How Is A Christian Lady Supposed to Dress?

[Willa]

On buriel mounds in the Ukraine, the steps, eastern Russia, western China and silk trade route.  

 

Females were buried in about 20% of graves of the lower and middle Volga river region during the Yamna and Poltavka cultures.^[13] Two thousand years later, females dressed as warriors were buried in the same region. David Anthony notes, "About 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian "warrior graves" on the lower Don and lower Volga contained females dressed for battle as if they were men, a phenomenon that probably inspired the Greek tales about the Amazons."^[13] A near-equal ratio of male-to-female graves was found in the eastern Manych steppes and Kuban-Azov steppes during the Yamna culture.^[13] In Ukraine, the ratio was intermediate between the other two regions.^[13Females were buried in about 20% of graves of the lower and middle Volga river region during the Yamna and Poltavka cultures.^[13] Two thousand years later, females dressed as warriors were buried in the same region. Scythian women wore long, loose robes, ornamented with metal plaques (gold). Women wore shawls, often richly decorated with metal (golden) plaques."

 

Wikipedia on Scythians:

Men and women wore long trousers, often adorned with metal plaques and often embroidered or adorned with felt appliqués; trousers could have been wider or tight fitting depending on the area. Materials used depended on the wealth, climate and necessity.

Men and women warriors wore variations of long and shorter boots, wool-leather-felt gaiter-boots and moccasin-like shoes. They were either of a laced or simple slip on type. Women wore also soft shoes with metal (gold) plaques.

Men and women wore belts. Warrior belts were made of leather, often with gold or other metal adornments and had many attached leather thongs for fastening of the owner's gorytos, sword, whet stone, whip etc. Belts were fastened with metal or horn belt-hooks, leather thongs and metal (often golden) or horn belt-plates."

 

It seems that the wearing of pants started with horseback riding, which the Scythians were known to have developed.  They were nomadic and often raided settlements.  Both men and women wore trousers, known as far back as 2500 BC.  (A pair was found in China from 2600 BC).   Scythians were related to the Iranians, which could account for both their men wearing trousers for horseback riding and women wearing trousers or pantaloon harem pants.

 

Ex. 28:42 speaks of making trousers for the priests to cover their nakedness.  Otherwise tunics and cloaks were normally worn by both men and women, with men having fringes on theirs to tell them apart.  So trousers were not normally worn in the Bible.  They were probably created for modesty when sacrificing at the alter.   If you want to dress totally according to the Bible, you better get out your sheets and start turning them into tunics and robes.  

 

In recent times, French women who followed behind their husbands into battle on horseback, riding astride, also wore trousers in the early 1800s.  Whenever women were required to do the work of men they often wore trousers for safety's sake, both in England and here on the western frontier.  But athletics and bicycles also opened the way for women to dress more safely, conveniently and modestly in pantaloons in the 1890s.  Often they were worn under a shorter skirt.  Skirts tend to get caught in bicycle chains and there are no bicycle side saddles. Sometimes split skirts like culottes were worn for riding horses in the west around 1900.  Women wore trousers in the factories during WWII.  Today many jobs that are traditionally for women require the wearing of trousers, jeans and the like.

 

Once again.  Women's trousers and jeans are made to accommodate the shape of women, and men would look pretty strange in them.  I have nothing against women wearing the loose fitting tunics of biblical days, having dressed in a tunic for our high school Latin banquet.  They are comfortable and loose fitting, modest and suitable for church.  But since our church does not encourage dressing in such a way that calls attention to ourselves, I would not wear it to our church.  And men would really be an attention getter in a tunic and robe. 

So some people have the idea that women's slacks should not be worn by women which is a man made law. Others think that only clubbing attire should be worn to church, as in suits, ties and little black spandex dresses (i looked up the fabric content).  Some of us prefer to dress casually and flip flops are fine for church, to the horror of others who are steeped in their traditions.  I don't think God really cares, as long as we go to church, pray and read our bibles.  I have prayed in the shower and read my Bible on the toilet.  We came into the world naked and naked we shall return.  God does not look at the outward appearance but looks at our hearts. 

 

By the way, I do encourage those of you who do not attend a church to do so, especially as we see the time of His coming approaching.  This is far more important than what we wear.  

[MorningGlory]

Then I have to come to the same conclusion I arrived at already.  People claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God, but they don't.  They believe it is a collection of messages from people in the early church, some that actually walked with Jesus, and others who didn't, but knew about him.  That means their teachings are more likely to be accurate than what we have today, but they contain some error and some bias, because they are influenced by the people they live with.  When someone claims that nobody has the right to tell anyone how to dress, does that include the Bible?  In reality, the issue isn't whether or not anyone is able to make a grown woman dress in any particular way.  Of course they are free to refuse to obey the Bible or anyone else.  The question is whether or not there are Biblical guidelines for how women dress, and clearly there are.  At the same time, does that really matter? 

