Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Growing Up Duggar: Putting The Fun Back In Fundamentalism?
6/9/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 06/09/2014 11:09:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

I believe that the show "19 Kids and Counting" is a very wholesome show, and more than worthy of watching.

This said, after the book, "Growing Up Duggar" came out, and after perusing it, I do believe that parts that talk abut hair lengths, clothing choices, etc, do perhaps need some discussion, given that there are some scriptural references stated within the book. And in reply:

1.) 1 Peter 3: 3-13 says:

"Whose adorning let it no be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves being in subject unto their own husbands: evebn as sarah obeyed Abraham..."

While passages in the book refer to what Paul said, there has to be a proper hermeneutical and exegetical approach to this:

A.) If wearing gold, or plaiting of hair is condemned, then putting on of apparel (wearing clothes) is condemened, too. All three rise and fall together. This isn't what the passage talks about, though, as Peter would not have condoned walking around without clothes. What the passage shows is that the inward man being adorned is to be stressed in a Christian's life more than adorning the outward person.

B.) Genesis 24:53: When Abraham's servant went to look for a wife for Issac, he brought forth articles of silver and gold and gave them to Rebekah. Where would Rebekah have obtained this silver and gold jewelry? Obviously from Sarah via Abraham's servant. So Sarah adorned herself with silver and gold jewelry.

C.) In Moses time in Exodus 35: 20-29, when the wilderness tabernacle was being constructed, God told the children of Israel - those whose hearts were stirred by God - to bring forth those things for the construction of the tabernacle: It says that both men and women brought forth rings, nose rings, necklaces, etc (all jewelry of gold). Both men and women wore these things - even men and women who were Godly in heart.

2.) Showing the thigh shows nakedness? When Abraham made his servant swear that he would go back to Haran to look for a wife for Issac, Abraham made his servant place his hand on Abraham's thigh to seal the covenant that his servant wiould do as instructed by Abraham. (Genesis 24: 1-9).

3.) A man should not wear what women wear and vice versa? Yes... But in Moses time, women wore long sleeved tunics and robes for modesty, and wore more natural colors, while men wore short-sleeved robes and bright colors. They both wore robes --- it is just that there were robes for women to wear and robes for men to wear.

A.) Men and women can both wear pants, as long as men don't wear womens pants and vice versa.

B.) Men can wear kilts? Yes, as it is part of some cultures and is not a hindrance to winning souls for God in some cultures. Go back centuries and men wore stockings - even Godly men. Would I advocate this for today? Uh, a big fat NO. But God didn't senjd those men to hell for wearing stocking, wigs and powdering their faces. Times and cultures change...

C.) What do we do concerning those men who through the recent centuries past wore stocking, wigs, etc - even Goldy men? In their time and culture it wasn't a hindrance to winning souls for God. Doing such today would be a hindrance, with the exception I guess of wearing kilts, although wearing them would certainly not be for me personally.

And thus it comes down to that.

Long hair on a man in a culture (a culture that has no problem with this) would not be a hindrance for men winning souls for God in that culture, but in the U.S. it might very well be a hindrance depending upon the place. The same for short hair for women: The scriptures don't necessarily state how long is long or how short is short, other than Paul stating that a woman shorning was/is unacceptable.

In the end, if someone is invited to speak at a church that would frown on jewelry or even short sleeved dress shirts being worn (although wearing these articles doesn't bother that individual being asked to come and speak) they should nonetheless dress in such a way as to not offend. What good would it do for them to be preaching from behind the pulpit a message that God gave them, when the whole time people in the audience are stuck on looking at what they are wearing?


TOPICS: Current Events; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: 19kidsandcounting; baptist; baptists; bobduggar; duggar; duggars; janaduggar; jessaduggar; jillduggar; jingerduggar; michelleduggar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last
In the culture that is America, a case could be made that women wearing dresses continually would probably be a hindrance to winning souls for God.

