More on Skirts

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This has been a lively discussion. Here's what I'm walking away with.

- I have a better understanding as to why some folk think that Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily about pants. I disagree, but I do understand the position better.

- I've come to realize that to some an abomination isn't as serious as the Bible makes it sound.

- I've come to realize that there is a difference in what repentance means.

- I've also come to understand that regardless of one's views on Deuteronomy 22:5, they will still apply the text as a modesty issue, not as an abomination issue.

- I've also come to understand that disfellowshipping as a form of church discipline is actually disdained by conservatives, even though it is a prescribed form of church discipline in the Scriptures.

All the bluster is really for nothing. Those who preach that pants are an abomination will still approach the issue as though it is only a modesty issue that one must grow and spiritually mature into. They do not demand nor require "repentance" from what they believe is an abomination. According to them, one simply matures out of their abominations.

This is a broad brush. actually, some do believe pants will send you to hell, some will disfellowship you for sin, I seen it done.

I spend the first years of my walk with God in hell fire church where pants and even a beard was a heaven/hell issue.

Funny timing, this morning I saw a facebook post that included a pic of my first pastor's wife in a pair of pants.

This morning I worked out at home in a pair of yoga pants, but I will change into a dress to head for work.

And BTW, I'm not surrendering my Glock, fyi.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

This is a broad brush. actually, some do believe pants will send you to hell, some will disfellowship you for sin, I seen it done.

I spend the first years of my walk with God in hell fire church where pants and even a beard was a heaven/hell issue.

Funny timing, this morning I saw a facebook post that included a pic of my first pastor's wife in a pair of pants.

This morning I worked out at home in a pair of yoga pants, but I will change into a dress to head for work.

And BTW, I'm not surrendering my Glock, fyi.

I know what it's like. The church I spent my first years in was a hellfire and brimstone church where nearly anything and everything would send you to Hell. When it came to pants, pants on women were an "abomination" and to die without having repented of wearing them was certain damnation. Beards, jewelry, hair, television, etc. were all heaven/hell issues. He ran a tight ship. And he truly believed what he preached.

I've come to a different understanding. I believe that pants are a modesty issue. Most pants are immodest unless one wears a top long enough to cover their hips and bottom. In our fellowship we encourage dresses and skirts, but we do not condemn women who are not ready for that level of modesty. Perhaps if we viewed pants on a woman as being an abomination, we'd be more strict on it. But we don't. So, we don't disfellowship or shun women over pants, hair, makeup, jewelry, or the like. We believe that as one matures in Christ they will grow in modesty and holiness.

We have a process in which if a person is engaged in continued sin the elders talk with the person and try to determine if it is due to a lack of understanding, a different interpretation, a circumstantial issue, or willful rebellion. If it is determined that a person is actually in willful rebellion we move to disfellowship. We're a house church, so when we disfellowship we inform the person that while we love them and desire to worship with them, they are no longer welcome in our gatherings until they can demonstrate that they have repented of the sin.

Many people call us "liberal" but in truth, we're actually moderates.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know what it's like. The church I spent my first years in was a hellfire and brimstone church where nearly anything and everything would send you to Hell. When it came to pants, pants on women were an "abomination" and to die without having repented of wearing them was certain damnation. Beards, jewelry, hair, television, etc. were all heaven/hell issues. He ran a tight ship. And he truly believed what he preached.

I've come to a different understanding. I believe that pants are a modesty issue. Most pants are immodest unless one wears a top long enough to cover their hips and bottom. In our fellowship we encourage dresses and skirts, but we do not condemn women who are not ready for that level of modesty. Perhaps if we viewed pants on a woman as being an abomination, we'd be more strict on it. But we don't. So, we don't disfellowship or shun women over pants, hair, makeup, jewelry, or the like. We believe that as one matures in Christ they will grow in modesty and holiness.

We have a process in which if a person is engaged in continued sin the elders talk with the person and try to determine if it is due to a lack of understanding, a different interpretation, a circumstantial issue, or willful rebellion. If it is determined that a person is actually in willful rebellion we move to disfellowship. We're a house church, so when we disfellowship we inform the person that while we love them and desire to worship with them, they are no longer welcome in our gatherings until they can demonstrate that they have repented of the sin.

Many people call us "liberal" but in truth, we're actually moderates.

Aquila
I question even this reasoning. From my studies I believe that what others are calling pants were in fact underclothes, that when Deut. 22:5 was written both men and women wore robes without anything under them in the way of breeches. That God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest for the purpose he directed in
Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

In Exodus 20 God is instruction his people on offering a sacrifice on an alter, and commands that they are not to go up steps when offering a sacrifice, that their nakedness be not discovered. The point being that everyone wore robes without underwear if you please.

The question I ask is if God had the priest wear underwear to cover their nakedness at certain times, why is it wrong for a women. Follow that with men have taken off their robes and now walk around in long underwear, albeit we now call them pants. But if it is ok for a man to wear underwear as common attire why do we not give a women the same latitude?

We say it is immodest, if it is immodest than so is a man walking around in a pair of pants instead of a robe!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Aquila
I question even this reasoning. From my studies I believe that what others are calling pants were in fact underclothes, that when Deut. 22:5 was written both men and women wore robes without anything under them in the way of breeches. That God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest for the purpose he directed in
Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

In Exodus 20 God is instruction his people on offering a sacrifice on an alter, and commands that they are not to go up steps when offering a sacrifice, that their nakedness be not discovered. The point being that everyone wore robes without underwear if you please.

The question I ask is if God had the priest wear underwear to cover their nakedness at certain times, why is it wrong for a women. Follow that with men have taken off their robes and now walk around in long underwear, albeit we now call them pants. But if it is ok for a man to wear underwear as common attire why do we not give a women the same latitude?

We say it is immodest, if it is immodest than so is a man walking around in a pair of pants instead of a robe!

I believe that some male attire is also immodest.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that some male attire is also immodest.

Skinny jeans. Why? Just why, guys?

Doesn't it hurt?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Skinny jeans. Why? Just why, guys?

Doesn't it hurt?

See through shirts, muscle shirts, tight form-fitting pants. Those sorts of things.

Another aspect of modesty is also extravagance and cost.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

See through shirts, muscle shirts, tight form-fitting pants. Those sorts of things.

Another aspect of modesty is also extravagance and cost.

Does this mean I can't wear my white, tank top t-shirt (there's a slang for it, but I don't like it so I'm not using it) while out working in the yard?