Standards of dress

[prophet]

Gluten-free SS teachers cost more.

 

[Bruh]

Gluten-free SS teachers cost more.

Exactly my point! LOL!!

 

[prophet]

Gluten-free SS teachers cost more.

Exactly my point! LOL!!

When I saw Jack Hyles at 300 lbs, I wondered how a man who was obviously a lustful glutton could be an IFB bishop, but a man with a goatee couldn't.

I have no respect for people who don't see the neccessity of keeping their body in subjection.

They typically don't control other lusts, as well.

They are selfish, obviously, and so they are not capable of training others, which requires one to lay down his/her life.

 

[Bruh]

Gluten-free SS teachers cost more.

Exactly my point! LOL!!

When I saw Jack Hyles at 300 lbs, I wondered how a man who was obviously a lustful glutton could be an IFB bishop, but a man with a goatee couldn't.

I have no respect for people who don't see the neccessity of keeping their body in subjection.

They typically don't control other lusts, as well.

They are selfish, obviously, and so they are not capable of training others, which requires one to lay down his/her life.

Here's the odd thing, many would say, you are just being critical or nit picking.

Where as if you said something like this about a woman in pants, you wouldn't be.

I don't get it.

 

[qwerty]

If your belief or standard is dresses on women, pants on men, that is fine. I am not trying to judge or sway one way or another. 

The Deuteronomy 22:5 argument is always an interesting one in the IFB world.  It is so easily set as the cornerstone of their standards, but disregard other such commands/statements in the Old Testament (seafood, pork, wearing mixed linens).  Other than the obvious, pants were not an item when this verse was written, so to say pants are exclusively a man's items is kind of ridiculous.  If that were the case, the same argument could be applied to t-shirts, since originally, that was an exclusively man's clothing item.

The verse, when analyzed, reveals that the "man" being spoken about is a warrior (a valiant man or warrior), not the gender, which is used in verses 13-18.  So at best, the valiant or warrior man should not wear something feminine, and vice-versa.  It is easily taken out of context, since for years I relied on what I was told about a verse, rather than looking at it myself, looking at the origins of the word, and even going as far as looking at the Hebrew and Greek.

Perhaps being light on teaching Hebrew and Greek is more by design rather than anything else.

 

[bgwilkinson]

If your belief or standard is dresses on women, pants on men, that is fine. I am not trying to judge or sway one way or another. 

The Deuteronomy 22:5 argument is always an interesting one in the IFB world.  It is so easily set as the cornerstone of their standards, but disregard other such commands/statements in the Old Testament (seafood, pork, wearing mixed linens).  Other than the obvious, pants were not an item when this verse was written, so to say pants are exclusively a man's items is kind of ridiculous.  If that were the case, the same argument could be applied to t-shirts, since originally, that was an exclusively man's clothing item.

The verse, when analyzed, reveals that the "man" being spoken about is a warrior (a valiant man or warrior), not the gender, which is used in verses 13-18.  So at best, the valiant or warrior man should not wear something feminine, and vice-versa.  It is easily taking out of context, since for years I relied on what I was told about a verse, rather than looking at it myself, looking at the origins of the word, and even going as far as looking at the Hebrew and Greek.

Perhaps being light on teaching Hebrew and Greek is more by design rather than anything else.

Exactly, a disconnect from the language of the Scriptures is used by religious professionals to impress their own reasoning and opinion upon the Hebrew and the Greek, a complete disregard for what the LORD had originally intended.

 

[SwampHag]

<just wants to mention that I am a proper weight dress wearing SS teacher and I am also gluten-free>

FWIW

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Probably one of the most controversial topics when it comes to HAC/FBCH/IFB is dress standards.  We all remember the "strict" dress standards at HAC.  Some continue to hold to many of these standards.  Many look back now and are critical of what was/is.  Here is the topic for discussion - We all have dress standards to some level.  Where do you feel the Bible draws the line?  Where do you and your family draw the line?

I teach my kids to dress appropriately for the occasion. If we go to the pool or beach, I do draw the line for my daughters not to wear a bikini (until they were 17 at which time I did/will let them choose) but I express to them that it is my preference. I would not deem it appropriate to wear a tux for playing volleyball nor would I deem it appropriate to wear swim attire to a church. Both could be worn with modesty (in general) but not being suited for the culture around them would make them immodest.

For me, there is no "line". If my daughters wear something a little too tight for the occasion, my wife generally shares that info with them and there has never been an issue with their willingness to change. But we don't have hard-core lines drawn and have never really seen the need for it.

 

[Teri in NC]

Probably one of the most controversial topics when it comes to HAC/FBCH/IFB is dress standards.  We all remember the "strict" dress standards at HAC.  Some continue to hold to many of these standards.  Many look back now and are critical of what was/is.  Here is the topic for discussion - We all have dress standards to some level.  Where do you feel the Bible draws the line?  Where do you and your family draw the line?

