What shall I do with this word - "Wear"?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Only hopefully this dear soul will keep seeking God , and PO thanks for your compassion.

Thank you for yours. I guess because I wasn't raised in Pentecost I can see any visitors point of view - they don't get it. They think they are modest because they aren't nekkid! lol

[Scott Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

There's a novel idea!

My dear wife is this way.She treats her friend who has extermely short mannish hair and who wears shorts the same as anybody else.
And too my wife has several friends who are RCC.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

There's a novel idea!

Renda, in my experience that is the rule, not the exception.

Calling women whores from the pulpit is the exception.

[Brett Prince]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Renda, in my experience that is the rule, not the exception.

Calling women whores from the pulpit is the exception.

Truly.

And, the aspect of the deeper meaning of homosexuality is not wrong. But let us not throw out the surface view for the deeper application, as they both fit. That is, there has been a natural decorum through the years between men and women--and the line was not always pants. That has been the western civilization line. We ought not dress like the opposite gender because of the strangeness, that is homosexual look, that it brings. The reason that moderate and conservative Apostolics still exclude pants on women is in deference to a "better" line of distinction between the genders AND because of the modesty issue. Certainly, not every pair of pants is immodest on the woman, and some of them have an obvious feminine look--but in general, the line has worked well, and when crossing it has been allowed, we eventually see in the wardrobe items that are NOT modest and are NOT obviously feminine. The line has worked, and will continue to work--and we do well not to move it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

good insight press i am glad you opened this discussion, maybe some common sense will come out of it, even for one hard head, may the grace of our lord penetrate even the most judgemental heart, dt

Thanks DT, although I'm not trying to prove a point. I just looked at it for a very long time and last night I finally just pulled it and layed it all out to see what the Hebrew really had to say.

Abomination in Deut 22:5 is also a very large and defining word to support the passage. It means "disgusting" to God.

If God simply meant to, "put on a garment" he would have used "lâbash lâbêsh" in that passage, but he didn't.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Truly.

And, the aspect of the deeper meaning of homosexuality is not wrong. But let us not throw out the surface view for the deeper application, as they both fit. That is, there has been a natural decorum through the years between men and women--and the line was not always pants. That has been the western civilization line. We ought not dress like the opposite gender because of the strangeness, that is homosexual look, that it brings. The reason that moderate and conservative Apostolics still exclude pants on women is in deference to a "better" line of distinction between the genders AND because of the modesty issue. Certainly, not every pair of pants is immodest on the woman, and some of them have an obvious feminine look--but in general, the line has worked well, and when crossing it has been allowed, we eventually see in the wardrobe items that are NOT modest and are NOT obviously feminine. The line has worked, and will continue to work--and we do well not to move it.

Brett,
IMO, you can't say - "some pants have an obvious feminine look and not all pants are immodest - and interpret Deut 22:5 incorrectly.

The definition for the word "wear" in that passage is only used once in the entire Bible. It extends, also, from another primary root meaning to "breathe, to be, (in the sense of existence)."

That's a little more definite, IMO. It is more than just putting on some clothing.

[chaotic_resolve]

Great study PO. I'm saddened for the girl who was unwillingly singled out and called a terrible name just for wearing pants.

I've seen some apostolic women who were just as immodest and "whorish-looking," if not more so, in their dresses or skirts.

I've never heard the words "whore" or "ho" used from the pulpit before. It's always been "harlot" or "prostitute." Closest word that come to "whore" was talking about the Israelites "whoring" after other Gods.

That was until a couple Sundays ago, when a guest minister was preaching and talking about Mary Magdalene. He was talking about how sinful she was before she came to God, and during that part stated, "Mary sold her body as a prostitute. She was a ho!" Behind me I heard someone say, "That girl wuz a ho fo sho!"

Needless to say, the few saints that have been in church for years were a little shocked, but the majority of the new saints and visitors there were able to understand exactly what the minister was saying.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

Great study PO. I'm saddened for the girl who was unwillingly singled out and called a terrible name just for wearing pants.

I've seen some apostolic women who were just as immodest and "whorish-looking," if not more so, in their dresses or skirts.

I've never heard the words "whore" or "ho" used from the pulpit before. It's always been "harlot" or "prostitute." Closest word that come to "whore" was talking about the Israelites "whoring" after other Gods.

That was until a couple Sundays ago, when a guest minister was preaching and talking about Mary Magdalene. He was talking about how sinful she was before she came to God, and during that part stated, "Mary sold her body as a prostitute. She was a ho!" Behind me I heard someone say, "That girl wuz a ho fo sho!"

Needless to say, the few saints that have been in church for years were a little shocked, but the majority of the new saints and visitors there were able to understand exactly what the minister was saying.

Well, my point is going back to the original definition, which I'm trying to stay on, but your point is taken.

You can't call a girl a ***** (instructions by Malvaro ) who knows nothing about God and modesty when the saved youth are wearing tight skirts that show their panties. Hello!

[chseeads]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Why am I on this subject? I was recently in a service where the speaker said that a woman looks like a w**** if she doesn't wear a dress. Sadly, a young woman present was the only one wearing pants, besides the men - ouch!

I know I'm weighing in late on this.....


But I thought most w****s wore dresses. lol Albeit probably short ones....

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by chseeads

I know I'm weighing in late on this.....


But I thought most w****s wore dresses. lol Albeit probably short ones....

chseeads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are the winner! That's what my husband said yesterday! LOL