It would be best to not go into what could be called legalism, but neither into liberalism, either, but rather strikimg a moderate course pertaining to clothing, accessories and attire.

1 posted on 06/09/2014 11:09:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; All

What say you?


2 posted on 06/09/2014 11:10:59 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
If wearing gold, or plaiting of hair is condemned, then putting on of apparel (wearing clothes) is condemened, too.

So.. you think it would be a better show if they were nekkid?

3 posted on 06/09/2014 11:13:56 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

What am I doing on this thread?


4 posted on 06/09/2014 11:15:50 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (Tagline deleted at the request of an offended FReeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Legalism is an antithesis to the Gospel.

(So is antinomianism, of course).

It’s all about the heart. If you want to get down to finding the verse that “raises the bar” morally, doesn’t Proverbs say that it is the eyes of women that entice men?

So...not even the Islamists are holy enough...what with allowing the eyes to be shown?

It’s all about the heart. It’s all about loving Christ. Yes, our outer appearances might change and become refined with that. But if you start with the outer and hope to work back in to the heart...well that isn’t following Jesus. It is the religion of the Pharisees.

I do think that the conservative homeschooling culture has suffered from fits of legalism and that is why you see some backlash out there (ie, web sites promoting healing, etc.).

I don’t think the Duggars are a HUGE problem. But obviously Doug Phillips was and maybe still is, and so was and maybe still is Gothard.

That’s my personal opinion. Don’t mean to offend anyone...love to all freepers, especially homeschoolers!


5 posted on 06/09/2014 11:16:46 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I see we need some good old fashioned holiness, peculiarity, separation. Myself included. America sucks because contemporary “Christianity” sucks, that’s Biblical. If my people, which are called by my name, etc. It’s also observable. When Christians were putting Jesus first, fearing Him more than man, living by Biblical standards, this was a better place to live, souls were being saved in greater numbers, the world was being won for Christ. Now, we’ve gone away backwards.

The Duggars are a great family, as sweet and approachable in person as on TV. More importantly, they win souls and disciple people.


6 posted on 06/09/2014 11:18:16 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Please read what I posted. You obviously did not.

The passage apparently seems to condemn all three - wearing gold, plaiting hair and putting on of apparel.

But this isn't what the passage shows, and thus we are not to go around nekked nor is it wrong for women to to wear gold or plait their hair.

7 posted on 06/09/2014 11:20:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Legalism doesn’t mean the same thing as biblical standards. Figuring out what’s biblical isn’t hard. If you say “where in the bible does it say I can’t do_____?”, what you’re wanting to do is not a good standard. Sure, it’s about the heart, that goes without saying, but if you’re dressed the same as Lady Gaga,listening to the same music, watching the same shows, there’s something wrong with your heart.


8 posted on 06/09/2014 11:22:41 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
When Abraham made his servant swear that he would go back to Haran to look for a wife for Issac, Abraham made his servant place his hand on Abraham's thigh to seal the covenant that his servant wiould do as instructed by Abraham. (Genesis 24: 1-9).

If I remember my exegesis correctly (and I may be mixing things up here) "thigh" here is a euphemism for the private parts, that swearing while touching the master's privates would be the equivalent of swearing while placing one's hand on the Bible today. Nothing sexual was meant by the gesture, however.

9 posted on 06/09/2014 11:27:18 AM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude
I don't think that the Duggars are a HUGE problem, either.

It's just that legalism and liberalism both are not the right path to take.

Legalism, as well as Nicolaitianistic antinomianism should both be eschewed.

I am not saying that the Duggars are legalists, either.

It's just that one can stress outward appearance too much. But at the same time, one can put too little on this, and come into the house of God wearing clothing that gets all eyes turning.

10 posted on 06/09/2014 11:33:03 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

Sure, it’s about the heart, that goes without saying,”

Well, I wish that were true. I’ve had many of these conversations. It seems that for followers, for example, of Michael Pearl this thought (it is about the heart) is quite revolutionary. They immediately think that if you aren’t nailing down a very precise standard, then you are embracing rebellion and anarchy.

