Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!

Originally Posted by crakjak

For the record, I don't believe ladies should be parading around on the beach in immodest attire. However, there is much more appropriate swim wear than what you, my friend have described.

And I will further declare that we males need more teaching and maturity on the proper respect and understanding in relating to our females sisters. Paul said, "I keep MY body under..." Instead of burning with lust, men let's get understanding. Appreciate the beauty without allowing lingering and fantasy, which never satisfies only inflames.

CJ,

It was not my intent to say that the two piece was the only bathing suit. It WAS my intent to say that most Baptists that I know don't preach against the two piece suit... bra and panties. The original scenario presented was the cultural position of the Baptist who had received the revelation of the truth of Acts 2:38 a la Apostolics and interpreted Duet by his cultural understanding. Would he be accepted with that cultural interpretation. I was applying the same logic. paralleling it, to I Tim 2:9 in the declaration of modest apparel. Would he/should he be accepted using the same logic?

I hold to the opinions expressed in Every Man's Battle, but my guarding my eyes does not release the women in the church to run around dressed immodestly. Your position almost makes it sound like women dressing loosely is OK except for us corrupt old men. Gimme A Beak!

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Uncut hair is addressed with jewelry and make-up, I believe.

You are right, I just found it in the Articles of Faith section...

I wouldn't have thought a "rule" would be in there, while television is sandwiched in between "transfers of bible school students" and "accepting members from other UPC churches without a 'release letter' from their former pastor", but oh well. lol.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Please understand that I am not trying to stir the proverbial pot here. I have a sincere question that I am trying to find the answer to.

Consider the hypothetical: A person, say a baptist preacher somewhere in the US where there is no OP church etc..., is studying the bible, and seeking God in prayer. During this time of seeking God, he discovers the truth of Jesus name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling and tongues, and the oneness of God. Now in trying to please God, and studying the scriptures for more truth, this baptist (formerly baptist) minister stumbles across Deut 22:5. In his study, and considering society of the last 30 years (say this pastor is @ 30 years old), he is trying to find a way to apply gender distinction in dress in a way that is relevant for today. In the society he has grown up in, both women and man wear pants. So in his study he DOES NOT come to the same conclusions regarding pants/skirts that traditional OP's adhere to. Is this person's position acceptible in the sight of God? He is now teaching his congregation and baptizing them in Jesus name, teaching them to seek the Holy Ghost, and is teaching them to lead a seperated life, but he simply has not come to the same conclusion as OP's regarding pants/skirts. Is this a tenable positions for this "baptist" minister? Can he maintain this position and still be acceptible in the sight of God?

Nothing to judge his salvation over.... unless his "freedom in the Holy Spirit" frees him to preach in speedos!

[Newman]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I really would like to get the opinions of some of the conservative brethren. Serious opinions, not jabs like "lost as two boys kissing"... thanks!

Umm....how about the truth found on bathroom doors? (Their battle cry).

Seriously though I would point out 3 things....

1. If we were serious about gender distinction we wouldn't let men shave their natural God-given beards while demanding that the ladies adhere to a man-made fashion introduced by Western society thousands of years after Deuteronomy was written.

2. I believe that the actual meaning of the verse was in reference to temple prostitution practiced by their neighbors and once again made reference to in the next chapter or so. I think this is the most viable interpretation because I believe God would have another witness for something that was an abomination to Him. See Deut 23:18-19

3. We aren't the only religous group to attempt to freeze a time period into our culture. The Roman Catholic priests still wear robes and speak Latin. The Amish who were formed before the automobile and then the UPC was organized before TV and society's acceptance of women wearing pants. What has God got to do with these things? Nada.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Esther

BUT IF we want to talk true modesty, no one would be wearing pants.

what would they be wearing? if anything?

[Newman]

Originally Posted by philjones

CJ,

It was not my intent to say that the two piece was the only bathing suit. It WAS my intent to say that most Baptists that I know don't preach against the two piece suit... bra and panties. The original scenario presented was the cultural position of the Baptist who had received the revelation of the truth of Acts 2:38 a la Apostolics and interpreted Duet by his cultural understanding. Would he be accepted with that cultural interpretation. I was applying the same logic. paralleling it, to I Tim 2:9 in the declaration of modest apparel. Would he/should he be accepted using the same logic?

I hold to the opinions expressed in Every Man's Battle, but my guarding my eyes does not release the women in the church to run around dressed immodestly. Your position almost makes it sound like women dressing loosely is OK except for us corrupt old men. Gimme A Beak!

pj-

1. Women who wear 2 piece bathing suits aren't the majority. But 99.9% of women wear pants. So the argument seems flawed to start with and then extreme (which muddies the water).

2. I am tired of women in the church being accused or warned against dressing loosely for the sake of their brother. Loosely compared to whom?

I am focusing on this point because of a Ninety and Nine article in which the women of the church are again admonished to not be a temptation to their brother [who was involved in porn].

The brother asked why he must struggle at church just like outside its doors. Good grief. The women at church are not dressed like magazine covers nor would the majority of the world consider them to be seductive.

Furthermore; if the Church is out there doing God's business there should be quite a few women visitors there who aren't dressed like the church!

CJ is right. The men need to grow up and quit picking on the church women. Then you all wonder why so many end up fat?

And stop making them wear high heels which do nothing except make a woman's legs more appealing and serve no other purpose.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Newman

pj-

1. Women who wear 2 piece bathing suits aren't the majority. But 99.9% of women wear pants. So the argument seems flawed to start with and then extreme (which muddies the water).

2. I am tired of women in the church being accused or warned against dressing loosely for the sake of their brother. Loosely compared to whom?

I am focusing on this point because of a Ninety and Nine article in which the women of the church are again admonished to not be a temptation to their brother [who was involved in porn].

The brother asked why he must struggle at church just like outside its doors. Good grief. The women at church are not dressed like magazine covers nor would the majority of the world consider them to be seductive.

Furthermore; if the Church is out there doing God's business there should be quite a few women visitors there who aren't dressed like the church! CJ is right. The men need to grow up and quit picking on the church women. Then you all wonder why so many end up fat?

Newman, you are always getting into the pants threads. LOL!

Seriously though, Kristin and I had the same reaction as you when reading the article. The writer did clarify the blame thing a bit, but only as a footnote!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

And stop making them wear high heels which do nothing except make a woman's legs more appealing and serve no other purpose.

I think we should just demand all new converts be spayed and neutered!

Oh wait... who wants to be "Born Again" like that!

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Newman

pj-

1. Women who wear 2 piece bathing suits aren't the majority. But 99.9% of women wear pants. So the argument seems flawed to start with and then extreme (which muddies the water).

2. I am tired of women in the church being accused or warned against dressing loosely for the sake of their brother. Loosely compared to whom?

I am focusing on this point because of a Ninety and Nine article in which the women of the church are again admonished to not be a temptation to their brother [who was involved in porn].

The brother asked why he must struggle at church just like outside its doors. Good grief. The women at church are not dressed like magazine covers nor would the majority of the world consider them to be seductive.

Furthermore; if the Church is out there doing God's business there should be quite a few women visitors there who aren't dressed like the church!

CJ is right. The men need to grow up and quit picking on the church women. Then you all wonder why so many end up fat?

Let's try praying through...if there is a struggle with women, it is not the woman's fault, IMHO...