I teach my kids to dress appropriately for the occasion. If we go to the pool or beach, I do draw the line for my daughters not to wear a bikini (until they were 17 at which time I did/will let them choose) but I express to them that it is my preference. I would not deem it appropriate to wear a tux for playing volleyball nor would I deem it appropriate to wear swim attire to a church. Both could be worn with modesty (in general) but not being suited for the culture around them would make them immodest.

For me, there is no "line". If my daughters wear something a little too tight for the occasion, my wife generally shares that info with them and there has never been an issue with their willingness to change. But we don't have hard-core lines drawn and have never really seen the need for it.

Having spent a little time with your kids several times and seeing them on Facebook, I want to say that I think they are balanced and you and your awesome wife have done an amazing job sifting through the good, the bad, and the ugly of your background.

Poke your chest out just a bit.  You've done well. 

 

[RAIDER]

I teach my kids to dress appropriately for the occasion. If we go to the pool or beach, I do draw the line for my daughters not to wear a bikini (until they were 17 at which time I did/will let them choose) but I express to them that it is my preference. I would not deem it appropriate to wear a tux for playing volleyball nor would I deem it appropriate to wear swim attire to a church. Both could be worn with modesty (in general) but not being suited for the culture around them would make them immodest.

I believe you and I have had some of this discussion before.  Of course I have never met your family so this is easier to say.  At a college ladies' volleyball game the tight, short shorts are looked at as "appropriate".  Would we not agree that they are immodest? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I teach my kids to dress appropriately for the occasion. If we go to the pool or beach, I do draw the line for my daughters not to wear a bikini (until they were 17 at which time I did/will let them choose) but I express to them that it is my preference. I would not deem it appropriate to wear a tux for playing volleyball nor would I deem it appropriate to wear swim attire to a church. Both could be worn with modesty (in general) but not being suited for the culture around them would make them immodest.

I believe you and I have had some of this discussion before.  Of course I have never met your family so this is easier to say.  At a college ladies' volleyball game the tight, short shorts are looked at as "appropriate".  Would we not agree that they are immodest?

Personally, I would have issues with what beach volleyball players wear but that is just me.

Gym volleyball, for the game itself, I would have no issue if my daughters wore such uniforms as I don't think in the context of this sport they would be immodest. Same with if my daughters were to be on a swim team, there would be no issue on my end if they wore a skin-tight swim suit, or a singlet in gymnastics. They are uniformed for the specific purpose of the sport. Now if after the game we stopped at the fro-yo shop, I would suggest they cover up. (They would naturally anyway. )

For guys who go to such sporting events for the purpose of seeing girls dress that way, the issue is with those guys. For guys who are going for the sport but will find themselves lusting, then they should not attend. I don't feel the onus of the men's response should be placed on the female athlete, specifically if the uniform designed was created for flexibility within the sport to maximize their performance.

 

[RAIDER]

Personally, I would have issues with what beach volleyball players wear but that is just me.

Gym volleyball, for the game itself, I would have no issue if my daughters wore such uniforms as I don't think in the context of this sport they would be immodest. Same with if my daughters were to be on a swim team, there would be no issue on my end if they wore a skin-tight swim suit, or a singlet in gymnastics. They are uniformed for the specific purpose of the sport. Now if after the game we stopped at the fro-yo shop, I would suggest they cover up. (They would naturally anyway. )

For guys who go to such sporting events for the purpose of seeing girls dress that way, the issue is with those guys. For guys who are going for the sport but will find themselves lusting, then they should not attend. I don't feel the onus of the men's response should be placed on the female athlete, specifically if the uniform designed was created for flexibility within the sport to maximize their performance.

I know I am quoting Paul   when he says, "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel".  From your posts I take it you are saying that being appropriate trumps that?

 

[brainisengaged]

I teach my kids to dress appropriately for the occasion. If we go to the pool or beach, I do draw the line for my daughters not to wear a bikini (until they were 17 at which time I did/will let them choose) but I express to them that it is my preference. I would not deem it appropriate to wear a tux for playing volleyball nor would I deem it appropriate to wear swim attire to a church. Both could be worn with modesty (in general) but not being suited for the culture around them would make them immodest.

I believe you and I have had some of this discussion before.  Of course I have never met your family so this is easier to say.  At a college ladies' volleyball game the tight, short shorts are looked at as "appropriate".  Would we not agree that they are immodest?

Personally, I would have issues with what beach volleyball players wear but that is just me.

Gym volleyball, for the game itself, I would have no issue if my daughters wore such uniforms as I don't think in the context of this sport they would be immodest. Same with if my daughters were to be on a swim team, there would be no issue on my end if they wore a skin-tight swim suit, or a singlet in gymnastics. They are uniformed for the specific purpose of the sport. Now if after the game we stopped at the fro-yo shop, I would suggest they cover up. (They would naturally anyway. )

For guys who go to such sporting events for the purpose of seeing girls dress that way, the issue is with those guys. For guys who are going for the sport but will find themselves lusting, then they should not attend. I don't feel the onus of the men's response should be placed on the female athlete, specifically if the uniform designed was created for flexibility within the sport to maximize their performance.