 

Mark Levin has said that the United States is living in post-Constitutional times.  I agree.  I also believe the church is living in post-Biblical times.  MorningGlory as much as said so when she said we are no longer living in "Biblical times."  How right she is.  People don't follow the Bible anymore.  They follow personal feelings and call that following their conscience.  In reality, the modern church doesn't need a Bible, because all anyone does is go by how they feel.  MorningGlory, I gave you a chance to explain your position on your comments about not living in "Biblical times" already, and your response to Fresno Joe doesn't really answer that.  Do you think I am off base in what I said in this post about how people today view the Bible, and if not, where am I wrong?  The way I see it, why do we cast judgments on anyone for anything they do?  We have obviously evolved to a state more enlightened than Bible teachings.  People don't live like they did in "Biblical times."  Why find fault in anything, including gay marriage?  It was wrong for those in "Biblical times," but we are evolving past those archaic notions.  The same thing goes for fornication.  Also, why do you say we should dress modest?  We are no longer living in "Biblical times," and modesty is a thing of the past.  Why is ok to tell women to dress modest?  What is that based on? 

 

Come on, Butero, should I say we ARE living in Biblical times?  That wouldn't make sense because we live in the present and I'm not sure how gay marriage figures into the topic.  I believe in modest dress (and demeanor, not swearing, telling off color jokes, making rude gestures) so in that sense I believe women should follow the Bible's standards.  I don't believe it's the purview of men to decide how women should dress; we are no longer living in a patriarchal society.  We know how to dress if we are Christian women.  Nonbelievers don't but there's nothing we can do about that.  We have to live in the time we were born into.  I don't think that means the Bible is now irrelevant, at least not to believers. 

[MorningGlory]

A couple of things.  The female "warriors" were wearing men's clothes.  They were doing something that normally men would do.  You can find certain instances in heathen cultures where women wore men's attire.  That was also a common practice among lesbian women who were trying to attract other females and this was also part of some pagan worship practices.  I am well aware you can find certain instances of this sinful practice.  It is obvious some men and women were wearing what pertained to the opposite sex all the way back to the days of Moses or Deuteronomy 22:5 wouldn't be necessary, however the respectable women did not wear pants.  That practice didn't begin for most women until the 20th century, and it was mostly done for the purpose of being able to do men's jobs, factory work, things like that.  There were some instances where designers began pushing the idea of women's trousers in the 20th century, but it took a long time to catch on.  I have investigated all of this stuff before. 

 

The issue is whether or not pants pertain to a man, and they clearly do.  All one has to do is look at the universal symbol for men and women at a public restroom to see that pants pertain to a man.  The men are the one's the Bible put as head of the household, which is where the saying, "Who wears the pants in the family?" originated.  There are basically two things that are associated with women, and that is dresses and long hair, as pants and short hair are normally associated with men.  In an attempt to appease the culture, some attempts have been made to show women in pants on things like the little stick families on cars, but they substitute the dress for long hair to make a distinction.  Today's women often have short hair and wear what pertains to a man. 

 

All those who claim there is this great distinction between pants marketed to men and women are wrong.  I personally talked to a man who told me he was wearing pants that belonged to his girlfriend, and they fit him just fine.  He thought it was funny nobody could tell.  It is common for women to wear pants marketed to men, and nobody can tell.  I saw an episode of "Family Feud" where one of the comments was, "If you are going to insist on wearing my jeans, I am going to wear your blank."  The Bible also speaks of not placing a stumbling block in front of others, so the practice of women in pants has clearly done that.  There was one woman here that came out and said she saw nothing wrong with women wearing pants bought right out of the men's department at Wal-Mart, and men's shirts for that matter if they fit, but she never commented when I asked about a man wearing a skirt and blouse purchased from the women's clothing section of Wal-Mart.  There is plenty more I could add to this, but I will refrain for now. 

 

I know you strongly object to women wearing pants but there is NO Scripture that says a woman has to wear a dress nor one that says a man has to wear pants.  And there is NO Scripture that says men should decide what is modest in women's clothing.  Yes, we should do as He commands and be modest in our dress but He never commanded women to ask men what that would be. Why does this make you so angry, Butero?  I stated that women are not under the thumbs of husbands any more because it's the truth. Does it make a woman sinful to think for herself  and make her own clothing decisions? Does it make a woman less Godly because she doesn't bow to a man?  We are only to worship and obey God.  Arguing about  clothing is a side attraction that really only serves to divide and distract.   

[FresnoJoe]

Amen~!

God Bless The IDF

Including The Warrior Woman Bearing Arms

[FresnoJoe]

In the words of Tiny Tim, "God bless us everyone." 

