Tweet
Some churches today are telling women that they cannot wear pants to church. What rubbish!!!. Were in the bible did god say a woman cannot wear pants?
-
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
I was raised with women not wearing pants/trousers to church,was very surprized to see the opposite. -
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
Same for me ((lichoy)) It was always considered unladylike / improper / disrespectul to wear pants in church.Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
But why ?Originally posted by SistahD:
[qb] Same for me ((lichoy)) It was always considered unladylike / improper / disrespectul to wear pants in church. [/qb]Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deut.22:5Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
This was for the children of Isreal because they were under the law.Originally posted by jaith:
[qb] A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deut.22:5 [/qb]Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
To protest...I'm not going to wear any pants to church the next time *I* go.Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
Do you have the chapter and verse where this ended? The 10 Commandments were also given to the children of Israel. Do we no longer have to keep them too?Originally posted by TonySlim:
[qb]This was for the children of Isreal because they were under the law. [/qb]Originally posted by jaith:
[qb] A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deut.22:5 [/qb]Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
We're not under the law, true. But God is unchanging...wouldn't He find the same things abominable?...no matter what.Originally posted by TonySlim:
[qb]This was for the children of Isreal because they were under the law. [/qb]Originally posted by jaith:
[qb] A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deut.22:5 [/qb]Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
I wouldn't feel right wearing pants to church, base on what I was taught.Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
Malachi 3:6Originally posted by jaith:
[qb]We're not under the law, true. But God is unchanging...wouldn't He find the same things abominable?...no matter what. [/qb]Originally posted by TonySlim:
[qb]This was for the children of Isreal because they were under the law. [/qb]Originally posted by jaith:
[qb] A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deut.22:5 [/qb]
For I am the Lord, I change not.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.
I have no idea why people seem to think that the principles that were good for the children of Israel are no longer beneficial for us. They were given good instructions that would benefit them physically and spiritually. So why would the good rules change for us? Were they better than us? Are we not worthy of healthy diets, decent dress codes, moral values, etc.?
There was a time when women dared to go into a church with the pants on. We now live in a do what feels right society. Respect has went out of the window in favor of tolerance. Anything goes now. Sigh....Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
It's certainly coincidental that this issue of "under the law" and "not under the law" comes up considering I am dealing with it on another site at the moment. I find it quite interesting that when an Old Testament command comes up that a person is not interested in keeping, the old "we're not under the law" argument comes up to which is the refuted by those who find the law applicable to them with "God does not change" or a pointing to the 10 Commandments.
Well this is off subject (the original post), but on the other site I presented the ever ridciulous first two verses of Deuteronomy 23 which states that a man with wounded "stones" (testicles) or none at all and illegitimate persons (bastards) were not allowed to be part of God's congregation. Now apart from the nonsensical and discriminatory I ask, should churches still uphold these laws under the "God never changes" concept or do they ignore them under the "we're no longer under the law" rule?
It seems not only God works in mysterious ways.Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
I have never worn my husbands clothing though I have borrowed some T-shirts at times. My pants are mine and made for women, my husband's pants were made for men. The bible certainly didnot stipulate which clothing are men's or women's it said a woman shall not wear a man's clothing and visa versa. So I take that to mean do not wear clothes worn by a man.Originally posted by jaith:
[qb] A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deut.22:5 [/qb]
But now let common sense rule for if I found myself in a situation where [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] (though I strongly doubt it now that I come to think of possible situations) I had to wear a man's shirt or pants because of necessity what should I then do go naked? Similarly this reminds me of the occasion where Jesus healed the blind man the Sabbath and He was reprimanded for doing so, He then reasoned what if one of them (the Pharisees) saw his animal in danger on the Sabbath wouldn't he try to save him.Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
When you guys are finished with this one, glide over to the makeup issue please? And oh, while you're at it, can somewhat elaborate on why a man with "crushed nuts" could not be a part of god's congregation?
Dang! I just thought about it. My dad and mom were never married. No wonder I'm not in god's congregation. I'm a bastard!
I'm going to hell.
Thanks much.Comment
-
Re: woman ,Pants and Church
Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] It's certainly coincidental that this issue of "under the law" and "not under the law" comes up considering I am dealing with it on another site at the moment. I find it quite interesting that when an Old Testament command comes up that a person is not interested in keeping, the old "we're not under the law" argument comes up to which is the refuted by those who find the law applicable to them with "God does not change" or a pointing to the 10 Commandments.
[MG2S: Mainly because people tend to pick and choose what they want to obey. The law will always apply. If you are not guilty of breaking that law, naturally, you are not under that law. Paul asked do we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid!]
Well this is off subject (the original post), but on the other site I presented the ever ridciulous first two verses of Deuteronomy 23 which states that a man with wounded "stones" (testicles) or none at all and illegitimate persons (bastards) were not allowed to be part of God's congregation. Now apart from the nonsensical and discriminatory I ask, should churches still uphold these laws under the "God never changes" concept or do they ignore them under the "we're no longer under the law" rule?
[MG2S: I'm losing my computer tonight for repairs. Will get back with you on this one soon.]
It seems not only God works in mysterious ways. [/qb]Comment
Comment