Standards of dress

[subllibrm]

So, I ask this question in all sincerity:  Do you think the woman in capris pants and a white top was NOT pleasing the Lord because of what she had on?  All I know is that the woman's unspoken testimony changed my life.  This is something I experienced....not something someone told me about.  God used her in my life....unlike any other woman in the entire world.  It made absolutely no difference whatsoever that she wasn't wearing a skirt. 

Do you consider any female who wears pants, etc. as having a lack of standards?  This is a sincere question.

I don't believe that people who disagree on this issue are necessarily embittered.  But that is for another conversation.

I did not see the woman you are describing so I cannot answer your question.  Regardless of what she was wearing, her testimony made a major difference in your life.  The Lord can use anyone anytime do do his will.

A woman that wears pants is a stinkin' Jezebel!! 

And wouldn't that be the whole argument?

I have never heard someone say, she changed my life because she had a dress on....Is the point.  LOL!!

STANDING OVATION TO BRUH!!!!!

I have never heard someone say, "She changed my life because she was wearing a halter top and a mini skirt". 

STANDING OVATION TO RAIDER!!!

Here it is.  Read it in context!

And there it is in context. The conversation was pants vs. dresses. You jumped to halters and mini skirts. If you can't see how you connected the two then you have the contextual problems.

Volleyball came pages later and note that I have not disagreed with you on that. Olympic sand volleyball players are a good example. The women wear near nothing because to wear more "impedes their ability to play the game at the top level" (actually  a paraphrase but the quotes indicate the gist of the argument) while the men wear jams shorts. Apparently the men do not have trouble playing the game with short almost to their knees.

And yes I have read the entire thread.

 

[RAIDER]

So, I ask this question in all sincerity:  Do you think the woman in capris pants and a white top was NOT pleasing the Lord because of what she had on?  All I know is that the woman's unspoken testimony changed my life.  This is something I experienced....not something someone told me about.  God used her in my life....unlike any other woman in the entire world.  It made absolutely no difference whatsoever that she wasn't wearing a skirt. 

Do you consider any female who wears pants, etc. as having a lack of standards?  This is a sincere question.

I don't believe that people who disagree on this issue are necessarily embittered.  But that is for another conversation.

I did not see the woman you are describing so I cannot answer your question.  Regardless of what she was wearing, her testimony made a major difference in your life.  The Lord can use anyone anytime do do his will.

A woman that wears pants is a stinkin' Jezebel!! 

And wouldn't that be the whole argument?

I have never heard someone say, she changed my life because she had a dress on....Is the point.  LOL!!

STANDING OVATION TO BRUH!!!!!

I have never heard someone say, "She changed my life because she was wearing a halter top and a mini skirt". 

STANDING OVATION TO RAIDER!!!

Here it is.  Read it in context!

And there it is in context. The conversation was pants vs. dresses. You jumped to halters and mini skirts. If you can't see how you connected the two then you have the contextual problems.

Volleyball came pages later and note that I have not disagreed with you on that. Olympic sand volleyball players are a good example. The women wear near nothing because to wear more "impedes their ability to play the game at the top level" (actually  a paraphrase but the quotes indicate the gist of the argument) while the men wear jams shorts. Apparently the men do not have trouble playing the game with short almost to their knees.

And yes I have read the entire thread.

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.  Someone else made the crazy comment that they had never heard anyone say, "She changed my life because she had a dress on".  I made a crazy statement back that I have never heard anyone say, "She changed my life because she was wearing a halter top and mini skirt".  It was a crazy comment to follow up a crazy comment.  You don't have to read into jestful comments to try and twist a point.  That's what the liberal media does.

 

[subllibrm]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

 

[Bruh]

It is my understanding that people who believe it is a sin for a woman to wear pants that it is impossible to be modest.

Therefore it is a sin hence God can use anyone, this is the disconnect in this discussion. 
If I am incorrect please explain? 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

Indeed it was! God made one set of clothes and it was an animal print robe (for both the man and the woman I would be remiss not to mention)!

So, unless those capris and shirt were animal print, God was not happy!

*Just so there's no misunderstanding....these comments are entirely in jest. 

 

[RAIDER]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

 

[RAIDER]

WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

Indeed it was! God made one set of clothes and it was an animal print robe (for both the man and the woman I would be remiss not to mention)!

