Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[other one]

I personally think the context of the scripture is simply telling us not to cross dress.  In most instances it isn't hard to tell if an outfit is designed for a woman or a man.  Different cultures have different standards as to who wears what.  

 

to me, pants are fine as long as they  don't make it look as though the person is trying to look trans-gender..

[Guest Butero]

 

I didn't agree with the quote by Jerry Bridges the first time you posted it, and still don't.  Freely you have been given truth and freely you should share truth.  I also reject your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5, and the reason for it.  There is no basis for such an interpretation, except some so-called historian likely made it up, like they make other things up to explain away the plain meaning of passages they don't like.  If you do believe what Jerry Bridges said, why did you attempt to push your personal convictions against horror movies on everyone with 10 points we were supposed to use to validate your belief? 

 

This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed this personal conviction of yours regarding women wearing pants Butero. Did you even read the link I provided?

Um… Sorry I don’t see how I used anything to impose my view on everyone else. I gave my opinion on Horror movies and how I view them. I said in that I didn’t like horror movies and I didn’t see anything in them that honor Christ. This was my personal preference and I never said I thought watching horror movies was a sin. I would say it is probably unwise for me to do - it really messes with me. But to each his own.

 

I then quoted an article originally posted by Nebula . The 10 suggestions seemed like they made sense to me and was a good set of suggestions at that given the current discussion on horror movies. If you were convicted then that is between you and God brother. You are free to disagree with me and with the author Larry Tomczak.

So I don’t see what you’re saying.

 

Now that is perplexing to me, how you can't see what I am saying?  When you say you believe something is wrong, you are just giving your personal opinion, and not pushing it on anyone else, but when I give my opinion on something, I am pushing my view on others?  When you give 10 points that supposedly would help us come to the conclusion something is wrong, that is just something that makes sense to you, but if I give reasons why I see something as wrong, it is pushing my views on others?  I don't see how you can't understand what I am saying?

[Guest Butero]

 

My point to Nebula was in regard to how one determines if they are in idolatry?  If it is by attempting to stop doing something, and if it is hard, then it is an idol, my point is valid.  Every woman that has trouble wearing a dress for an extended period of time has made pants an idol.  That was her test, not mine.  It could apply to nearly anything, not just entertainment.  It could apply to sports fans.  If they can't stop watching football for an extended period of time, according to that test, football is an idol to them. 

 

You are making a sweeping judgment (a generalization) by saying that every woman who has trouble wearing a dress for an extended period of time has made pants an idol. Some women simply don’t like wearing dresses or skirts. Some wear pants for work. Some think pants are more practical. Are you saying that women who don’t wear dresses aren’t feminine? Or am I reading into your words and misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

You are misunderstanding what I am saying.  I am saying that this is not a valid test.  What if I said that if you can't give up food for an extended period of time, it is an idol to you?  Nebula said this was a way to determine if something (in her case entertainment), is an idol, and my point is that it isn't a valid test.  If you can apply it to entertainment, you can apply it to women in pants, or anything else for that matter.  I could apply that to water, and how long do you think someone could do without that? 

 

Regardless, I think we had moved past this, as I originally took Nebula's comments as a sweeping judgment of entertainment, and she said I took her wrong.  As such, I don't see any need to continue even discussing this point. 

[Sevenseas]

 

14. Loves to Impose His Opinion on Others as Truth. But a humble person acts charitably to all, thinks the best of others, and avoids presenting his opinion on a disputable matter as ultimate Truth.

 

Hee Haw....LOL!

 

oops

[Guest Butero]

 

Now GE, I want to ask you some questions.  Is Concerned Women For America trying to impose their own standard of morality on everyone else by attacking a little boy wearing a skirt?  If a church won't accept a man wearing a dress as a song leader, is that an attempt to impose their personal convictions on others?  If a woman doesn't feel comfortable going out with a man that is wearing a dress, isn't it hypocritical if she expects him to feel good that she is wearing jeans?  Our pagan society is tolerant of a lot of evil things, so we can't go by what they find acceptable.  Can a woman be guilty of wearing clothes that pertain to a man in any circumstance, as women clearly think a man can wear clothes that pertain to a woman?  It is my contention that women feel like they can choose to look however they wish, dress however they want, and be anything they desire, while men must look like a man in their appearance, dress in a way that is masculine, and basically be men.  There is a clear double standard, and I haven't heard one man or woman give a valid reason why this is so?  Not from you and not from anyone else. 

 

Perhaps in the same way you see a double standard for men/women I pointed to your double standard with women (pants) and men (kilts). But in any case...

I don’t believe it is hypocritical for a woman to wear pants. I would not force any woman I knew to wear skirts (including daughters if God ever blesses me with a daughter).

Let me ask you this. Do you think its sin for a man to shave his beard or have long hair?

