Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-17-2007, 07:37 AM
COOPER's Avatar
COOPER COOPER is offline
Hello AFF!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amarillo, Tx.
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheltiedad View Post
I posted this within another thread and didn't get a response, and I would honestly like to know the answer so I am posting it again here.

Why is it that the "cut" of a robe was enough to separate gender in biblical times, but the "cut" of trousers is not enough to separate gender in modern times... and if we go down the modesty path here, then neither men nor women should wear pants. Should not men and women be equally modest?
Good one Daddy-o !!!!!! I have been thinking of the same thing for the last week.

Holiness Standards Doctrines and reasons are like an old rusty bucket that was used for shot gun practice.

If pants are immodest for women; then they are for men too.

Men have a body, butt, thighs not to mention :sshhh *you know* women look at mens butts and *you know* censored .
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-17-2007, 07:44 AM
Trouvere's Avatar
Trouvere Trouvere is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by COOPER View Post
Good one Daddy-o !!!!!! I have been thinking of the same thing for the last week.

Holiness Standards Doctrines and reasons are like an old rusty bucket that was used for shot gun practice.

If pants are immodest for women; then they are for men too.

Men have a body, butt, thighs not to mention :sshhh *you know* women look at mens butts and *you know* censored .
Guess what Coop.Not all women do that.I don't.I could care less what your
parts look like so keep it modest and keep it to yourself.Sorry but I disagree that
holiness doctrines and teachings are outdated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-17-2007, 07:47 AM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by COOPER View Post
Good one Daddy-o !!!!!! I have been thinking of the same thing for the last week.

Holiness Standards Doctrines and reasons are like an old rusty bucket that was used for shot gun practice.

If pants are immodest for women; then they are for men too.

Men have a body, butt, thighs not to mention :sshhh *you know* women look at mens butts and *you know* censored .
I have never done that in my life!!!!!!! Mind your own business.

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-17-2007, 07:51 AM
COOPER's Avatar
COOPER COOPER is offline
Hello AFF!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amarillo, Tx.
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouvere View Post
Guess what Coop.Not all women do that.I don't.I could care less what your
parts look like so keep it modest and keep it to yourself.Sorry but I disagree that
holiness doctrines and teachings are outdated
.
If you have never looked.......then... never mind.

Holiness doctrines are like Darwin's theory. They do not hold up to truth.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-17-2007, 07:57 AM
Pressing-On's Avatar
Pressing-On Pressing-On is offline
Not riding the train


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 48,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by COOPER View Post
If you have never looked.......then... never mind.

Holiness doctrines are like Darwin's theory. They do not hold up to truth.
I think actually, the element of modesty, isn't a bad thing.

My husband said that he doesn't like a woman in pants and he likes women with long hair. He considers anything mid-back or longer to be long.

A good question would be - or perhaps a poll - Do men prefer a dress on a woman? Aside from the issue of "standards" per se. It would be interesting to know.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-17-2007, 07:58 AM
Trouvere's Avatar
Trouvere Trouvere is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by COOPER View Post
If you have never looked.......then... never mind.

Holiness doctrines are like Darwin's theory. They do not hold up to truth.
I have to say it this morning.You are wrong.I disagree totally.BTW some of the sisters are trying to live for Jesus.Maybe they keep their eyes and their minds on
better thoughts and don't want to fall into sin.Maybe its just the way your mind works.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-17-2007, 08:05 AM
OP_Carl OP_Carl is offline
arbitrary subjective label


 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fifth Brick Ranch on the left.
Posts: 1,640
Pants for women have been designed from the very start to draw men's eyes to a woman's nether regions. They accentuate the thighs, buttocks, and even the groin, when compared to robes and skirts.

In Isaiah 47 the "virgin daughter of Babylon" is rebuked and demoted from royal position. She is told to make bare the leg, uncover the thigh. (3) Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.

In a very plain sense here the revealing of legs and thighs is considered debasement of women and cause for shame.

You all would do well to unearth the true motives behind (no pun intended) those who first promoted pants for women, and the other "new" fads that propelled the English-speaking peoples out of the Victorian era, before you decide that "women's pants" are compatible with Christian living. They pertain to women, all right. But specifically for the viewing pleasure of men, some of whom would prefer to be spared such frequent opportunities to be tempted to lust. Women and girls aren't being taught to consider this aspect of their wardrobe selection these days.

Tight skirts and form-fitting blouses, as can be observed on some "holiness" women, are scarcely any better.
__________________
Engineering solutions for theological problems.

