Apology - Page 7

Sam · #61 12-20-2011, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

I am going to be draw a bit of a line here, and I know tha many will not like it. The Bible commands modesty in our apparell and bans jewelry in the New Testament. That being said, modesty dictates that our private parts be covered safely beyond all revealing, women and men not wearing the apparel of the opposite gender, cover the breasts above, and the thigh below. Which means that by and large, sleeves should be around the elbows at the shortest, and all garments well below the knee (Wrists and ankles seem to be the safest places to mandate, but I am not the one who wrote the book.)

In my opinion, the New Testament does not ban jewelry.

In my opinion, "modesty" is something that is different at different times, in different places, to different people, in different cultures. For example, many years ago in this country it was considered immodest to reveal an ankle. In some cultures it is immodest to appear in public without a veil. In some cultures it is not considered immodest for a woman to appear bare breasted in public.

I've been around Pentecostal people for a long time. At times skirt hems above the knees were OK and considered modest. At times a skirt hem had to be below the knee to be considered modest. At times a skirt hem had to come to the middle of the knee to be considered modest. At times pants on a woman were considered more modest than a dress or skirt.

"Long" hair on women was about to the shoulders. "Long" hair on women was anything that was longer than men's hair for a while and that was when men wore their hair cut quite short almost in a military style. "Long" hair to some means uncut. When some of the ladies were told not to "cut" their hair they complied by having it "trimmed" or "thinned" or "having the dead ends removed" or by burning off some of the length or by putting it up in such a way that it "broke off"

Amanah · #62 12-20-2011, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

In my opinion, the New Testament does not ban jewelry.

In my opinion, "modesty" is something that is different at different times, in different places, to different people, in different cultures. For example, many years ago in this country it was considered immodest to reveal an ankle. In some cultures it is immodest to appear in public without a veil. In some cultures it is not considered immodest for a woman to appear bare breasted in public.

I've been around Pentecostal people for a long time. At times skirt hems above the knees were OK and considered modest. At times a skirt hem had to be below the knee to be considered modest. At times a skirt hem had to come to the middle of the knee to be considered modest. At times pants on a woman were considered more modest than a dress or skirt.

"Long" hair on women was about to the shoulders. "Long" hair on women was anything that was longer than men's hair for a while and that was when men wore their hair cut quite short almost in a military style. "Long" hair to some means uncut. When some of the ladies were told not to "cut" their hair they complied by having it "trimmed" or "thinned" or "having the dead ends removed" or by burning off some of the length or by putting it up in such a way that it "broke off"

where there is a will, there is a way, and the black ladies of the church were exempt from uncut hair as their hair needed to be trimmed or it would split to the roots they said. Seems silly that their is a command that people were unable to keep because of the way their hair is.

aegsm76 · #63 12-20-2011, 04:56 AM

Well, we can talk about dress all we want.
But I can't wait to hear a pastor get up and talk about people's addiction to food.
And gluttonly is mentioned a lot in the Bible.
Or some people's addiction to incessently shopping and buying "things".
Haven't heard many of those sermons.
And I believe they rank right up there with modesty.

Cindy · #64 12-20-2011, 06:22 AM

Too much emphasis is placed on the outside, while the inside is rotting away.

houston · #65 12-20-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

In all my years in the OP church, I've noticed that the men who leave their wives always go for the chicks who cut their hair, wear makeup and jewelry and wear pants. Why is that?

How many women outside of OP look OP? Not very many.

Dagwood · #66 12-20-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Well, we can talk about dress all we want.
But I can't wait to hear a pastor get up and talk about people's addiction to food.
And gluttonly is mentioned a lot in the Bible.
Or some people's addiction to incessently shopping and buying "things".
Haven't heard many of those sermons.
And I believe they rank right up there with modesty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy

Too much emphasis is placed on the outside, while the inside is rotting away.

CC1 · #67 12-20-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Intresting......"chicks who cut their hair, wear makeup, and pants"..... I'm glad most women that are holding up on to holiness are not acting like those harlots............ By your observation it seems like it would be a good idea for wives not to cut their hair, wear makup or pants... There must be a spirit or something attached to that stuff....

Your post is one of the most ridiculous I have read. There are plenty of harlots with uncut hair and no makeup.

I remember when the Youth Congress was nearby and I suggested my "charismatic" teenage son attend noting that "there will be a lot of girls there!".

His reply was that UPC girls were too wild. That they wanted to get physical way too quick. Now obviously not all or like that or even a majority but that was his personal experience (and mine as a UPC teen many years ago) and his perception.

So this notion that somehow women who cut their hair or wear makeup means they are harlots and women holding to a dress code cannot be is absurd.

Scott Hutchinson · #68 12-20-2011, 09:30 AM

There was a fellow I knew who pastored a OP church talk about looking clean cut that was him he but having physical relations with 13 yr. old girls.
Modesty is important and women should look like women and men should look like men.

But the inside needs to be clean,so many focus on externals,as they feel they are meriting salvation because of external behavior and outward appearance.

Jack Shephard · #69 12-20-2011, 09:31 AM

I just wanted to state that because one stays in the ark doesn't mean they still go to heaven...they could go down the path to sin too...sin is not limited to those that leave or stay. I would rather go to a church that isn't UPC, and I do, but there are some good UPC churches out there.

Jack Shephard · #70 12-20-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Your post is one of the most ridiculous I have read. There are plenty of harlots with uncut hair and no makeup.
I remember when the Youth Congress was nearby and I suggested my "charismatic" teenage son attend noting that "there will be a lot of girls there!".

His reply was that UPC girls were too wild. That they wanted to get physical way too quick. Now obviously not all or like that or even a majority but that was his personal experience (and mine as a UPC teen many years ago) and his perception.

So this notion that somehow women who cut their hair or wear makeup means they are harlots and women holding to a dress code cannot be is absurd.

Great words!!

I can speak to this some of them want to get physical quick because some of the guys they've dated have kind of taught them that they should be that way by trying to get physical with the girls. Vicious cycle...It's sad, but it's life.

If the church, UPC as a whole, would do better teaching about sex and how it is supposed to go instead of only saying "It's a sin!" it might bring about a whole new culture--a positive one. With all that being said...it is strong verbage to call anyone a harlot for following where God is leading them...Hometown Guy needs to think about how God sees His people. He looks at them through glasses of grace and not goggles of judgment.