Standing Ovation for Smellin' Coffee!!!!!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Personally, I would have issues with what beach volleyball players wear but that is just me.

Gym volleyball, for the game itself, I would have no issue if my daughters wore such uniforms as I don't think in the context of this sport they would be immodest. Same with if my daughters were to be on a swim team, there would be no issue on my end if they wore a skin-tight swim suit, or a singlet in gymnastics. They are uniformed for the specific purpose of the sport. Now if after the game we stopped at the fro-yo shop, I would suggest they cover up. (They would naturally anyway. )

For guys who go to such sporting events for the purpose of seeing girls dress that way, the issue is with those guys. For guys who are going for the sport but will find themselves lusting, then they should not attend. I don't feel the onus of the men's response should be placed on the female athlete, specifically if the uniform designed was created for flexibility within the sport to maximize their performance.

I know I am quoting Paul   when he says, "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel".  From your posts I take it you are saying that being appropriate trumps that?

Quoting Paul is fine. He reveals immodest apparel as overdressing, not otherwise.

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

I would also point out that the very same sentence, Paul teaches against ANGER and QUARRELING. Do IFB churches emphasize those items on equal time as they emphasize women dressing appropriately? (I'm sure some do but perhaps others don't.)

 

[prophet]

Personally, I would have issues with what beach volleyball players wear but that is just me.

Gym volleyball, for the game itself, I would have no issue if my daughters wore such uniforms as I don't think in the context of this sport they would be immodest. Same with if my daughters were to be on a swim team, there would be no issue on my end if they wore a skin-tight swim suit, or a singlet in gymnastics. They are uniformed for the specific purpose of the sport. Now if after the game we stopped at the fro-yo shop, I would suggest they cover up. (They would naturally anyway. )

For guys who go to such sporting events for the purpose of seeing girls dress that way, the issue is with those guys. For guys who are going for the sport but will find themselves lusting, then they should not attend. I don't feel the onus of the men's response should be placed on the female athlete, specifically if the uniform designed was created for flexibility within the sport to maximize their performance.

I know I am quoting Paul   when he says, "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel".  From your posts I take it you are saying that being appropriate trumps that?

Which Paul describes as "good works"...

 

[subllibrm]

Gluten-free SS teachers cost more.

Exactly my point! LOL!!

When I saw Jack Hyles at 300 lbs, I wondered how a man who was obviously a lustful glutton could be an IFB bishop, but a man with a goatee couldn't.

I have no respect for people who don't see the neccessity of keeping their body in subjection.

They typically don't control other lusts, as well.

They are selfish, obviously, and so they are not capable of training others, which requires one to lay down his/her life.

Here's the odd thing, many would say, you are just being critical or nit picking.

Where as if you said something like this about a woman in pants, you wouldn't be.

I don't get it.

Paging Frag!

Clarity clean up on aisle 2 DOEG in need of instruction.































8)

 

[RAIDER]

When I saw Jack Hyles at 300 lbs, I wondered how a man who was obviously a lustful glutton could be an IFB bishop, but a man with a goatee couldn't.

I have no respect for people who don't see the neccessity of keeping their body in subjection.

They typically don't control other lusts, as well.

They are selfish, obviously, and so they are not capable of training others, which requires one to lay down his/her life.

Correct me if I am wrong.  Dr. Hyles ate pretty healthy and watched his weight for many years.  He had some physical problems (don't remember what year) that required him to change his diet.  It seems like you may have also been on some medication.  it was after this point that he began to gain weight. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Personally, I would have issues with what beach volleyball players wear but that is just me.

Gym volleyball, for the game itself, I would have no issue if my daughters wore such uniforms as I don't think in the context of this sport they would be immodest. Same with if my daughters were to be on a swim team, there would be no issue on my end if they wore a skin-tight swim suit, or a singlet in gymnastics. They are uniformed for the specific purpose of the sport. Now if after the game we stopped at the fro-yo shop, I would suggest they cover up. (They would naturally anyway. )

For guys who go to such sporting events for the purpose of seeing girls dress that way, the issue is with those guys. For guys who are going for the sport but will find themselves lusting, then they should not attend. I don't feel the onus of the men's response should be placed on the female athlete, specifically if the uniform designed was created for flexibility within the sport to maximize their performance.

I know I am quoting Paul   when he says, "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel".  From your posts I take it you are saying that being appropriate trumps that?

Which Paul describes as "good works"...

Yep, along with self-control. But he also says what women should not be dressing with...

...braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire...

Which means this young lady is dressing immodestly by Paul's definition:

 

[brainisengaged]

Modest = appropriate to the occasion. If I wore my IFB-approved wedding dress to a regular church service, it would be immodest because it would be inappropriate. (Context is key)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Raider: I know I am quoting Paul   when he says, "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel".  From your posts I take it you are saying that being appropriate trumps that?

You make the all too common mistake to take scripture at its plain sense, using reasonable hermeneutic principles.

And, you begin by assuming that Scripture is Scripture.

Rookie mistakes!