What is proper attire for public worship?

[abbershay]

actaully you have yet to prove that pants belong to men alone , since they were invented after moses time its not really an issue.

[abbershay]

The thread is about modesty , pants used to be modest but now the womens pants of today esspecially the hip huggers they are not modest and i wouldnt allow it if it was up to me to much skin.

reminds me of a funny thing before long ago in school pants had to be loose enough to let a ball through and hit the floor that was the test because they didnt want tight fittin jeans , now they are so baggy they hang to the knees.. go figure.

[DaniJ87]

Butero;

You may be convinced that pants are evil for women...

I am a woman who is convinced firmly that they are not. I have a very clear conscience about this. I have a clear conscience that it wouldn't be wrong for me to go to church in my bare feet, in jeans, or shorts and a T-shirt. I generally choose to dress nicely when I go to church at home with my family, because that's the way the church does things. I choose, with just as much clarity of conscience, to wear nice jeans and a blouse to church here at college, because that is how the church people dress. My church is great. My pastor preaches real sermons that have depth and lots of things I can learn from them, that help me to grow. Paul said he was "all things to all people". He didn't go around with the gentiles demanding the Jewish laws be followed. Paul also wrote whole chapters on freedom in Christ, to make decisions on certain issues- one of those issues, I believe to be dress. We are to be modest, but nowhere in the entire Bible, do I see a verse IN CONTEXT which tells me that I am to buy special clothes to go to my church, nor do I see anywhere that tells me that PANTS are bad.

The verses referring to mens and womens clothing, as I understand them, (and I do not want a correction on this) are ONLY speaking against men trying to look like women, and women trying to look like men. Wearing something that is similar, will NOT make a woman look like a man, in an area such as pants- Women still have a much different figure than men, and there is no doubt that we have a different shape. You have also yet to have disproven the fact that mens and womens clothing when these verses were given, were very similar, much in the same way that mens and womens jeans are similar today.

You have used a lot of examples from secular books and situations, claiming (logical fallacies here) that because these people say such and such, then it must be true. Just because you can find something that remotely supports your point, does not prove that your point is correct. Those who oppose you have brought up many more pieces of "evidence" that equal what you have shown, which outnumber yours. You are not the only person who reads the Bible, and you are not the only one who can be right. Then, you also refuse to take archaological evidence and historical facts, saying, "well, that wasn't a CHRISTIAN society...." Sorry to break it to you, but the laws that say "don't wear men's clothes", weren't given to a CHRISTIAN society, either. The children of Israel were Jewish. Not Christian. If you throw out all societies that are not "christian"... we have none, because OUR "society" is not Christian, either.

I believe that if I remember correctly, a lot of these "freedom" issues have you all tripped up; See what you can learn from what Jesus taught about the pharisees. You're stuck in "tradition" and "letter-of-the-law-expanded-and-interpreted-and-expounded-and-disseminated" type teaching, much like that which the pharisees were spewing- What you claim, is not much different in essence, than the claims by the pharisees that Jesus shouldn't heal on the sabbath because that was work, and work wasn't permitted ever, because it was a day of rest....

Learn the PRINCIPLES in the verses of law in the OT, and let the freedom we have in Christ come alive to you.

I am very sad to hear you'd rather be in the group of five stubborn people refusing to grow or minister to others, because of your disobedience to the Word of God. You are to accept those you don't agree with in the Body of Christ, who choose to do things in their God-given freedom, because it is what they believe is right.- Romans 14. Setting yourself apart from them and condemning what they do, is exactly what Paul instructs us NOT to do- "don't condemn he that eats... or does not eat"... (paraphrased, as quoted from memory)

[DaniJ87]

The thread is about modesty , pants used to be modest but now the womens pants of today esspecially the hip huggers they are not modest and i wouldnt allow it if it was up to me to much skin.

*Some* of the women's pants are modest. I have some. Most of my pants have come from the second-hand store, because they are modest there. I also have some "mid-rise" pants- which I wear with shirts that are longer, and cover the top of the pants. Those ones are sometimes more comfortable- and when my shirt covers me the same as when I have higher pants on, they are just fine. Mine are not the "ultra-low-low-rise" pants though- some of those are just... disgusting- I don't even think they look ATTRACTIVE>... besides being immodest, as you can see most of the girls' behinds, and their pants look like they might fall down.....

[nebula]

Here's one question:

Where did pants come from?

Here's another:

In Midieval times, men wore tights.

So, when I wear tights, am I wearing men's clothing - because they originally belonged to men?

And another:

Are capris men's clothing?

And now a thought to ponder.

I was reading from a book titled How to [go to the bathroom] In the Woods.

In the beginning, the author was pondering over the difficulties women have in relieving themselves out in the wilderness and came to the conclusion that this may have been the reason for women wearing skirts - that is, not runing the risk of exposing themselves when having to go.

[tah]

http://www.achristianhome.com/modestfemini...ttireindex.html

http://www.achristianhome.com

Have a nice night.

thanks for the really nice links...

[hebrews_beauty]

At the same time, a woman can come in wearing jeans and a t-shirt and we are supposed to accept her. We are told we are being judgemental not to and that we must be tolerant. This blatant double standard has been going on for the last 40 plus years.

If a church ever rejected me over jeans, then I would certainly wonder what they would do if Jesus walked in wearing His sandals.