They are very wrong.

A skirt can always be longer. Eventually a skirt becomes too long and a woman can’t walk...of course for some of these legalists, even that would be good because then these women wouldn’t be out there walking around tempting men.

I don’t think I actually agree that in all instances figuring out what’s biblical isn’t hard. If by that we mean simply, love God and seem him first, then so far so good. If you love God and Christ enough, then you will be driven to the basic law (the decalogue) and you will see the truth and beauty and righteousness in that. And that is good. We should love the law...but not as an end in itself...but because we love God and God gave us the law.

But I don’t think laying down additional particularities is easy at all, or even desirable.

For some - like the Gothard/Doug Phillips/Michael Pearl followers - it is “obvious” that you don’t listen to Christian popular music, that you don’t watch or read Lord of the Rings, that women shouldn’t wear make up and so on and so on and so on and so on. The proliferation of these lists becomes oppressive and life-denying. Unlike the Gospel which is liberating and life-giving.

Re: Lady Gaga. Of course dressing like her is wrong. But if you tell your daughter not to dress like that, but God doesn’t capture her heart, then you may think you have won the battle, but you have lost the war. Get the heart right and you don’t have to worry about the outward.

That seems to me to be what Paul says again and again. It rings true in my life, and in my observations of life, including life in the church.....


11 posted on 06/09/2014 11:35:58 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

The Duggars are good folks, I believe, and I say more power to them for helping to populate the world with conservative Christians.

But I do think they can carry things a bit too far sometimes. The little girls in the family wear dresses even when playing outside...not necessary, IMO.

Also, I recently saw part of an episode where one of the young ladies was being courted by a young man. He placed his hand on her back as they were walking along, and the Duggar dad reached over and pushed the guy’s hand away. The girl is in her mid-20s, I believe.

Come on, now.


12 posted on 06/09/2014 11:37:34 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chajin
Yes, nothing sexual was meant.

Agreed.

But a woman wearing shorts (and thus showing her thighs) isn't sinful either.

Yes, some shorts can be very short, but how short is short?

And with this in mind, if pants cover more of a woman's body than a dress does (ones that shows her lower leg area), then why don't the Duggars wear these instead?

Women shouldn't wear mens clothing?

Godly people did in Moses time as well as in Abraham's time. Both wore robes. The point is, there was a differentiation between the robes that were worn.

13 posted on 06/09/2014 11:38:03 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

It is about the heart but if our heart is right, there will be some outward differences.


14 posted on 06/09/2014 11:38:51 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

My understanding is that the Duggars are big Gothard followers. I don’t know if that’s true, but I have heard that.

I do know that many, many, many people have had to detox from Gothard and it is precisely the point you have made: everything in that system was about appearance (not substance) and the environment was very authoritarian. Obviously not every Gothard person had that experience. But thousands have.

And you are right: both legalism and liberalism are lies. The one is not the corrective to the other. That’s just veering out of one ditch into the other....


15 posted on 06/09/2014 11:39:33 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

that’s right


16 posted on 06/09/2014 11:40:57 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
Holiness comes from within. And yes, it will show on the outside.... But...

How long is long as it pertains to hair? How short is short?

Paul lists women having shorn hair as being too short, but Paul does not nail down for men how long is too long.

It depends upon the culture that you live in - and if wearing long hair would be a stumbling block for winning people to God - don't wear long hair.

Hair, dresses, jewelry, etc - stressing these a little or a lot - will not bring America back to God.

17 posted on 06/09/2014 11:44:07 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
But a woman wearing shorts (and thus showing her thighs) isn't sinful either.

