Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[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")

 

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.

 

 

Amen, I was In the Army myself bro and back then in order to "get out of something" we could chose the chapel, but we'd all be there in our BTU's, at that time I wasn't even hearing the message (if there was one) I don't know, because when your not listening it just seems that way lol

 

I am just comfortable (and most myself) in the average everyday jean.

 

God ministers to me at home in my pajamas, and in even less than that, in the shower (butt naked).

 

Truthfully so.

 

He is not put off any more by demin then he ever was by John the Baptists camel hair

 

Its just plain ridiculous to think He would be.

 

 

God bless you!

 

What is ridiculous to me is that people think they can ignore God's laws and be ok.  When I look at the church today, I feel like Josiah must have when the book of the law was found in the temple.  He heard the words of God, realized nobody was giving any credence to them, and he cried out to God in sackcloth and ashes because he knew judgment was coming.  It is not so much that people disagree I find troubling, but that they simply ignore scripture, or make light of it.  "I am sure there are worse sins?"  Then they compare themselves to others by questioning if the other person is perfect?  Even if the other person is the worst sinner going, that doesn't mean what they are doing is ok?  Even in this thread, someone posted saying God cares about modesty, not pants.  Based on what?  And isn't that being clothes line? 

 

 

How does the material denim pertain to a man?

[Guest Butero]

Where does it say denim or pants pertain to a man?

 

Although girdles and bonnets were worn by Aarons sons (winks)

 

It does say,

 

Duet 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

 

Although we are all pretty much doomed there unless your into 100% polyester

 

Divers could be seen even of things old and new

 

Mark 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

Where does it say a bra pertains to a woman?  I have already addressed the question over mixed fabrics.  Had you read the previous posts you would know that, but here goes again.  There are 3 types of laws in the law of Moses.  1  laws that deal with God's moral code.  2  laws that deal with Israel's separation from the unclean gentile nations.  3  Laws that pertain to the office of the Levitical Priesthood.  The second type never applied to the gentiles, because we were the unclean people who they were separate from, and since we were made clean by the blood of Jesus, the symbolism changed.  The third type no longer applies because it was temporary till the cross.  The only laws that apply are the moral laws.  The mixed fabric law is a law of separation, while the law about not wearing what pertains to the opposite sex is a moral law.  BTW, even if you could prove that the mixing of fabric is wrong, all you would do is show another thing we are guilty of.  It wouldn't nullify Deuteronomy 22:5.  It would mean we need to make sure our clothes are not mixed fabrics.

[LadyKay]

 

I am just the opposite.  When I know a church allows people to dress like you described, I won't go there.  If we are talking about visitors, that is one thing, but not members in good standing.  When I hear of churches like you described, I am like, "what has become of the church?"  It makes me sick to my stomach people have so little respect for the house of the Lord.

 Really! You will not go to a church that lets someone who dresses like me in! What if a person who belongs to your church does not have anything else to wear but a pair of jeans and a t-shirt? Will you tell them sorry you are not welcome here? I am greatly offended by this and think that you and everyone else who would dare to turn a person away from church because of the way they are dress need to take a look at their own hearts. Is this really what Christ teaches us?  Did Jesus go around and tell people you are not welcome in my Father's house because I don't like what you are wearing? It is because of people who think like you do that the unchurch keep staying unchurched! This is where I end this discussion with you. You wouldn't want to associate with someone like me who dares to wear jeans to church anyway. The Pharisees where also great followers of the laws as well.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

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.

That is all well and good, but you are admitting to wearing what pertains to a man, which clearly violates Deuteronomy 22:5.  I don't care what your reasons are.  You are still saying that you violated God's law with impunity, and would do it again.  It is between you and God how things ultimately turn out, but this is the type of thing that once again shows why women shouldn't be wearing pants at all.  It also shows that all these arguments that there is some kind of clear distinction in men's pants and women's pants isn't true.

