More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Why would this be borderline?

Primarily how tight it is. It's not a hard and fast "rule". It's just most women in our fellowship group wouldn't wear anything that tight. But beyond that, most of her bases are covered.

[Aquila]

I talked about this subject with a couple elders in our house church last night. In our fellowship we approach Deuteronomy 22:5 as being more about the perversion associated with crossdressing. So, we admittedly don't see this verse as forbidding women's pants on women. It would forbid women from wearing attire specifically designed for men and men from wearing attire specifically designed for women. Clothing that is gender neutral such as regular T-shirts are acceptable on both genders.

However, our elders do believe in biblical modesty. Here, with regards to women, they agree that an appropriately fitting dress or skirt is generally more modest than many popular styles of pants or jeans. However, generally speaking, women's jeans or pants are not strictly forbidden or condemned. We encourage a culturally relevant pursuit of modesty. The practice of Christian modesty is seen as an act of personal devotion and sanctification.

Attached you'll find images describing our understanding of modesty and three examples of what we understand as modest and acceptable attire with regards to women in our fellowship.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I talked about this subject with a couple elders in our house church last night. In our fellowship we approach Deuteronomy 22:5 as being more about the perversion associated with crossdressing. So, we admittedly don't see this verse as forbidding women's pants on women. It would forbid women from wearing attire specifically designed for men and men from wearing attire specifically designed for women. Clothing that is gender neutral such as regular T-shirts are acceptable on both genders.

However, our elders do believe in biblical modesty. Here, with regards to women, they agree that an appropriately fitting dress or skirt is generally more modest than many popular styles of pants or jeans. However, generally speaking, women's jeans or pants are not strictly forbidden or condemned. We encourage a culturally relevant pursuit of modesty. The practice of Christian modesty is seen as an act of personal devotion and sanctification.

Attached you'll find images describing our understanding of modesty and three examples of what we understand as modest and acceptable attire with regards to women in our fellowship.

How many times have conservatives been castigated as being “legalists”? A rhetorical question because it is certain the answer is: Ad-infinitum. Conservatives have been castigated as providing a list of do’s and don’ts even though they use the Bible for determining what is pleasing to God. In spite of this, they have been charged as legalists, as demonstrated multiple times on this thread.

Ironically, now we have an individual that lists things that women must do. Such as,
1) Most stores carry modest clothing. Take the time to search for them.
2) If it is skin tight it defeats the purpose.
3) Keep minimum skirt length just below the knee.
4) If a top has a low neck line, wear a second top with a higher neck line under it.
5) Get more than one opinion about an outfit.
6) When wearing pants… Always wear a long and loose fitting top that goes past the hips.

So, women must take the time to search for “adequate” clothing.
They must keep skirt length below the knees.
They must wear two tops if someone thinks the neckline is too low.
They must get other opinions.
They must wear a long and loose fitting top to cover the pants when they wear them

This is fascinating. This list of things women must do makes this post legalistic. One could argue this list even makes the poster hypocritical because the same poster has charged conservatives as being legalistic. The words of Jesus haunt this post:
(Mat 7:1 KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
(Mat 7:2 KJV) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Mat 7:3 KJV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Mat 7:4 KJV) 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?
(Mat 7:5 KJV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who accuse others of legalism are themselves legalists. However, their form of “legalism” is justified by them.

Now, let’s briefly examine the list of things women are told to do.
One would imagine that they are to search for “modest” clothing. But what standard is given for modesty? Well, skirts are to be just below the knee and necklines should not be too low. Although, the knee is given as a form of measurement (legalism) necklines are left subjective. The “escape” clause is to get other opinions, ostensibly from other women.

It is fascinating that the Bible is never referred to in the legalistic list provided. The argument that modesty is the standard is subjective to time, place and culture. What may be modest today was not modest fifty years ago or later. What may be modest in Spain does not necessarily mean it is modest in America. What is modest in San Francisco is not necessarily modest in Georgia. Thus “modesty” is absolutely subjective unless one has a higher standard – like the Bible. Thus, conservatives use the Bible.

As a conservative, I have used the Bible to establish my doctrine. As can be seen, the Bible is conspicuously absent from those who accuse others of legalism while they themselves are legalists.

It has been argued for dozens of pages and posts concerning pants. It has been demonstrated that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. I have asked ad-infinitum for just ONE passage of a godly woman wearing pants. The answer has been complete and utter silence. Thus, the argument from their silence by failure to produce a single shred of Biblical evidence to support the hypothesis. At best, all there has been is a convoluted attempt to ignore these facts.

You, the reader, must make a decision about how you want to define your life. Will you use the Bible as your guide or the subjective opinions of man? The choice is yours. I leave you with this thought:
(Mat 6:33 KJV) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

How many times have conservatives been castigated as being “legalists”?