A woman wanting men other than her husband to think of her sexually is sinful, because it is enticing to lust. A man thinking sexually of women other than his wife is sinful, because it is allowing for lust. The problem is not with the skirt, but that doesn't mean that skirts are ipso facto OK. It is a meat-sacrificed-to-idols issue: a Christian woman may know that she could wear a skirt without sinning, but if it causes others to sin, then she should not wear it, not because of her own conscience, but because of the viewers'.

18 posted on 06/09/2014 11:48:48 AM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude; All
What do these people do with the Godly men who wore the same attire that women wore - robes in Moses and Abraham's time - just that the robes that men wore were different, and vice versa?

Sarah wore gold and silver jewelry.

What would they say? “Repent thou sinner Sarah!”? I don't think so. I believe that God would not concur with that sentiment were it uttered.

What do they do with God asking Godly men and women to bring what His Spirit stirred in them - and they brought forth nose rings, rings, bracelets, etc - to be melted down and used for the Tabernacle?

As how do they define “contemporary” Gospel music?

I guess we will have to go back to Southern Gospel... :(

You know that God gave to Moses Southern Gospel music on Mount Sinai, don't you? /sarcasm.

19 posted on 06/09/2014 11:50:44 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

The Pearls are not legalists. You’re making a huge, inaccurate generalization. I know many Gothardites and people who read after the Pearls, and your characterization of them is bordering on straw-man. A student of the Bible, who isn’t trying to make it fit into a seeker sensitive, postmodernist paradigm, will see that this stuff matters to God. Pre-1960’s Christians didn’t have any trouble with it.

Sorry, I don’t have much patience for this debate because I know we’ve jumped the shark, and there’s no going back. Most of the people teaching standards have abandoned them. It’s a waste of time to bother with it anymore. As Christianity goes, so goes the country. It’s not holiness that is decimating Christianity, it’s worldliness.


20 posted on 06/09/2014 11:51:23 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chajin
And thus you go down the Burqa road...

BTW, Straw Man on your part.

How can you prove that she is trying to entice men?

Only God can see the heart, and if God tells her that her shorts are long enough, then who are you to tell her (or him) otherwise? You were never be called to be the Spirit that she or any other person walks in so that they will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

And no circular reasoning, either: “If she were truly hearing from God she wouldn't wear shorts, because...”

Can't have women wear that which is enticing to men, can we!?

But who decides what is enticing...or isn't? God alone.

To you, seeing a woman's hair isn't enticing, but to many Muslim men it is. Christians taking the same path that Muslims take isn't a good road to trod.

We don't need to go down that road...

21 posted on 06/09/2014 11:56:29 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

How shore it too short? How long is too long? Who would want to even get close to testing it? If you think your hair might be getting to long, cut it. If you think your hair is is getting close to too short, let it grow. If you think a skirt might be too short, don’t wear it. It’s not hard. If God said He doesn’t like men having short hair, why would you want to take the chance of having hair that’s too long? If God hates the blending of the sexes; if he wants men to be 100% men and women to be 100% women, why would you want to be 95% or 63%?


22 posted on 06/09/2014 11:57:08 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

ok.


23 posted on 06/09/2014 11:58:16 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Are mullets allowed? We really need to bring that back for old times sake.
24 posted on 06/09/2014 12:00:16 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
We should strive for that which is neither seeker-sensitive and postmodern nor that which is men saying that they know how long is long for hair, hos short is short for clothing and hair, acting like they know what which music God is giving His church today, etc.

Did God tell you that a women who does not wear dresses or skirts is worldly? Did God tell you how short is short or how long is long? Is contemporary gospel music not Godly? What is or isn't contemporary?

Are you some Pope?

25 posted on 06/09/2014 12:01:40 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Be gone thou foul spawn of Satan! /sarcasm.


26 posted on 06/09/2014 12:02:22 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

What you say about people who are influenced by Gothard doesn’t apply to the hundreds of Gothard people I know. It’s just in depth teaching of the Bible, it’s not a doctrine.


