Conservative Camp Meeting, Ventura, CA.06/22-06/26

[1Corinth2v4]

I rarely log onto this forum, reason being every thread’s subject seems repetitious, never reaching any conclusion. However, today’s post will discuss my recent attendance to Pacific Coast Camp Meeting, held in Ventura, California.

Firstly, I’ll divulge personal information about myself. I reside five minutes from Ventura, and was able to attend 3 night services. I did congregate with a church ( this church pulled out after TV resolution passed) that attends and supports this camp meeting, and I also left this group over one year ago, after hearing bothersome statements (e.g. disguised anti-interracial marriage propaganda, etc.).

On a Sunday morning two weeks after leaving, I sat weary and perplexed in my vehicle wondering if I made the correct decision. I then had a Caucasian man dressed in business casual attire, he approach my window. As I rolled down my window this “man” began to speak. He said: “You have been confused and seeking direction. God is arranging your steps, He has a work for you, and you soon shall see it come to pass.” The man then gave me a small piece of paper with writing on it, and then he walked away and vanished into the distance. I looked at the paper and it read: Isaiah 40;29-31. A few days passed and I received a phone call from a UPC pastor stating God had laid me on his mind and asked that I congregate at his church, and needless to say, God is at work!

Now, in regards to camp meeting services, the worship was awesome and I enjoyed the preaching. However, there are a few concerns of mine. When arriving I encountered an ex-upci pastor from a neighboring city. He looked at me and said, where did you come from? I contemplated whether I should frantically search my suit pockets and comment how I had received my VIP invitation. Instead I comported myself like a Christian gentleman, stretched my hand to greet, smiled and said God bless you. I then went to shake a few hands, some entreated me while others surprisingly indirectly and others directly ignored me while I stood before them. Some people have more conservatism pride than they do Holy Ghost, you shall know them by their fruits. Though I'm tired of political titles, friends consider me a conservative, but I'm probably considered a heathen by these brethren, seeing I left the clique and re-joined the UPCI

Here's another concern of mine. While the evening speaker preached, he stated certain saints always bail to other churches when they don't get their way. He said they need to stick around and listen to the elders? I then thought to myself, the pastors on the platform are applauding this speaker, yet when the TV resolution passed, all of those pastors on the platform bailed out of the UPCI! My God, I thought we were suppose to stick it out, and listen to the elders advising against leaving the UPCI? There are still many of us "conservatives" within the UPCI, and we aren't going anywhere. Another concern! After a teenager sang on the platform, a pastor stood by the platform and said, "thank God for this boy sounding like a man!" My Lord, so now men are considered queer if they can hit a vocal high-note? Sir, it's not called being a sissy, it's called having talent! My Lord, I guess real men should also substitute toilet paper with rugged leaves and/or newspaper too.

I also know UPCI acquaintances that attended this camp meeting, and these people were literally asked what they were doing there. I have one comment, love embraces with open arms and an out-stretched hand. The bible reads love is the bond of perfectness (Col 3:14), but I guess to others, being perfect defines as possessing a bitter, hateful, self-centered, self-righteous, holier than thou spirit. After-all, who needs love when you have truth?

I was also told by a saint that he/she was instructed to keep their distance from me since I left "the flock." They restrict their people from fellowshipping with UPC brethren, yet these conservative brethren fellowship with other liberal pastors, and even golf and hunt with them! The five-fold ministry doesn't possess the position of a dictator, at least last time I checked.

Peter does not command, but exhorts. He does not claim ruling power! In the scripture below Peter exhorts the elders to lead by example than to Lord over people. I'd rather lead by example, than ruling with a fist of iron and being a hypocrite.

1 Peter 5(NIV)
3) not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock

Yet, I still count these insulting conservative men/women, all loving conservatives as myself :D, all liberals and moderates as my brother and sister, and I love them all.

Sincerely,
2Corinth2v4

[Scott Hutchinson]

My dear brother people ought to accept you for who are in Christ,none of my business it doesn't sound like much was done that exalted Christ,at this gathering.

The bible does teach agains't Elders lording themselves over God's heritage

[jaxfam6]

one question
Did you only go so that you could post this or so you could criticize them?
if so that is pretty sad. pray for them if you don't like what they had to say.

[1Corinth2v4]

one question
Did you only go so that you could post this or so you could criticize them?
if so that is pretty sad. pray for them if you don't like what they had to say.

I went to hear preaching and see old friends. In the midst of that I encountered a different spirit.

[RandyWayne]

Wish I could have been there!


Seriously!

[berkeley]

If I am not mistaken, I believe the camp is by invite only. I don't think anyone is allowed to attend without their pastor's approval.

I see no problem with this at all. Most pastor's want to know who the saints are listening to. Not all ministers fellowship with eachother. I see it as a "protection" clause. :).

If I was a pastor, I wouldn't want the saints listening to the magic hair stuff, so on, so forth.

Thanks for tearing them to shreds. LoL. I know a few of the organizers. The old guard is "hard" on many things and many areas. I'm not excusing actions, when you believe something so strongly youe zeal can get the best of you.

I may attend next year. Maybe I'll see you there! :)

[Sam]

Is this the group that checked the girls underwear to see if it complied with holiness standards?

[RandyWayne]

Is this the group that checked the girls underwear to see if it complied with holiness standards?

And took pictures with their cell phone camera's?

[Sam]

And took pictures with their cell phone camera's?

I didn't hear anything about the cell phone cameras but I think it was a California UPC group who checked the girls' luggage to make sure their underwear was compliant with holiness standards.

[berkeley]

Is this the group that checked the girls underwear to see if it complied with holiness standards?
Good grief Sam! They didn't check underwear. They prohibited pajama pants for the girls. Before you go on a tangent, I know of many apostolic girls that would be offended at the sight of another girl in pajama pants. And before someone says that the men are obsessed with this, it had nothing to do with men! Conservative girls don't wear pants. Pretty simple stuff here. You don't have to agree. Attend elsewhere. Keep doing what you're doing and let them do what they do.

[nahkoe]

Good grief Sam! They didn't check underwear. They prohibited pajama pants for the girls. Before you go on a tangent, I know of many apostolic girls that would be offended at the sight of another girl in pajama pants. And before someone says that the men are obsessed with this, it had nothing to do with men! Conservative girls don't wear pants. Pretty simple stuff here. You don't have to agree. Attend elsewhere. Keep doing what you're doing and let them do what they do.

Cuz waking up with your nightgown around your neck is definitely more modest than wearing a pair of pants to bed.

:tic

(or was it?)

I'm sorry, but the argument that apostolic girls would be offended by seeing another girl in pants points only to an issue that THEY need to deal with, not an issue that a girl wearing pants needs to deal with.

I wouldn't prance around naked, but it doesn't offend me to see a naked woman. Ditto bikinis. It's not my problem what they wear.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Good grief Sam! They didn't check underwear. They prohibited pajama pants for the girls. Before you go on a tangent, I know of many apostolic girls that would be offended at the sight of another girl in pajama pants. And before someone says that the men are obsessed with this, it had nothing to do with men! Conservative girls don't wear pants. Pretty simple stuff here.
I am very close personal friends with some women who belong to a very conservative AMF church. They wear pajama pants.

[berkeley]

I am very close personal friends with some women who belong to a very conservative AMF church. They wear pajama pants.
Closet moderates at best :)


Really, Nakoe. What is the big deal? Bird of a feather... etc etc.
They believe pants on a woman is a sin... pajama PANTS likewise. Don't like it, don't attend.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Closet moderates at best :)



TRUST me, they're not moderates. ;)

[RandyWayne]

I am very close personal friends with some women who belong to a very conservative AMF church. They wear pajama pants.

Like I asked Sam, any cell phone pics?

[Praxeas]

If I am not mistaken, I believe the camp is by invite only. I don't think anyone is allowed to attend without their pastor's approval.

I see no problem with this at all. Most pastor's want to know who the saints are listening to. Not all ministers fellowship with eachother. I see it as a "protection" clause. :).

If I was a pastor, I wouldn't want the saints listening to the magic hair stuff, so on, so forth.

Thanks for tearing them to shreds. LoL. I know a few of the organizers. The old guard is "hard" on many things and many areas. I'm not excusing actions, when you believe something so strongly youe zeal can get the best of you.

I may attend next year. Maybe I'll see you there! :)
BTW, do you have a laptop? If so why not get on the net via a cafe or something?

[nahkoe]

Closet moderates at best :)


Really, Nakoe. What is the big deal? Bird of a feather... etc etc.
They believe pants on a woman is a sin... pajama PANTS likewise. Don't like it, don't attend.

I definitely take that approach. :)

[berkeley]

BTW, do you have a laptop? If so why not get on the net via a cafe or something?
I'm still in the stone age. I have a desktop. I access net via mobile on my Black Jack II.

[Praxeas]

U can use that then at a cafe to come here

[berkeley]

uh, how does that work?

[jaxfam6]

Good grief Sam! They didn't check underwear. They prohibited pajama pants for the girls. Before you go on a tangent, I know of many apostolic girls that would be offended at the sight of another girl in pajama pants. And before someone says that the men are obsessed with this, it had nothing to do with men! Conservative girls don't wear pants. Pretty simple stuff here. You don't have to agree. Attend elsewhere. Keep doing what you're doing and let them do what they do.

Still very sad. my parents were very very ULTRA CON and yet this kinda of foolishness was not part of it. I am finding the more I hear of this kind of thing that even though I was raised ULTRA CON that we still had MORE BALANCE than many who we thought of as LIBERAL.

[Sister Alvear]

:thumbsup Maybe we all should go back to robes ad sandals...too be more like Jesus…

[Aquila]

Checking private evening attire worn to bed belonging to young laides is twisted, and it feels cultic.

Just my thoughts.

[POWERUP]

:foottapYou got that right Aquila!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plain stupid!!!!!!!!!!

