Posted on 11/13/2013 5:43:01 PM PST by Faith Presses On
The Bible clearly says that women should dress modestly. Why does much of the church in America not follow what the Bible says? (And I'm a woman myself, I should add). It's not so much new believers who dress immodestly who are a concern, but women in leadership.
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9-10)
Because not everyone believes in the bible. If there was a god I’m sure he has more important things to do than worry about hemlines and blouses.
Modesty is interpreted all the time. I do have my opinion. You have yours.
These opinions are not timeless, and do not account for local customs over time. I am just glad that God sent us Jesus so when we get it wrong (and we will) we are not damned for our sin.
HE wants His creation to voluntarily love Him ... kind'a like YOU want YOUR kids to love YOU.
And He knows impure thyought and thought processes interfere with this thing called 'holiness' ... just .. interferes.
So He has some guidelines He'd like us to follow.
Y'don't HAVE to ... but He'd like it.
That's your problem - not hers! It sounds like you're easily distracted. You realize that there are modest shorts! They're not all immodest like "daisy dukes".
I provided the basis for interpretation which maintains distinction and upholds modesty based on what is clear, without engaging in legalism or dismissing such as cultural.
Like it or not, the interpreters are men attempting to apprehend God. Men almost always get it wrong.
In-credible! Your response confirms that you operate under the same manner of hermeneutic sophistry of prohomosexual apologists, which dismiss the clear injunctions against homosexual relations under the premise that these are interpreted (or even written) by homophobic writers! And or they they were cultural and thus not applicable to their domesticated sodomy. And which, applied in principle elsewhere, enables one to abrogate most any moral command.
Of course the interpreters are men, as that is who God chose to pen Scripture and to occupy the formal church office of teacher in authority over men and women. That is what Scripture teaches, with malr leadership being the norm, and which i thus uphold (even if personally i am more a servant than a leader myself, and look to help, not rule.). Most likely you oppose that and subscribe to the sophistry of "egalitarianism," which i have dealt with much. And which is overall anti authoritarian, and engages in argumentation that in effect ultimately renders Scripture so open to interpretation that it has no authority. The devil's plan B.
That’s your problem - not hers! It sounds like you’re easily distracted. You realize that there are modest shorts! They’re not all immodest like “daisy dukes”.
I thought that anyone should be able to understand the purpose for dressing modest in the Church of God but i guess i was wrong.
Modesty is interpreted all the time. I do have my opinion. You have yours.
Oh dear.
We are not going to agree on this. The pro-Homosexual arguments are bucking a tremendous amount of direct language in the Bible.
The interpretation of what is modest... Not so much.
My only purpose for posting on this thread is to save daughters everywhere from being forced into denim skirts, doilies on their poor little heads and the wearing of ankle length skorz while playing basketball. Aesthetics demand I at least try!
Who says I don’t like you?
Yes it’s all voluntary. But if you don’t volunteer there’s a big lake of fire prepared for you...
You are SO wrong
Do people write books attempting to expound arguments based upon interpretations of God’s Word in order to implement a point of view?
And by the way i do not read any ones books, but i do know what you say is true.
Who knows what your normal alternative to skirts is, or other leg coverings, but if all you want to do is prevent implementation of legal standards while upholding modesty, then you need better arguments than appeals to ambiguity and fear of legalism, without being antinomian or legalistic yourself.
Who says I don’t like you?
I’ve never understood what’s special about denim skirts, as opposed to tan twill skirts, black wool skirts, or wildly floral cotton skirts.
I’m a long-dress/skirt wearer myself, but I think denim is of the devil. I’m always having to run clothes through two dryer cycles to get the dratted jeans dry.
I read it correctly, but it was my feeble attempt at a peace offering! ; )
So your statement is:
People write books attempting to expound arguments based upon interpretations of God’s Word, therefore homosexuals are showing up in Churches they do not believe in?
That is a highly illogical argument due to books being written about a wide array of subjects, rarely including the subject of homosexuality.
Books on Job and suffering. Books on Ester and faith. Books on all kinds of things. So books lead to homosexuality?
I don’t know either, but long denim skirts is the “uniform” some places.
I think that a little logic interjected into the discussion is a good thing.
Here, for example, and I have seen some incredibly ugly ones.
I don't understand the appeal of denim at all, except for hard manual labor situations. My husband wore jeans to work today (in IT at an investment company). It was a reward to his department for some kind of accomplishment: they were allowed to wear jeans on a Thursday.
Jeans are less comfortable than pants of other materials. Denim skirts are less attractive than skirts of other materials. Sewing with denim is horrible, and when you get the garments made, they take forever to dry!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.