27 posted on 06/09/2014 12:02:34 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: chajin

God is really smart, He knows how we work, He made His standards for a reason. Moving a fence that you didn’t build, is very dangerous.


28 posted on 06/09/2014 12:03:56 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

Paul spoke of unity, but he also said there would be differentiation within that unity.


29 posted on 06/09/2014 12:05:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

“Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes.”

Thus saith Proverbs 6.

According to a sweeping application of the “weaker brother” principle....women should cover their eyes, because enticing with the eyes will cause men to sin. Especially (!) if that is all that she has left to show.

Obviously the weaker brother principle is applicable and it is Biblical and we can’t ignore it. But I think there is a point when church leadership can appropriately tell Christian men to grow up and to quit being the weaker brother (which might mean, quit lusting after women who allow some curves to be discerned, for example).

I do think that the main purveyors of modesty culture (Gothard and Doug Phillips) have learned over time to treat women as objects, and it appears that at least these two “conservative Christian leaders” acted out on their implicit beliefs that women are basically objects for men to rule over and dominate. I think they would be better off in Islam.


30 posted on 06/09/2014 12:05:17 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Have you heard of anyone saying that about Sarah? Have you heard the Duggars, or anyone else calling women who wear jewelery sinners? What is the symbol for the women’s restroom? What is the symbol for men’s? That should really end the debate. In western culture, women wear dresses and skirts. They started wearing pants as an egalitarian statement. Is that not true?


31 posted on 06/09/2014 12:07:58 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

yep, true.

But there are hundreds if not thousands who became trapped in a snare of perfectionism and indecision, and a complete ability to do anything in life, because they need the authority in their life to do X Y or Z. Strange that something called Institute of Basic Life Principles kept people from coping with the basics of life.

Then there is the whole sexual harassment thing which we need not even get into.

Not everyone was affected by Gothard negatively. But I think that is more of his legacy than those who have gone on to really excel in the Christian life. I think if you do some searches online, you will find that to be the majority story out there. It is certainly my experience of talking with people who were seriously into it. (In fact...now that I think about it...that is my experience without exception. Not that my experience is everyone’s. But I don’t know anyone who went through Gothard stuff that didn’t have to detox. Some a little. But a few, it took years).


32 posted on 06/09/2014 12:10:47 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod
So where in the Bible is God's standard for dresses?

Where in the Bible does it say that women should wear dresses?

They weren't around in OT or NT times.

Men should wear mens cloting and womens womens clothing?

1.) Men and women both wore robes in OT times. Uh oh, they wore the same clothing.

2.) Sarah wore jewelry, and yet Peter gave her as the example for Holiness for women to follow.

3.) Paul does not state how long is truly too long concerning hair length.

Holiness people need to take note. Gonna have to give up this man-made holiness...

33 posted on 06/09/2014 12:11:40 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

You are implying that mullets are out at the moment.

(Wait...have I missed something?)


34 posted on 06/09/2014 12:12:20 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
How can you prove that she is trying to entice men?

I can't; that's between her spirit and the Holy Spirit. But when my 17yo lovely-legged daughter discusses with her father the issue of displaying her lovely legs, I tell her the same two things I told you: first, that she should ask herself whether any part of her motivation is that she wants men to be looking at her as a sex object, and second, that she should realize that the more thigh she shows, the more men are going to think of her sexually, when Jesus proclaimed that looking at a woman with porneia in one's heart is the equivalent of committing adultery. It then becomes an issue, spiritually speaking, between her and God. Eventually, when she leaves home, it will be her own choice.

And thus you go down the Burqa road...

In Edo-era Japan, a woman was covered from her neck to her feet in a kimono; men were enticed to sexual thoughts by seeing the nape of a woman's neck, which was all he could see. Fighting lust, whether sexual or otherwise, is always a rearguard action; this is why the grace of God is so vast, because our sin is so vast.

