Wearing Pants on Vistiation (aka, Soulwinning)

[artsylady]

Onto a more positive note: (and will be ignoring any attacks on this) What I like about skirts, is it is a way of dressing in a way that makes me so glad to be a lady, in a feminine way, not a sexy way. Before, I used to feel beautiful the wrong way, and was actually degrading myself. I love the way my skirt feels as I walk, and I love gathering up the material as I step into the car and etc. I praise God for the way he designed me, a lady, and I feel there are ways ladies can be beautiful that is contrary to the world's ideas that says we should show off our sexuality. I desire to be *feminine* not sexy.

Well that sounds wonderful and I'm glad to hear it.

I personally am striving more for inner beauty. I want people to see Jesus in me. He never wore a skirt. It was his attitude and love that drew people, not what he wore.

[irishcowboy]

Hey Everyone

Once again, as usual, the title of the post explains it all

I don't like to exclude people from this post, but I REALLY dont' want it to turn into an argument/discussion about what is and is not modest, since we all obviously disagree heavily on the matter.

However, here's the question, considering that the bible says that women are to adorn themselves in modest apparrel, and pants are immodest, what about a new Christian?

I mean.... we have rules for certain things that the lady or woman should be wearing something modest, and typically, that comes with conviction and she grows in the Lord. However, I've herad some people say that on visitation, no pants whatsoever, no matter who they are.

That's great and all, but I can't see telling a new Chrsitian that they have to wear a skirt or a dress when it is not yet a conviction in their life.

Thoughts?

modest? immodest? what kind of pants are we talking about? Speedos? Bermuda shorts? jeans? slacks? loose or tight?

there are slacks (pants) that are really attractive, and very very very very modest. pants do not have to be skin tight, infact, they are more attractive if they are not.

i have never seen in the Bible where it says Pants are immodest, nor have i ever seen anything that says women can not wear them, nor have i seen anything that says men have to wear pants.... there are still cultures today, that men do not wear pants....

it tells us that we are not suppose to (my wording) cross dress.... men are not to wear womens cloths, nor are women suppose to wear mens..... there are mens pants, and womens pants.... there are cloths made to fit a woman, and cloths made to fit men....

if you feel you have to wear a dress to go on visitation, then wear one..... if slacks will do, then good....

i know several ladies, that if they were to go to the mail box at the end of the drive, will put on a dress if they think some one will see them, if not they will wear pants..... if they are in the house in pants and some one comes to the door, they will not answer the door unless they can get a dress or skirt on first.... they will be in the back yard in pants, but not in the front. they are the first to say that women should be in a dress, and that pants are not womens cloths.....

there are some church fellowships that condemn a woman, if she is wearing a pair of slacks or jeans, or if her hair is above her shoulder blades, so forth and so on..... worried about the outward appearance then what is really going on inside.

one lady i know, was pushed away from church for many many many years, because of this type of attitude. one day a friend came to her and invited her to the fellowship that they attended, she said not if i have to wear a dress... not if i have to stop smoking, not if.......... the friend said, no, come as you are. jeans, and tee-shirt..... with in the year, the lady still wears her jeans and tee's but dresses up for church, she works with the children so wears slacks when involved in those area's so that she can stay MODESTLY dressed. she no longer smokes, or drinks or swears, she gave her life over to the Lord, and the Lord changed her..

there are dresses, that i feel ought to be outlawed, so if modesty means wearing a dress, maybe we need to relook at what modesty really is...... no braids, no pig tails, no ribbons, no flowers, no ties, no this no that and no other things..... all buttons buttoned up, if there are 100 buttons on a shirt, then all must be buttoned, long sleeves, hats, bonnets, maybe even veils....

oh yea, make sure that the ankles do not show either.......

it can go over board.... during a visitation, you have no idea what you might encounter, i feel slacks would actually be a better way to dress....

mike

[artsylady]

I'm actually out of this discussion too.

I believe the people now being deceived by Oprah's New Earth now number in the millions and I am needed far more there than I am here talking about truly pathetically minor issues.

[heresyhunter]

Skirts can be VERY distracting, IMHO. I used to minister to highschool students for a number of years. I had to call it quits when a certain student would continually (and willfully) tempt me by wearing short skirts to Bible Study. She would take advantage of every opportunity she got to distract me, such as when she would wait for my eyes to meet hers and then cross her legs very slowly. Since then, I cannot look upon a girl ina short skirt without thinking about cheating on my wife. Whenever a woman wears a short skirt to church, I let both her and our pastor now that I do not approve.

[nebula]

The fact is that we all look at the Bible differen't, and have our own interpretations of scripture. We also were raised in differen't environments, sat under differen't teachers, and developed our own views. That is why we have so many differen't churches. We will never agree on everything, and that is why there is a need for churches that target differen't groups of people. . . . Whether we like it or not, since we are never going to be able to win everyone to our viewpoint, we are going to have to learn to live with each other.

Thank-you, Butero!

The bottom line is we have different ideas on what "pertaineth to a man" means.