[rgcraig]

Here's another concern of mine. While the evening speaker preached, he stated certain saints always bail to other churches when they don't get their way. He said they need to stick around and listen to the elders? I then thought to myself, the pastors on the platform are applauding this speaker, yet when the TV resolution passed, all of those pastors on the platform bailed out of the UPCI! My God, I thought we were suppose to stick it out, and listen to the elders advising against leaving the UPCI?This point was an excellent one! Inconsistency at its best.

Guess that rule doesn't apply to some.

[ILG]

[
Yet, I still count these insulting conservative men/women, all loving conservatives as myself :D, all liberals and moderates as my brother and sister, and I love them all.

Sincerely,
2Corinth2v4
[/FONT]

What you see are valid concerns. God be with you....

[MomOfADramaQn]

I was also told by a saint that he/she was instructed to keep their distance from me since I left "the flock." They restrict their people from fellowshipping with UPC brethren, yet these conservative brethren fellowship with other liberal pastors, and even golf and hunt with them! The five-fold ministry doesn't possess the position of a dictator, at least last time I checked.




This was also told to people in my home church too - the pastor pulled the church from UPC and there were quite a few that left and the remaining members were told to not to have anything to do with them even if they were their own family members - it's sad but it happens - nothing anyone can do about it but know that in time God will deal with it.

[MarcBee]

I rarely log onto this forum, reason being every thread’s subject seems repetitious, never reaching any conclusion.


The contrary--every substantive thread reaches several conclusions.

(Is that bad?)
Marcbee
:usa

[*AQuietPlace*]

I didn't know that threads were meant to reach conclusions, but rather to provoke thought and discussion.

[Timmy]

Good grief Sam! They didn't check underwear. They prohibited pajama pants for the girls. Before you go on a tangent, I know of many apostolic girls that would be offended at the sight of another girl in pajama pants. And before someone says that the men are obsessed with this, it had nothing to do with men! Conservative girls don't wear pants. Pretty simple stuff here. You don't have to agree. Attend elsewhere. Keep doing what you're doing and let them do what they do.

Yeah, Sam, sheesh. Checking for holy underwear, why, that would be ridiculous. Now, jammies, that's another matter!

:hmmm

BTW, Bryan, when they found those wicked jammies, did they send the owners home? Presumably, they wouldn't have any back-ups, so confiscation wouldn't do any good. (Gasp! The implications of that boggle the mind!)

[jaxfam6]

i think they expected more of us to agree with their sentiments on past threads and that did not happen. =)

[Timmy]

:thumbsup Maybe we all should go back to robes ad sandals...too be more like Jesus…

Exaaaactly! :thumbsup

[Timmy]

:thumbsup Maybe we all should go back to robes ad sandals...too be more like Jesus…

Some years ago, I started wearing sandals to church (AG). Someone commented on my starting to dress like Jesus. I said "Yep. Next week, the robe!" (Never followed up on that, though! :lol)

[Sister Alvear]

We are having a special ladies service and we have a song that some of us are signing and we are making robes like that were used in Bible days and buying sandals...we sure should have a Holy Ghost outpouring!
Now if we can get the men prayed through...ha....

[Timmy]

We are having a special ladies service and we have a song that some of us are signing and we are making robes like that were used in Bible days and buying sandals...we sure should have a Holy Ghost outpouring!
Now if we can get the men prayed through...ha....

Well, that's a start. But it needs to be 24x7 to really count! :lol

[Sister Alvear]

well at least you got sandals...that is a start...

[1Corinth2v4]

Thanks for tearing them to shreds. LoL. I know a few of the organizers. The old guard is "hard" on many things and many areas. I'm not excusing actions, when you believe something so strongly youe zeal can get the best of you.

I may attend next year. Maybe I'll see you there! :)


Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


If I attend next year, we'll go out to dinner.....and you'll be treating! :D

[Sweet Pea]

Good grief Sam! They didn't check underwear. They prohibited pajama pants for the girls. Before you go on a tangent, I know of many apostolic girls that would be offended at the sight of another girl in pajama pants. And before someone says that the men are obsessed with this, it had nothing to do with men! Conservative girls don't wear pants. Pretty simple stuff here. You don't have to agree. Attend elsewhere. Keep doing what you're doing and let them do what they do.


But these same girls / women wear pantyhose ???
:dunno:dunno

:hmmm:hmmm

[jaxfam6]

I am going to say this but it will probably get me in trouble. They can not wear something with two leg holes to sleep in but they can wear panties and panty hose. makes a lot of sense to me.

balance people that is what we need.

[Praxeas]

I have to ask: WHY would an apostolic girl be offended at the sight of another apostolic girl wearing PJs? Do they live constantly offended lives while seeing other women wearing pants, men wearing shorts, ladies with cut hair etc etc? Or is the offense just at the notion another Apostolic wears....or is allowed to wear PJs?

Is that the "right" kind of being offended we are thinking of? That does not sound right

[berkeley]

What it comes down to is this: don't wear that attire as it is stumbling block to some.
As a christian attending that camp, to keep with the spirit of unity... don't wear the pajama pants. You're liberated or whatever.... don't be an offense to your sister who you may consider to be weak in faith.

Simple stuff people. Ya'll are more obsessed with this stuff than the U Cons.
Sherri is a fine example for some of you to follow. She's liberal, but she isn't obsessed with what the U Cons are doing. She has real liberty. Some of you are in bondage to what you used to be.

[Praxeas]

What it comes down to is this: don't wear that attire as it is stumbling block to some.
As a christian attending that camp, to keep with the spirit of unity... don't wear the pajama pants. You're liberated or whatever.... don't be an offense to your sister who you may consider to be weak in faith.

Simple stuff people. Ya'll are more obsessed with this stuff than the U Cons.
Sherri is a fine example for some of you to follow. She's liberal, but she isn't obsessed with what the U Cons are doing. She has real liberty. Some of you are in bondage to what you used to be.
I see...so we can expect the UC sisters to be so weak that they'd be tempted to sneak out of the camp and go to the store down the street and buy some PJs so they can sin too?

[berkeley]

my lunch break is over.. ttyl

[hometown guy]

I rarely log onto this forum, reason being every thread’s subject seems repetitious, never reaching any conclusion. However, today’s post will discuss my recent attendance to Pacific Coast Camp Meeting, held in Ventura, California.

Firstly, I’ll divulge personal information about myself. I reside five minutes from Ventura, and was able to attend 3 night services. I did congregate with a church ( this church pulled out after TV resolution passed) that attends and supports this camp meeting, and I also left this group over one year ago, after hearing bothersome statements (e.g. disguised anti-interracial marriage propaganda, etc.).

On a Sunday morning two weeks after leaving, I sat weary and perplexed in my vehicle wondering if I made the correct decision. I then had a Caucasian man dressed in business casual attire, he approach my window. As I rolled down my window this “man” began to speak. He said: “You have been confused and seeking direction. God is arranging your steps, He has a work for you, and you soon shall see it come to pass.” The man then gave me a small piece of paper with writing on it, and then he walked away and vanished into the distance. I looked at the paper and it read: Isaiah 40;29-31. A few days passed and I received a phone call from a UPC pastor stating God had laid me on his mind and asked that I congregate at his church, and needless to say, God is at work!

Now, in regards to camp meeting services, the worship was awesome and I enjoyed the preaching. However, there are a few concerns of mine. When arriving I encountered an ex-upci pastor from a neighboring city. He looked at me and said, where did you come from? I contemplated whether I should frantically search my suit pockets and comment how I had received my VIP invitation. Instead I comported myself like a Christian gentleman, stretched my hand to greet, smiled and said God bless you. I then went to shake a few hands, some entreated me while others surprisingly indirectly and others directly ignored me while I stood before them. Some people have more conservatism pride than they do Holy Ghost, you shall know them by their fruits. Though I'm tired of political titles, friends consider me a conservative, but I'm probably considered a heathen by these brethren, seeing I left the clique and re-joined the UPCI

Here's another concern of mine. While the evening speaker preached, he stated certain saints always bail to other churches when they don't get their way. He said they need to stick around and listen to the elders? I then thought to myself, the pastors on the platform are applauding this speaker, yet when the TV resolution passed, all of those pastors on the platform bailed out of the UPCI! My God, I thought we were suppose to stick it out, and listen to the elders advising against leaving the UPCI? There are still many of us "conservatives" within the UPCI, and we aren't going anywhere. Another concern! After a teenager sang on the platform, a pastor stood by the platform and said, "thank God for this boy sounding like a man!" My Lord, so now men are considered queer if they can hit a vocal high-note? Sir, it's not called being a sissy, it's called having talent! My Lord, I guess real men should also substitute toilet paper with rugged leaves and/or newspaper too.

I also know UPCI acquaintances that attended this camp meeting, and these people were literally asked what they were doing there. I have one comment, love embraces with open arms and an out-stretched hand. The bible reads love is the bond of perfectness (Col 3:14), but I guess to others, being perfect defines as possessing a bitter, hateful, self-centered, self-righteous, holier than thou spirit. After-all, who needs love when you have truth?

I was also told by a saint that he/she was instructed to keep their distance from me since I left "the flock." They restrict their people from fellowshipping with UPC brethren, yet these conservative brethren fellowship with other liberal pastors, and even golf and hunt with them! The five-fold ministry doesn't possess the position of a dictator, at least last time I checked.

Peter does not command, but exhorts. He does not claim ruling power! In the scripture below Peter exhorts the elders to lead by example than to Lord over people. I'd rather lead by example, than ruling with a fist of iron and being a hypocrite.

1 Peter 5(NIV)
3) not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock

Yet, I still count these insulting conservative men/women, all loving conservatives as myself :D, all liberals and moderates as my brother and sister, and I love them all.