So, unless those capris and shirt were animal print, God was not happy!

*Just so there's no misunderstanding....these comments are entirely in jest. 

Oh, believe me, your jest can be taken as very serious. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

Indeed it was! God made one set of clothes and it was an animal print robe (for both the man and the woman I would be remiss not to mention)!

So, unless those capris and shirt were animal print, God was not happy!

*Just so there's no misunderstanding....these comments are entirely in jest. 

Well, to back up the truck, we were born nude so perhaps THAT was God's intention...

 

[subllibrm]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

If one believes?

There are two people in the story. One obviously didn't believe it wrong to wear capri pants hence her sartorial choice that day. So God was pleased, right?

Or are you saying that if the other one believed it was wrong then God was displeased?

Or are you saying you are the one who believes it was wrong so God was displeased?

Who is this "one" you are talking about and why is God's pleasure dictated by their ideas about clothing?

 

[Bruh]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

If one believes?

There are two people in the story. One obviously didn't believe it wrong to wear capri pants hence her sartorial choice that day. So God was pleased, right?

Or are you saying that if the other one believed it was wrong then God was displeased?

Or are you saying you are the one who believes it was wrong so God was displeased?

Who is this "one" you are talking about and why is God's pleasure dictated by their ideas about clothing?

Raider do you believe it's impossible for a woman to be modest in pants?

 

[RAIDER]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

If one believes?

There are two people in the story. One obviously didn't believe it wrong to wear capri pants hence her sartorial choice that day. So God was pleased, right?

Or are you saying that if the other one believed it was wrong then God was displeased?

Or are you saying you are the one who believes it was wrong so God was displeased?

Who is this "one" you are talking about and why is God's pleasure dictated by their ideas about clothing?

Raider do you believe it's impossible for a woman to be modest in pants?

What is you definition of modest?

 

[Bruh]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

If one believes?

There are two people in the story. One obviously didn't believe it wrong to wear capri pants hence her sartorial choice that day. So God was pleased, right?

Or are you saying that if the other one believed it was wrong then God was displeased?

Or are you saying you are the one who believes it was wrong so God was displeased?

Who is this "one" you are talking about and why is God's pleasure dictated by their ideas about clothing?

Raider do you believe it's impossible for a woman to be modest in pants?

What is you definition of modest?

No, do not turn this around. 

In your definition can a woman be modest in pants?

 

[Citadel of Truth]

What is you definition of modest?

 

[RAIDER]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

If one believes?

There are two people in the story. One obviously didn't believe it wrong to wear capri pants hence her sartorial choice that day. So God was pleased, right?

Or are you saying that if the other one believed it was wrong then God was displeased?

Or are you saying you are the one who believes it was wrong so God was displeased?

Who is this "one" you are talking about and why is God's pleasure dictated by their ideas about clothing?

Raider do you believe it's impossible for a woman to be modest in pants?

What is you definition of modest?

No, do not turn this around. 

In your definition can a woman be modest in pants?

What I say will not change or solidify the way you believe.  It all depends on ones definition of modest.  If modest means "the flesh covered up" than a woman can be modest in pants.  If modest means "covered up and not shape conforming" than baggy pants would be modest and tight pants would not.  If modest means "gender specific" than pants would not. 

 

[Bruh]

In the conversation I said I did not see what the woman was wearing.

Which was a weasel way of avoiding the point made. You didn't have to "see it" to answer. The outfit was described well enough for you to answer. It was a very direct and honest question and you blew it off.

So, was the woman displeasing God by wearing the outfit described? And don't give me that "He can use anyone" crap. Answer the question itself. WAS HER OUTFIT OF CAPRI PANTS AND A SHIRT DISPLEASING TO GOD?

If one believes that pants (and the like) are a man's attire, than it would be wrong and God would be displeased.  If one believes that pants are a man's and a woman's attire, than it would not be wrong and God would be pleased.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe that the woman wearing a shirt would be wrong unless it was see-through.  I'm thankful that I don't have to dress a certain way for God to use me, aren't you?

If one believes?

There are two people in the story. One obviously didn't believe it wrong to wear capri pants hence her sartorial choice that day. So God was pleased, right?

