Women wearing pants are in sin

Preach the Word:

My daughter has lived in Tampa for two years now and she says she has yet to meet a native Floridian.

Besides, I thought Canadians had claimed Florida for the winter months.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hmm, yes. All right, the Rebel Baptist will explain it again.

Florida IS a Southern state! It was the third state to secede (January 10, 1861), and so one of the stars on the Flag is Florida.

As well, Florida was the only state east of the Mississippi River whose state capital was not captured by Union forces. Tallahassee was spared that by a group of young Confederates from the Florida State War College (now Florida State University) who pushed back the Yankees at the Battle of Natural Bridge in March, 1865.

And finally, NEVER forget where Skynyrd is from! Jacksonville, Florida.

But yes, I do see your points, gentlemen. Florida is very Yankee once you get passed Ocala on the interstate. And I am aware that it is known as Canada's 11th province But up here in the Panhandle (aka, the Redneck Riviera), we are as "suthern'" as they come!

From the Southland,
Rebel [><]
A proud son of Flawduh

 

Edited slightly for your enjoyment.
Sherrie

 

Edit....

I believe that HCL is not a stumbling block,but a wonderful example of humbleness and godly submission.

[ November 27, 2002, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

Sherrie, I am curious, do you wear clothes at all when you go out? What about to church?

If you do, you are adding your own standards on top of a relationship to Jesus. God sees and hears us because we wear Jesus. For no other outer garment. That is legalism and belongs in the Other Religions forum.

Now, I know this isn't what you are trying to promote. Everyone draws their line somewhere. If HCL is convinced of the scripture that she is correct, she has the right and obligation to share that with others. Do you not agree? You are trying to impose your beliefs on her and everyone else. Do you see the contradiction. You can say that you believe she is in error in her interpretation.

I have followed this thread and have not seen anyone say that non-dress wearing women are lost or ungodly or anything of the sort.

Tone it down a little Sherrie. HCL has the right to wear a head covering and a dress at all times. Her church even has the right to say members need to do this.

Just so you know, my wife does have some jeans. I am not against it.

 

When you add rules to having a relationship with God, and try to enforce them all the time on others, you are a stumbling block. This could be the very reason some may not even try to get to know God. Man makes too many stipulations. That is ashame. If this is how you feel for you....leave it at that. But quit constantly trying to force it on me. And you are. NO matter how you word it. Great! I am proud you wear a dress! How many did you lead to the Lord today?

Sherrie

 

May I also include that those that use this same argument, "The Bible commands women to wear dresses and headcoverings" are taking that out of context?

The context in which Paul was using was within the culture of the Corinthians, to whom it was written....

HCL, did you know that the headcoverings that Paul was referring to was total covering, as in the kind that women could see, but no one could see the woman's face...

To those that choose to follow what they claim the Bible to command, I have this to say, follow it to the letter, as in, don't think that a little hat will count, because in the culture Paul was writing to, you'd still be considered to be a low-life....

Headcoverings were commanded to the Corinthians, because of their culture, not because it was commanded of God...

If we want to get something out of that verse, it is this: Remain modest in the culture that you live... Wear what will keep you modest....Women in skin-tight, low neckline dresses, are they modest? No, women in slacks with a button up dress shirt, are they modest? Yes... So, what Paul was telling the Corinthians, as well as us is that we are to be modest...If we lived in a culture where headcoverings were needed to be modest, then we are to wear them.....My point?

Our culture does not view women in pants/slacks as immodest, nor do they view that women who wear only dresses are modest.

Our culture, as screwed up as it is, does agree on one thing, what modesty is.....Modesty is something that you do to make sure that you are not leading on the opposite sex, or revealing more flesh than needed. So, is wearing dresses the only way to accomplish this? No, and those who say it does, try studying the culture to which it was written, and wear what they wore.

~Teresa~

 

JohnV was kidding, people!