Not every conservative is a legalist.

Legalism is loosely defined as follows (we Apostolics might want to expand a bit on what it means to repent and have faith, but this is generally a decent definition):

Legalism (or nomism), in Christian theology, is the act of putting the Law of Moses above gospel by establishing requirements for salvation beyond repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and reducing the broad, inclusive, and general precepts of the Bible to narrow and rigid moral codes.

For example, those who believe that Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to pants. According to their interpretation, if a woman wears pants, she's committing an abomination. An abomination is no joke. She might as well have gone out and committed sodomy! So, a woman can be saved in a service and go home and put on a pair of pants to go to the store and... BAM... she's lost. Or at best, in danger of losing her soul. She's committing abomination.

An abomination is a serious thing. It is something that can provoke the wrath of God in an instant. Thus, if one properly applies Deuteronomy 22:5 to pants... a woman really doesn't have time to pray, find her convictions, search it out, seek the Lord, etc. to conform to the a standard. It's a direct command concerning a detestable thing. Since it is an abomination (according to those who apply Deut to pants), it demands IMMEDIATE conformity. Or... we trivialize what an abomination truly is. The Law is not designed to bring life. It's like a fly swatter designed to immediately destroy the unrepentant offender. When one reads from the Law of Moses, it's like charging a shot gun. We should hear, "SHUCK-CHUCK!", because the gun is now charged and loaded.

It's serious business to say that something is an abomination to God... and that we are still under the Law concerning that abomination. To just throw it out there... and let people just "adjust" out of their abomination... trivializes how serious an abomination truly is.

What I see is an inconsistency. Churches will declare that pants on a woman is an abomination... but act like it is a matter of spiritual discipline she has time to grow into. That's inconsistent. An abomination demands repentance, immediate condemnation and immediate repentance.

So, we (in our fellowship) see the text of Deuteronomy 22:5 as actually speaking to a more serious perversion... not just an article of women's attire. And we embrace the Christian discipline of modesty, encouraging skirts and dresses, but allowing women to follow the Spirit as the Spirit guides them into all truth. Some will aspire to greater modesty than others. But immodesty should not be named among women professing to know the Lord. There is grace. There is patience. There is time for teaching, learning, and personal convictions to be discovered. There is time for modest saints to model and serve as examples to learn from. Modesty is a Christian discipline that is practiced devotionally as one seeks to please the Lord. So we see pants as a modesty issue. Not an abomination. And being a modesty issue, we ask that if any woman wears pants or leggings, that she wear a loose long top that covers the hips and perhaps her thighs.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It has been demonstrated that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. I have asked ad-infinitum for just ONE passage of a godly woman wearing pants. The answer has been complete and utter silence. Thus, the argument from their silence by failure to produce a single shred of Biblical evidence to support the hypothesis. At best, all there has been is a convoluted attempt to ignore these facts.

You are majoring on the minors. You strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel.

It is your opinion that Deut 22:5 is about pants. Somehow you have found a way to go back in time and you spoke with Moses, who confirmed to you that he was speaking of an article of clothing which wasn't known at that time. A simple look into ancient Jewish culture and fashion, you would see that the difference between the sexes was the color, length and style of the robes.

There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants. There is simply not one. Breeches, both in the Biblical passage and in historical writings, were for the priests and Levites who ministered in the Tabernacle.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

You are majoring on the minors. You strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel.

It is your opinion that Deut 22:5 is about pants. Somehow you have found a way to go back in time and you spoke with Moses, who confirmed to you that he was speaking of an article of clothing which wasn't known at that time. A simple look into ancient Jewish culture and fashion, you would see that the difference between the sexes was the color, length and style of the robes.

There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants. There is simply not one. Breeches, both in the Biblical passage and in historical writings, were for the priests and Levites who ministered in the Tabernacle.

Okay. For you, the Word of God is a minor issue. That is your problem not mine. I have never ate camel so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Deu. 22:5 is about what people wear. I guess you do not believe pants are worn. Again, your problem not mine. You also make the claim that I "spoke with Moses" about an article of clothing unknown at that time. Really? You are wrong on all points. Firstly, thank you for thinking I am smart enough to use a worm hole or whatever to find an anomaly in the time space continuum. Then, you argue that ancient Israeli culture did not wear pants. This completely ignores and tramples upon the the truth. It is the Bible that demonstrates that ancient Israeli's wore pants; hence, the three Israeli young men were, in fact, wearing pants. Pants may or may not have been the popular fashion. That is not the question. The question is what is "worn". Pants are in fact worn. Also, they were in fact worn by ancient godly Israeli men. There is not even a single shred of evidence that a godly woman ever wore them.

