Holiness and the Facebook Generation

[Brother Todd]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Papa bear why then was there no distiction of dress in the bible...both men and women wore the same thing

no they didn't...not at all.

Deu 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.

If they wore the same thing, what was God talking about here???? Or was God just some Apostolic preacher trying to control people here?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Papabear

An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

She won't? So does that mean if a woman puts on a pair of pants, she is not Apostolic?

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

The whole of scripture? You say that as if there are a lot of scriptures addressing the issue. There aren't.

How did people in Bible days maintain gender distinction in their clothing?

I'm for gender distinction, btw. But, I wear pajamas, and I wear pants when I work out, and gauchos when I ride my bike.... It's not a sin for a woman to wear a pair of pants anymore than it's a sin for her to wear a white button down shirt.

Defining what is concretely masculine or feminine is a rather difficult task, don't you think?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Papabear

An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

And conservative churches that use them anyway.

Off-subject: is it too much to ask how you can, with the Text, articulate why we shouldn't wear pants? Have you participated in a conversation about that? I can better respect someone that "chooses" not to for sake of modesty, than someone who dogmatically believe the text says so.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Of that I have no doubt, at least in mixed company. But I think SOME would be surprised when Jesus's shirt sleeves didn't match up to what THEY were wearing and taught.

But then again, I am sure he would have followed his own mandate about not causing a brother to stumble and would have dressed to the lowest common denominator.

Randy, what is the lowest common denominator? Do you believe Jesus would be in a turtleneck to avoid a brother from stumbling?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Papabear

An apostolic Man wears pants... as they are the distinctive garment in our culture.

Ah - so it's relevant upon culture! See, we're getting somewhere.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Don't write my eulogy just yet!

The reason for the question is to simply know what is right. Others tend to immediately debate a person's motives as a red herring to the real issue. I don't want to dissect it to make it say what I want it to say, and I think that's part of my frustration: we have taken texts and interpreted to mean something it never intended.

Your responses will surely get this forum excited as you assume no one is prayerful, no one loves holiness and no one cares for the things of God but those who believe it exactly as you've been taught it.

Bingo!

People, through tradition, have beliefs which then cause them to search out Scripture to support them.

I looked at Papabears web site, which is very well done and well written I might add! But it is clear to see the filter that he see's scripture through. For instance He see's love and grace as filtered THROUGH holiness and separation. Many (and this is the way I BELIEVE Jesus taught) see holiness and separation as filtered THROUGH love and grace (and compassion).

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Brother Todd

and they also provide a masculinity to women, in my personal beliefs. Listen, I'm not here to condemn anyone else's personal convictions and standards, but as I read the Scriptures, I see that men and women are not created equally, they are both very different genders and roles. Clothing is a major way to communicate gender identity within a society, and even in the Old Testament, it was obvious that clothing demonstrated gender identity, and therefore role identity.

I believe that women should dress feminely, and men masculine, and both modestly. I believe that a dress covers the womenly form much better, and in the end provides a message of femine traits, as well as modesty.

Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.

I agree with you. But can we make our preferences on equal ground as scripture? For me, it's a preference that my wife agrees with.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Randy, what is the lowest common denominator? Do you believe Jesus would be in a turtleneck to avoid a brother from stumbling?

I honestly don't know. Common sense says that you can't go so low as to make the most easily offended brother happy. But I guess this is a subject worthy of its own thread.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Brother Todd

and they also provide a masculinity to women, in my personal beliefs. Listen, I'm not here to condemn anyone else's personal convictions and standards, but as I read the Scriptures, I see that men and women are not created equally, they are both very different genders and roles. Clothing is a major way to communicate gender identity within a society, and even in the Old Testament, it was obvious that clothing demonstrated gender identity, and therefore role identity.

I believe that women should dress feminely, and men masculine, and both modestly. I believe that a dress covers the womenly form much better, and in the end provides a message of femine traits, as well as modesty.

Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.

This is a good post, and I share most of your views--but is what you stated above a strong enough foundation for calling pants on a woman a SIN? It's okay to deny someone's faith in Christ because they wear an item of clothing some view as exclusively masculine?

[Papabear]

I don't presume anything in what I wrote... I simply state for many "Apostolic Anonymous" approach scripture from a deconstruction mindset and what is can be thrown out. I believe we should be endevouring to add to our devotion and consecration... not subtracting..

I don't say that from a legalistic mindset, but just practical. I am not a hardline, right winger.. however I do believe what the Bible says about Gender distinction... I don't think God has changed his mind.... he still hates homosexuality.. the sin.. the act... the spirit... sure he loves the sinner... however he hates the whole "homosexual" paradigm.

He made men and women different. Equipment, temperament, emotive makeup.

Girls and Boys should be encouraged in those things that are distinctively boys and girls.

In this homosexualized culture, the church should be even more so aware of our need to be vigilant. If women ever had long hair, long dresses and a feminine deportment it would be now.... because it is so counter culture to the sensual, sexual and perverse culture.

To argue against this basic premise and ideal demonstrates a lack of understanding.

(And yes I am saying if you disagree with me you are wrong... that is the whole idea of arguing a point. I believe intently what I am saying... and believe it enough to put my name on it.)

My name is scott phillips and I support this message.