Sincerely,
2Corinth2v4


First of all I doubt anyone ever asked you what you were doing there except people from your old church. I really doubt anyone told any other upc people what they were doing there, in fact I know there was on upc pastor who stayed on grounds in a trailer the whole time and I saw other upcers there.
And concerning the statement the preacher made about staying with your pastor ( really I think it just hit home for you ) and your comment about them leaving the upc……..well the upc has not and will never be anyone’s pastor.
1cor has portrayed the camp in a false way and he will have to answer to God for it. The men that are involved with the camp have no ax to grind and are only doing what they feel is right and pleasing to God.

[Praxeas]

my lunch break is over.. ttyl
lol

[On The Wheel]

What about the offense that wounds a new convert, who loves the lord, but has no understanding of all the traditional rules held by easily offended, insecure church members.

We cannnot send new converts or those who are drawing close to the Lord but are not yet saved to youth camp, because our youth are too easily offended. How sick is that.
I have a conviction about offending these little ones. Grace should trump rules.

We should teach our people to grow up and understand that not everyone will immediatly fit into our cookie cutter mold.

[Elizabeth]

What about the offense that wounds a new convert, who loves the lord, but has no understanding of all the traditional rules held by easily offended, insecure church members.

We cannnot send new converts or those who are drawing close to the Lord but are not yet saved to youth camp, because our youth are too easily offended. How sick is that.
I have a conviction about offending these little ones. Grace should trump rules.

We should teach our people to grow up and understand that not everyone will immediatly fit into our cookie cutter mold.

Very good point.

Reminds me of the scripture about the millstone- Luke 17:1&2

I looked it up in the Message and it reads like this:

Luke 17:1&2 (The Message)


1-2He said to his disciples, "Hard trials and temptations are bound to come, but too bad for whoever brings them on! Better to wear a millstone necklace and take a swim in the deep blue sea than give even one of these dear little ones a hard time

[Praxeas]

Very good point.

Reminds me of the scripture about the millstone- Luke 17:1&2

I looked it up in the Message and it reads like this:

Luke 17:1&2 (The Message)


1-2He said to his disciples, "Hard trials and temptations are bound to come, but too bad for whoever brings them on! Better to wear a millstone necklace and take a swim in the deep blue sea than give even one of these dear little ones a hard time
Hello Elizabeth, welcome to the forum. Did you sign a visitors card? :ursofunny

[1Corinth2v4]

First of all I doubt anyone ever asked you what you were doing there except people from your old church. I really doubt anyone told any other upc people what they were doing there, in fact I know there was on upc pastor who stayed on grounds in a trailer the whole time and I saw other upcers there.
And concerning the statement the preacher made about staying with your pastor ( really I think it just hit home for you ) and your comment about them leaving the upc……..well the upc has not and will never be anyone’s pastor.
1cor has portrayed the camp in a false way and he will have to answer to God for it. The men that are involved with the camp have no ax to grind and are only doing what they feel is right and pleasing to God.

Hometown,

Firstly, I wouldn't lie about things this serious. The person who questioned my presence was your mother's pastor. Then someone said that was rude of him. Place the phone call, I'm sure this man of God will admit the truth. However, I still respect this man and hold him at high-esteem.


Secondly, a few upc'ers I'm acquainted with were questioned as to why they were there. They felt awkward after being questioned. If they can't make their "brethren" feel welcomed, how much more a sinner?


Thirdly, the statement the speaker made didn't hit home, in regards to a person staying in their church and sticking it out. But I was intrigued how the pastors on the platform were clapping and yet they bailed out of the UPC after the television resolution passed. When their ex-UPC elders advised them against leaving the UPC, they claimed it was God's will, and bailed. Yet, if I leave this pastor's group because I feel it's God's will, all of a sudden I'm backsliding and going to hell? I ask that you would be honest with yourself and show me the consistency in that matter.

Finally, I haven't portrayed the camp in any ill-manner. A few bad apples doesn't corrupt the fruit stand. The camp was awesome, it was just certain individuals and certain comments that were unchristian. Yes,you, I, and all others will answer to God. Blessings, my brother in Christ.

[Sam]

I am going to say this but it will probably get me in trouble. They can not wear something with two leg holes to sleep in but they can wear panties and panty hose. makes a lot of sense to me.

balance people that is what we need.

I think there are still preachers who preach against panty hose because it is a single garment with two legs in it --too much like men's britches.

[jaxfam6]

I think there are still preachers who preach against panty hose because it is a single garment with two legs in it --too much like men's britches.

what about ladies underpants? they have two holes just like a man's? why isn't that wrong?




:ursofunny

[Sam]

what about ladies underpants? they have two holes just like a man's? why isn't that wrong?

:ursofunny


They don't go far enough down the leg to qualify as britches.

[Arphaxad]

I think there are still preachers who preach against panty hose because it is a single garment with two legs in it --too much like men's britches.

sodo they think it's ok for men to wear pantyhose?


:doggyrun

[On The Wheel]

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?

[RandyWayne]

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?

This one is really easy!

Just as it is proven that the world revolves around Kevin Bacon, all of fashion revolves around conservative wear from the 1940's.

[jaxfam6]

They don't go far enough down the leg to qualify as britches.

hmmm sounds like a cop out to me. =)


I can hear it being preached now.

[RandyWayne]

They don't go far enough down the leg to qualify as britches.

Sounds like something for the chart..... <taking notes>

[*AQuietPlace*]

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?
Great points.

[Sam]

sodo they think it's ok for men to wear pantyhose?


:doggyrun

I dunno. They might consider that a woman's garment.

[On The Wheel]

This one is really easy!

Just as it is proven that the world revolves around Kevin Bacon, all of fashion revolves around conservative wear from the 1940's.

Personally, I think the 1750's would be great. That way we men could all be justified in wearing frilly, lacy, ties to compliment our sleek tights and high heeled shoes.

Just a thought.

[RandyWayne]

Personally, I think the 1750's would be great. That way we men could all be justified in wearing frilly, lacy, ties to compliment our sleek tights and high heeled shoes.

Just a thought.

I could never handle everyone looking like Mike Brady.
http://www.mikerowave.com/images/reed2.jpg

[On The Wheel]

I could never handle everyone looking like Mike Brady.
http://www.mikerowave.com/images/reed2.jpg

For sure! I heard he was gay.

[RandyWayne]

....he was. And a total jerk in real life.

[On The Wheel]

I know we are kind of kicking this concept around, but I really would like to know what some of the "must wear pajama pants" folks would say to the question of how we ascertain what is men's and women's apparel.

Concerning PJ's, many men have traditionally worn night gowns. Why is this not women's apparel?

[Arphaxad]

I know we are kind of kicking this concept around, but I really would like to know what some of the "must wear pajama pants" folks would say to the question of how we ascertain what is men's and women's apparel.

Concerning PJ's, many men have traditionally worn night gowns. Why is this not women's apparel?

and what about choir robes, huh? huh? unisex?


:doggyrun

[Sam]

and what about choir robes, huh? huh? unisex?


:doggyrun

I would think choir robes are unisex type clothing.

I doubt if any REAL holiness church would allow choir robes on their platform.

[jaxfam6]

:ursofunny:ursofunnyPersonally, I think the 1750's would be great. That way we men could all be justified in wearing frilly, lacy, ties to compliment our sleek tights and high heeled shoes.

Just a thought.:ursofunny:ursofunny


You so have a point with that

[On The Wheel]

I would think choir robes are unisex type clothing.

I doubt if any REAL holiness church would allow choir robes on their platform.

This is one reason I hate the robes. I will never wear one. They are for sissies. (Ha!) It's a personal conviction that I hate to see trampled on a regular basis. I sure hope I am not so offended that I don't make heaven!!

[RandyWayne]

Jedi's wear robes.

[jaxfam6]

Jedi's wear robes.

HEY

Jedi's wear robes
Jesus wore robes
THUS
Jesus is a Jedi

WOW

I always knew my love for sci-fi was going to pay off one day


:ursofunny

[RandyWayne]

HEY

Jedi's wear robes
Jesus wore robes
THUS
Jesus is a Jedi

WOW

I always knew my love for sci-fi was going to pay off one day


:ursofunny

And since wood floats on water, the same as a duck......

And since a witch weighs as much as a duck, it means she is made of wood!

And since wood burns.....


BURN THE WITCH!!!!

[Praxeas]

The choir was pretty good!

[jaxfam6]

And since wood floats on water, the same as a duck......

And since a witch weighs as much as a duck, it means she is made of wood!

And since wood burns.....


BURN THE WITCH!!!!

I agree. :fireplace

(since that was the only fire I could find) :ursofunny

[On The Wheel]

HEY

Jedi's wear robes
Jesus wore robes
THUS
Jesus is a Jedi

WOW

I always knew my love for sci-fi was going to pay off one day


:ursofunny

May the force be with you always, even to the end of the earth.

[On The Wheel]

A word on Jedi's. Almost every robe wearing Jedi was exterminated and the dark side took over. Even Obi-Wan-Kenobi, who wore a sissy robe, was killed. Luke, proudly wearing manly pants, prevailed.

Is there a message here?

[RandyWayne]

Yes, men must wear black jump suits with cool blasters and light sabers hanging from their belts!

[On The Wheel]

:teaseYes, men must wear black jump suits with cool blasters and light sabers hanging from their belts!

Cool! I think I just found my new preaching uniform. I can't wait to unveil it this Sunday.

[On The Wheel]

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?

Still waiting on a serious responder. This is a real question that seeks a reasoned answer. Perhaps there is another thread to discuss this. I will happily go there if directed.

[Praxeas]

fairies wear boots

[Apocrypha]

A word on Jedi's. Almost every robe wearing Jedi was exterminated and the dark side took over. Even Obi-Wan-Kenobi, who wore a sissy robe, was killed. Luke, proudly wearing manly pants, prevailed.

Is there a message here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09n0qd_n4c0

Jedi ownage...

[Timmy]

This is one reason I hate the robes. I will never wear one. They are for sissies. (Ha!) It's a personal conviction that I hate to see trampled on a regular basis. I sure hope I am not so offended that I don't make heaven!!

