women wear skirts at all times?

I like the way you think!

 

Deuteronomy 22:5 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.

certainly this is part of israel's law, but still applies to us anyway because it explicitly reveals god's attitude towards this practice, and god's attitudes do not change.

i think this verse must be interpreted according to one's culture.

widespread use of woman's pants in the west is a result of feminism, and should have been vigorously opposed. but now, decades after the fact, i think a good case can be made that pants, "thanks" to feminism, are no longer exclusively male garments in our culture.

so i think it's debatable.

also, i am wary of "going to the greek" (or hebrew) to bolster one's arguments.

but given the rebellious origin of the practice, coulpled with the fact that the old way is still within living memory, makes me come down on the side of the anti-women's-pants-ites.

but i also think women should have long hair and cover their heads to pray, so i guess i'm insane

[ March 24, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]

 

Julia, I did not find it either profitable or necessary to keep most of the old threads regarding dress in the women's forum, especially considering the acrimony in most of them. But I can tell you as an eyewitness that what Kate is saying is true: she in particular was the recipient of some pretty nasty name-calling by several other women, and there were aspersions cast on her character. I was also targeted, but not as publicly here. What I got were some pretty nasty PM's.

I tried to defuse this thread with my initial post, but it kept on going anyway. Has it occurred to anyone to notice that "Girla" has not posted back? Quite frankly, it seems like a set-up to me by some in the 'dresses only' crowd! She has opened two topics: this one and one on psychology, here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000256

That topic was opened on Feb 8. It went for ten argumentative pages before it was closed. Her ONLY other post was about being tempted regarding dating non-Christians, here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000652

Three posts, two of which opened hot topics which she never responded to.

So I have a suggestion, folks, let's not rise to this bait any more than we have.

Let us put our Christian characters first, dress gender-appropriately and modestly, and not judge others NO MATTER WHAT on this issue, OK?

Methinks someone is just enjoying stirring up trouble -- and I don't think we should help out.

 

You know this is a good idea, girls, then we wouldn't have to diet, watch what we eat, keep slim and trim or at least try to.

</font>[/QUOTE]Gluttony is a sin, so I think you are right on with that, but that is another topic.

 

I am sorry to hear that you and Kate have received nasty pm's. I hope you were able to straighten it out with whoever sent you them.

I have received only kind and sweet pm's on this issue and the issue of the headcovering from those who read but do not post.

 

Julia, it really did get rather nasty and most of those people have moved on.

Some of the ladies said that they were made fun of for wearing dresses all the time. So during this time, I made a 200 mile trip to visit my mother. I wore a dress. On the way, we stopped at McDonalds, other resturants, road side parks, shopping mall, marina at the lake, a cemetery, and nursing home. No one made fun of me for wearing a dress at any of these places.


The ones who wear dresses and pants have no problem with the ones who feel convicted (or want) to wear dresses all the time. I think most of us dress for comfort now. Most of the time a dress is more comfortable for me.

I can remember the times of the nylon hose that had seams that we couldn't keep straight and the girdles that we wore, etc. etc.

I think that most of the women on this board dress modestly and appropriately. Further, I don't think any of us are going to change our manner of dress.

I used to wear shorts at home and at the lake, but old age is taking over. These shorts came to the knees. I still have some that I wear at home.

Helen, glad you pointed that out about the threads that Girla started.

 

Many of the laws found in the old covenant were there because of some of the pagan practices that would have been associated with them.

For example. When it says not to boil a kid (baby goat) in its mothers milk, that is because of a canaanite practice. They would cook the kid and spread it out over their crops hoping to please the goddess of the earth.

Now, nobody would even think of that today, but it is nonetheless against God's law.

It was also an abomination to mix different kinds of material in your clothing. Again, that probably (but I don't know what) had to do with a sin by association law.

Bob, your explanation of the shirt being okay for the man and the woman demonstrates that if consistency is necessary in this discussion, your view (and those who agree) fall short of truth. Does your wife wear long, loose shirts? We all know what is under a woman's shirt. So, unless it is long and loose, then it is sin.

___


Finally, using word definitions do indeed help us to understand verses, passages, and concepts. However, using a word definition all by itself might actually lead a person into a false interpretation.

For example, the word "church" is ekklesia. It means a called out assembly. In Paul's day, it meant an organized group who were called out for a purpose. Jesus and Paul both used it in another way though. The "church" is equated with his body (which is singular, invisible, and universal). People who reject the biblical usage are those who try to force the normal word upon the usage. Technically, the church is still called out. We are called out from the world and are part of one great assembly (Heb. 12).

So, Paul's usage of the word for apparel in Timothy was something that was readily identified. To be modest, one must wear that which covers the skin. Also, using a little intelligence and common sense, it must not hug the skin.

