What does the Bible say about women & girls wearing pants?

It should be noted that "close fitting" is not "tight fitting". Some folks haven't learned the difference. And some people still need to learn that "neatly tailored" is not "tight fitting".

Close fitting and neatly tailored clothing can be, and most often is, modest. Then again, some people find a wetsuit immodest because it's tight fitting.

 

My wife is an extremely kind and beautiful woman. She is more attractive every year I have been married to her. Her clothes do nothing to make her more beautiful. She is already gorgeous. Every other women looks ugly by comparison. She has those things which are precious in God's sight--a gentle and quiet spirit. Most of the time I could not tell you much about what she wears but I can certainly tell you what kind of a person she is.

 

I'm sorry, gb, but your wife is only the second most beautiful woman. My wife is first

 

What a precious thing to say. It's so sweet.

 

Correction, Johnv!!! MY wife is first!!

 

What a precious thing to say. It's so sweet. </font>[/QUOTE]AMEN to that statement--that is what makes a godly marriage--wish more men would act that way towards their wives. God bless you gb93433!! </font>[/QUOTE]I am blessed beyond what I could have ever dreamed of before or after I became a Christian at the age of 18. It has been an incredible journey. We will have been married 25 years this coming Valentine's Day.

 

For one to say a dress, not pants
For lustful eyes might try to glance
But evil lies within the heart
To bind another is not smart
Don't play the role of Pharisee
By telling others, 'Dress just like me'
If God convicts, then they will change
My friends, this ain't the firing range.

 

No one has said to "dress like me", only to modestly dress, pants are not modest for women, except in the comprimising view of women's apparel.

The facts remains, God does convict, but many turn to their own way. This agument is evidenced by the continual disagreement and comprimise on this matter.

So, which of you would condemn the guy who makes the signs for "Ladies" restrooms? I suppose he is now a "legalist", a "pharisee"?

 

"... pants are not modest for women, except in the comprimising view of women's apparel."


Maybe you need to ask yourself if you're only noticing the tight fitting pants that some women wear. There are many women that wear pants that are much more modest than a dress. Notice them sometime!!

 

When I see you publickly rebuke JohnV for the "same" tone, I will accept your complaint, but until then, I find you judgemental and choosing sides.

If my comment about his mind is your issue, then may I remind us all, myself especially, we are all finite in mind???

I find that , ae you listenig JOHN?, he who is obsessed with certain doctrinal issues to argue against them is fighting against God. Evidences all too justly proclaim the "obsessed" by their much time spent in BB.

And pulpit, you're reading way too much into my replies to JohnV and I'd ask you to refrain from such presumptuous and hateful accusations. If you wish to pm me, be my guest. Otherwise, friend, you are the kettle, and believe me, I am the pot.

 

If you want to make generalities, go'head, but we're talking modesty, not comprimise.

I have preached against the tight dresses that drag the floor, but it's the way women will sit when wearing pants of all looseness and tightness. It's the tearing down of modesty.

I advise my wife and daughter about their dress, if it looks to revealing to me, I'd be right to warn them of the animals that are out looking for any woman.

The rule is loose and flowing, long enough to keep the eyes in subjection and not inviting a closer look by using a peepshow speaking of slits. The only reason slits are in the dresses is that they're too tight.

Pants on women invite them to straddle, not ride side-saddle.

 

If you're noticing that close when a woman in pants sits down....................

 

Salamander, I'd apologize for my "hateful accusations," if I knew what they were....I didn't accuse you; I just asked you to relax a little.

Let me publically apologize then for my public rebuke. I believe the substance of my post was correct, but should have been done privately, as you say.

 

Why is it ok for men to wear pants and not women? In Bible times, both wore robes. Men did not wear pants. And only priests wore breeches, which were an undergarment that came no lower than thighs, sort of like boxer shorts of today. If women are not to wear pants, then men should not be allowed to wear them either.

When Moses wrote in Deuteronomy that woman should not wear that which pertaineth to a man, he was speaking of battle armor, nothing else.

 

How about if a bunch of men started wearing dresses... no problem? well I think so.

Ex 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Da 3:21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

 

How about if a bunch of men started wearing dresses... no problem? well I think so.

Ex 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Da 3:21 Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

 

Linen breeches were not a part of man's apparel during the time of Jesus. Breeches is a dynamic equivalent translation.

My dictionary fives adefinition of breeches as "Also called knee breeches. knee-length trousers, often having ornamental buckles or elaborate decoration at or near the bottoms, commonly worn by men and boys in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries."

 

Careful.....

I'm told that in England, men wear "trousers." "Pants" are underwear. So be careful when you say what women should not wear.

 

That is not a scriptural, moral, or social absolute. Hence, you cannot make the claim that women who wear pants are immodest, and such a claim puts you in the category of legalist.

Only if he's insisting that a woman using a men's restroom (and vice verse) is scripturally wrong.