:hmmm Is that possible? :hmmm


BTW, welcome to AFF, and just so ya know: don't believe a word I say. That's common knowledge around here. :toofunny

[Timmy]

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?

Perhaps I can be of assistance. (Ignore what I just said about what I say! :lol) The WWPF has that one figured out. From their articles of faith (http://www.worldwidepf.com/go/default/index.cfm/about-us/articles-of-faith/):

Pants, for example, scripturally and historically are equivalent to “girding up the loins like a man” (Job 38:3), something women did not do (Deuteronomy 22:5).

See? Pants. It's Bible.

[jaxfam6]

Perhaps I can be of assistance. (Ignore what I just said about what I say! :lol) The WWPF has that one figured out. From their articles of faith (http://www.worldwidepf.com/go/default/index.cfm/about-us/articles-of-faith/):

Quote:
Pants, for example, scripturally and historically are equivalent to “girding up the loins like a man” (Job 38:3), something women did not do (Deuteronomy 22:5).

See? Pants. It's Bible.

Job 38:3 (King James Version)

3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
That scripture has nothing to say about WOMEN not doing it. It would be the same as saying to a person "take it like a man" today. In other words stoping being a baby and act like a man.

Deuteronomy 22:5 (King James Version)

5The 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.
This has nothing to do with pants. Women act and dress like women, men act and dress like men. Believe me I am not going to look good in pants designed for a woman's body.

SO if the above quote insides Timmy's is correct and "gird you loins" is only for men then what do we do with these scripture?
Exodus 12
3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
11And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.
sounds like EVERYONE was to gird their loins, men, women, and children.

Isaiah 32
11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.
Now this one specifically states women.

[Timmy]

Your problem, Jax, is you are not properly ignoring certain scriptures! :toofunny

[jaxfam6]

Your problem, Jax, is you are not properly ignoring certain scriptures! :toofunny

OHHHHHHH that is what it is. Thanks for bringing that to my attention


:ursofunny

[GrowingPains]

[QUOTE=On The Wheel;766785]I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?QUOTE]

Great points. Most would say a mixture of historically and culturally. Biblical definition would be for more black and white issues that would transcend time and culture. For instance, homosexuality, no matter how much accepted in modern culture, will never be permissible according to Scripture.

The problem then, is that the church's position on issues goes according to the whims of the world. So if in 100 years, mankind walks around stark naked. Would it then be modest to worship in string bikinis, because after all, that's modest. Far-fetched? But I think you have to take logic the full distance to see how it plays out.

In the final analysis, I think culture is our biggest indicator. Traditions aren't bad though... and it's sometimes traditions that helps us preserve culture.

[Timmy]

OHHHHHHH that is what it is. Thanks for bringing that to my attention


:ursofunny

You know me, always glad to help! :lol

[jaxfam6]

:thumbsupYou know me, always glad to help! :lol

[GrowingPains]

Job 38:3 (King James Version)

3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
That scripture has nothing to say about WOMEN not doing it. It would be the same as saying to a person "take it like a man" today. In other words stoping being a baby and act like a man.

Deuteronomy 22:5 (King James Version)

5The 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.
This has nothing to do with pants. Women act and dress like women, men act and dress like men. Believe me I am not going to look good in pants designed for a woman's body.

SO if the above quote insides Timmy's is correct and "gird you loins" is only for men then what do we do with these scripture?
Exodus 12
3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
11And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.
sounds like EVERYONE was to gird their loins, men, women, and children.

Isaiah 32
11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.
Now this one specifically states women.

Just to provide a challenge:

It's well understood "girding up the loins" was a euphemism of going to battle. The robes would be tucked, from the bottom, into the waist belt. So this is a masculine thing, and the Scripture about "girding up the loins" is a masculine statement. The reference in Isaiah is about God's judgement, and his shame upon Israel. Not the best depiction for a quintessential truth. Much of OT was written in a man's time, with man words, feelings, etc... Most certainly, women weren't the ones who carried staffs in their hand.

So, regardless of the global argument here, refuting these scriptures as applying to men and women isn't really accurate. God evidently cares about distinction. However, I don't think it's accurate to "read into" the Text that girding up the loins means pants, and that these are garments God has made sacred for only a man.

[jaxfam6]

Just to provide a challenge:

It's well understood "girding up the loins" was a euphemism of going to battle. Do not agree with this. I think it was more about working, which going to battle would be work but I don't think it was the only thing it was used for.

The robes would be tucked, from the bottom, into the waist belt. So this is a masculine thing, and the Scripture about "girding up the loins" is a masculine statement. The reference in Isaiah is about God's judgement, and his shame upon Israel. I know this would be brought up. Still can not say it is only a man thing. The women were the ones being talked to. So it is only okay for a woman to gird her loins if she is being judged by God?
Not the best depiction for a quintessential truth. Much of OT was written in a man's time, with man words, feelings, etc... Most certainly, women weren't the ones who carried staffs in their hand. Not all men carried a staff and I am not sure a women who was traversing the desert would NOT have one in hers.

So, regardless of the global argument here, refuting these scriptures as applying to men and women isn't really accurate. God evidently cares about distinction. However, I don't think it's accurate to "read into" the Text that girding up the loins means pants, and that these are garments God has made sacred for only a man. Here I would have to say I agree.

:thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

Any thoughts on it only mentions men wearing breeches?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Any thoughts on it only mentions men wearing breeches?
Isaiah 32
11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.

[Sam]

Speaking of breeches or britches as I've also heard them called.

After Adam and Eve's sin, Genesis 3:7 in the Geneva Bible reads: "Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches."

Then in verse 21 says: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

There is a marginal note for verse 7 which says, "Hebrew, things to gird about them to hide their privities."

Then there is a marginal note (I assume this is an alternate reading) for verse 21 which says, "Or, gave them knowledge to make themselves coats."

some thoughts:
--does this mean britches are wrong for both men and women but coats are OK?

--when it says, "unto Adam also and to his wife" does that mean some of their children were present and needed clothing?

[*AQuietPlace*]

some thoughts:
--does this mean britches are wrong for both men and women but coats are OK?



I was thinking that earlier. If we're going to look to the Bible for specific directives on clothing, it seems that we can find a basis to teach against men wearing pants, too, not just women.

The Biblical clothing standard was robes. Even when men tucked their robes up, it was only temporary.

[Truthseeker]

Isaiah 32
11 Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.

Are you saying girding loins is the same as breeches?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Are you saying girding loins is the same as breeches?
What were you calling breeches?

[Truthseeker]

What were you calling breeches?

I have read where some present breeches were what ONLY men wore that were pants like.

[On The Wheel]

[QUOTE=On The Wheel;766785]I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?QUOTE]

Great points. Most would say a mixture of historically and culturally. Biblical definition would be for more black and white issues that would transcend time and culture. For instance, homosexuality, no matter how much accepted in modern culture, will never be permissible according to Scripture.

The problem then, is that the church's position on issues goes according to the whims of the world. So if in 100 years, mankind walks around stark naked. Would it then be modest to worship in string bikinis, because after all, that's modest. Far-fetched? But I think you have to take logic the full distance to see how it plays out.

In the final analysis, I think culture is our biggest indicator. Traditions aren't bad though... and it's sometimes traditions that helps us preserve culture.

Well said. We what is right cannot be defined by culture alone. If that were true, what was holy would be defined by whomever had the biggest advertising budget on Madison Avenue. That's scary!

So historical tradition and bible principles must be thrown into the mix. After all, most agree that there should be distictions between how men and women act and present themselves.

I don't think most people take issue with pastors taking a position that pants and skirts make a great visual separation between men and women. The problem arises when those people refuse to recognize any other interpretation of men's and women's clothing, and cry "abomination" at anyone who thinks differently.

To be sure, the church should take an active role in shaping culture. That is part of the mandate Christ gave us to be salt and light. But we should shape it by example and with love, not by self-righteous condemnation of everyone who takes an alternative point of view.

How did we ever take such a weakly supported theological position and make it a holiness, church dividing, heaven or hell issue?

God forgive us. God forgive me.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I have read where some present breeches were what ONLY men wore that were pants like.
Biblically, I don't know. I think they all wore robes. I've not done an intensive study of it. The priests were commanded at certain times to wear garments that were similar to pants.

[GrowingPains]

:thumbsup

Originally Posted by GrowingPains
Just to provide a challenge:

It's well understood "girding up the loins" was a euphemism of going to battle. Do not agree with this. I think it was more about working, which going to battle would be work but I don't think it was the only thing it was used for.

The robes would be tucked, from the bottom, into the waist belt. So this is a masculine thing, and the Scripture about "girding up the loins" is a masculine statement. The reference in Isaiah is about God's judgement, and his shame upon Israel. I know this would be brought up. Still can not say it is only a man thing. The women were the ones being talked to. So it is only okay for a woman to gird her loins if she is being judged by God?
Not the best depiction for a quintessential truth. Much of OT was written in a man's time, with man words, feelings, etc... Most certainly, women weren't the ones who carried staffs in their hand. Not all men carried a staff and I am not sure a women who was traversing the desert would NOT have one in hers.

So, regardless of the global argument here, refuting these scriptures as applying to men and women isn't really accurate. God evidently cares about distinction. However, I don't think it's accurate to "read into" the Text that girding up the loins means pants, and that these are garments God has made sacred for only a man. Here I would have to say I agree.


Jax, Whether there "could have been" a woman with a staff, or they "could have" gone to work should not be how we interpret Scripture. It should be in light of the dominant culture, what the author's intent/purpose and understood by what it meant then. There's plenty of scholarly research that points to "girding the loins" having to do with battle. I can see it being used for work, of course, but what is the primary symbol? I think it's battle. Work or battle, both were likely exclusive for men. Enjoying the convo.

[HopePreacher]

Does all of this mean that the Scots understand this issue better than most?

[Praxeas]

Any thoughts on it only mentions men wearing breeches?
Breeches were made for priests so when they walked up the stairs they would not be exposed.