 

I personally don't believe women should be fighting in combat, which put me right in that mainstream not so very long ago.  What I find amusing about most of my views that are considered so controversial today is they would have been mainstream as recently as 60 to 80 years ago.  People that were taking the positions the majority are today would be considered radicals.  I believe that for the most part, the old paths are better than the new ones. 

 

[MorningGlory]

First of all MG, women most certainly do have objections if a man wears feminine styles of clothing.  I have mentioned many times before how "Concerned Women For America" sent me a solicitation for money to fight a book about a little boy who wanted to wear a skirt that was made for him by his Mother.  I guarantee you that most women would object to their husbands wearing a skirt or dress for a night on the town, even if the Bible never says specifically that this is wrong by name.  The Bible never mentions smoking pot as being wrong either, but you can assume it is because we are told drunkenness is wrong.  The scriptures mention how women are to look like women in their clothing styles and men are to look like men, and we must make application as to how that fits in with today's society.  If you can honestly say that you would have no problem if you were out on a date with a guy who wears a feminine looking dress, then I suppose you would have a hard time understanding where I am coming from, but I seriously doubt that is the case.

No, I wold not date a man who wore a dress.  Not because the Bible forbids him doing that but because its just not accepted in our society.  I wear jeans a lot, as most women do, but that's acceptable today and no one would ever mistake me for a man.  Nor are they immodest unless they're very tight or cut low.  I don't wear those.  I believe a woman weaing pants is only a sin if she is TRYING to look like a man.  Most of us are not.

 

Wives are not following scripture for the most part in not submitting to their husband's authority.  Scripture actually states in Genesis that the husband is to rule over his wife, and the New Testament uses Sarah as the example and how she submitted herself to her husband, calling him Lord.  Wives are told to obey their husband in everything.  I do believe that married women are to follow scripture, and if they don't, they are most certainly in sin.  Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.  Feminism has been the ruin of our society.  In saying that, women aren't the only ones in rebellion.  Men are supposed to obey their Lord, which is Jesus Christ, which means they are to follow the Bible, as that is his written Word, and we know that often doesn't happen.  You made a couple of comments I absolutely believe are true.  Women are not under their husband's thumbs and we are not living in Biblical times.  They are both true, but they are a reflection of a society that is not following God's established order. 

Well that doesn't apply to me because I'm not married.  But I do know that a lot of women today are pretty much on their own even if married.  I know I was; there was no leadership from my ex-husband and that's very common today.  I don't know what came first, male abdication of leadership roles or feminism..  I can only look at the reality of my own life and other women around me. No, it's not a good situation.  But it is what it is. 

 

[MorningGlory]

I do understand your position MG.  The difference with me is that when I read what the Bible says on the subject, it never states that the person must be trying to look like the opposite sex to create a deception.  It simply states that the woman is not to wear what pertains to a man and that a man must not put on a woman's garment.  There is nothing mentioned about this only applying if they are doing it for this purpose or that purpose.  I also don't care what society accepts as ok.  Our culture thinks a lot of things are ok that Biblically are not. 

 

You are correct in that some of the things I mentioned only apply to married women.  Their head is their husband, while the head of single women is Christ alone.  I realize that there are many marriages where the husband and wife pretty much do their own thing.  I am coming from the standpoint of how things are supposed to be, not how they are.  I look around at society today and see a world that is screwed up and nothing like the way the Bible indicates we are supposed to live.  I am not answering questions in light of a messed up culture and making the best of it, but in light of how it should be.  I doubt it will ever fully be restored until the millennial reign of Christ, but that doesn't mean the Christian Church can't try to live in a Biblical fashion and come out from among the world's system and be separate within their own communities.  We can be a light in a world of darkness and a peculiar people walking according to God's pattern and not following societal changes.  Ultimately, it is a choice each individual has to make on their own. 

 

 

Yes.  Amen to that. 

[enoob57]

I do understand your position MG.  The difference with me is that when I read what the Bible says on the subject, it never states that the person must be trying to look like the opposite sex to create a deception.  It simply states that the woman is not to wear what pertains to a man and that a man must not put on a woman's garment.  There is nothing mentioned about this only applying if they are doing it for this purpose or that purpose.

This is exactly the error the Sadducees and Pharisees had! It is never about outward things. It is

always things of the heart! Intent of the spirit is the exact area of work never the outward display.

[enoob57]

The intent of the heart is Scripture... God 'IS' the only One Who can look upon the actual motive of intent in each person!

We are instructed to not to judge outward appearances for this very reason but to be examiners of fruit which will produce

an actual picture of the that which is in the area we cannot see... satan can appear in form as an angel of light but of

certainty he is of the darkness.   Love, Steven