___


Here is a question for those that disagree. If the husband says to wear loose fitting jeans and you believe otherwise, do you obey the God-given authority or only wear dresses and skirts.

 

If my husband does not like it, I don't wear it.

 

My wife always wears loose fitting clothing. She never wears clothing that is form fitting. The shirts she wears covers the part of the body that God intended it to cover. She is a great example to my daughters and the youmg ladies at our church. She is the epitome of modesty.

As this is addressed to the ladies, I can only offer a Scripture principle.
1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (KJV)

It is never wrong to submit to a God-given authority unless that authority requires you to violate a clearly stated law of God.

I can't imagine a lady with the right spirit making an appeal to her husband and saying, "Honey, I'll glady wear these jeans if that's what you want but I would much rather wear a dress or a skirt. I feel so much more like a lady when I wear a dress."

It would take a calloused husband indeed not to respond properly to this appeal.

 

Julia, all you have to do is read all the past posts on this very same subject that keeps cropping up every few months. One of which was so bad it had to be deleted. You know this becasue you were there.

I personally don't care what you believe, until you tell me and others we have to do what you want us to do. Not when the scripture you sue is taken out of context, if you want your bible that way, I couldn't care less, but I don't,and refuse to follow what caomes from taking it out of context. But your welcome to believe anything, I don't care. You should allow us the samething, to follow what we personally ebleive tha bible is saying instead of insisting we follow you. Which is exactly how this same conversation has gone so many times in the past. I've been told I was not faithful, my christianity brought into question, that God was not part of my life, all becasue I wear pants and dresses,a nd not just dresses. Nowhere have I ever done that to you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy, but you seem unable to do that. Not to mention the pm's I recieved, and deleted becasue they weren't worth reading a second time, the first being a waste of time. I also have recieved many pm's from people in support of my posts on this subject, many from people too afraid to post because they do not want to get run over like I and others who believe like I do are.
I'm off to church.

 

Bob, don't you see what you just said? It is either right or wrong. Your interpretation of the word Paul used is right or wrong. If you say for a wife to obey her husband, and her husband disagrees with you, either your position doesn't matter or you are encouraging her to sin by obeying her husband. This is precisely my point.

Btw, I am glad that you are one of the moderators on this forum. You are always upright in what you do.

 

I believe that a wife is supposed to obey her husband unless his request is an obvious violation of scripture. I don't think a clothing issue will reach the height of becoming more important than obeying the husband.

Murph

 

Thankful, judging by your pic you seem to be a mature lady. May I suggest that could be one explanation for your observation? Dresses are still the norm for the mature generation. And certainly no one who sees you only once on a 200-mile trip is going to think anything about you.

This is not entirely true. I have witnessed what Julia described. People who dress differently than the norm are always mocked in one way or another, and when religious convictions are attached then it is worse.

When I was in college I knew a young lady who was the sweetest, good-naturedest person you could chance to meet. A real Proverbs-31 woman. I can tell you we'd have been hitched if she wasn't RLDS. She wore only skirts, no make-up, and all her clothes were inexpensive off-the-clearance-rack at Walmart. Her appearance was very clean and ordered. It was her personal religious conviciton, and she said so. Dresses-only is not an RLDS doctrine. Never thought for a minute that other girls had to wear dresses. She was mocked for the clothing she chose. Oh, never in her presence, mind you.

I was attending a church about 12 years ago where a family one day came in wearing head-coverings and dresses. They didn't come in calling all the other women harlots or sinners or any such thing. They were mocked for forsaking the clothes they felt were worldly.

And I will say here that I also remember the notorious threads, and the dress-only camp by and large behaved admirably.

 

This is the point I am trying to make.
Do you think wearing a dress to a marina on the lake is the norm when most people wear swim suits and shorts? I lived at this lake near this marina for 20 years so it was not a casual visit.

Yes, my generation grew up wearing dresses. We were allowed to wear pants or jeans on certain occasions, but wearing dresses for my generation is not the norm of today.

It is regrettable that you have witnessed and women have suffered by wearing dresses only. How do others know that they wear dresses only? Are they ridiculed because they look down on the women who dress differently than they do?

I am really trying to understand this because as you say I am a mature woman and I have not experienced or witnessed this. We have Amish women and other women who wear head covers, dresses, other women of other demoninations wear dresses, long hair and no makeup. No one makes fun of them.

I used to have an oil painting studio where I taught adult students. Some women wore dresses all the time (younger generation) Some wore pants, some wore makeup, some no makeup. No one made fun of anyone else. I'm just really trying to understand this.