Or are you saying that if the other one believed it was wrong then God was displeased?

Or are you saying you are the one who believes it was wrong so God was displeased?

Who is this "one" you are talking about and why is God's pleasure dictated by their ideas about clothing?

Raider do you believe it's impossible for a woman to be modest in pants?

What is you definition of modest?

No, do not turn this around. 

In your definition can a woman be modest in pants?

What I say will not change or solidify the way you believe.  It all depends on ones definition of modest.  If modest means "the flesh covered up" than a woman can be modest in pants.  If modest means "covered up and not shape conforming" than baggy pants would be modest and tight pants would not.  If modest means "gender specific" than pants would not.

So by your definition can a woman be modest in pants?

It's either yes or no.  Or do you believe it is not a yes or no answer?

 

[RAIDER]

The problem a couple of you are having is this - you are just as bitter, if not more bitter, than those you feel are on the other side of the coin.  Because you have been around people who look at women in pants as heathen and someone God could not possibly use, it now makes you very angry.  Maybe there was a time you felt that way yourself.  When someone comes along who has a different standard on this issue than you, you automatically toss them in the boat with the crowd I mentioned above.  Believe it or not there are gals who have a conviction against wearing pants that do not look down on those who believe otherwise.  If asked, they explain the way they believe.  Meanwhile, you treat them with the same attitude as those you criticize for looking down on woman who wear pants.

You immediately start saying, "So you are saying that God is displeased with and can't use a woman in pants?"  You go off the deep end just like those whom you are criticizing.  When someone gives an illustration of God using someone who isn't perfect you once again go off the deep end and say, "You are comparing a woman in pants to a drunk!"  It's almost like you are looking for someone who has a conviction against women wearing pants so you can let the bullets fly and make them look like an idiot.

You are becoming the very person whom you have an issue, only on the other side of the coin.   

 

[RAIDER]

What I say will not change or solidify the way you believe.  It all depends on ones definition of modest.  If modest means "the flesh covered up" than a woman can be modest in pants.  If modest means "covered up and not shape conforming" than baggy pants would be modest and tight pants would not.  If modest means "gender specific" than pants would not.

So by your definition can a woman be modest in pants?

It's either yes or no.  Or do you believe it is not a yes or no answer?

I just answered your question in detail in my last post.  How much plainer can I get?

 

[Bruh]

Raider,

O.k now you have everybody looking at me wanting to know what is so funny. 

I have nothing to be bitter about, seriously. 

This thread is about modesty and of course pants come up every time.  So I am posting about women in pants, that's all....

If someone believes my wife is a heathen or is in some kind of
rebellion for wearing pants tailor made for her.....then they honestly do not know my wife, at this point it doesn't bother me one way or another, honestly. 

But, I do on the FFF try to honestly understand someone's thinking on the subject.     

If I have upset you I apologizes. 

 

[RAIDER]

Raider,

O.k now you have everybody looking at me wanting to know what is so funny. 

I have nothing to be bitter about, seriously. 

This thread is about modesty and of course pants come up every time.  So I am posting about women in pants, that's all....

If someone believes my wife is a heathen or is in some kind of
rebellion for wearing pants tailor made for her.....then they honestly do not know my wife, at this point it doesn't bother me one way or another, honestly. 

But, I do on the FFF try to honestly understand someone's thinking on the subject.     

If I have upset you I apologizes.

There are those on the FFF that believe it is wrong for a woman to wear pants.  They believe Deuteronomy teaches that it is an abomination.  Yes, they know it is in OT law, but they also believe that adding the word "abomination" brings it past OT law.  They believe that God wanted clothing to be a sign of identification.  A king wore a certain garment.  A priest wore a certain garment.  A harlot wore a certain garment.  I could go on.  They believe God wanted a difference in the garments on a man and woman.  Pants on a woman gained its grip in America with the woman's lib movement.  Before woman began to wear pants I doubt anyone had trouble telling whether of not it was a man or woman from any angle and distance.

Now, are there woman who believe this who have selfish wicked hearts?  Absolutely!  Are there woman who believe this that look down on others who do not?  Absolutely!  Are there women who believe this and love and serve and do not look at others who do not agree with them as "evil"?  You had better believe it!!  Several of them post on here. 

 

[rsc2a]

See also: shellfish.