They were not pants. They were underwear

[jaxfam6]

Jax, Whether there "could have been" a woman with a staff, or they "could have" gone to work should not be how we interpret Scripture. It should be in light of the dominant culture, what the author's intent/purpose and understood by what it meant then. There's plenty of scholarly research that points to "girding the loins" having to do with battle. I can see it being used for work, of course, but what is the primary symbol? I think it's battle. Work or battle, both were likely exclusive for men. Enjoying the convo.

so you believe women did not work back then? What about Proverbs 31
10Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

31Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

We have her working and making money and buying land AND GIRDING HER LOINS.

Now you have been shown three scriptures one where the WHOLE congregation was told to gird their loins and two where WOMEN were mentioned as girding their loins.
what is that scriptures about 2 or 3 witnesses every word being established?

[Sam]

Breeches were made for priests so when they walked up the stairs they would not be exposed.

They were not pants. They were underwear

And when they walked up stairs and exposed their britches,
the choir would sing:

"I see London, I see France,
I see Aaron's underpants."

But that is better than what they would have seen if the priests didn't wear those britches.

[On The Wheel]

:hmmm Is that possible? :hmmm


BTW, welcome to AFF, and just so ya know: don't believe a word I say. That's common knowledge around here. :toofunny

Thanks for the welcome. I will be sure to establish what you say in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

[Timmy]

Thanks for the welcome. I will be sure to establish what you say in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

:thumbsup

[On The Wheel]

I have often wondered how men's and women's apparel is defined.

Do we define it historically? Whatever was appropriate in the past would be correct for today. If this is so, why did it ever become correct for men to cease the wearing of robes. Futhermore, tights, the precursor to panty hoes were first worn by men.

Do we define it culturally? If that is the case, cultural norms have and do change.

Do we define it Biblically? I find it curious that God never deliniates men's and women's apparell. And the New Testament is curiously silent on the whole issue. Why would God overlook such a vital guidline?

Even when God clothed Adam and Eve, he did not explain the differences in the cut or construction of the garments. If fact he made them both tunics, or robes. No difference was noted by the author of Genesis. Why?

Just some thoughts. How do you define what is men's and women's apparel, and how do you know that is the correct method to be used?

1600 views and still no members of the "pant police" have ventured an explanation. How quickly dogma dies in the face of logic.

No one is allowed to question the leader's premise. It reminds me of "Animal Farm" where the pigs sold the ignorant animals the mantra "Two legs bad, four legs good."

[Timmy]

1600 views and still no members of the "pant police" have ventured an explanation. How quickly dogma dies in the face of logic.

No one is allowed to question the leader's premise. It reminds me of "Animal Farm" where the pigs sold the ignorant animals the mantra "Two legs bad, four legs good."

Ah, but see, that's that thing. It doesn't die! When logic is irrefutable, it's always "God is not bound by man's logic" or some such.

[RandyWayne]

Ah, but see, that's that thing. It doesn't die! When logic is irrefutable, it's always "God is not bound by man's logic" or some such.

I always thought that this was when the "Obey them..." clause took effect.

[Timmy]

I always thought that this was when the "Obey them..." clause took effect.

There are many tools in the box!

[GrowingPains]

I don't think there's many "pants police" left on this forum. Or are there?

[rgcraig]

I don't think there's many "pants police" left on this forum. Or are there?

There are a lot of people here that do not believe in women wearing pants, however, they aren't police.

[On The Wheel]

I don't think there's many "pants police" left on this forum. Or are there?

Apparently not! I guess they got tired of defending indefensible positions and abandoned the field. That can be exhausting. Disheartening. Frustrating.

[rgcraig]

Apparently not! I guess they got tired of defending indefensible positions and abandoned the field. That can be exhausting. Disheartening. Frustrating.

You'd be surprised - - there are lot here!

[On The Wheel]

I always thought that this was when the "Obey them..." clause took effect.

"Obedience is better than sacrifice." This is the quote most oft used after the, "Obey them that have the rule over you" clause. I believe both these quotes, however, obedience to the world trumps all other allegiances.

His word is, of course, even exalted above His Name. Jesus Christ was subject to his own word. He was guided and constrained by it.

So who do we think we are to think what we say has equal or greater authority than God's word?

[On The Wheel]

You'd be surprised - - there are lot here!

I wish some would post and explain. I bare them no ill will. In fact, I have been one all my life. In fact my wife and daughters wear nothing but non-bifurcated garments. However, recent study has caused me to understand the tenuous foundations that undergird this issue and some other "core" holiness doctrines of the UPCI.

Intense, objective study reveals that some of these "standard" issues are not core doctrines of the Bible at all. Rather, they are surprisingly almost nonexistant or even absent in scripture altogether. At best, some of these positions are so unclear as to be open to multiple legitimate interpretations by honest Christian people.

This is not to be allowed by certain hierarchy. This is what has troubled me, and I am sure many others here.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I wish some would post and explain. I bare them no ill will. In fact, I have been one all my life. In fact my wife and daughters wear nothing but non-bifurcated garments. However, recent study has caused me to understand the tenuous foundations that undergird this issue and some other "core" holiness doctrines of the UPCI.

Intense, objective study reveals that some of these "standard" issues are not core doctrines of the Bible at all. Rather, they are surprisingly almost nonexistant or even absent in scripture altogether. At best, some of these positions are so unclear as to be open to multiple legitimate interpretations by honest Christian people.

This is not to be allowed by certain hierarchy. This is what has troubled me, and I am sure many others here.
Yes.

[rgcraig]

I wish some would post and explain. I bare them no ill will. In fact, I have been one all my life. In fact my wife and daughters wear nothing but non-bifurcated garments. However, recent study has caused me to understand the tenuous foundations that undergird this issue and some other "core" holiness doctrines of the UPCI.

Intense, objective study reveals that some of these "standard" issues are not core doctrines of the Bible at all. Rather, they are surprisingly almost nonexistant or even absent in scripture altogether. At best, some of these positions are so unclear as to be open to multiple legitimate interpretations by honest Christian people.

This is not to be allowed by certain hierarchy. This is what has troubled me, and I am sure many others here.
Correct assessment.

[GrowingPains]

Let's find out... another poll? LOL

[berkeley]

Still obsessed! :)

[Steve Epley]

If women want to wear pants and be an abomination to God that is their choice.

[Brad Murphy]

If women want to wear pants and be an abomination to God that is their choice.

Yes, and if men wish to claim that Westberg was a good man, that is their choice...

[berkeley]

If women want to wear pants and be an abomination to God that is their choice.
Classic Epley! LoL


Prayin for you.

[On The Wheel]

If women want to wear pants and be an abomination to God that is their choice.

Amazing! Nowhere does the bible say pants on a woman is an abomination to God. The question what is men's and women's apparel is NOT DEFINED. My original question was is still unanswered. Dogma is all that matters.

I am tired of dogma replacing scripture. I am weary with narrowing the already narrow way. I am fed up with the those who refuse do present bible arguments for positions they are willing to condemn others to Hell over.

Things are wrong because the leaders said they are wrong, and that's just the way it is. Things are right because the leaders say they are right. The bible is subordinate to our forefathers.

It's positively Orwelian!

Where is Truth?

[RandyWayne]

Amazing! Nowhere does the bible say pants on a woman is an abomination to God. The question what is men's and women's apparel is NOT DEFINED. My original question was is still unanswered. Dogma is all that matters.

I am tired of dogma replacing scripture. I am weary with narrowing the already narrow way. I am fed up with the those who refuse do present bible arguments for positions they are willing to condemn others to Hell over.

Things are wrong because the leaders said they are wrong, and that's just the way it is. Things are right because the leaders say they are right. The bible is subordinate to our forefathers.

It's positively Orwelian!

Where is Truth?

It doesn't say it. Only in traditional apostolic/UPC teachings, do we get the pants=abomination argument and we KNOW what trumps what most of the time, aka, tradition versus the Word.

[Praxeas]

Apparently not! I guess they got tired of defending indefensible positions and abandoned the field. That can be exhausting. Disheartening. Frustrating.
or they just got tired of the same non-stop attacks on their beliefs? After a while it can get old and they either avoid those topics or leave,

[jaxfam6]

"Obedience is better than sacrifice." This is the quote most oft used after the, "Obey them that have the rule over you" clause. I believe both these quotes, however, obedience to the world trumps all other allegiances.

His word is, of course, even exalted above His Name. Jesus Christ was subject to his own word. He was guided and constrained by it.

So who do we think we are to think what we say has equal or greater authority than God's word?

I take it that was a mistake???

[Praxeas]

I take it that was a mistake???
OTW is a worldlicostal!

[GrowingPains]

Elder Epley, you genuinely and sincerely believe that when a woman wears pants she is "worse than an infidel" and an "abomination?" Really? I mean, beyond you don't see it as proper, or becoming... beyond you don't see it as modest -- you honestly believe Deut was referring to pants??? I respect you a lot, I'm just somewhat astonished that you would truly believe pants are abominable.

[OnTheFritz]

There are many tools in the box!

There are indeed plenty of tools out there :D

[Steve Epley]

Elder Epley, you genuinely and sincerely believe that when a woman wears pants she is "worse than an infidel" and an "abomination?" Really? I mean, beyond you don't see it as proper, or becoming... beyond you don't see it as modest -- you honestly believe Deut was referring to pants??? I respect you a lot, I'm just somewhat astonished that you would truly believe pants are abominable.

Only among ex-Pentecostals and liberal Pentecostals are pants not seen in man's domain. Is it a conspiracy that all the rest rooms are identified by sexes by a skirt and pants? I guess the cons run all the businesses and public rest rooms. It is that simple. YES pants are an abomination. Better be fire proof.:thumbsup

[Truthseeker]

Elder Epley

I notice you haven't addressed the points presented.

[On The Wheel]

I take it that was a mistake???

Yes. Thanks for catching that.

