It is NOT a sin for any woman to wear a pair of pants. What a crazy belief.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Top
  • Start date Start date
It is NOT a sin for women to 'wear pants'.
The 'no pants on women position can't be proven Biblically any more than the KJVO position can be proven, in any way shape or form.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
It is NOT a sin for women to 'wear pants'.
The 'no pants on women position can't be proven Biblically any more than the KJVO position can be proven, in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

You really think that makes a difference to the man made legalist?
 
While I don't believe pants on a woman is sin, in my opinion (<---), a modest dress or skirt is MORE modest than your average jeans. The angle I'm coming from is that I know how satan loves to get us men through our eyes. So if some guy is going to look at my wife, he'll just have to put some shape there that he has seen elsewhere.
 
Bro Blue said:
While I don't believe pants on a woman is sin, in my opinion (<---), a modest dress or skirt is MORE modest than your average jeans. The angle I'm coming from is that I know how satan loves to get us men through our eyes. So if some guy is going to look at my wife, he'll just have to put some shape there that he has seen elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Seems your approach to the whole matter is the opposites of Frags...he somehow seems to think that a woman who wears pants will be mistaken for a man. 8)
 
Top said:
The more I think of this cult-like movement, the more I thank God I'm out of it.
Click to expand...

Well it didn't take you long to attract the Narcissist of Narcissists........Mr. Cult himself.  LOL!
 
Bro Blue said:
While I don't believe pants on a woman is sin, in my opinion (<---), a modest dress or skirt is MORE modest than your average jeans. The angle I'm coming from is that I know how satan loves to get us men through our eyes. So if some guy is going to look at my wife, he'll just have to put some shape there that he has seen elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it is also rather hard to find dresses and skirts that are actually modest. I'm tall, and most of the dresses and skirts in style come a few inches above my knee. Maxi dresses are an exception, but most of those are low-cut or spaghetti strap, which is another problem. Supposedly, midi length is coming back in fashion, which I'll be glad for.

Anyway, people who wear skin tight jeans will also find skin-tight skirts, so the same thing can apply. I sometimes wonder if certain churches and groups don't create even more of a problem with looking for "shapes" that wouldn't otherwise be noticed, because of how much it is talked about. I never noticed the whole "arrow effect" with jeans and pants before seeing an illustration of it during a sermon on modesty, but I found myself noticing it after that.
 
Never heard of the arrow effect. Men have their particular shortcomings, as do women. Satan works on us in different ways. And to me, skin tight skirts/dresses are no better than skin tight pants. And men noticing shapes is just an inconvenient truth.
 
Raine said:
I agree, but it is also rather hard to find dresses and skirts that are actually modest. I'm tall, and most of the dresses and skirts in style come a few inches above my knee. Maxi dresses are an exception, but most of those are low-cut or spaghetti strap, which is another problem. Supposedly, midi length is coming back in fashion, which I'll be glad for.

Anyway, people who wear skin tight jeans will also find skin-tight skirts, so the same thing can apply. I sometimes wonder if certain churches and groups don't create even more of a problem with looking for "shapes" that wouldn't otherwise be noticed, because of how much it is talked about. I never noticed the whole "arrow effect" with jeans and pants before seeing an illustration of it during a sermon on modesty, but I found myself noticing it after that.
Click to expand...

LOL, I guess they never noticed that a necktie also is an arrow...
 
I don't believe pants on women are a sin.

I don't think we should get our Christian theology and beliefs from cultural practices or expectations.

It is a fact however, that Christians of yesteryear viewed britches on women as less than favorable, immodest, manly, or a combination of all the above(based on Deut 22:5 et al).
 
I do think it is important that a woman realize that she can have an adverse affect on a man with immodesty. Thing is, a lot of women feel like that is just a mans problem and they can deal with it. We should not allow certain things become stumblingblocks. Appearances do speak volumes whether you want them to or not.
Now talking about cultural things...what used to pass for harlots attire fifty years ago is now seen regularly in churches now.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
Top said:
The more I think of this cult-like movement, the more I thank God I'm out of it.
Click to expand...
First, that isn't a cult-like movement, it's a legalistic movement.  It was big 25 years ago in this area, but only a handful of large churches think that way anymore in my area.  Just like the pharisees, the IFB used traditions to justify legalism-that women weren't to wear men's clothing per Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The law was for Israel and had to do with what we would call cross dressing today or the reversing of sexual roles, imo, not just that a women's clothes resembles that of a man.  I'm not sure who started it, but in the name of separation, it was adopted by a lot of IFB churches in the day.  Not all, however, as some refused to go along with it as it didn't make sense. Church members believe whatever their preacher tells them for the most part, and you are considered divisive (a BIG sin in legalistic societies) if you didn't.  It's the same today.  We have replaced legalism with the emergent church, the social gospel, etc., etc.  People always go too far one way or the other.
Click to expand...

