My goal for starting this thread was to get feedback as to whether I have taken this standard for granted, and whether or not I need to reevaluate it. I don't have a wife, but I hope to continue to be used to teach GOD's Word, and when this topic comes up (which it comes up A LOT when people find out I am an OP) I want to have an answer.
My goal for starting this thread was to get feedback as to whether I have taken this standard for granted, and whether or not I need to reevaluate it. I don't have a wife, but I hope to continue to be used to teach GOD's Word, and when this topic comes up (which it comes up A LOT when people find out I am an OP) I want to have an answer.
-Bro. Alex
Yes, you should study it. It really is a standard that was based on a custom of our society. Custom changed, we made a 'law' against it. The Bible nowhere requires men and women to dress drastically different from each other.
The pants rule is very inconsistent. What about gauchos? I don't see men wearing those, and yet they are still forbidden on women. I wasn't even allowed to wear culottes, or shorts under my dress except for p.e.
Customs change over time. There is a book based in England in the late 1800s. In it, they were debating whether or not a woman could attend a funeral. One lady spoke up and said - "I hear it's becoming the custom in Manchester for women to attend funerals." Another woman drew herself up and sharply retorted - "Well, it is NOT the custom in Cranford!"
Customs change. Society changes. It always has been so, and will continue to be so as long as the earth remains. Sometimes customs change gradually, sometimes abruptly. There will always be people who will resist custom changing. That seems to be the case more often than not, really.
In the 1930s and 40s custom changed. The Holiness movement resisted the change, and took a stand against it. There was nothing wrong with that, initially. The problem is that their resistance to these changes became "law". They started carrying the weight of the Word of God. And now we are saddled with these things that people think are heaven or hell issues.
We need to be careful not to confuse "custom" with Thou Shalt Nots commanded by God.
Last edited by *AQuietPlace*; 06-23-2009 at 11:08 AM.
My goal for starting this thread was to get feedback as to whether I have taken this standard for granted, and whether or not I need to reevaluate it. I don't have a wife, but I hope to continue to be used to teach GOD's Word, and when this topic comes up (which it comes up A LOT when people find out I am an OP) I want to have an answer.
-Bro. Alex
Don't you find it pretty sad that when people find out you're an OP, they want to ask you about women's standards and talk to you about them instead of what the real salvation issue is?
In addition, when wanting to reevaluate a belief, it's best to study it for yourself instead of starting a thread to get a majority opinion on it. For all you know, everyone here could be wrong.
Don't base your beliefs on what the majority of any group says. Study it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
The pants rule is very inconsistent. What about gauchos? I don't see men wearing those, and yet they are still forbidden on women. I wasn't even allowed to wear culottes, or shorts under my dress except for p.e.
It is a OP law that really needs re-evaluation.
Humor me for a minute please....
I was talking to someone the other day who mentioned having trouble finding gauchos for a grand-daughter to wear while riding horses. I will add that this person is 60+ raised old time pentecostal.
I asked them why wouldn't they just buy a pair of baggy fitting capris. There isn't much difference in the capris and gauchos except that the openings at the ends of the legs on gauchos are much more flared out. They quickly told me that capris are too much like pants. They said that gauchos are made more like a skirt due to the flaring at the ends. Both are divided between the thighs like pants, so honestly, if someone isn't going to wear one based on the similarity to pants--why would it be okay to wear the other? The grand-daughters are allowed to wear leggings (skin tight capri style) under shorter skirts....but pants/capris are wrong-- gauchos are okay.
I would honestly like to know what is the difference??? Why are gauchos okay-- and leggings under skirts are okay-- but capris aren't okay?
... when wanting to reevaluate a belief, it's best to study it for yourself instead of starting a thread to get a majority opinion on it. For all you know, everyone here could be wrong.
Don't base your beliefs on what the majority of any group says. Study it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Now that, is wisdom personified. Of course, one should not neglect the need of counselors. Proverbs 19:20
The next step is to address the questions: Is your position worth contending for? Why/why not? And, what will you be required to pay for living with (according to) your decision(s)? Luke 14:27-35
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Last edited by A.W. Bowman; 06-23-2009 at 11:52 AM.
Actually, subjects of this nature are generally not about the subject in the thread title, they are about how one's personal attitudes (fears, likes & dislikes, desires, etc.) are played out in public.
The major difference between a Christian Moral Policemen and a Muslim Moral Policemen is that the Christian Moral Policeman will judge a "moral offender" (failure to keep established holiness standards) to hell, while if a Muslim cannot beat the hell of the offender, he will frequently send them there.
It is not a matter of differing religious attitudes, but rather it is the degree to which these attitudes are acted upon (what one can get away with).
-----------------
In the western Christian society we have created a long list of do's and don'ts for women, because men react according to what they see. Therefore, we need to regulate what women can and can not do. How they dress, talk, walk, go to visit, etc. We men must keep women plain and "in their place". But, I submit that is NOT God's perspective of a man's problem with the opposite sex. Should women dress modestly? Yes. Not to be "loaded down" with jewels, gold, expensive clothes, etc. Yes. But, this also applies to men as well. Even so, there are two things that we religious folks seem to always forget when it comes to regulating another's actions:
1. It is not the job of the pastor, elders, or even the congregation to set the standards of any married lady, or even a female child (unmarried). It is the sole responsibility of the father and husband to be the spiritual leader (head, teacher, priest) of the family. Ephesians 5:22-24; 6:4, 1 Peter 3:1.
2. When it comes to a man's moral desires, thoughts and actions, God places these responsibilities on the man, not the woman! Matthew 5:27-28. Yet, like Adam, we are still telling God, "[Its the fault of] The woman you gave ..." Genesis 3:12. Sorry guys. That kind of argument didn't work with God then - and it wont work with God now! So, we need to drop it.
It is time to take responsibility for ourselves.
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Last edited by A.W. Bowman; 06-23-2009 at 12:56 PM.
I don't believe a woman will split the pit for wearing pants...
Though, I wouldn't date a gal who wears them...
and...
I have to ask....
Which of you men will be the first to wear a dress when it becomes a societal norm in our culture???
Hard to say because it still seems so abnormal and unacceptable. I'm sure it would be distinguished from a dress. Honestly, I don't see that ever happening.
Yes, you should study it. It really is a standard that was based on a custom of our society. Custom changed, we made a 'law' against it. The Bible nowhere requires men and women to dress drastically different from each other.
The pants rule is very inconsistent. What about gauchos? I don't see men wearing those, and yet they are still forbidden on women. I wasn't even allowed to wear culottes, or shorts under my dress except for p.e.
It is a OP law that really needs re-evaluation.
Church reacted because people wearing pants 70 years ago were feminists/flapper-type gals. I agree, though, that pants on women do not bear that same symbolic meaning anymore.
Anyone ever wonder, though, why the fuss over Hillary wearing pants too often, and Laura Bush being more celebrated as a lady? Again, nothing to form a doctrine on, but worth considering.
Linear Mode