[On The Wheel]

Only among ex-Pentecostals and liberal Pentecostals are pants not seen in man's domain. Is it a conspiracy that all the rest rooms are identified by sexes by a skirt and pants? I guess the cons run all the businesses and public rest rooms. It is that simple. YES pants are an abomination. Better be fire proof.:thumbsup

I appreciate the response, but there are still some open questions on the table concerning who defines apparel.

The orginal Ten Commandments were written on tablets of stone. Pretty permanent. But they don't define what is men's and women's apparel.

The New Covenant is written upon the fleshy tables of our heart. Pretty personal. But it doesn't even address the issues of distiction between men's and women's apparel.

When I get to heaven I will be more than happy to have my life judged by the information containted within those two sacred places.

I don't think I will worry overly much about being judged by the information written on the doors of public restrooms. Personally, I think if God wanted to dispense truths of salvific import, he could find a better place to reveal them than those said doors. But, I am open to pursuasion otherwise.

By the way, only certain brands of pentecostals and the groups like the Amish keep alive the myth that pants are for men only. I drop my teen age daughter off at school each morning (she always wears a skirt). I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen another girl wearing a skirt this year, and we live in a very conservative area. I have been awakened to the realization that the culture has changed and bifurcated garments can be worn by both genders.

Why not? After all, both men and women wore robes in the OT and no one saw any problems with that.

[On The Wheel]

Elder Epley

I notice you haven't addressed the points presented.

Yes, but we are thankful for the response. I wonder where some of the others are? It is possible that they have, like Elvis, left the building.

[jaxfam6]

Only among ex-Pentecostals and liberal Pentecostals are pants not seen in man's domain. Is it a conspiracy that all the rest rooms are identified by sexes by a skirt and pants? I guess the cons run all the businesses and public rest rooms. It is that simple. YES pants are an abomination. Better be fire proof.:thumbsup

You know I noticed that. I even saw a restroom sign uncovered in pompeii and even they had men in pants and women in skirts.

:ursofunny

[On The Wheel]

or they just got tired of the same non-stop attacks on their beliefs? After a while it can get old and they either avoid those topics or leave,

It is sad when the search for truth is spun as an attack on beliefs. Believe me, I have no ax to grind and have no desire to destroy anyone's beliefs. Anyone visiting our church or my family would find us as conservative in outward appearance as most right leaning UPCI churches.

However, we will all answer to God for our adherance to scripture, not dogma. The world is going to hell fast. It needs a church that preaches pure truth that sets men free, not man-made traditionalism. Sin and evil, as scripture defines them, must be challenged.

I suppose I grow weary with fighting battles, expending resources, and seeing casualties pile up on battlefields that may not be of primary importance.

[On The Wheel]

You know I noticed that. I even saw a restroom sign uncovered in pompeii and even they had men in pants and women in skirts.

:ursofunny

In certain ancient and not some not so ancient cultures the signs on the restroom doors would be pornographic, because nakedness was the general attire of the day. What would define men's and women's apparel in those cultures? As a pastor, I might just be happy to get some clothes on them!

I wonder if we could appeal to bathroom signs of biblical authority to answer our modesty questions also.

[TJJJ]

Okay!

So we have the pants crowd and the no pants crowd!

Let me ask the pants on women crowd a question. Do you then feel it is okay for a man to wear a skirt or dress? Is that an okay thing?

So far your logic is only slanted towards pants being on a woman, you do not address the other side, a dress being on a man!

What are your thoughts on a man showing up to church with his dress on, pantyhose on, maybe his high heels on....

Would you or your pastor let him sing in your choir and lead worship?

Just asking, just asking!

[Steve Epley]

Elder Epley

I notice you haven't addressed the points presented.

I debated this subject VOLUMES with Newman and others until I am tired of debating it. EVERYONE seems to understand pants identify men with the exception of backslid Pentecostal people.:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Okay!

So we have the pants crowd and the no pants crowd!

Let me ask the pants on women crowd a question. Do you then feel it is okay for a man to wear a skirt or dress? Is that an okay thing?

So far your logic is only slanted towards pants being on a woman, you do not address the other side, a dress being on a man!

What are your thoughts on a man showing up to church with his dress on, pantyhose on, maybe his high heels on....

Would you or your pastor let him sing in your choir and lead worship?

Just asking, just asking!

Are you kidding?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Why not? After all, both men and women wore robes in the OT and no one saw any problems with that.

This point seems to be ignored. God NEVER in the Bible required men and women to wear drastically different garments. They BOTH WORE DRESSES. Male and female. Only the decorations were different, which holds true in our society today, also. That's why we have the men's department, and the ladies' department in stores. The clothes are different, even though the shapes may be similar (as were robes).



Okay!

So we have the pants crowd and the no pants crowd!

Let me ask the pants on women crowd a question. Do you then feel it is okay for a man to wear a skirt or dress? Is that an okay thing?



I think you know the answer to this, TJ. :) In our culture, of course it's not okay. But in the Bible days, yes, it would have been perfectly okay for a man to come to church wearing a dress. :)

As much as people want to say that culture can't dictate our dress, well in many ways it does. It has to. If a man wanted to start wearing a robe today, he could. He'd certainly be more biblically correct. But I don't see our men rushing out to buy one. They don't want to look odd. They know it's not culturally acceptable. Culture has always shaped what people wear, and what is acceptable and unacceptable.

That's where the 'no pants on women doctrine' started. Culturally, men switched from robes to pants. (I've read that it was considered scandalous at first, and then everyone got used to it) It stayed that way for a while. Then, women began to wear pants. At first, that was frowned upon, and was considered scandalous. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, a Christian woman would have done well to not wear pants. It would have been a very bad witness. But over time, as with men, it became acceptable in society. Now, at this point in time, no trace of scandal remains. So a Christian woman is not being a bad witness if she wears them.

Since the Bible does not forbid pants on men or women, it's clearly a cultural issue. Culture once forbade it, now it doesn't. But what at one time was just done because of good witness, somehow got turned into a "law" in Pentecostal churches. So now it's a heaven or hell issue.

I still say that if we're going truly by the Bible, everyone should be wearing robes with different kinds of fringes on them. That's the only clear direction the Bible gives us. Is it possible that it's wrong for men to wear pants? ;)

[jaxfam6]

Okay!

So we have the pants crowd and the no pants crowd!

Let me ask the pants on women crowd a question. Do you then feel it is okay for a man to wear a skirt or dress? Is that an okay thing?

So far your logic is only slanted towards pants being on a woman, you do not address the other side, a dress being on a man!

What are your thoughts on a man showing up to church with his dress on, pantyhose on, maybe his high heels on....

Would you or your pastor let him sing in your choir and lead worship?

Just asking, just asking!

I have seen men in what some would call a skirt (actually kilt) and no problem for me. They did not look like women and they were made for men not women. Guess a few years ago that would have bothered me but not any longer.

It isn't just a question of pants only for men and skirts/dresses only for women. It would go back to ancient times when men and women all wore robes. There were differences, maybe they were more noticable or less noticable than we know or think but they were there. The biggest thing is, are you dressing to look like and act like a man or are you dressing to look like and act like a woman? If you are a woman and you are dressing to look like and act like a man then you are wrong and vice versa. jmho

[jaxfam6]

This point seems to be ignored. God NEVER in the Bible required men and women to wear drastically different garments. They BOTH WORE DRESSES. Male and female. Only the decorations were different, which holds true in our society today, also. That's why we have the men's department, and the ladies' department in stores. The clothes are different, even though the shapes may be similar (as were robes).





I think you know the answer to this, TJ. :) In our culture, of course it's not okay. But in the Bible days, yes, it would have been perfectly okay for a man to come to church wearing a dress. :)

As much as people want to say that culture can't dictate our dress, well in many ways it does. It has to. If a man wanted to start wearing a robe today, he could. He'd certainly be more biblically correct. But I don't see our men rushing out to buy one. They don't want to look odd. They know it's not culturally acceptable. Culture has always shaped what people wear, and what is acceptable and unacceptable.

That's where the 'no pants on women doctrine' started. Culturally, men switched from robes to pants. (I've read that it was considered scandalous at first, and then everyone got used to it) It stayed that way for a while. Then, women began to wear pants. At first, that was frowned upon, and was considered scandalous. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, a Christian woman would have done well to not wear pants. It would have been a very bad witness. But over time, as with men, it became acceptable in society. Now, at this point in time, no trace of scandal remains. So a Christian woman is not being a bad witness if she wears them.

Since the Bible does not forbid pants on men or women, it's clearly a cultural issue. Culture once forbade it, now it doesn't. But what at one time was just done because of good witness, somehow got turned into a "law" in Pentecostal churches. So now it's a heaven or hell issue.

I still say that if we're going truly by the Bible, everyone should be wearing robes with different kinds of fringes on them. That's the only clear direction the Bible gives us. Is it possible that it's wrong for men to wear pants? ;)

When you read about the pants on men and how it started and the way they would dress themselves up to accentuate certain parts of the anatomy then MEN should never wear pants again because it was vulgar.

[On The Wheel]

I debated this subject VOLUMES with Newman and others until I am tired of debating it. EVERYONE seems to understand pants identify men with the exception of backslid Pentecostal people.:thumbsup

This is another mantra we have heard since youth, but simply not true. What is true is that culturally, only women have the privilage of wearing skirts or dresses (Robes). So, even though Jesus wore a robe we are not allowed to do the same. It is as A Quiet Place said. Our definition of what constitutes men's or women's clothing is largely culture driven.

I don't see how it could be denied.

[TJJJ]

Are you kidding?

I am not kidding Elder, I know your answer, I was waiting for some of the others to answer.

They like the idea of a woman crossdressing like a man yet they get in a tissy when a man crossdresses like a woman.

Every time they get a woman in pants then she begins to walk like a man, act like a man and talk like a man.

She loses her gentleness and femininity and begins to get more course.