 

Honestly, I don’t really understand where you’re coming from. Concerned Women for America has the right speak up for what they believe in. You have the right not to wear pants. But when you tell women in general that wearing pants is a sin you are imposing a standard which isn’t found in Scripture. Your in essence elevating your personal preference and determining that to be Biblical truth where in fact this issue of pants is not black/white in my estimation but rather grey.

 

Of course they have that right at Concerned Women For America, just as I have the right to come against women in pants.  If I am elevating my standard to something not found in scripture, so are they, but where is the outrage? 

 

Let me ask you this GE?  I don't expect you to really do this, but just imagine the consequences?  I would assume your church is pretty liberal when it comes to how women dress, likely one of those churches that has a "Come As You Are" sign up from time to time, or at least claims to believe in that philosophy?  What would happen if one Sunday morning, you put on a dress and prepared to go to church?  You wife asks you why you are wearing a dress, and you say you just felt like doing so this week.  How would she react?  Would she go with you like that?  If you get past that obstacle, and show up at church in a dress, how will they react to you?  They ask you about the dress, and you say you just felt like wearing a dress that Sunday.  Perhaps you tell them you wanted to be a trend setter?  How would they react?  Lets say you decided to go to work in a dress?  How would they react?  Would they welcome you?  How about if you had long hair?  Would that be acceptable to them, or would they send you home or fire you?  If anyone said anything negative about it, would you accuse them of elevating their own personal convictions to unbiblical standards?  If you had a son and he wanted to wear a dress, would you be as accepting of it as you would be with a daughter wearing pants? 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

I consider it a sin to wear clothing that pertains to the opposite sex, which means, I am prohibited from wearing a dress.  A dress is not unclean, for a woman and pants are not unclean for a man.  That's pretty simple.  BTW, you might want to write Concerned Women For America and get on to them for attacking a boy in a skirt, and trying to raise money doing so? 

 

 

A lot of people try to use the mixed fabric argument, but it is not valid.  There are some laws that were in place for Israel as a sign of separation, and that was the case with the one about mixed fabrics In a garment.  The law in Deuteronomy 22:5 is a moral law, and it still remains.  I would be more likely to consider that we should stop wearing garments of mixed fabrics, than to consider that it is right for women to wear pants. 

 

 

So if you consider it a sin to wear a dress don't wear a dress.

What do you think of robes or bathrobes? Would you wear a bathrobe in a spa as a guy?

The issue is your view of Deut 22:5 is different for one gender (women - pants) while it is different for the other gender (men - kilts).

But I digress.

 

A robe is not a dress.  Go into any department store and ask to see a robe, and I guarantee you they won't get it mixed up with dresses. 

 

My view is the same for both sexes, and it is your view and the view of most women that is unequal.  I believe a woman in pants is the same as a man in a dress.  I also stated that I believe a woman is ok wearing coulots, because even though they are similar to shorts, they are not the same, as a kilt is not the same as a skirt.  I don't know if you aren't reading what I said, or if you just have no valid response, so you just ignore it?  It is your side that is unequal.

 

According to those on your side:

 

1  Women are free to wear anything:  Pants, skirts, dresses, shorts, coulottes, anything.

 

2  Men can wear pants and shorts, but heaven forbid they wear a dress or even a skirt if you are Concerned Women For America, the largest women's group in the nation. 

 

3  Women are free to do anything they want.  They can be housewives, stay at home Moms, career women.

 

4  Men must be responsible and work a job and support their family. 

 

5  Women are free to have any hair style they want.

 

6  Men are to keep their hair short, or they will be discriminated against for employment. 

 

I am objecting to the double standard.  You are promoting the double standard. 

 

 

Regarding kilts not being a skirt I believe you are incorrect. A kilt is a skirt worn by a man. Proudly in fact by those of certain cultures.

 

So really it's all about what you feel comfortable with or your own personal preference?

As to the assumptions you've made about me and to those on "my side." Side note: I wasn't aware that I'd chosen a side but okay.

1. I see no problem with the items you described as clothes for women. I don't think the term "anything" is really appropriate though for the conversation as it is a bit vague and super-imposes a position that I haven't taken. I can't speak for everyone else lol. Please clarify what you mean by "anything"?

 

2. Butero if you want to wear a dress please feel free to do so. No judgement here.

 

3. Women are indeed free to be stay at home moms if they so desire or if they want to work outside the home that is fine too. Are you saying women shouldn't work outside the home? If so I find that to be a bit of a chovanistic idea. If you do have this view what do you base it on?

 

4. Do you believe that men should be irresponsible, not work, and not support their home? How does this conform with 1 Tim 5:8? (Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.) Honestly, not sure about where you live but many families have found that the husband enjoys (or due to ilness and/or disablity) staying at home with the kids and the wife works outside the home. I see nothing wrong with this.

 

5. I see no problem with women having hairstyles according to their own tastes. I personally like longer hair (probably because I grew up in S. America where this was the norm) but this is just a personal preference. Do you think women with a particular style of hair is sinful?

 

6. Discrimination based on hair length I would imagine is at the minimum unethical and possibly illegal in many places. I have no issue with the length of a man's hair. Do you?

