Standards vs Personal Liberty

hummm, I ahve two legs even when I wear a dress, wonder what that shows.

they will insinuate that those who do not do them are less then holy because they did not follow the non biblical standards made up by men. we've seen it here on this board many times, these people are doing it in their churches too guaranteed, no actually it's probably the churches leading the way in this attitude.

 

I guess it depends on how short your dress is.



:tongue3:

 

Evidently ladies, a woman's two legs must be in a dress to so as not to show the their shape. Personally, my two sticks look like two sticks no matter what I'm wearing, but, you know, whatever! We weren't supposed to be asking questions back then anyhow! Questions showed a lack of respect for our elders. Might be why I'm no longer part of that church.........

 

Matthew 5:20
"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 6:1
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.


Matthew 6:14-15
14"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

15"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.


That last one is usually completely lacking in "higher standard" Churches.

Why act like a Pharisee when we are told we must be better than that?

Keeping to a big list of "rules" is usually used as something to brag about to others, which is not good.

God forgave us of ALL our sins, so we should be ready to forgive others, not to be a judge, jury and executioner all in the name of supposed righteousness.

 

I see nothing wrong with a church setting standards, each church can do as they feel led to do.

I see more cleavage in church to day than I did in bars when I was in the service, and I see more than I did on the beach as a child and teenager. A lot of the pants that are worn by women it looks to me it would take an engineering degree to get into them as well as some of the shirts that the men wear that work out a lot. about a size or two, to small.

But we can always go to the deal that times have changed and that is true. As someone has said if one goes by some standards that many today don't, he could be called legalistic and if he does not some would call him liberal.

But if one does not like the standards or lack of standards in a church go to another church that you will agree with.

 

mine is mid calf.
But my point was, you can actually see my legs in a dress, you can not in pants. either way you could probably guess, without even looking, that I have two legs.

Standards need to be biblical, if it can not be shown in scripture it has no business in a church.

 

This is a policy not a standard. The difference? The second word implies that everyone in the church is affected. The first applies only to those involved in the business side of the church. Now, if the church required *me* to get a second signature on all the checks I write off my own account over $50, then you could say it was the standard of the church. Until that point, it is only a policy.

 

Funny, that the only people I ever see making that statement, or holding that standard, are the ones who wear shirts two or three sizes too large and obviously don't work out. Myself, I've noticed a fad (wearing oversized shirts) that has been on the rise for quite some time now. I think maybe my standard should be that no one should be hiding their lack of commitment to care for their body behind oversized shirts. How bout dat? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Sorry I rang your bell, but I thought we were talking about standards of a church.

I was just pointing out what I see in church. Why would a man go down and buy a pull over shirt a size or two to small and wear it to church? My neighbor is having that problem with his son, could care less if he wears it to play or work out but not to church.
Maybe church is the place to show off your arms and breast and rears, but that is new to me, but I'm seeing it more and more.

 

The oversized shirts make concealed carry a little easier:smilewinkgrin:~prefer the sport coat myself but for the younger ones it's ok...

 

Last time I wore a dress to church with my hairy legs showing, I did not see one person stare at me. Next time I will probably add a nose ring and lipstick.

 

Exactly… and "my" point is, “who makes these standards and what is the motivation?” Why is it not just as big a concern that people are not honoring God with their body in the field of fitness as it is in modesty? Is one judgment more important than the other for those setting these “clothing standards”?

I am simply making the comparison that clothes can go to immodesty just as well as they can go to show shame of ones shape/physical condition. So, what would be the difference if I was supporting setting the clothing standards of a church in which people should be wearing a certain type of clothing as to not be trying to hide the fact that they are shamefully out of shape? You see, personally, although I don’t judge people on it, I find having such a bad shape that one needs to go to the extreme hide their shape behind oversized clothing as below acceptable standards just as much as if one was going to an extreme to show their shape. Both could be considered a sin against the body. Could they not?

I don’t see someone wearing a proper fitting shirt as “showing off”. The seem on the shoulder of a shirt should rest 1” to 1 ½” past the curve on the top of the shoulder. On even a large frame, if one is six feet tall or under a large t-shirt, pull over shirt should fit him, but look at all the XL, XXL, XXXL, that people are wearing these days which are well under that height. I’m not just talking about the overweight/obese either, I see plenty of thin people with bad posture wearing oversized clothing also.

As this country get more and more out of shape I see oversized clothing being used more and more.

I realize I'm out of the box here, but am I making an unfair comparison?

 

No, I'm saying that a church that requires people do things not found in the bible shouldn't happen, like kjvo, dresses only on women, shirt and tie on men, hair cut above the ears(men), hair longer then shoulder blades (women), things already listed on this thread. I don't care how people run a business and write checks, but when it comes to people's spiritual lives, thers a big difference.

 

I guess we are looking at this from different points of view, which is fine. I was taught that modesty was not drawing attention to self, but I'm in my 60's, so the world we were brought up in might not be the same. But I see very few overweight folks trying to draw attention to self.

You could be correct.

I'm with you here. A proper fitting shirt never cut into my biceps, as proper fitting pants never cut into my waist or rear or thighs.

I'm sure you do and as you get older you will see it more.

 

In the end, the Lord decides the standards, and guess what, each of us misses the mark. So for all of you posters who type such lofty heights of standards, and act holier than thou compared to other folks, you are right down there with the lowest of the low.

 

In that light, no, there is nothing wrong with local church standards, as long as we realize none of us are up to the real standard. The vote question you raise is quite interesting. Our church just requires a majority, but the calling of a pastor by a local church is not exactly an election. Most pastors I have seen would not accept the call of a church with a 51-49 percentage, 60-40, or even 70-30. If God is in the call, the numbers will not be vague. I knew one pastor who would not accept the call with one dissenting vote. In the case of our church, the worst I have ever seen in over 30 years is 90-10.

You are probably right about the standards of dress at a local church reflecting the culture of the area. All our church requires is modesty. Some wear coat and tie. Some like me wear dress pants and shirt, except when serving the Lord's Supper, I wear a tie. Another poster did have a good point about as of late, less modest clothes being worn to church. There are IMO other places one could wear such dress if you just have to do so. I find that most people who wear such clothing would be doing all of us a favor by covering every square inch (or feet) of their bodies. Some who think they are part of the "beautiful people" crowd are not, and what is so ironic, it does not draw temptation, but a sustained effort to control an outburst of laughter or not to throw up.