 

I know it was commonplace for the comans to cut their hair, but Jewish men of the time, depending on the practice within their sect, often didn't cut their hair, citing OT restrictions on men cutting their hair. Jewish males also typically had facial hair as well. However, cutting of hair was not forbidden.

As far as Michelangelo, probably not so. Michelangelo's Jesus tends to look Italian, but the generic features (long hair and beard) were a regular item in depictions of Jesus as early as the 4th century. From what little survives of the 1st through 4th, Jesus tends to look like the ethnicity of the people who created the portrait.

 

I'm quite surprised that people would take offense to the idea that Jesus might have had long hair.

But I'm equally amused that people are discussing clothing items (pants) that did commonly exist at the time. The tunic was the most common form of dress. The Greek culture thought badly of pants when they first saw them on Ukranian soldiers, and did not adopt them in their society.

As for me, there's nothing more feminine than a woman in jeans and a sweatshirt.

Now where's my kilt??

 

Sherrie, if I have a daughter one day, I will require that she only consider certain types of young men. Is this a problem in regards to her relationship with God?

As a pastor, I will never allow a woman to sing in front of the church with a short skirt. Is that a problem in regards to her relationship with God?

If I as a pastor ask the ladies to exclusively wear dresses and skirts to church, am I hindering their relationship with God?

 

People do not come to Christ because they love their wicked deeds and Christ requires repentance (John 3:19).

 

I wanted to address this coment because I used to wonder about it too. The pictures that you are referring to were not crafted during the time that Jesus was alive. He did not sit for these portraits...they are the interpretation of the artist of the period...much later in fact. There are no known drawings of Jesus Christ...which throws the whole theory of his having long hair as a fact right out the window.

 

Since God is the one who gives the increase, I am going to stick my neck out and say this is meaningless in determining one's maturity.

 

Teresa, I would encourage you to do a little more study on this issue. Paul is not arguing culture in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul makes two appeals that go beyond culture as for why he says what he does.

The first is the submission order within the Triune God. Since God is the head of Christ, and Christ is the head of man, then man is the head of woman. This is theological and not cultural.

The second is an appeal to nature. Paul taught that it is natural for people to think long hair on a man is shameful. He furthers his argument by saying that women should have their heads covered. This is not a full head covering like muslim women. I have never heard that anywhere. I have done considerable study on this chapter.

 

As have I, and I'm not ill-educated because I am young either....

If you study the culture in Corinth, you will see that headcoverings were a sign of modesty in their culture....

You will notice that in each of Paul's epistles, he is writing to different cultures, and in one of his epistles he says that he will not eat meat, not because it was sinful, but because the culture that he was writing to didn't eat meat and he didn't want them to fail...

So, because Paul says that he won't eat meat, does that mean that we shouldn't eat meat? Same thing with the covering. When reading Paul's epistles, just like any other piece of literature, you need to be mindful of the culture/society that it is being written to...

Just becuase it says in one epistle that women should wear head coverings does not mean that it was meant to apply to everyone.

~Teresa~

 

Teresa, regardless of what you think, Paul appealed to two different non-cultural truths to prove his case. I do not believe head coverings are a modern requirement. However, a woman ought to do everything she can to indicate submission to her husband. If she wants to do the head covering thing, fine.

 

Let's see, if we add these six pages to the multitude of other threads in the women's forum and other places having to do with the way women dress, we easily have nearly a hundred pages of arguments.

Where is the encouragment in Christ?

Where is the concentration on character?

Why are we not only talking about not just the effects of the cross rather than the reality of what Jesus Himself did, but the LEAST of the effects of the cross?

Ladies, if your dress is modest, and appropriate to the area in which you live, and if you are known for the quiet and gentle (and cheerful) character only Christ can produce in us squabbling, cackling hens, then all is well and we need to discuss how to concentrate more on Christ in our lives, how to care for others more, and how to encourage one another daily.

To quote the Bard:

"I am ashamed that women are so simple;
To offer war when they should kneel for peace..."

I think we have a lot more to offer the world and this Baptist Board than this, folks.