Now, how am I promoting a double standard please?

God bless,

GE

 

By "anything," I mean just that, "anything."  They can wear clothes that are feminine or masculine.  There is no clothing that they could wear that would be considered dressing like a man.  They could wear their husband's clothes, as more than one woman has admitted doing, and be accepted, but let a man wear his wife's dress, and see what happens? 

 

GE, if I walked into your church wearing a dress, I don't believe for one second there would be no judgment from you.  You can say that all you want, but I don't believe it.  I would be looked at like a sinner, and nobody would want me to join the church unless I was prepared to change.  Nobody would ask me to teach their children's Sunday School class, and I wouldn't expect them to.  It is called being effeminate. 

 

Of course men should be responsible and provide for their family.  That is their Biblical responsibility, as women are to be helpmeets to their husband, and housewives and mothers.  The very word Chovanistic is unbiblical.  It is a feminist term based on a man who held to the notion that men could do anything better than women.  Of course that is nonsense, but they have expanded the term to mean anyone who holds to traditional roles for men and women.  It is quite easy to justify my position Biblically, by just going back to Genesis.  God placed the responsibility to earn a living by the sweat of his brow to the man, not the woman.  Feminists came along and tricked women into feeling slighted with their traditional roles as housewives and Mothers, and convinced them that to be fulfilled, they must have a career.  In some cases, they almost make out like housewives are prostitutes.  It is disgusting.  The point I am making is that men don't have the same choices, and there are not many househusbands where men are stay at home Dads..  It is not God's order for men to be stay at home Dads.  Again, go back to Genesis. 

 

First of all, scripture says it is a shame for a man to have long hair and women to have short hair, so I do have a problem with it, but it is funny how men are attacked for long hair but women can have long hair or short hair?  My company would have a problem with men with long hair.  I haven't seen any lawsuits yet? 

 

Perhaps I am wrong for saying this, but I don't believe you.  I would have to see it to believe it?  I would have to see a man visit your church and how you react?  I would have to see you being fine if you had a son and he wore a dress? 

[Guest Butero]

Butero,

 

You have my curiosity.

 

Do you believe women should not cut their hair?

 

Are you familiar with the UPC?

Yes, I am familiar with the UPC.  The Bible simply says the woman should have long hair and the hair is given to her has a covering.  It doesn't specify that they can never cut their hair.  My biggest issues with the UPC is their denial of the trinity, and their belief that you aren't saved until you are baptized in the name of Jesus and speak in tongues.  I am more of a traditional Trinitarian Pentecostal.  The closest church I can give you that is close to my beliefs is Paw Creek Church in Charlotte N.C., and I don't agree with all their positions.  I do however download sermons from their church and listen to them while traveling.  Pastor Chambers has the same view I do on pants and hair length, but he actually is stronger on the pants issue than I am.  He has said he doesn't believe women that wear pants will go in the rapture, and I am more cautious than making that kind of judgment.  He refers to women that wear pants as having a "Jezebel Spirit."  I would be more inclined to call it a rebellious spirit, because Jezebel was a God hater and Baal worshipper.  I agree with him in principle, but am more cautious about terminology like that.   He does agree with people like Nebula on entertainment.  He is very strict across the board, and if his church was closer, I would probably attend it?  It is more than 70 miles from my home.  I visited it one time, and have sent them money on occasion. 

 

http://www.pawcreek.org

[Guest Butero]

I think my issue with this is that it is a "man" telling me a "women" what they can and can not do. If your a women,and you think that you should only wear dresses, then fine, I am okay with that. But for a "man" to tell me that I am sinning because I am wearing pants. Well I take issue with that. Now I am dieing to see what you think about hair cuts.

Do you have equal outrage that women in the group "Concerned Women For America" are attacking men in skirts?  If you are interested, there is a web-site called "A Christian Home," and you will find a woman telling women they shouldn't wear pants and giving links to places they can find conservative dresses.  There was a Catholic lady that was running a web-site standing against women in pants.  I am not sure if it is still active?  I know a Baptist preacher whose wife is stronger against women in pants than he is.  He was open to letting their daughter wear pants to school, and it was his wife that wouldn't allow it. 

 

If you want to know my view on hair cuts, read 1 Corinthians.  I hold to the Biblical view that it is a shame for men to have long hair, and for women to have short hair.  That is what the Bible says, so that is what I believe. 

 

http://www.achristianhome.org

[Guest Butero]

I personally think the context of the scripture is simply telling us not to cross dress.  In most instances it isn't hard to tell if an outfit is designed for a woman or a man.  Different cultures have different standards as to who wears what.  

 

to me, pants are fine as long as they  don't make it look as though the person is trying to look trans-gender..

That is what the scripture is talking about.  I am saying that women are wearing clothing that pertains to the opposite sex.  I have been told not to use the words you did at WB, so I have been less direct than I would be outside of WB.  In some cases, women are wearing clothes marketed to men, even their husband's clothes. 

[other one]

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.