You said "There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants." This is a ridiculous statement. Holiness is not a popularity contest as implied by your statement. What matters is whether or not godly men or women wore them. The FACT remains that godly men wore them and godly women did not. This has been established previously.

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 both demonstrate that the three godly Israeli young men were wearing pants. Now, if you can demonstrate where a godly women wore pants PLEASE provide the information.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Okay. For you, the Word of God is a minor issue. That is your problem not mine. I have never ate camel so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Deu. 22:5 is about what people wear. I guess you do not believe pants are worn. Again, your problem not mine. You also make the claim that I "spoke with Moses" about an article of clothing unknown at that time. Really? You are wrong on all points. Firstly, thank you for thinking I am smart enough to use a worm hole or whatever to find an anomaly in the time space continuum. Then, you argue that ancient Israeli culture did not wear pants. This completely ignores and tramples upon the the truth. It is the Bible that demonstrates that ancient Israeli's wore pants; hence, the three Israeli young men were, in fact, wearing pants. Pants may or may not have been the popular fashion. That is not the question. The question is what is "worn". Pants are in fact worn. Also, they were in fact worn by ancient godly Israeli men. There is not even a single shred of evidence that a godly woman ever wore them.

You said "There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants." This is a ridiculous statement. Holiness is not a popularity contest as implied by your statement. What matters is whether or not godly men or women wore them. The FACT remains that godly men wore them and godly women did not. This has been established previously.

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 both demonstrate that the three godly Israeli young men were wearing pants. Now, if you can demonstrate where a godly women wore pants PLEASE provide the information.

Pliny, how does your church deal with a female new convert who doesn't confirm immediately to your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5?

How long do you consider get saved while wearing pants?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Okay. For you, the Word of God is a minor issue. That is your problem not mine. I have never ate camel so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Never said the Word of God is a minor issue. That's your statement, not mine.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Deu. 22:5 is about what people wear.

And yet it's not about pants. You have used your opinion and belief to twist the scripture to be about pants. I can guarantee you that Moses wasn't thinking about pants when he wrote Deuteronomy 22:5.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I guess you do not believe pants are worn.

At the time Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, no, men did not wear pants. Show me a passage which states that they wore pants at the time in which Moses wrote Deuteronomy 22:5.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You also make the claim that I "spoke with Moses" about an article of clothing unknown at that time. Really? You are wrong on all points. Firstly, thank you for thinking I am smart enough to use a worm hole or whatever to find an anomaly in the time space continuum. Then, you argue that ancient Israeli culture did not wear pants. This completely ignores and tramples upon the the truth.

Which truth? The actual history of dress worn by ancient Israel, or your "truth," which isn't found anywhere in ancient history or culture.

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is the Bible that demonstrates that ancient Israeli's wore pants; hence, the three Israeli young men were, in fact, wearing pants.

At the time Moses wrote Deuteronomy 22:5, the three were not even born. The only mention of bifurcated garments were the "breeches" which were for the priests and Levites, NOT every Israelite man. Both the Bible and Israeli history have written about this.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Pants may or may not have been the popular fashion.
That is not the question. The question is what is "worn". Pants are in fact worn.

Ah, the qualifying statement. By posting this qualifying statement, you're saying you don't know for fact, but since you found 3 Israeli guys who may have been wearing leggings or other sort of garment (Hebrew meaning isn't clear as to which), and since you read of the undergarments the priests and Levites wore ... you believe you're correct that "pants" were worn, buuuuuut, they "may or may not have been the popular fashion."

Just admit it, you don't have a clue. Your belief is all hypothesis and conjecture. You have nothing, no verse, no historical writing which says ancient Israeli men wore pants. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Also, they were in fact worn by ancient godly Israeli men. There is not even a single shred of evidence that a godly woman ever wore them.

Two verses, one is undergarment for priests, the other is a vague reference to either leggings or other garment three (3) Israeli men wore.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You said "There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants." This is a ridiculous statement. Holiness is not a popularity contest as implied by your statement.

It's not ridiculous. Prove I'm wrong. You've been posting on and on, yammering about no verse showing a Godly women wore pants, show me where all Israeli men wore pants. You can't.

Originally Posted by Pliny

What matters is whether or not godly men or women wore them. The FACT remains that godly men wore them and godly women did not. This has been established previously.

It has not been established. You have yet to prove your claim. Underwear for priests and a three guys wearing leggings or other garment doesn't prove your claim.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 both demonstrate that the three godly Israeli young men were wearing pants. Now, if you can demonstrate where a godly women wore pants PLEASE provide the information.