Same with a man in a dress. When a man begins to dress like a woman then he acts effeminate.

All the crossdressers can yell all day long but that is the truth.

The idea of the clothing in the old testament was the distinction of the genders. It is STILL, in our culture, that a dress belongs on a woman and pants refer to a man! Holler, scream, cry and whatever, that is the way it is.

In south and central America, they realize that a woman should wear a dress.

In Africa, much of Asia, in many if not all muslim countries it is the accepted way for a woman to dress.

It is only in the modernized countries that women have began to step out of that role of femininity and began to wear pants.

Okay, crossdressers, fire back.

:thumbsup

[TJJJ]

This point seems to be ignored. God NEVER in the Bible required men and women to wear drastically different garments. They BOTH WORE DRESSES. Male and female. Only the decorations were different, which holds true in our society today, also. That's why we have the men's department, and the ladies' department in stores. The clothes are different, even though the shapes may be similar (as were robes).





I think you know the answer to this, TJ. :) In our culture, of course it's not okay. But in the Bible days, yes, it would have been perfectly okay for a man to come to church wearing a dress. :)

As much as people want to say that culture can't dictate our dress, well in many ways it does. It has to. If a man wanted to start wearing a robe today, he could. He'd certainly be more biblically correct. But I don't see our men rushing out to buy one. They don't want to look odd. They know it's not culturally acceptable. Culture has always shaped what people wear, and what is acceptable and unacceptable.

That's where the 'no pants on women doctrine' started. Culturally, men switched from robes to pants. (I've read that it was considered scandalous at first, and then everyone got used to it) It stayed that way for a while. Then, women began to wear pants. At first, that was frowned upon, and was considered scandalous. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, a Christian woman would have done well to not wear pants. It would have been a very bad witness. But over time, as with men, it became acceptable in society. Now, at this point in time, no trace of scandal remains. So a Christian woman is not being a bad witness if she wears them.

Since the Bible does not forbid pants on men or women, it's clearly a cultural issue. Culture once forbade it, now it doesn't. But what at one time was just done because of good witness, somehow got turned into a "law" in Pentecostal churches. So now it's a heaven or hell issue.

I still say that if we're going truly by the Bible, everyone should be wearing robes with different kinds of fringes on them. That's the only clear direction the Bible gives us. Is it possible that it's wrong for men to wear pants? ;)

Sis, appreciate your answer but I feel you are wrong.

It is still our culture that when a woman dresses up, the majority of the time, she puts on a dress. A woman in a Tux is looked upon funny.

Sorry, keep trying.

[TJJJ]

I have seen men in what some would call a skirt (actually kilt) and no problem for me. They did not look like women and they were made for men not women. Guess a few years ago that would have bothered me but not any longer.

It isn't just a question of pants only for men and skirts/dresses only for women. It would go back to ancient times when men and women all wore robes. There were differences, maybe they were more noticable or less noticable than we know or think but they were there. The biggest thing is, are you dressing to look like and act like a man or are you dressing to look like and act like a woman? If you are a woman and you are dressing to look like and act like a man then you are wrong and vice versa. jmho

You are funny!

Of course it looks weird for a man to wear a kilt, we are not in Scotland! Even today people make jokes about "wonder what is under the kilt".

Why? Because it is not accepted!

I do agree that it is about the difference of the sexes and in our culture, still, a woman is associated with a dress and men with pants!

That's why people will make comments like, "We know who wears the pants in that family". It is in reference to who the man is.

Try again!

[TJJJ]

When you read about the pants on men and how it started and the way they would dress themselves up to accentuate certain parts of the anatomy then MEN should never wear pants again because it was vulgar.

So are you wearing robes or a dress?

[TJJJ]

This is another mantra we have heard since youth, but simply not true. What is true is that culturally, only women have the privilage of wearing skirts or dresses (Robes). So, even though Jesus wore a robe we are not allowed to do the same. It is as A Quiet Place said. Our definition of what constitutes men's or women's clothing is largely culture driven.

I don't see how it could be denied.

Sorry, doesn't hold water!

I repeat, it is still our culture for a man to wear pants and a woman to identify with a dress!

If you are going to stick with this argument then a woman should not be wearing pants, she should just jump straight back into wearing robes! It seems to me, from your point of view, that it would be more correct!

Keep trying!

[TJJJ]

Okay....

The ultracons have jumped in.


Where are the ones on the side of the crossdressers!

[TJJJ]

Sigh,

I guess I will have to check back later.

Thought for sure this would stir the pot!


TJJJ

[*AQuietPlace*]

Every time they get a woman in pants then she begins to walk like a man, act like a man and talk like a man.

She loses her gentleness and femininity and begins to get more course.



TJ, that is downright insulting, and I don't wear pants. :)

It's also not true. (I think we need to be careful when using hyperbole to still keep our statements truthful.)

All we are doing is arguing culture here, we're certainly not arguing Bible.

The only scripture anyone can ever come up with is 'that which pertaineth to a man', and at the time that verse was written, both sexes wore dresses.

We are arguing culture, and culture changes.

So you'll have to try again. :D




(there, did that work for you? :) )

[TJJJ]

TJ, that is downright insulting, and I don't wear pants. :)

It's also not true. (I think we need to be careful when using hyperbole to still keep our statements truthful.)

All we are doing is arguing culture here, we're certainly not arguing Bible.

The only scripture anyone can ever come up with is 'that which pertaineth to a man', and at the time that verse was written, both sexes wore dresses.

We are arguing culture, and culture changes.

So you'll have to try again. :D




Sis, I know that you don't wear pants, and I am not trying to be overly insulting. I am being a little aggressive as I see the other side being aggresive in their attitudes.

In our culture, they view a man dressing in a dress as a crossdresser. I just see it as the same when a woman wears pants, thats all!:thumbsup

We are arguing culture and, although our culture has softened it's stance somewhat in this arena, the dress is still associated with a woman.

Try again!



PS Besides, if I did not defend the ultracon position then they would say we have all left, can't have that now can we?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Sis, I know that you don't wear pants, and I am not trying to be overly insulting. I am being a little aggressive as I see the other side being aggresive in their attitudes.

In our culture, they view a man dressing in a dress as a crossdresser. I just see it as the same when a woman wears pants, thats all!:thumbsup

We are arguing culture and, although our culture has softened it's stance somewhat in this arena, the dress is still associated with a woman.

Try again!



PS Besides, if I did not defend the ultracon position then they would say we have all left, can't have that now can we?
The thing is, when you see a woman in pants you don't think she's a cross-dresser. :) Not really. You don't give it a second glance, like you would if you saw a man in a dress. If you do a double-take every time you see a woman in pants, I'll bet you have a sore neck. :ursofunny

Of course, in our culture, dresses are associated with women. But now pants are, too. If doesn't have to be one or the other. In Scotland, men wear pants, they also wear kilts. At our state fair I saw a Scottish band wearing kilts, and I didn't think a thing about it. I didn't think they looked feminine, they looked appropriate. It was a Scottish band, they wear kilts. It's a cultural thing.

All we are debating is culture. And our culture now accepts both men and women in pants. Who knows, in 400 years, we may all be wearing robes again?

[Sister Alvear]

:gotcha Well, if men REALLY want to look like JESUS then they should dress as HE dressed!

[Sister Alvear]

Generally, Biblical clothing consisted of -

For Men -


•The Inner Tunic - a long piece of plain cotton or linen cloth as an undergarment for the upper body, but sometimes reaching all the way down to the ankles. It was usually not worn when the weather was very warm.

•The Tunic-coat, or Ketonet - a shirt-like garment worn over the inner tunic in cool weather, or next to the body without the inner tunic when warm. It usually had long sleeves (today comes short or long sleeves) and extended down to the ankles. Today you see the children of God wearing what may look like a long dress, but in reality is a long white T-shirt some would call a nightgown today. It is the closest thing to what men wore in Jesus days. Wear only cotton next to your body and in Ecclesiastes 9:8 it tells us to only wear white garments.

•The Belt, or Girdle - made of leather, from 2 to 6 inches wide, sometimes with a shoulder strap when heavier articles were being carried from it.
•The Cloke, or Mantle - a robe worn over all of the other items of clothing as an outer garment for warmth and appearance.
•The Headdress - worn chiefly as a protection against the sun. The Hebrew version could, depending upon circumstances, be a cap, a turban, or a head scarf.
•Shoes or Sandals - shoes were made from soft leather, sandals from harder leather.
For Women -


•The Inner Tunic - a long garment reaching all the way down to the ankles. It was usually of a finer quality cotton, linen or silk.
•The Outer Tunic - a full-length garment, again of finer quality than the men's version, and almost always enhanced with fine needlework and/or multicolor threads.
•The Belt, or Girdle - made of colorful silk or wool, sometimes with a fringe from the waist nearly to the ankles.
•The Cloke - warm and durable for protection against cool weather, and usually more intricate.
•The Headdress - a lighter and finer quality than the men's version, and always more colorful. Women also usually had elaborate plaiting or other arrangement of their hair, which tended to be long.
•Shoes or Sandals - shoes were made from soft leather, sandals from harder leather.
•From the "children of God"

[OnTheFritz]

Sigh,

I guess I will have to check back later.

Thought for sure this would stir the pot!


TJJJ


It's just that this has been rehashed so many times, and I for one couldn't care less. It's a dumb thing to get hung up on regardless of which side you're on.

So, instead of "keep trying", I suggest, "who cares?" :thumbsup

[Timmy]

It's just that this has been rehashed so many times, and I for one couldn't care less. It's a dumb thing to get hung up on regardless of which side you're on.

So, instead of "keep trying", I suggest, "who cares?" :thumbsup

It's not dumb if the UCs are right! Wouldn't that be funny? A tongue-talking, Jesus-name-baptized, monotheistic, long-haired lady shows up for the final judgment, and it's "Depart from me, you wearer of pants! I never knew you!"

