Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

 

In any case yes as Christ-followers we are to be obedient to God. Sure. Yet we're commanded to love God and love people. Jesus specifically commanded us to love one another. THAT is how we're to be known - the evidence is the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. Not by our standards. After all standards change across cultures and times. But God's Word stays the same. Surely we can agree on this?

God bless,

GE

 

 

I do not agree with you.  I reject the notion this is a person conviction.  It is an application of scripture with regard to modern life.  I am taking a scripture, and showing where people are guilty of sin today.  Sin will jeopardize a person's soul, so if I am ultimately proven to be right, and it is an abomination for women to wear pants, it does put those women in danger.  Pastor Chambers has stated he believes women that wear pants won't go in the rapture.  As I stated earlier, I am not the final judge, so I don't determine who is saved and who is lost.  For that reason, I simply share my knowledge and others have to decide for themselves if what I said has any merit?  We are told to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.  I believe I am in the minority standing up for the truth, and you are going to have to answer one day for soothing the hurt of God's people a little.  I am not saying that to offend you or to attack you.  You seem to want to know how I view it, so I am being straight with you. 

 

I appreciate your honesty.

I suppose once again we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

However, can we agree on what I said in highlighted in red?

God bless,

GE

 

I agree that we are to love one another.  The reason I am hesitant to take this further is because people look at love different.  There are unbelievers that love others, do great works of charity, etc.  One of the nicest women I know is an atheist.  Love is something we should be known for. 

 

Yes, I suppose that is the closest we will come to an agreement on this thread. As always it has been very interesting.

 

I don't think I will take you up on a Soap Box debate. I have debated this subject with you at least 3 times now. This last time I provided new information you were unaware of (capris) and you still held to your position. You clearly state that nobody is coming back with anything that will remotely change your mind. And that anyone who would like to debate you on this subject is wasting their time. So perhaps there is something more useful both of us could be doing or perhaps engaging in a discussion in another thread?

 

 

I already stated that I have heard every possible argument for women wearing pants, so nobody is coming back with anything that will remotely change my mind.  If there is someone on the fence on the other side, and they are asking me questions for that reason, I suppose there is reason to continue, but if it is just to trip me up, you are wasting your time.

 

 

Kind of like the whole legalism issue. I believe legalism is a bad thing. You believe legalism is a good thing. We do not see eye to on this. But that is okay. It's not a salvation issue.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to you (women wearing pants). Perhaps it is the denomination you are a part of. Perhaps this was something that was taught to you from an early age. Perhaps you find women wearing pants very sensual. I have no idea.

Ultimately though we can at the end of the day agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, rose again on the third day, and will return in glory to judge the world and make all things new?

I would like to bow out of this conversation at least with something we can agree upon.

God bless you.

GE

[Guest Butero]

Ultimately though we can at the end of the day agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, rose again on the third day, and will return in glory to judge the world and make all things new?

 

On the comment I placed in bold type and underlined, I do agree 100 percent. 

[GoldenEagle]

 

Ultimately though we can at the end of the day agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, rose again on the third day, and will return in glory to judge the world and make all things new?

 

On the comment I placed in bold type and underlined, I do agree 100 percent. 

 

Well that is the main thing then. I think I need a break from this thread.

God bless you.

In Christ,

GE

[TsukinoRei]

 

The Biblical support is based on the fact that some laws are still re-affirmed, even though in other instances, you find where we are said to no longer be under the law.  I took the time to carefully examine the types of laws that continue and those that don't, and why? 

 

The Old Testament does say "Thou Shalt Not Kill."  Here comes the matter of figuring out the intent of that law?  We know this was not refering to war, because God ordered the children of Israel to go to battle and kill people.  We know it isn't in reference to the death penalty, because the law of Moses requires that if anyone kills someone, they must be executed.  You know the intent by looking at the OT as a whole. 

 

The deacons and bishops were created to take some of the load off the other ministers, so they could spend their time in the word and prayer.  Deacons would do things like make distribution of funds to the poor, and bishops are overseers.  Many churches have made the Pastor the bishop. 

 

 

So, do you feel that if there is a ministry that distributes funds to the poor, and the leader of that ministry is a woman, they are sinning?

 

I do not agree, but I accept that you are right to study the word for yourself and decide what is right.  I am convicted in an entirely different direction, but I trust that one day we will meet in the same place anyway.  

[Guest Butero]

 

 

The Biblical support is based on the fact that some laws are still re-affirmed, even though in other instances, you find where we are said to no longer be under the law.  I took the time to carefully examine the types of laws that continue and those that don't, and why? 

 

The Old Testament does say "Thou Shalt Not Kill."  Here comes the matter of figuring out the intent of that law?  We know this was not refering to war, because God ordered the children of Israel to go to battle and kill people.  We know it isn't in reference to the death penalty, because the law of Moses requires that if anyone kills someone, they must be executed.  You know the intent by looking at the OT as a whole. 

 

The deacons and bishops were created to take some of the load off the other ministers, so they could spend their time in the word and prayer.  Deacons would do things like make distribution of funds to the poor, and bishops are overseers.  Many churches have made the Pastor the bishop. 

 

 

So, do you feel that if there is a ministry that distributes funds to the poor, and the leader of that ministry is a woman, they are sinning?