First, I am not under the law. Second, I think Jesus would rather have me warm in a house that couldn't be heated over 55 degrees when I had nothing else to wear. I don't think he would want me to go naked. He is the one who allowed even the Jews to have mercy on their animals on the Sabbath. He healed the blind on the Sabbath. Moreover, I had no knowledge of the old testament Jewish law at that time. Butero. You are out of bounds by standing in judgement of me and you owe me an apology. And yes, I do wish I were that size again.

 

You are speaking in relation to reasons why God allowed some to occasionally break the law out of necessity.  He didn't say it was ok under normal circumstances.  I have every right to express my opinion that it is wrong for women to wear pants.  This message board is non-denominational, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.  I do not owe you an apology, and none is coming.  But your post did convince me all the more I am right in saying that women are breaking God's laws concerning clothing.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

I am just the opposite.  When I know a church allows people to dress like you described, I won't go there.  If we are talking about visitors, that is one thing, but not members in good standing.  When I hear of churches like you described, I am like, "what has become of the church?"  It makes me sick to my stomach people have so little respect for the house of the Lord.

 Really! You will not go to a church that lets someone who dresses like me in! What if a person who belongs to your church does not have anything else to wear but a pair of jeans and a t-shirt? Will you tell them sorry you are not welcome here? I am greatly offended by this and think that you and everyone else who would dare to turn a person away from church because of the way they are dress need to take a look at their own hearts. Is this really what Christ teaches us?  Did Jesus go around and tell people you are not welcome in my Father's house because I don't like what you are wearing? It is because of people who think like you do that the unchurch keep staying unchurched! This is where I end this discussion with you. You wouldn't want to associate with someone like me who dares to wear jeans to church anyway. The Pharisees where also great followers of the laws as well.

 

I will not go to a church where they teach it is ok for women to wear pants to church.  Opposing this practice is no different than opposing allowing any other sin into the Christian church.  It is God's house and should be respected.  The Pharisees were not good keepers of the law.  They were constantly looking for ways to avoid keeping it, much like you are doing.  How do I know that?  When Jesus rebuked them, it was at a time when everyone was under the entire law.  He wouldn't have been attacking people for teaching the law.  He even says in one place that the Pharisees stand in Moses' place.  The issue was how they created loopholes in the law, and placed traditions ahead of the law. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Amen, I was In the Army myself bro and back then in order to "get out of something" we could chose the chapel, but we'd all be there in our BTU's, at that time I wasn't even hearing the message (if there was one) I don't know, because when your not listening it just seems that way lol

 

I am just comfortable (and most myself) in the average everyday jean.

 

God ministers to me at home in my pajamas, and in even less than that, in the shower (butt naked).

 

Truthfully so.

 

He is not put off any more by demin then he ever was by John the Baptists camel hair

 

Its just plain ridiculous to think He would be.

 

 

God bless you!

 

What is ridiculous to me is that people think they can ignore God's laws and be ok.  When I look at the church today, I feel like Josiah must have when the book of the law was found in the temple.  He heard the words of God, realized nobody was giving any credence to them, and he cried out to God in sackcloth and ashes because he knew judgment was coming.  It is not so much that people disagree I find troubling, but that they simply ignore scripture, or make light of it.  "I am sure there are worse sins?"  Then they compare themselves to others by questioning if the other person is perfect?  Even if the other person is the worst sinner going, that doesn't mean what they are doing is ok?  Even in this thread, someone posted saying God cares about modesty, not pants.  Based on what?  And isn't that being clothes line? 

 

 

How does the material denim pertain to a man?

 

Its not denim that pertains to a man, but pants.  Next time you are in a public place, and look for the bathroom, look at the symbols.  Which symbol pertains to the man and which to the woman?

[nebula]

Look, no matter what we argue and debate, the point is - "what pertaineth to a man" is not cut in stone, except in the eyes of personal bias.

 

Butero believes pants "pertaineth to a man", end of story.

