Are All the Apostolics Gone from AFF?

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Godzchild

omg.....really...??? ...
I do not think it is descent for a woman to show ones mid section (ie...belly) or wear low riders, low cut tops or even shorts. In which I do not wear any of the above. My jeans are modest, not *cutting* and not indecent!

That's fine, I accept your rebuke, but my implied point is merely to teach that one person's (or even a given religious population's) opinion concerning "indecency" is merely another person's (or another population's) "freedom of dress." So, the thought experiment I hoped you would engage with obviously did not work for you. I was trying to help you consider the line of thought that others think is equally true, with equal opinionated claims. See, to YOU, apparently, to show one's mid section or belly is indeed "INDECENT." To others, the line falls elsewhere.

Fine. But why, apart from your opinion (so far not any better than anyone else's opinion) can you substantiate that claim?

Your reasoning, so far, comes down to opinion, such as <<I do not think it it descent (sic) for a woman to show one's mid section>>

Ok. Again, why?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

No. I also think skin tight jeans are not modest either.

Thank you. I agree.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Thank you. I agree.

[Godzchild]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

No. I also think skin tight jeans are not modest either.

besides my husband would not agree to it even if it were to be something I wanted to wear.

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

No. I also think skin tight jeans are not modest either.

What's the difference between skin-tight and form-fitting? One's a little tighter than the other? If you have the "body" to wear certain clothes it's alright to wear and isn't immodest? If part of the reason you wear clothes is for the sole purpose of accentuating your form, is that not in fact immodest?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

What's the difference between skin-tight and form-fitting? One's a little tighter than the other? If you have the "body" to wear certain clothes it's alright to wear and isn't immodest? If part of the reason you wear clothes is for the sole purpose of accentuating your form, is that not in fact immodest?

Ok first off I could not tell you what the difference is between form-fitting or skin-tight. If you clothes fit you well that I can see every curve of your body that is not modest. My wife at 48 is still curvy, but yet she is very modest in her dress without looking like the "Little House of the Prairie" and she knows the difference between a split finger fastball and a curve ball.

[Godzchild]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Ok first off I could not tell you what the difference is between form-fitting or skin-tight. If you clothes fit you well that I can see every curve of your body that is not modest. My wife at 48 is still curvy, but yet she is very modest in her dress without looking like the "Little House of the Prairie" and she knows the difference between a split finger fastball and a curve ball.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Miss Brattfield can you explain what is immodest about wearing pants? How do you define modesty in a way a pair of slacks is immodest?

I think they define the butt/hip area too much, so I avoid them unless they're necessary for an activity. If possible, I think it's better to layer to cover that area of the body.

Pants can be immodest on men, too. I detest tight, skinny jeans, or overly tight pants of any kind. If a man is wearing tight pants and is sitting facing you, EVERYTHING is outlined--especially in dress pants. It's not pretty. However, women are curvier, and I think pants just...show the form of a woman more than a man, generally speaking.

These are just my personal opinions and practices, btw. I'm not discussing this from a scriptural point of view. I believe in being modest, and this is how I apply it.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Godzchild

I would not judge a *form fitting* skirt as immodest! The last Apostolic - UPC church my family attended for a short time had woman and girls (on and off the platform) who wore such. If you look good and can wear it .... then wear it well.....

I think it depends on what you're calling "form-fitting." If you just mean a skirt that fits the wearer, then fine--I agree. If you mean "so tight she could barely squeeze into it" then I disagree. IMO, if you know something is revealing and you wear it anyway, that attitude in and of itself is immodest. My rule of thumb (that I've also passed on to my daughters) is, "Pretty leaves the house, and sexy stays at home."

This skirt "fits":

straight skirt.jpg

...and this is "tight" and revealing:

tight skirt.jpg

If one of my daughters tried to leave the house in a skirt like Kim Kardashian is wearing, I would make her change and the skirt would go in the Goodwill donation box. Completely inappropriate for a Christian woman, IMO.

[Godzchild]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think it depends on what you're calling "form-fitting." If you just mean a skirt that fits the wearer, then fine--I agree. If you mean "so tight she could barely squeeze into it" then I disagree. IMO, if you know something is revealing and you wear it anyway, that attitude in and of itself is immodest. My rule of thumb (that I've also passed on to my daughters) is, "Pretty leaves the house, and sexy stays at home."

This skirt "fits":

Attachment 4323

...and this is "tight" and revealing:

Attachment 4324

If one of my daughters tried to leave the house in a skirt like Kim Kardashian is wearing, I would make her change and the skirt would go in the Goodwill donation box. Completely inappropriate for a Christian woman, IMO.

(the latter) and very VERY distasteful and more so disgusting~