35 posted on 06/09/2014 12:15:25 PM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

The weaker brethren principal is so misunderstood. The weaker brother is not the person with standards, it’s the new Christian who just got saved from the world. The people with standards are the ones who get the weaker brother principal. The mature Christians who ignore standards are guilty of causing “the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died”. That’s a serious charge. God is not suppress your liberty so those fuddy duddy holiness kooks don’t get offended. He’s saying, be like those fuddy duddies so new Christians don’t get offended.


36 posted on 06/09/2014 12:16:25 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

No. We started wearing because they are warm and comfortable .


37 posted on 06/09/2014 12:16:27 PM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
The father did not push the young mans hand away. He simply stepped between them. I thought that it was a slick move by dad who had walking behind the kids..
38 posted on 06/09/2014 12:17:34 PM PDT by Coldwater Creek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Putting back the "FUN" in fundamentalism?
Hmmmm. I hope that doesn't mean that I have to sing. My voice isn't very good any more. :o)
39 posted on 06/09/2014 12:18:46 PM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

excellent point on weaker brother....


40 posted on 06/09/2014 12:19:19 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod; ConservativeDude
@demshateGod

So Western culture is synonymous with God's word or what God says is acceptable attire? Nope.

God gave us a standard that transcends time, place and culture, and yet guides us Biblically, as He knew that there would be differences in attire and such even among Christians.

The Lord only said that men should not wear women's clothing and vice versa, and yet men and women both wore robes in Moses time. Oh, the horror. And they both wore ear rings and nose rings, etc. Oh the humanity. God help Sarah with her jewelry problem. /sarcasm.

The point was, is that men robes were different from women's and vice versa, thus doing what God commanded.

Women and men can both wear pants as long as they are different in style from each other. This is Biblical, morally based, and a common sense approach.

This follows the Biblical pattern, whereas your Western-based women-must-wear-dresses-and skirts standard does not.

Did women start wearing robes in Moses time as an egalitarian statement? We don;t know.

Secondly, while that may have been then, women today don't necessarily wear pants as an egalitarian statement just like Scotsmen don't wear kilts for an egalitarian statement.

41 posted on 06/09/2014 12:22:03 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I have heard the Dugger’s say over and over it is a matter of modesty. The younger girls wear leggings and the niece and grandmother wear slacks, as well as the future MIL of Jill Dugger.


42 posted on 06/09/2014 12:23:18 PM PDT by Coldwater Creek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Watch out... we all know that Scotsmen started wearing kilts as an egalitarian statement, too. /s


43 posted on 06/09/2014 12:23:52 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Coldwater Creek

Pants can be modest, too.

Otherwise Godly men wouldn’t be allowed to wear them.


44 posted on 06/09/2014 12:24:50 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Scotsmen don’t wear kilts for an egalitarian statement.”

Well back in the Braveheart day, no doubt that was true.

Today’s Scotland? Yeesh.


45 posted on 06/09/2014 12:24:50 PM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Coldwater Creek
"The father did not push the young mans hand away. He simply stepped between them. I thought that it was a slick move by dad who had walking behind the kids.."

I saw it; he pushed the young man's hand off his daughter's back. I'm not sure why any slick moves were needed. The girl is in her 20s, and the guy didn't even have his arm around her.

46 posted on 06/09/2014 12:26:02 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Women started wearing pants when they started doing jobs that historically pertained men. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_wearing_trousers_in_the_Western_world_after_1900


47 posted on 06/09/2014 12:26:39 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Why did Christians get this back when America was a good place, and they don’t when America is an Obamanation?

Do you think God cares how people dress? Do you think Satan does?


48 posted on 06/09/2014 12:27:11 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeDude

Despite to poor grammar. Goodness! I need to slow down.

Thank you. I saw that a couple years ago.


49 posted on 06/09/2014 12:29:27 PM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

A.) Men and women can both wear pants, as long as men don’t wear womens pants and vice versa.

Well Obama Fails at this point for sure...


50 posted on 06/09/2014 12:33:03 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson