My Brother's keeper?

[Guest pixy]

There are standards for both genders, women just seem to think that it is unfair for women to have these standards becuase they like to cry "Oh! Male Opression! Sexist!!!!" When no, it is a standard in the bible... someone shoudl be able to tell the difference between a man and a woman, even from behind.

You are right! But male oppression is still evident when they try to dictate that pants are not for women. They most certainly are.

*I think it doesn't help you with some posters here when you say that it should be evident what gender we are from the behind! It should always be evident, praise God!

I guess Crystal is guilty of male oppression too? Get real. By making such comments, you are just showing that what is really driving your position is that you have a feminist agenda.

Following God's Word is not a feminist agenda. Following man-made rules is man's agenda; that is wrong, no matter how you slice it, or who preaches it.

I don't want to offend Crystal here, but the fact that she has been pulled into man's agenda and thus away from the Word of God, is a sad thing. We can call it male oppression, legalism, or some other label, but it what comes down to is the fact that we should be using the Word of God as our standard, not traditions, social norms, or man-made rules.

[Guest lnj]

What if I were to say to you Butero that pants on men show too much detail? Would you don a robe? I don't think you would. You would not don a robe in 2007 as part of your daily attire.

To me, the primary issue is cross-dressing. The issue of decency to me is not in the same category. Cross dressing is an abomination unto God. We all have differing view of what is decent. If that was the sole argument here, I wouldn't waste time with it.

Well ,WE BOTH know that pants on men DOES show too much detail. And it is unlikely you will be wearing a robe in 2007.

[kittylover0991]

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

I wanted to post these two verses, and I'm not sure why for this next one, but I feel the Lord leading me to post it, so here it is:

2Ti 1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

[kittyjo]

Modesty would also include not being prideful. Is the clothing elaborate, costly or how about jewlery, expensive watches and such... Pride in manner of dress would also extend to those who dress "modestly" and take much 'spiritual pride' in doing so... Such as "I'm more Godly and faithful than my brother or sister because I dress in a certain manner", that would be prideful and immodest. Also standing out in a crowd draws more attention to oneself, which could inspire pride and become immodest. The manner of dress should also be appropiate to the activity.

It has been my experience that God is always practical. He knows all, including the intent in the hearts of His children. If a woman dresses immodestly to draw male attention, God knows, the Holy Spirit will convict her and work on her heart... The same would go for a man. Modesty, being respectable, honorable, can occur whether in a long dress or in a pair of pants as long as neither clings like skin or exposes too much skin.

The manner of dress should also be appropiate to the activity.

For example, I'm a DIY'er, using a saw and a loose flowing skirt is asking for a bloody accident, it is not realistic nor practical. I'm allergic to many bugs but I enjoy a good hike. I also have a tendencey to get very cold due to a long term illness... Pants protect and keep me warm. It is practical not obscene, and no one has ever confused me with a boy, I'm feminine.

God does not want us to defy our gift of sexuality by dressing and living as the opposite sex, such as transexuals or the many lesbians out there who look like young boys... It is not just pants that cause them to look like men, but the fact that they wear clothes directly from the men's department. They style their hair and their mannerisms after men... It is the intent/desire to live/appear like/as a man that makes this a sin.

Should Christian women wear pants?

Link from Christian Got Questions?

Answer: The question about women and the wearing of pants or slacks is an issue that is raised about externals based in legalism when the life of the child of God should be about a spiritual relationship based upon our in Christ position as believers. The obedience of a child of God is not measured by what clothing they wear but by their walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16).

When looking at what we call "doubtful things" we need to use Scripture in context to arrive at principles to help us to walk as believers, which means we consider the dispensation and the whole counsel of God and not take passages out of context. There is a passage in the Old Testament that seems to speak about a woman wearing men's clothing. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5, KJV). The context of this passage is the second giving of the law to the nation of Israel as they are poised to enter into the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 22:5 is an admonition not to live as a transvestite. This has to do with more than just the clothes that a person is wearing, but speaks to living a life that emulated in every way a sex that was opposite than the one that the person was born in. Transvestitism was a practice of the Canaanites, and Israel was to consider it an abomination. Can we take a principle from this and apply it to our lives as believers? Yes. However, when we do so, we must use it in the context in which it is given and do so in relation to the dispensation of grace.

The Apostle Paul wrote extensively on the difference between the law and grace in Romans. We are not justified by our adherence to the law but we are justified by faith in Christ, (Romans 3:21-28). The Apostle concludes this passage of Scripture by saying, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28, KJV). The believer is Christ Jesus is "dead" to the constraints of the law. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6 King James Version). Therefore, a believer does not live by legalism, nor by license, but rather by grace.

What has that to do with a believing woman wearing pants? There is no Biblical LAW saying what a woman should wear or not wear. Rather, a woman is to be arrayed in "modest apparel." The Apostle Paul addresses the modesty of a woman in his first letter to Timothy. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (1st Timothy 2:9-10, KJV). The Greek word translated "modest" is the Greek word "kosmios" and this word is translated twice in the New Testament. It is seen once as "modest" in this passage and is once translated as "of good behavior" in 1st Timothy 3:1. It came to mean well-arranged, seemly and modest.