Despite today's rising cost of living, it remains popular.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-17-2007, 08:43 AM
rgcraig's Avatar
rgcraig rgcraig is offline
My Family!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Collierville, TN
Posts: 31,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by OP_Carl View Post
Pants for women have been designed from the very start to draw men's eyes to a woman's nether regions. They accentuate the thighs, buttocks, and even the groin, when compared to robes and skirts.

In Isaiah 47 the "virgin daughter of Babylon" is rebuked and demoted from royal position. She is told to make bare the leg, uncover the thigh. (3) Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen.

In a very plain sense here the revealing of legs and thighs is considered debasement of women and cause for shame.

You all would do well to unearth the true motives behind (no pun intended) those who first promoted pants for women, and the other "new" fads that propelled the English-speaking peoples out of the Victorian era, before you decide that "women's pants" are compatible with Christian living. They pertain to women, all right. But specifically for the viewing pleasure of men, some of whom would prefer to be spared such frequent opportunities to be tempted to lust. Women and girls aren't being taught to consider this aspect of their wardrobe selection these days.

Tight skirts and form-fitting blouses, as can be observed on some "holiness" women, are scarcely any better.
UUURRRRRGGGGG - wrong answer.

Men have A LOT more to show in pants than women will ever be able to. A man sitting on the platform in pants many times leaves nothing to the imagination. Talk about accentuating the groin.....be real.

Why don't we state it more acurately.....men are just more visual than women. A man seeing the back side of a woman whether in a dress snuggly fitting or pants is appealing to a man.

As far as the other bold statement....."the revealing of leg and thigh" I would take as meaning actually seeing the skin of the leg and thigh, not the form of the leg in pants. You are more likely to see skin in a dress than you will in pants.
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-17-2007, 09:04 AM
Jesuswins's Avatar
Jesuswins Jesuswins is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 133
I do follow the Apostolic Standard and dress only in skirts when in public. However, I have a 5 year old daughter who I do not enforce this standard on. I do not believe that wearing pants will send you to hell and we embrace ladies who attend our services wearing pants. We do not force feed them when talking about Standards, certain standards are expected of those who hold a position in our church. We lead by example and let the Holy Ghost do the rest.
If I did not hold a position in my church I could not say that I too would occasionally wear pants. But I do not want anything I do to hinder another, or to cause any evil talk.
All of this is a dilemma for me because I want to teach my daughter the right path but I don't want her growing up thinking that a garment will send her into eternal damnation! It's not the clothes, it's the spirit behind wearing the clothes, what are your intentions when putting on a pair of pants? Are you trying to attract the oposite sex and fit in to society? Do you even give a thought to it? Are you wearing them for comfort when a skirt would be uncomfortable? Are you wearing them because wearing pants would be more modest when on that ladder, or riding a go cart etc...
Why do we feel it is our place to judge others by what they wear? Why do I have that shock factor when I see someone I know to be Apostolic in pants or shorts?
__________________



Jesus Always Wins
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-17-2007, 09:19 AM
Felicity's Avatar
Felicity Felicity is offline
Step By Step - Day By Day


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgcraig View Post
UUURRRRRGGGGG - wrong answer.

Men have A LOT more to show in pants than women will ever be able to. A man sitting on the platform in pants many times leaves nothing to the imagination. Talk about accentuating the groin.....be real.

Why don't we state it more acurately.....men are just more visual than women. A man seeing the back side of a woman whether in a dress snuggly fitting or pants is appealing to a man.

As far as the other bold statement....."the revealing of leg and thigh" I would take as meaning actually seeing the skin of the leg and thigh, not the form of the leg in pants. You are more likely to see skin in a dress than you will in pants.


There was a man preaching in a our church a while back and oh my my my. It was hard not to look .... I mean see ..... I mean ..... notice.
__________________
Smiles & Blessings....
~Felicity Welsh~

(surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What men REALLY know about Women Praxeas Fellowship Hall 56 06-22-2007 07:11 AM
If UPC says women can't wear make-up, what about men? Chan Deep Waters 67 05-01-2007 10:39 PM
The Difference Between Men & Women-Redux Ron Fellowship Hall 2 04-16-2007 10:28 PM
What are you wearing for Easter? RevDWW Fellowship Hall 3 04-06-2007 11:55 AM
Why Women Have Fewer Babies Ron The Newsroom 24 02-17-2007 10:21 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by jfrog
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.