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
  #361  
Old 05-31-2008, 12:51 PM
Encryptus Encryptus is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: "New" Mexico
Posts: 977
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1 View Post
It also appears that her dress is above her knees! On the other hand she does have on long sleeves so I guess the ultra cons can use bathroom signs to preach long sleeves also. LOL!!
actually anyone with discernment can see its a pants suit with a long jacket.
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 05-31-2008, 12:57 PM
jaxfam6 jaxfam6 is offline
Crazy father of 4


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Now? Phoenix, AZ. Before? Newark, OH, Wyandotte, MI, Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,926
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Encryptus View Post
actually anyone with discernment can see its a pants suit with a long jacket.
it certainly does look like some of those suits doesn't it?

or maybe a baby doll dress with the leggings
__________________
Life is .............

I'll get back to you when I figure it out.
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:09 PM
bkstokes's Avatar
bkstokes bkstokes is offline
Jesus is the Christ


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,484
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Wearing pants are abomination they pertain to men TODAY. You don't need a lexcion go to any public place and look at the rest room doors. SOCIETY or CULTURE posts those signs NOT conservative Apostolic preachers. If you work an abomination you are goingto go to Hell unless you repent.
So by this logic, you are saying that our societies in the present day determine how we should interpret the Word of God. Good hermeneutics requires us to historically and contextual interpret the Word of God. You are interpreting Deut 22 in the historical sense of the 20th century.
__________________
If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24

Mone me, amabo te, si erro

No real problem exists over the use of "The Name" in everthing else done in the Church. Why then should there exist great controversy over the use of the "The Name of the Godhead" in water baptism?
Kevin J. Conner The Name of God p. 92
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:14 PM
Grasshopper
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxfam6 View Post
I do not agree. I am a healthy guy and I tend to think that dresses and skirts tend to be designed to be more sexual and sensual. Pants if worn tight, just like a skirt or dress, are certainly not modest.

Lets just leave Bible out for a minute here. I work in a building that has four floors. I walk the stairs instead of taking the elevator because I was getting a bit lazy. The other day I heard something above me and I looked up. Guess what I saw? A lady walking down the stairs on the insie near the railing that is open. I could see everything. Her skirt was modest, it was long, it was loose. I still saw everything. I decide that from now on I can not look up when in the stairwell at work. Then I got thinking about it. ALL places I have been have these open stair wells. Been to a two story mall lately? The ones I have seen have glass railings. If a lady stands beside the rail and is wearing a skirt or dress if you are below her and look up guess what you will see.
I think the traditions that have been taught are very hard for some to let go of. I think we need to really remember that God gave us a mind to think fo ourselves. We are taught in the BIBLE that we are to seek out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We need to allow God to do a work in people and we need to stop doing our work in people.
There you go again..telling all our secrets. lol

No seriously, I see your point.

I was once in a very crowded elevator and I quickly realized that I was the only male aboard. I'm a rather short guy, about 5.4". A rather nice looking lady, slightly taller than me and wearing a low cut blouse, got on board the elevator and stood facing me and I was very uncomfortable to say the least. So what do uncomfortable men do? We look up. For example in the men's room at the urinal...we often look up at ceiling. Well, I looked up and guess what...the ceiling of the elevator was mirrored...and ya know...low cut blouses are even less modest when looking down at them. I was stunned and slowly a couple ladies looked up... including the lady in front of me, and we instantly made eye contact. A few coughs and she tugged her blouse on up and crossed her arms. I was so embarrassed...but there was nothing I could do. Oh well...I just turned red, accepted the dirty look from the lady, and got off at the very next floor to escape my humiliation.

Sometimes there's no escaping some exposure. It's normal. And in some ways it's healthy because reminds us that standards are necessary. But I wouldn't advocate women always wear a turtleneck because of what I experienced. I also wouldn't make women wear pants if I looked up and saw a little more than necessary at a stairwell. But over all...women's pants are mostly less modest than a woman's dress or skirt. The thigh in Scripture was to be covered because it was deemed nakedness. The "thigh" was also the region between the legs from knee to knee. To reveal it was nakedness. So anything that would accentuate the area could be seen as nakedness. Ladies pants will typically accentuate a ladies legs, rear, and sometimes even their "loins". It goes to say that biblically speaking anything revealing the form of a woman in these ares was to be discouraged. That's why traditional Jewish denominations still teach that women should wear dresses or skirts.
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:19 PM
Grasshopper
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
But the obvious is glaring. Pants belong to men.
I think it expresses a cultural norm pretty well. But I think it's shaky ground to base a biblical standard...on a bathroom door sign. Besides...cultural norms are changing. There's no telling what will on bathroom doors in 100 years.

When dealing with standards we need to stay in the Bible as much as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:21 PM
Grasshopper
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1 View Post
It also appears that her dress is above her knees! On the other hand she does have on long sleeves so I guess the ultra cons can use bathroom signs to preach long sleeves also. LOL!!
LOL

Or maybe she's...sleeveless!

Wow...bathroom sign theology.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:22 PM
Sam's Avatar
Sam Sam is offline
Jesus' Name Pentecostal


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: near Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 17,805
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianoman View Post


Don't forget about those fireproof short-sleeved shirts too!
and that fireproof cloth necklace (necktie).
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis

Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:22 PM
Grasshopper
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Encryptus View Post
actually anyone with discernment can see its a pants suit with a long jacket.
My God...it's Hillary Clinton!
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:23 PM
bkstokes's Avatar
bkstokes bkstokes is offline
Jesus is the Christ


 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,484
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
I think it expresses a cultural norm pretty well. But I think it's shaky ground to base a biblical standard...on a bathroom door sign. Besides...cultural norms are changing. There's no telling what will on bathroom doors in 100 years.

When dealing with standards we need to stay in the Bible as much as possible.
amen Bro.
__________________
If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24

Mone me, amabo te, si erro

No real problem exists over the use of "The Name" in everthing else done in the Church. Why then should there exist great controversy over the use of the "The Name of the Godhead" in water baptism?
Kevin J. Conner The Name of God p. 92
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 05-31-2008, 01:25 PM
jaxfam6 jaxfam6 is offline
Crazy father of 4


 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Now? Phoenix, AZ. Before? Newark, OH, Wyandotte, MI, Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,926
Re: Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasshopper View Post
My God...it's Hillary Clinton!
no no you missed that one
she is on the men's door
=)
__________________
Life is .............

I'll get back to you when I figure it out.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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
**** Are the NCO and AWCF "raiding" the UPCI or providing a "safety net"? **** SDG The D.A.'s Office 373 02-06-2012 01:01 AM
Has "Church" become a "Family Business"?? SecretWarrior Fellowship Hall 70 06-09-2008 08:41 AM
What Does "Joint" or "Fellow" Heirs with Christ? Praxeas Fellowship Hall 2 01-13-2008 02:12 AM
It seems the word "Seperation" varies as much as "Holiness" does??? revrandy Fellowship Hall 20 09-29-2007 12:39 PM
Seven kids get "it" or "Him" at youth camp Sherri Fellowship Hall 10 07-16-2007 01:57 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.