Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Esther

tradition

I have no problem with anyone using as a line that they have drawn, but teach it as such.

However, many honestly believe that is what that scripture means, and I can respect that.

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

Again, my point that I was trying to make it is the MAN trying to look like a woman? Is the WOMAN trying to look like a man?

It is not about women wearing pants, which was not even an issue 2,000 years ago, as even men didn't wear pants. Both genders wore robes with color distinction.

But that scripture IMO is about MEN/WOMEN not dressing to look like the opposite sex.

We keep saying that scripture is to women, it is too both sexes.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by philjones

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

Originally Posted by Esther

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

Esther,

They are indeed relative. I was also referring to the interpretation of a scripture, just not Deut. 22:5 or whereever it is?

I was speaking of the one that talks about modest apparel. I Tim 2:9. If he is comfortable interpreting one differently and is accepted then it would follow that he would have to be accepted with his interpretation of the other.

I will assure you that there are many OPs on this site that feel it is fine for ladies to run around on the beach in their bra and panties and still be saved. Of course these same folks would be embarrassed if I accidentally walked in on them getting dressed in their REAL bra and panties. Go figure.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by philjones

Esther,

They are indeed relative. I was also referring to the interpretation of a scripture, just not Deut. 22:5 or whereever it is?

I was speaking of the one that talks about modest apparel. I Tim 2:9. If he is comfortable interpreting one differently and is accepted then it would follow that he would have to be accepted with his interpretation of the other.

I will assure you that there are many OPs on this site that feel it is fine for ladies to run around on the beach in their bra and panties and still be saved. Of course these same folks would be embarrassed if I accidentally walked in on them getting dressed in their REAL bra and panties. Go figure.

BUT IF we want to talk true modesty, no one would be wearing pants.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Esther

BUT IF we want to talk true modesty, no one would be wearing pants.

what would they be wearing? if anything?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by philjones

Esther,

They are indeed relative. I was also referring to the interpretation of a scripture, just not Deut. 22:5 or whereever it is?

I was speaking of the one that talks about modest apparel. I Tim 2:9. If he is comfortable interpreting one differently and is accepted then it would follow that he would have to be accepted with his interpretation of the other.

I will assure you that there are many OPs on this site that feel it is fine for ladies to run around on the beach in their bra and panties and still be saved. Of course these same folks would be embarrassed if I accidentally walked in on them getting dressed in their REAL bra and panties. Go figure.

For the record, I don't believe ladies should be parading around on the beach in immodest attire. However, there is much more appropriate swim wear than what you, my friend have described.

And I will further declare that we males need more teaching and maturity on the proper respect and understanding in relating to our females sisters. Paul said, "I keep MY body under..." Instead of burning with lust, men let's get understanding. Appreciate the beauty without allowing lingering and fantasy, which never satisfies only inflames.

Originally Posted by crakjak

For the record, I don't believe ladies should be parading around on the beach in immodest attire. However, there is much more appropriate swim wear than what you, my friend have described.

And I will further declare that we males need more teaching and maturity on the proper respect and understanding in relating to our females sisters. Paul said, "I keep MY body under..." Instead of burning with lust, men let's get understanding. Appreciate the beauty without allowing lingering and fantasy, which never satisfies only inflames.

CJ,

It was not my intent to say that the two piece was the only bathing suit. It WAS my intent to say that most Baptists that I know don't preach against the two piece suit... bra and panties. The original scenario presented was the cultural position of the Baptist who had received the revelation of the truth of Acts 2:38 a la Apostolics and interpreted Duet by his cultural understanding. Would he be accepted with that cultural interpretation. I was applying the same logic. paralleling it, to I Tim 2:9 in the declaration of modest apparel. Would he/should he be accepted using the same logic?

I hold to the opinions expressed in Every Man's Battle, but my guarding my eyes does not release the women in the church to run around dressed immodestly. Your position almost makes it sound like women dressing loosely is OK except for us corrupt old men. Gimme A Beak!

[Newman]

Originally Posted by philjones

CJ,

It was not my intent to say that the two piece was the only bathing suit. It WAS my intent to say that most Baptists that I know don't preach against the two piece suit... bra and panties. The original scenario presented was the cultural position of the Baptist who had received the revelation of the truth of Acts 2:38 a la Apostolics and interpreted Duet by his cultural understanding. Would he be accepted with that cultural interpretation. I was applying the same logic. paralleling it, to I Tim 2:9 in the declaration of modest apparel. Would he/should he be accepted using the same logic?

I hold to the opinions expressed in Every Man's Battle, but my guarding my eyes does not release the women in the church to run around dressed immodestly. Your position almost makes it sound like women dressing loosely is OK except for us corrupt old men. Gimme A Beak!

pj-

1. Women who wear 2 piece bathing suits aren't the majority. But 99.9% of women wear pants. So the argument seems flawed to start with and then extreme (which muddies the water).

2. I am tired of women in the church being accused or warned against dressing loosely for the sake of their brother. Loosely compared to whom?

I am focusing on this point because of a Ninety and Nine article in which the women of the church are again admonished to not be a temptation to their brother [who was involved in porn].

The brother asked why he must struggle at church just like outside its doors. Good grief. The women at church are not dressed like magazine covers nor would the majority of the world consider them to be seductive.

Furthermore; if the Church is out there doing God's business there should be quite a few women visitors there who aren't dressed like the church!

CJ is right. The men need to grow up and quit picking on the church women. Then you all wonder why so many end up fat?