The word "apparel" is the Greek word "katastole" and it is translated as apparel only here in 1st Timothy. The meaning of the word "katastole" was to send or to let down or lower, and it was connected with "kastastello," which means to send. It was primarily a garment that was let down, and came to mean dress or attire in general, and in that day referred to a stole or a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank. Therefore, the context here is important. Since we know that the Apostle Paul was not speaking to people of rank, the context here is simply modest attire, and it does not specify what that entails. The Apostle Paul addressed this issue here because the women in the church were trying to see who could out do whom in how they dressed

[kittylover0991]

Modesty would also include not being prideful. Is the clothing elaborate, costly or how about jewlery, expensive watches and such... Pride in manner of dress would also extend to those who dress "modestly" and take much 'spiritual pride' in doing so... Such as "I'm more Godly and faithful than my brother or sister because I dress in a certain manner", that would be prideful and immodest. Also standing out in a crowd draws more attention to oneself, which could inspire pride and become immodest. The manner of dress should also be appropiate to the activity.

It has been my experience that God is always practical. He knows all, including the intent in the hearts of His children. If a woman dresses immodestly to draw male attention, God knows, the Holy Spirit will convict her and work on her heart... The same would go for a man. Modesty, being respectable, honorable, can occur whether in a long dress or in a pair of pants as long as neither clings like skin or exposes too much skin.

Amen!!!! First, saying one is more godly than another becuase of dress, for sure, you are, is wrong.... I guess that is where this whole stupid idea of legalism falls in... but... modesty surely is more than just dress... it is how one carries themself.. it is attitude, it is facial expression, it is everything about a person at one given time in that sense, "the atmosphere around them" That also includes not drawing attention to oneself. I know of a guy that says the first thing they see on a woman is their figure, but I also know another that says their face

"Don't frown, becuase you never know who's in love with your smile"

Amen!

Crystal

[Floatingaxe]

Pixy, I don't want to get crude either, so I will put this as best I can, but women's anatomy can be seen in an immodest way when they wear pants as well.

That's actually a stronger argument for MEN not wearing pants.

You should see me in a sweater! I can't hide them things! Why all the hullabalo about pants? Weird.

[Floatingaxe]

Are you telling me I was WRONG to wear pants for practicality and modesty's sake?

I don't believe women should wear pants, period. The alternative would be long dresses. I don't endorse it, but it would be preferable for a woman to wear something on under a dress or skirt than to simply wear pants or shorts. I have some reservations because this would still possibly involve wearing something pertaining to the opposite sex, though it would go unseen, but it is a possible compromise if modesty would have otherwise been impossible.

Typical male agenda...pitiful. Making women adhere to their ideas of modesty, so they don't have to deal with their eye problems. You need to read, "Every Man's Battle."

Maybe you need to acknowledge that a lot of women hold to this same agenda as you call it. I gave you a link to some. I know of another link to a web-site started by a Catholic woman with the same point of view. I know two women personally whose husbands are liberal on the issue, but they are not. In one case, the husband was considering allowing their daughter to wear pants to school, and the wife said no.

That link was for apron slinging mother earth types...ya know...the feminine agenda that coincides with the male agenda...ya know--the ones with eye problems! Yuck.

[Floatingaxe]

Butero, what should a woman wear whilst climbing a ladder?

A dress. She should just have the common sense to not do it while a man is next to her, waiting to look up her dress. If a woman was in that position and I was in the room, I would gladly climb the ladder for her to save her any embarressment.

This is a real knee-slapper! More legalism! This is utterly ridiculous. A woman has the right to choose to wear pants designed for a woman. This is not cross-dressing. You are way out in left field...pretty close to Mars. Watch out for that "moon"!

[bethshemaiah]

Pixy, I don't want to get crude either, so I will put this as best I can, but women's anatomy can be seen in an immodest way when they wear pants as well.

That's actually a stronger argument for MEN not wearing pants.

You should see me in a sweater! I can't hide them things! Why all the hullabalo about pants? Weird.

LOL, Well that is true, but hey we all wear shirts of some kind, right?....... so there would be no problem with that one, unless............ your buttons are on........... oh now which side are a man's buttons on again?

[Floatingaxe]

Pixy, I don't want to get crude either, so I will put this as best I can, but women's anatomy can be seen in an immodest way when they wear pants as well.

That's actually a stronger argument for MEN not wearing pants.

You should see me in a sweater! I can't hide them things! Why all the hullabalo about pants? Weird.

LOL, Well that is true, but hey we all wear shirts of some kind, right?....... so there would be no problem with that one, unless............ your buttons are on........... oh now which side are a man's buttons on again?

Well, when you are a 44D it's an obvious asset. No dress OR pants can hide that feminie attribute. I wonder how the legalist figures we deal with them?

Maybe a heavy vest in 108 degree heat? Oh, and I wouldn't want that nice sleek collarbone to be seen, oh noooooooooooo! Better get my turtleneck on!