I'm not critizing anyone and certainly not passing judgement, but according to my interpretation of the Bible, and as you pointed out I am a mature women who has studied and prayed about this matter, I do not see anything wrong with dresses, shirts, skirts, pants, as long as they are modest and appropriate for the occasion. I think I have the right to my interpretation as well as you have the right to your interpretation.

 

You must not have read the ones that I did. The ones where women who wore pants were accused of not being Christians and of questionable sexual orientation.

The women who did this are not posting on the Board at this time. They may still be reading, but this has been a much more civilized discussion than previous ones.

 

But what you described was a 200 mile trip and stops at fast food restaraunts, not a 20-year lay-over.

Absolutely not. I made that plain in my description of the RLDS girl, and the same was true of the family. I know because I was one who ridiculed them.

If I realize tomorrow that God is universally displeased with TV, would I suddenly be thinking myself better than the ones who don't watch TV? That's ludicrous.

Why is it that a woman who has changed her mode of dress because of what she sees as a universal principle is automatically assumed to be condemning the ones who don't dress the way she does?

And truthfully, aren't these ladies being "looked down" upon for thinking that their mode of dress is a universal, non-optional principle? (Not by you, yourself, but generally.) Don't those who have a more liberal view generally think themselves more spiritual and more advanced in Biblical knowledge and Christianity than those who are have the more narrow view?

No one is disputing that. However, if our opinions conflict there are only three possiblities. 1)I'm right and you're wrong. 2)You're right and I'm wrong. 3)We're both wrong.

We are discussing "Yea, hath God said?" Not who is more saved than another.

[edited to tighten up the ubb code]

[ March 25, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Sorry, Aaron, but I think you missed the entire point of all my posts. And you took some things out of context


But at least you were respectful, I think

 

This is the point I am trying to make.
Do you think wearing a dress to a marina on the lake is the norm when most people wear swim suits and shorts? I lived at this lake near this marina for 20 years so it was not a casual visit.</font>[/QUOTE]My girls and myself, along with many friends usually avoid marinas and beaches. Not because we dress in dresses, but because we try to avoid the exposure to the nudity there. I would sweat, rather that expose.

Usually the ridicule comes from those that look down upon us for whatever reason they want. I have been subject to this only because people believe we are suffering. This is not true. We will gladly explain our beliefs, and gladly stand as a peculiar sort. I am recognized by the people that are usually unsaved, and the majority are those that don't dress like we do. When we lived amongst Orthodox Jews, we were like them. We had a common ground. They didn't avoid us, but rather encouraged us to associate. They wanted to know about our beliefs, and reasons for dressing like they do. Up until that time, they believed they were the ones that were dressing for the Lord. Now they realize that there are Christians that have some of the same convictions.

That is their norm. That is what is expected of them. They have been consistant in their ways. We, as christians, don't follow a norm. We have such diversity in the christian realm that we cannot always be distinguished from the world. I prefer to look different so that I can be picked out, as the Amish are. I expect to confront adversity in this subject. I don't need to argue, but explain my reasons for this conviction. I don't want to anger those that don't dress like me. They are no less a christian than I am. But sometimes, I feel them being angry because I will take this stand.

I believe this conviction comes when attending a church that has many convicted of the same belief. I felt at home in my church in Wisconsin. We were known as the "long-skirts" to the world. We were respected by most, but also taunted by others. We held a Baptist name, and were not associated with a cult. There was also a group of pentacostals that were a few towns away that would confront us on matters like tongues and such. They were able to do this because we looked like them. Our church did not suffer, but flourished. We saw in scripture God's desire for us to dress this way, and also have a conviction to be different.

Baptist churches, as others in the past never had these arguments because dresses were the norm. In fact, ladies, in general were not talked about, nor condemned because of their dress. The "pants" issue has caused a stir. Hope this helps you to understand, Betty

 

I will try one more time to make myself clear on the issue of dresses only and dress and pants, or just dress in general. Even this sentence is confusing

I believe that the Bible tells us to dress modestly and not wear men's clothing.

I wear modest dresses or pants ( not men's clothing).

I do not judge, criticize, ridicule, nor try to change the beliefs of the women who are led to wear dresses only. Go for it. Follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. I do.

When I referred to my 200 mile trip (actually now that I think about it, it was 400 miles), I was illustrating that I was not treated any differently by wearing a dress. I am treated with respect wearing dresses or pants.

I am in no way telling anyone who is posting on this topic that they are wrong for their beliefs.

 

Thank you OliveBranch for your very informative and kind post. I think we were both posting at the same time.

Hopefully, anyone who is just reading this thread will understand that we can have differences of opinions and the reasons for them, but we are still doing our very best to walk with our Lord God and follow His Will and that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.