:toofunny

[Sister Alvear]

"Thou shall make thee fringes upon the four corners of they vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself." Deuteronomy 22:12. Fringes on men's clothing!

That is funnier than my husband´s purple shirt!
Fringes seem quite "effiminate" ....so....

[Timmy]

In certain ancient and not some not so ancient cultures the signs on the restroom doors would be pornographic, because nakedness was the general attire of the day. What would define men's and women's apparel in those cultures? As a pastor, I might just be happy to get some clothes on them!

I wonder if we could appeal to bathroom signs of biblical authority to answer our modesty questions also.

Well, that would put an end to the gender distinction problem! :ursofunny

[Sister Alvear]

I can´t wait until we get a real Bible orgainization ...

[Timmy]

I can´t wait until we get a real Bible orgainization ...

I'll get right on it! :thumbsup

[OnTheFritz]

It's not dumb if the UCs are right! Wouldn't that be funny? A tongue-talking, Jesus-name-baptized, monotheistic, long-haired lady shows up for the final judgment, and it's "Depart from me, you wearer of pants! I never knew you!"

:toofunny

Talk about a "DOH!" moment.... You are so right, Timmy.

DEPART FROM ME YOU WEARER OF PANTS!!!

[On The Wheel]

Sis, I know that you don't wear pants, and I am not trying to be overly insulting. I am being a little aggressive as I see the other side being aggresive in their attitudes.

In our culture, they view a man dressing in a dress as a crossdresser. I just see it as the same when a woman wears pants, thats all!:thumbsup

We are arguing culture and, although our culture has softened it's stance somewhat in this arena, the dress is still associated with a woman.

Try again!



PS Besides, if I did not defend the ultracon position then they would say we have all left, can't have that now can we?


Women wearing bifurcated garments are masculine, and men not wearing bifurcated garments are feminine. Be quiet. I think I can hear some of David's mighty men laughing thier robes off!!!


Sorry, try again!!

[jaxfam6]

So are you wearing robes or a dress?

neither at the moment if you must know. =D

[jaxfam6]

I never thought I would hear myself say this but, WOW, what near minded thinking. I know that straight is the way and narrow the gate stuff. So we have to dress according to our culture? What do we do with those that come from other places? Or do we have to dress like others when we go into their culture? I think it is narrow mindedness to think that because a guy who may wear a kilt is a sissy and going to split hell wide open just as I think that a woman wearing pants is going to do the same. So when we go to India are the ladies supposed to dress in the outfits they wear there? a lot of them wear a pants with a long tunic type top over it. Very lady like and beautiful in most cases. Do men have to wear robes when we go to the middle east? What about when they come here? Are the required to now dress like out culture? Why do we have to try and dictate to others what they must wear. If it is modest and they are not trying to look and act like the opposite sex why does it matter to anyone?

[Sister Alvear]

JAX...the point is to most there is no culture right except their culture...whatever that may be...

[jaxfam6]

JAX...the point is to most there is no culture right except their culture...whatever that may be...

You have a point there

[Sister Alvear]

I was so sadden to hear a young missionary bragging about teaching his preachers to wear white shirts...lol...How out of focus can we get...

A lost world dying without even KNOWING the name of Jesus and a missionary teaching people to wear white shirts...I am glad peer pressure has never been my problem...lol...

[Sister Alvear]

If the devil cannot get us one way he tries another just to keep our focus wrong...

I think it is fine to teach the people to dress nice...however the devil has been around a long time and he studies each one of us...He is a smart devil!

[jaxfam6]

I was so sadden to hear a young missionary bragging about teaching his preachers to wear white shirts...lol...How out of focus can we get...

A lost world dying without even KNOWING the name of Jesus and a missionary teaching people to wear white shirts...I am glad peer pressure has never been my problem...lol...

I am glad it never was either.

It is sad. What does God care if they wear white or multi-colored shirts. Whydoes God care if the men wear a kilt or pants. Why does God care if a women wears pants or skirt? As long as you are modest and not trying to be something He did not make you to be.

[Sister Alvear]

If peer pressure bothered me I would have left the Bible on the pulpit and walked away a long time ago...

[OnTheFritz]

If peer pressure bothered me I would have left the Bible on the pulpit and walked away a long time ago...

Well, we're glad you didn't, Sis Alvear. Always appreciate your posts, by the way.

[On The Wheel]

neither at the moment if you must know. =D

That was too much information!:lol:

[On The Wheel]

I never thought I would hear myself say this but, WOW, what near minded thinking. I know that straight is the way and narrow the gate stuff. So we have to dress according to our culture? What do we do with those that come from other places? Or do we have to dress like others when we go into their culture? I think it is narrow mindedness to think that because a guy who may wear a kilt is a sissy and going to split hell wide open just as I think that a woman wearing pants is going to do the same. So when we go to India are the ladies supposed to dress in the outfits they wear there? a lot of them wear a pants with a long tunic type top over it. Very lady like and beautiful in most cases. Do men have to wear robes when we go to the middle east? What about when they come here? Are the required to now dress like out culture? Why do we have to try and dictate to others what they must wear. If it is modest and they are not trying to look and act like the opposite sex why does it matter to anyone?

Clothing styles for liberals and conservatives alike have all changed when cultural norms shifted. Anyone who would assert otherwise is unlearned.

For example, 100 years ago it would have been only a promiscuous and a women of excessively loose morals who would display her ankles in public. 60 years ago, fishnet nylons were only worn by women of ill repute. Today, conservative churches of renown are in gross violation of both historical cultural norms. Women who appeared attired so in those Christian assemblies would be targets to "pray through" to say the least.

However, as cultures change, so changes what constitutes modesty and style. As long as the style and garment worn does is not in direct violation of scripture we should be careful in our condemnation of it.

As an aside, I also very much enjoy the spirit and the content of Sister Alvear's posts. :thumbsup

[jaxfam6]

That was too much information!:lol:

I never said I wasn't wearing anything. get yo mind out the gutter

:foottap







:ursofunny

[On The Wheel]

Right after you!:hanky

[Steve Epley]

I defend the right for those who want to wear that which is an abomination to God. This is July 4th and you have the American right to displease God and do those things which He hates.:thumbsup

[CC1]

Clothing styles for liberals and conservatives alike have all changed when cultural norms shifted. Anyone who would assert otherwise is unlearned.

For example, 100 years ago it would have been only a promiscuous and a women of excessively loose morals who would display her ankles in public. 60 years ago, fishnet nylons were only worn by women of ill repute. Today, conservative churches of renown are in gross violation of both historical cultural norms. Women who appeared attired so in those Christian assemblies would be targets to "pray through" to say the least.

However, as cultures change, so changes what constitutes modesty and style. As long as the style and garment worn does is not in direct violation of scripture we should be careful in our condemnation of it.

As an aside, I also very much enjoy the spirit and the content of Sister Alvear's posts. :thumbsup

You are exactly right. In Victorian England a woman baring her ankles was seen as a temptress, a woman of ill repute. Today ankles are visible in 99% of Apostolic / Pentecostal churches regardless of how conservative they proclaim to be.

History proves wrong those who say that what is considered "moral"(once you go beyond God's absolutes) is not a moving target dependent upon the age, geographic area, etc.

[Sister Alvear]

I hope my heart, my spirit and my life is pleasing to God on July 4th!

[jaxfam6]

I hope my heart, my spirit and my life is pleasing to God on July 4th!

Amen



Hope you 4th of July goes well. Do you do anything special?

[Praxeas]

Still no reply by the hit and run artist

[Dora]

There will always be someone who dresses "holier" we do. The Amish, The Menonites, Fundamentalist Islamic women wear the Burka, Fundamentalist polygamist Mormon women wear fashions from the 1800's. Who has cornered the market on holiness. Are we in a contest to see who is holier? Are we using "standards" as a barometer of spiritual commitment to God? What about the condition of the heart? Do we assume all is well with the soul when the "look" is in place?

[pelathais]

There will always be someone who dresses "holier" we do. The Amish, The Mennonites, Fundamentalist Islamic women wear the Burka, Fundamentalist polygamist Mormon women wear fashions from the 1800's. Who has cornered the market on holiness. Are we in a contest to see who is holier? Are we using "standards" as a barometer of spiritual commitment to God? What about the condition of the heart? Do we assume all is well with the soul when the "look" is in place?
Yup. Because if the "look" really is in place in detail to satisfy all the demands, there's no soul left; just a nice shiny sepulcher. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[berkeley]

If they ant to dress like that, fine. If it's a platform requirement, fine. If it's a church membership requirement, fine. I have no problem with those things.
It's problematic when that is the main focus. The heart goes unchecked. People live without victory. Have to make it to the next Sunday night hoopla to try and get victory.
I don't believe that the UCons are too far off the mark as far as lifestyle is concerned. In my humblest of opinions, the problem is that so many preachers didn't study the word to support their claims. Too many times we hear "Elder so n so said this..." "..we've always done it this way..." "Pastor says this..." and with NO scriptural foundation. This is when the fear tactics are used. Obey me or you're in rebellion, and rebellion is witchcraft sans the bulls on the altar.
Many "arguments" need to be revamped. Jezebel painted her eye lids and looked ou a window is not a very good argument against the wearing of makeup. While I personally do not believe that the wearing of makeup will send a woman to the hot place, the reasons for wearing it can. And that is usually the symptom of a far greater issue.
You don't put a bandage on a deep wound. Cough-drops do not cure the cold, they mask a symptom.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Most women wear makeup for the same reason they curl their hair, buy pretty shoes, wear perfume, buy pretty clothes. They're females, they like pretty things.

Very rarely any deeper than that.

[Praxeas]

Most women wear makeup for the same reason they curl their hair, buy pretty shoes, wear perfume, buy pretty clothes. They're females, they like pretty things.

Very rarely any deeper than that.
I like pretty females :thumbsup

[RandyWayne]

I like pretty females :thumbsup

Of course if you want to be happy for the rest of your life never make a pretty......