No, no, no.

petash: (a garment) perhaps leggings
Original Word: פַּטִּישֵׁי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: petash
Phonetic Spelling: (pat-teesh')
Short Definition: coats

noun [masculine] a garment, meaning dubious, tunic (Thes) or leggings

Word Origin
(Aramaic) of uncertain derivation
Definition
(a garment) perhaps leggings
NASB Translation
coats (1).

Read the verse: "Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace."

I know you like using Dictionary.com when the Hebrew meaning doesn't agree with you:

(used with a plural verb) an article of clothing for the foot and lower part of the leg; stocking or sock.

a.an article of clothing for the leg, extending from about the knee to the ankle and worn with knee breeches.
b.(used with a plural verb) knee breeches.
c.(used with a plural verb) tights, as were worn with, and usually attached to, a doublet.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

How many times have conservatives been castigated as being “legalists”? A rhetorical question because it is certain the answer is: Ad-infinitum. Conservatives have been castigated as providing a list of do’s and don’ts even though they use the Bible for determining what is pleasing to God. In spite of this, they have been charged as legalists, as demonstrated multiple times on this thread.

Ironically, now we have an individual that lists things that women must do. Such as,
1) Most stores carry modest clothing. Take the time to search for them.
2) If it is skin tight it defeats the purpose.
3) Keep minimum skirt length just below the knee.
4) If a top has a low neck line, wear a second top with a higher neck line under it.
5) Get more than one opinion about an outfit.
6) When wearing pants… Always wear a long and loose fitting top that goes past the hips.

So, women must take the time to search for “adequate” clothing.
They must keep skirt length below the knees.
They must wear two tops if someone thinks the neckline is too low.
They must get other opinions.
They must wear a long and loose fitting top to cover the pants when they wear them

This is fascinating. This list of things women must do makes this post legalistic. One could argue this list even makes the poster hypocritical because the same poster has charged conservatives as being legalistic. The words of Jesus haunt this post:
(Mat 7:1 KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
(Mat 7:2 KJV) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Mat 7:3 KJV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Mat 7:4 KJV) 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?
(Mat 7:5 KJV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who accuse others of legalism are themselves legalists. However, their form of “legalism” is justified by them.

Now, let’s briefly examine the list of things women are told to do.
One would imagine that they are to search for “modest” clothing. But what standard is given for modesty? Well, skirts are to be just below the knee and necklines should not be too low. Although, the knee is given as a form of measurement (legalism) necklines are left subjective. The “escape” clause is to get other opinions, ostensibly from other women.

It is fascinating that the Bible is never referred to in the legalistic list provided. The argument that modesty is the standard is subjective to time, place and culture. What may be modest today was not modest fifty years ago or later. What may be modest in Spain does not necessarily mean it is modest in America. What is modest in San Francisco is not necessarily modest in Georgia. Thus “modesty” is absolutely subjective unless one has a higher standard – like the Bible. Thus, conservatives use the Bible.

As a conservative, I have used the Bible to establish my doctrine. As can be seen, the Bible is conspicuously absent from those who accuse others of legalism while they themselves are legalists.

It has been argued for dozens of pages and posts concerning pants. It has been demonstrated that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. I have asked ad-infinitum for just ONE passage of a godly woman wearing pants. The answer has been complete and utter silence. Thus, the argument from their silence by failure to produce a single shred of Biblical evidence to support the hypothesis. At best, all there has been is a convoluted attempt to ignore these facts.

You, the reader, must make a decision about how you want to define your life. Will you use the Bible as your guide or the subjective opinions of man? The choice is yours. I leave you with this thought:
(Mat 6:33 KJV) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

There's a big difference. You have a law that, if broken, one is guilty of abomination.

We have principles of modesty. One can violate a principle of modesty and not be in "sin" or guilty of "abomination". Sometimes they are unlearned. Sometimes they work in a job that requires them to wear pants. Sometimes they have personal reasons why they prefer pants. Sometimes they have yet to see how dresses and skirts are more modest. Sometimes the Spirit is dealing with an entirely different area of their lives at the time. A principle isn't a law. It's a guiding concept. Modesty is an admonition, not a law.

Law vs. Grace.

Legalism vs. principles.

There's a world of difference.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There's a big difference. You have a law that, if broken, one is guilty of abomination.

We have principles of modesty. One can violate a principle of modesty and not be in "sin" or guilty of "abomination". Sometimes they are unlearned. Sometimes they work in a job that requires them to wear pants. Sometimes they have personal reasons why they prefer pants. Sometimes they have yet to see how dresses and skirts are more modest. Sometimes the Spirit is dealing with an entirely different area of their lives at the time. A principle isn't a law. It's a guiding concept. Modesty is an admonition, not a law.

Law vs. Grace.

Legalism vs. principles.

There's a world of difference.

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.