Most work places require men to have short hair, but women can have anything from long hair to being bald and are accepted. The Bible makes it clear it is a shame for men to have long hair and women to have short hair, but everyone ignores that today and says it is a cultural thing.

Because biblically and historically, that is the correct interpretation. It was a cultural issue between the Jewish and Gentile converts of the time period. Paul gave that command likely as a "middle of the road" settlement, since there was such disagreement between the two groups.

I would say that the Bible is my standard and I do not care what is acceptable in the culture. If it goes against God's Word, I will reject it if I am the last person willing to take such a stand. It is the same with the casual dress movement in the church. If I am the last person holding to my position that it is wrong, so be it.

We should stand for the Bible, but we should also be sensitive to culture. If we can't come to someone and "be all things to all" as Paul put it (paraphrased), then we will never win anyone to Christ. And as for me, I'll sit with Jesus, Him in His sandals and me in my flip flops.

Peace.

[DaniJ87]

HELLO DANIJ87, I had hoped to be able to avoid further confrontation tonight, but feel I have no choice but to respond to some of your comments.

By the way, I believe I remember having a similar converstation with you in an earlier thread that was eventually removed. At the time you said I sounded a lot like your Grandfather. Now you are saying that it is your Grandfather's church that had many people leave rather than accept change. Was he one that left or did he conform? I was just wondering.

Have a nice night.

My grandfather is still there, and he now agrees with what is happening in his church. He is a very Godly man.... just very stubborn sometimes. But he is excited about the growth and development of their church members. You are wrong about it being about numbers- the people are involved in small group bible-studies, and are growing in their Christian lives, and reaching out to the world. The people who left weren't willing to do that, weren't connected to small groups, and really just wanted to have an impregnable fortress for a church, rather than fellowship where those who desire to know God are welcomed in, just as they are, and shown Christ' love, that they may be won for him. They have a couple of homosexual women that have started coming... No, they don't accept homosexuality as anything but sin- but these are still people whom Christ loves and wants to come to Him.....

The people that left were primarily one family who was a major influence in the teen-group, and then a lot of the remaining families with teenagers, because their kids' "friends" were gone.... Some of these people were actually disciplined out of the church, and they're now trying to start their own church.... all the while, sewing discord among people as they can, and trying to undermine my grandparents' church. Several other families left, who once again were not plugged in and growing- the couple that took care of the coffee and donuts after the morning service; they were spending the service times in the kitchen- so they weren't getting the teaching at all.

It sounds like you have this fallacious idea that in no possible way, could a church have growth, because you personally disagree with something they do... You are right that IF what they were doing was sin, they would not be growing. I believe this demonstrates clearly that women wearing pants IS NOT sin.... growth in the church (SOME numbers, but more maturity). Growth in my personal spiritual life. Growth in others....

I still maintain that you are stunting your own growth by staying out of church.

[nebula]

Where did pants come from? You tell me.

I don't know - that's why I'm asking.

I wasn't around in medievel times so I wasn't aware of that. What did they look like? Were they anything like the tights we would see today?

Something like this: click here

I have no idea what capris are.

Here is a picture.

They are a style of women's clothing that are in fashion right now.

Concerning your book, this is like another argument I heard in a differen't post. Look at the wording, "MAY HAVE BEEN the reason for women wearing skirts." It certainly is an interesting theory but I have serious reservations about it.

Why do you have reservations about it?

[nebula]

Concerning the pictures of men you produced, all I can say is I wouldn't be caught dead in such clothing.

LOL!

But men did wear such things in the past. Ever see a portrait of King Henry VIII?

In my opinion, I do not think what the woman is wearing in the other picture is right.

But the question was: do you consider capris to be men's clothing?

The reason I have reservations about the theory mentioned in the book is the fact that the author was giving mere speculation. Again, he said "MAY HAVE BEEN THE REASON." Why wouldn't I have reservations about that?

First, the author is a she, and (having had to deal with going to the bathroom in the out-of-doors, IMO it sure does make a whole lot of sense! Toilets are fairly new in human history.

While I don't have a history of where pants came from, I would imagine there are web-sites that would claim to have that knowledge based on some historian's data. When I get a chance I will look into it.

Well, since you mentioned it, I decided to take a brief look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers

Trousers were introduced into Western European culture at several points in history, but gained their current predominance only in the 16th century.

Nomadic Eurasian horsemen/women such as the Iranian Scythians, along with Achaemenid Persians were the first to wear trousers, later introduced to modern Europe via either the Hungarians or Ottoman Turks. However, the Celts also seem to have worn them in Ancient Europe.

In ancient China trousers were only worn by cavalry. According to tradition, they were first introduced by King Wu of Zhao in 375 BC, who copied the custom from non-Chinese horsemen on his northern border.

The word itself is, ironically of Scottish Gaelic origin, a culture more associated in the popular imagination with kilts.

Trousers also trace their ancestry to the individual hose worn by men in the 15th century (which is why trousers are plural and not singular).

The bottom line here is that we are arguing over whether or not pants are strictly a male garment. According to the on-line encyclopedia above, the answer would be "no."

And by looking up the link given for "hose" it would seem that the hose women wear today have their foundations in the hose men wore in medieval/Rennaissance Europe.

So, does it then make it a sin for women to wear pantihose and tights?