 

The rest of us disagreeing with him do not believe pants "pertaineth to a man" any more than t-shirts or sweaters and thus putting a yoke on women that Jesus never meant us to bear.

 

No amount of argument or "evidence" is going to convince either side that they are in the wrong.

 

Truly, there is no life in us going around in circles like this.

 

So women, just remember that judgment is in the hands of God, not any particular man. It's not worth losing your peace over someone's opinion on another computer far away. I know oppression hurts, but you gotta let it go.

[Guest Butero]

For the record, I don't want to stop churches from allowing women to wear pants.  I am fine with variety.  I just want to see some churches remain that oppose the practice, for those of us who don't agree with it.  This is a big country.  The church has a lot of people with different views.  They shouldn't all have to be identical.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

 

Where does it say denim or pants pertain to a man?

 

Although girdles and bonnets were worn by Aarons sons (winks)

 

It does say,

 

Duet 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

 

Although we are all pretty much doomed there unless your into 100% polyester

 

Divers could be seen even of things old and new

 

Mark 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

Where does it say a bra pertains to a woman?  I have already addressed the question over mixed fabrics.  Had you read the previous posts you would know that, but here goes again.  There are 3 types of laws in the law of Moses.  1  laws that deal with God's moral code.  2  laws that deal with Israel's separation from the unclean gentile nations.  3  Laws that pertain to the office of the Levitical Priesthood.  The second type never applied to the gentiles, because we were the unclean people who they were separate from, and since we were made clean by the blood of Jesus, the symbolism changed.  The third type no longer applies because it was temporary till the cross.  The only laws that apply are the moral laws.  The mixed fabric law is a law of separation, while the law about not wearing what pertains to the opposite sex is a moral law.  BTW, even if you could prove that the mixing of fabric is wrong, all you would do is show another thing we are guilty of.  It wouldn't nullify Deuteronomy 22:5.  It would mean we need to make sure our clothes are not mixed fabrics.

 

 

 

No I haven't read any of your posts to be quite truthful, So I don't know what your particular beef is, so I couldn't tell you.

 

And I do know very well if I could prove the mixing of the fabrics is wrong that that law makes us all guilty which is why I brought it up.

 

A bra is a support, made for that purpose, there are elderly men who also wear such support actually.

 

If he needed one, Im not against it. How could I tell he was wearing one? It would be worn under his garments

 

Jeans are pretty much gender neutral. Cost efficient, durable and modest.

 

Im one who so wouldn't mind a burka just to get people to back off my jeans as compared to their Gucci stuff, because that is where the true comparison is being made in most circles. Meaning my stuff isn't as good as their stuff. But I wouldn't be caught dead in the things they boast themselves of. Its immodest in cost alone, the apostle speaks of not adorning oneself in costly array, and so I don't indulge myself of it.

 

Its quite unimportant to me.

[Guest Butero]

Look, no matter what we argue and debate, the point is - "what pertaineth to a man" is not cut in stone, except in the eyes of personal bias.

 

Butero believes pants "pertaineth to a man", end of story.

 

The rest of us disagreeing with him do not believe pants "pertaineth to a man" any more than t-shirts or sweaters and thus putting a yoke on women that Jesus never meant us to bear.

 

No amount of argument or "evidence" is going to convince either side that they are in the wrong.

 

Truly, there is no life in us going around in circles like this.

 

So women, just remember that judgment is in the hands of God, not any particular man. It's not worth losing your peace over someone's opinion on another computer far away. I know oppression hurts, but you gotta let it go.

What oppression?  Nobody has to agree with me?  People can walk away and continue doing as they always have.  Nobody has to agree with the UPC Church, the church I recommended, or any Independent Baptist congregation that believes it is wrong for women to wear pants.  There are more with you than with me, so do what you feel is right in your own conscience.  Nebula is right.  I see women in pants like a man wearing a dress.  Those on the other side don't see women in pants any different than wearing t-shirts or sweaters.  I understand that, and I accept the fact we will not agree on this topic.