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

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by 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!

Are you kidding?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by On The Wheel

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).

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

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]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

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]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

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]

Originally Posted by On The Wheel

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!