kathryn Kuhlman's ministry for years. He is still around and resembles a Christian Libarace.

In keeping with the subject I found this little paragraph in a book titled "Sacred Origins Of Profound Things" written by Charles Panati:

CROSS-DRESSING PROHIBITION. Today, we think of sartorial fringe as delicate feminine adornment, but in ancient times, only men wore fringed garments. Thus, the fringed tallit is never worn by women, whom the Bible prohibits from wearing men's clothing. Indeed, the Old Testament specifically prohibits cross-dressing by either gender: "A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord" (Deut 22:5)

 

[Jim B]

yes, and i frankly think they are hypocrites, and not living right anyways. i do not "watch" charismatic preachers. i dont think they are right.

but what does preachers dressing like hitmen have to do with women's clothes?

Because it is preachers dressed like Mafioso that impose dress codes on women using as their argument that women should not dress "like the world." Sort of hypocritical, dontcha think?

 

[Jim B]

oh, ok, JimB. good to know. but i have a question.

Dino, who?

seriously, i dont know who that is.

Lynne

It doesn't matter Lynne. Knowing who he is probably wouldn't add much to your life anyhow!

 

[Ambereno144]

As long as women are at church to praise the lord why does it matter what they wear just as long as it does not become a distraction!

 

[flyfishing]

Because it is preachers dressed like Mafioso that impose dress codes on women using as their argument that women should not dress "like the world." Sort of hypocritical, dontcha think?

Yeah but truthfully jim most guys like upc or such dont dress like that. It is the wof guys that i dont think have that bondage against women. Interesting discussion..

Hopefully we are all wearing our wedding garments..

Dino does not appeal to me as a man. I find his ministry annointed or was last time i heard him perform and i am not a classic pianist guy.. HOWEVER i dont judge women either as long as they are modest..

BTW i dont preach in a suit or tie...

But i sure believe i am clothed in his righteousness...