 

I do not agree, but I accept that you are right to study the word for yourself and decide what is right.  I am convicted in an entirely different direction, but I trust that one day we will meet in the same place anyway.  

 

I don't see anything wrong with a woman running a ministry to help the poor.  It is only with the specific office of Deacon there would be a problem. 

 

Anyway, I look forward to meeting all the good people from WB in the Kingdom of Heaven. 

[Willa]

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin?

It started during world war 2 when women were required to do a man's job to support the war effort due to a shortage of men, and women needing to support families. There are a lot of activities for which dresses are not modest. Gardening is one. Working on the floor with pre school children is another. However, it is important to be modest in any sort of clothing. Skin tight pants aren't modest either, and are not flattering on some of us. At one time I was able to wear my husbands navy dungerees that he could no longer wear. I did so around the house, not in public, and when other clothes were in the laundry. But I was not cross dressing or pertending to be a man in any form. If I could get into them now I would be down right excited do to the fact that I am now a bit rotund.

[missmuffet]

 

 

Nope.  Just asks for thoughts...so I guess a little leeway was built into the thread.

 

Well....to go from horror movies to women wearing pants is a lot of leeway if you ask me. LOL

 

That is way too funny......  going from horror movies to women wearing pants.Well,some of the pants that women wear could resemble a horror movie.The issue is more about modesty than wearing pants.The Bible does not say that women should not wear pants.But how they wear them.Not painted on.

1Timothy 2:9-10in 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 clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

I wear jeans, I wont wear skirts or dresses, because I think, "what if there was a strong wind?"

 

Know what I mean?

 

The burka is actually appealing to me now to be truthful, just so I can attend church without folks eyeballing the basic jean. 

 

That will put them more at ease with me (lol)

 

But at least I am not coveting others apparel and  trying to rend my garments over my heart. At least in jeans I'm covered up and modest, because I'm so not interested in some kind of fashion show. Man looks at outward appearances God looks at the heart, and what's highly esteemed by men is not with Him.

 

Laying up treasures on earth is also inclusive of what "moth" destroys.

 

Besides, look what God had the forerunner of the Messiah in, it wasn't a Gucci suit.

 

Most pastors today would be like, hey John, you wearin' that?

 

Meanwhile Jesus was like, what did you go out for to see? Some man in gorgeous apparel?

 

Right there shows you he isn't impressed with it all.

 

Peter seemed to have issue with what was immodest more so in all the bling related stuff (even the attention given to it) or to all the adorning of the outward (verses the heart). James on the other hand, and speaking up for the cause of the poor man and to their being a respecter of persons toward all that same bling related stuff.

 

Then James too turns his attention to the heart  and says those who did that become partial in themselves, judges with evil thoughts.

 

It says nothing about wearing clean jeans. James even defends the poor man coming into the assembly in vile raiment. Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

[LadyKay]

 

Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

 I have to say that I have for the most part of my life, been blessed to attend a church that has no issue with jeans, shorts, football shirts, or whatever. Sometimes I wear a skirt or a dress sometimes I do not. No one has ever given issue about it to me. So when I hear stories about how some churches have dress cods and look down on jean wearers, I am like "what, this really goes on in church!"

[Guest]

I wear jeans, I wont wear skirts or dresses, because I think, "what if there was a strong wind?"

 

Know what I mean?

 

The burka is actually appealing to me now to be truthful, just so I can attend church without folks eyeballing the basic jean. 

 

That will put them more at ease with me (lol)

 

But at least I am not coveting others apparel and  trying to rend my garments over my heart. At least in jeans I'm covered up and modest, because I'm so not interested in some kind of fashion show. Man looks at outward appearances God looks at the heart, and what's highly esteemed by men is not with Him.

 

Laying up treasures on earth is also inclusive of what "moth" destroys.

 

Besides, look what God had the forerunner of the Messiah in, it wasn't a Gucci suit.

 

Most pastors today would be like, hey John, you wearin' that?

 

Meanwhile Jesus was like, what did you go out for to see? Some man in gorgeous apparel?

 

Right there shows you he isn't impressed with it all.

 

Peter seemed to have issue with what was immodest more so in all the bling related stuff (even the attention given to it) or to all the adorning of the outward (verses the heart). James on the other hand, and speaking up for the cause of the poor man and to their being a respecter of persons toward all that same bling related stuff.

 

Then James too turns his attention to the heart  and says those who did that become partial in themselves, judges with evil thoughts.

 

It says nothing about wearing clean jeans. James even defends the poor man coming into the assembly in vile raiment. Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

 

Well said.

 

I learned the honorable art of finding a new church during  my 15 years in the Air Force. I'm a guy, so the first thing I always did was throw on some clean jeans and a t-shirt. It really saved me wasting time weeding out those churches that were too hung up on clothing and not on Jesus. I could care less about man's idea of what's "proper" considering that some of the best "church" services I have ever been to have been among believers in some pretty diverse places such as garages, equipment bays, fuel storage yards, aircraft hangers and shelters, ammo bunkers, barns, corals, and aboard ship at sea. I miss those sometimes - just believers and God with nothing else to get in the way. God isn't impressed with the outward, but the inward, and that's where Jesus starts: on the heart. The rest works its way outward into our everyday lives.