Shorts

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I UPC.... Don't really wear um much but if they are the longer type I don't mind people wearing them. As much as the wearing of shorts would be hard for me to adapt to, so is the idea of dressing down for everyday clothes. I never did the beach bum thing much - but that's just what I got used to.

Dont wear much?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Dont wear much?

Yep... shorts will take some gettin-used-to. Got to take small steps... see how long it takes the guy to graduate to pants.

[unitedpraise10]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Unitedpraise10,
Are you saying you have been a proud member of the UPCI for 22 yrs, OR are you saying you are 22 yrs old. It looks like you are saying you have been a proud member of the UPCI all of your 22 yrs old. Right!

Falla39

correctmando! Doesn't really make a difference does it...

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Never dreamed the day would come when Apostolic Pentecostals would be arguing
about whether they could wear shorts or not. A few years ago, the question was
whether you could wear Skorts or not. Will the day come when the question will be
"Can we go naked"! Adam and Eve were naked in the beginning. Why can't we go
naked. We are born naked. Where will it stop!

I know people right now that God is showing the truth to, and they are SO thankful.
Blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.

Falla39

Do you have the same reaction regarding sisters wearing skirts to their knee or just blow the knee?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by unitedpraise10

I don't get it, I just don't get it!! I've been raised in this thing called UPCI, and am a very proud member to this day (22 years old). Okay, so why can't I wear shorts, well let me rephrase....why is it looked down upon when I wear them. What's the justification (scripture, etc.). Women can now where their skirts clear up to their knees, with their legs showing (and no panty-hose). Why can't I wear shorts, when I'm out running and excercising, or when I'm just out in general. It doesn't make sense!

We've let out guard down on so much already, why not just go the extra step farther and ourlaw the shorts rule.

Ok, just to disclaimer....I'm not bitter, I'm not mad, and I wear shorts! k

It's just that there are many within the UPC who simply can't think. When you try and prod them into thinking, they bust a vein.

There is nothing wrong with a modest pair of men's shorts. When I was a kid (1960's and 1970's) the "shorts" were bum hugging and cut right at the hip joint. They were awful. In the 1980's the style began to change and "baggy jams" were introduced along with modest "cargo style shorts." I thought that it was a sign that we were winning the culture wars.

But, no. You ain't a proper UPCer unless you're mad and grousing about another man's comfortable and modest sports wear. Forget 'em, I say. Wear what is comfortable, modest and appropriate for the occasion.

I got tired of going to the beach in 100+ F weather in the tropics with a bunch of guys who insisted upon wearing full length blue jeans and long sleeved shirts. Sad. So very sad.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Never dreamed the day would come when Apostolic Pentecostals would be arguing
about whether they could wear shorts or not. A few years ago, the question was whether you could wear Skorts or not. Will the day come when the question will be "Can we go naked"! Adam and Eve were naked in the beginning. Why can't we go naked. We are born naked. Where will it stop!

I know people right now that God is showing the truth to, and they are SO thankful. Blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.

Falla39

All due respect, Sis; but that's ridiculous.

I know people right now who God is showing the truth to and they are SO hungry. They don't have time for silly unBiblical "standards" because as I said, they are SO hungry for truth.

How dare you insinuate that unitedpraise10 was lusting to be a nudist. How dare you impugn his honest question with such an underhanded attack upon his character.

What if those who read YOUR post took all of your comments about "nakedness" and just jumped to the conclusion that you were privately lusting after those things yourself? After all, YOU were the one who brought up "nudity."

Why would you bring up "nudity" in a conversation about men's apparel unless your own heart was filled with those kinds of thoughts? Do you see what this manner of conversation will lead you into?

unitedpraise10 asked a simple and honest question. Personally, I think that you owe him an apology.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by unitedpraise10

I don't get it, I just don't get it!! I've been raised in this thing called UPCI, and am a very proud member to this day (22 years old). Okay, so why can't I wear shorts, well let me rephrase....why is it looked down upon when I wear them. What's the justification (scripture, etc.). Women can now where their skirts clear up to their knees, with their legs showing (and no panty-hose). Why can't I wear shorts, when I'm out running and excercising, or when I'm just out in general. It doesn't make sense!

We've let out guard down on so much already, why not just go the extra step farther and ourlaw the shorts rule.

Ok, just to disclaimer....I'm not bitter, I'm not mad, and I wear shorts! k

Really? We have comprimised on so much so why not go a step further? That's your argument? You see...here is the problem with comprimise...there will always be someone saying "let's go just one more step". When comprimise begins...it doesn't end on one or two notes. It will destroy everything that has any appearance at all of the former.
First off...anything that is worn needs to be below the knee. The scripture speaks of the shame of the thigh, that should let us know that it is shameful for any part of the thigh to be shown. The thigh of course is the part of the leg that is above the knee (for those who don't know anatomy). Let's stop trying to redefine modesty. If we continue in the direction we are headed, there will be a day when as long as the genitals are covered one will be considered dressed modestly. Just sayin..

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

Really? We have comprimised on so much so why not go a step further? That's your argument? You see...here is the problem with comprimise...there will always be someone saying "let's go just one more step". When comprimise begins...it doesn't end on one or two notes. It will destroy everything that has any appearance at all of the former.
First off...anything that is worn needs to be below the knee. The scripture speaks of the shame of the thigh, that should let us know that it is shameful for any part of the thigh to be shown. The thigh of course is the part of the leg that is above the knee (for those who don't know anatomy). Let's stop trying to redefine modesty. If we continue in the direction we are headed, there will be a day when as long as the genitals are covered one will be considered dressed modestly. Just sayin..

"Just sayin..." Have you ever considered simply going back to a Biblical model for holiness and modesty? That would erase your "slippery slope" problem altogether.

Also, the word translated as "thigh" in your King James Bible in the contexts that you describe is actually the Hebrew word for "genitalia." For example, when Eleazar of Damascus put his hand under his master's "thigh" to swear an oath concerning his master's seed - he was placing his hand right where that seed comes from.

The KJV translators were a bit too squeamish to come right out and use the literal words that the ancient Hebrews used. Interestingly, the words "shame" and "thigh" do not appear in the same verse anywhere in the KJV. Neither do the words "shameful" nor "shamefulness" nor any other words with the root of "shame" in the English language with the sole exception of Jeremiah 31:19.

Perhaps you were thinking of something else?

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by pelathais

All due respect, Sis; but that's ridiculous.

I know people right now who God is showing the truth to and they are SO hungry. They don't have time for silly unBiblical "standards" because as I said, they are SO hungry for truth.

How dare you insinuate that unitedpraise10 was lusting to be a nudist. How dare you impugn his honest question with such an underhanded attack upon his character.
What if those who read YOUR post took all of your comments about "nakedness" and just jumped to the conclusion that you were privately lusting after those things yourself? After all, YOU were the one who brought up "nudity."
Why would you bring up "nudity" in a conversation about men's apparel unless your own heart was filled with those kinds of thoughts? Do you see what this manner of conversation will lead you into?

unitedpraise10 asked a simple and honest question. Personally, I think that you owe him an apology.

Pelathais,
You jumped to many conclusions with your last two posts. Makes me
wonder if I didn't hit a nerve!
You re-read my post real good and tell me I need to apologize to UP.
You men can dish it out, but have a probably when it comes back to you.
Your conclusions are so far off base, it isn't funny. I have no reason
whatsoever to apologize. Checked your blood pressure lately!

Falla39

[unitedpraise10]

Yikes..... ok, wearing shorts has nothing to do with modesty. It's just legs people. We all have them.