And we have different ideas on what makes modest clothes.

Really, if your conviction is that pants of any kind "pertaineth to a man," then I'm OK with it.

But please accept that I do not believe pants designed for a woman to wear "pertaineth to a man." I don't wear pants because I am OK with sin. I simply do not agree that they "pertaineth to a man."

OK?

[sweetycakes]

Perhaps the answer would be to make all women wear bhurkas.

....And dark sunglasses.

[Guest man]

Perhaps the answer would be to make all women wear bhurkas.

I do believe that day is coming.

Hopefully I'll be gone by then.

[AnotherTraveler]

Sorry to say that I won't be going through Vegas anytime soon as I have a differen't route, but that is really irrelivant. I knew you didn't share my conviction in regard to this issue from the beginning. What I stated was that I wouldn't choose to attend a church where they believe the practice of cross dressing is ok. That would mean a woman in pants or a man wearing a dress. I also wouldn't choose a church that takes other positions that are significantly differen't from my own. I never stated that I would never associate with women who wear pants, anymore than I said I wouldn't associate with people who held to the Jesus only doctrine, denied the rapture or believed the gifts of the Spirit were passed away. I just wouldn't choose a church with those views.

the practice of cross dressing

Wow, that's Old Line Holiness doctrine. I once attended a church that pushed this stuff...It was ok to play basketball but playing pool was a sin, it was ok to play football but bowling was a sin (it seems that ball related games become sin once they are held indoors )

The problem with taking an extra-biblical position like this is that the early church held no such doctrines. Men and women wore a wrap around garment for modesty and warmth that is more similar to a dress than the pants of our day, and the issue was modesty, not style. I would point out that there is an obvious feature that pants causes to stand out on a man far more so than when a woman wears pants. I have seen immodest dresses and very modest pants, but where does the bible appoint clothing police to measure what is and is not allowed in "your" church?

[Marnie]

By the way, I would like to address the statement you made that I placed in bold. First you state that if something is not found in the Bible, it is likely found in Corinthians or the pastorals. Corinthians is part of scripture, as is Deuteronomy, and it is a matter of opinion if something is being properly interpreted. You might interpret something one way, and I might interpret it another. Another man may have a third or fourth way of looking at it. That again is why there are so many differen't churches in this nation and around the world.

Either I mistyped or you misread what I wrote. Of course the Corinthian correspondence and the Pastoral epistles are in the Bible, and just as inspired as the other books of the Bible, I may add. Interpretation isn't an opinion. There can only be one interpretation of any part of the Bible, and that's the author's original meaning. Deuteronomy was written to Jews, summarizing the Law. It has no bearing on the life of a believer. Now, there may be timeless principles in Deut., which we find and apply to our lives today. Paul wrote his letters to specific people and or churches of his day, addressing issues in those churches, not our churches. Again, we are to find the principles and make application.

The process of hermeneutics you describe is sort of a moral relativism, baptized and brought into the church. The Word of G-d is what it is, regardless of what we "think" or "feel" it is. The Bible can't mean one thing to me and another to you. It can only mean what it says. Our challenge as believers, filled with the Holy Ghost, is to read it, understand it, and make application of it's principles in such a way as the application honors the Word, honors G-d, and adorns the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Extremism of any kind in no way honors the Word, G-d, or adorns the Gospel. It makes Christians look ridiculous.

I've said this before, but it amazes me why anybody would want to live under the rules of man, when they could live under the freedom that Christ has secured for us. And I am amazed at the number of people here who want to add the teaching of man to the teachings of Christ. Christ supplemented is Christ supplanted (William Hendriksen).

[Scarletprayers]

Either I mistyped or you misread what I wrote. Of course the Corinthian correspondence and the Pastoral epistles are in the Bible, and just as inspired as the other books of the Bible, I may add. Interpretation isn't an opinion. There can only be one interpretation of any part of the Bible, and that's the author's original meaning. Deuteronomy was written to Jews, summarizing the Law. It has no bearing on the life of a believer. Now, there may be timeless principles in Deut., which we find and apply to our lives today. Paul wrote his letters to specific people and or churches of his day, addressing issues in those churches, not our churches. Again, we are to find the principles and make application.

The process of hermeneutics you describe is sort of a moral relativism, baptized and brought into the church. The Word of G-d is what it is, regardless of what we "think" or "feel" it is. The Bible can't mean one thing to me and another to you. It can only mean what it says. Our challenge as believers, filled with the Holy Ghost, is to read it, understand it, and make application of it's principles in such a way as the application honors the Word, honors G-d, and adorns the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Extremism of any kind in no way honors the Word, G-d, or adorns the Gospel. It makes Christians look ridiculous.

I've said this before, but it amazes me why anybody would want to live under the rules of man, when they could live under the freedom that Christ has secured for us. And I am amazed at the number of people here who want to add the teaching of man to the teachings of Christ. Christ supplemented is Christ supplanted (William Hendriksen).

Thank you Marnie!