That which pertained unto a man and that which pertained unto a woman in Biblical times in Israel were only different in design. The men's clothes were either a different color or didn't have the same embroidery that the women's clothes did.

IFB's don't all agree as to what is considered an acceptable women's garment - there are some who say that all bifurcated garments that are totally or partially visible are not acceptable for women - I don't know if they include pantyhose and there are those who say there are certain garments like culottes or these days leggings which are usually worn underneath other clothes usually a skirt - yes ladies, leggings are the new culottes just as long as you wear something over them - they are popular up here :). I can never understand why some bifurcated garments are ok for women and others aren't. If leggings are acceptable then why aren't loose fitting slacks that were designed for a woman's body? The dresses/skirts only people seem to make more sense - at least they don't divide bifurcated garments into categories where they determine which is acceptable for women or not based on their own opinion or the consensus of their fundamentalist culture or tradition - TRADITION! :D. What makes leggings more feminine than slacks? If they fit me I'd probably look good in leggings - I do work out - doing lots of lunges and junk. I'm just kidding, I'd never wear them. It just seems silly to say this is ok and this isn't when essentially they are the same (both are bifurcated) and one is just as feminine as the other.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I don't believe pants on women are a sin.

I don't think we should get our Christian theology and beliefs from cultural practices or expectations.

It is a fact however, that Christians of yesteryear viewed britches on women as less than favorable, immodest, manly, or a combination of all the above(based on Deut 22:5 et al).
Click to expand...

If you go back far enough you'll find that every one in Western society not just Christians thought that they were not for women. Even today on formal occasions the most worldly women wear dresses - some of it is immodest but that's another issue. They do it for attention. If they were dressing somewhat like the men they would probably not get the attention they want.
 
Frag said:
Top said:
The more I think of this cult-like movement, the more I thank God I'm out of it.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Not a sin...


....the Bible word is abomination. 


Course, since Top don't agree, God must be wrong.  Oh the arrogance....
Click to expand...
Where are pants defined in the Bible as being "that which pertaineth unto a man"? Is this a Biblical definition, or is it your definition?

Put up or shut up.  :-X
 
ALAYMAN said:
I don't believe pants on women are a sin.

I don't think we should get our Christian theology and beliefs from cultural practices or expectations.

It is a fact however, that Christians of yesteryear viewed britches on women as less than favorable, immodest, manly, or a combination of all the above(based on Deut 22:5 et al).
Click to expand...

First of all, good to 'see you'.  :)

In my day, we couldn't play cards or attend movies, which also seem acceptable among the fundamentalists of today!
I believe the principle of a woman not being 'manly' in appearance can be found in the NT as well.
BUT, simply wearing pants doesn't qualify, IMHO.
 
AresMan said:
Frag said:
Top said:
The more I think of this cult-like movement, the more I thank God I'm out of it.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Not a sin...


....the Bible word is abomination. 


Course, since Top don't agree, God must be wrong.  Oh the arrogance....
Click to expand...
Where are pants defined in the Bible as being "that which pertaineth unto a man"? Is this a Biblical definition, or is it your definition?

Put up or shut up.  :-X
Click to expand...

THE ONLY way you will convince me that pants on women is not a sin is to.......


......spend the next 5 YEARS writing a book on it!

Ready, set, go....
 
Frag said:
THE ONLY way you will convince me that pants on women is not a sin is to.......


......spend the next 5 YEARS writing a book on it!

Ready, set, go....
Click to expand...

Once you order his other one and read it, then maybe he will write that one for you.
 
Mathew Ward said:
Frag said:
THE ONLY way you will convince me that pants on women is not a sin is to.......


......spend the next 5 YEARS writing a book on it!

Ready, set, go....
Click to expand...

Once you order his other one and read it, then maybe he will write that one for you.
Click to expand...

I should.  That would take copies sold to double digits!!!!
 
jbh28 said:
When people say it's a "sin" for a women to wear pants, it's usually because the leadership has failed to teach the biblical truth. What can happen over time is application of biblical truth will replace the actual biblical truth. It is biblical for men to dress like men and women to dress like women. So how do we apply that today in 2012 America? Someone asked if a man could wear a dress. Is a dress typically believed to be a man's garment? No, of course not. Is a pair of pants typically believed to be a woman garment? Yes, of course. Pants are an item of clothing that both men and women wear. So it's fine for a woman to wear pants. Now, many years ago women only wore dresses and never pants. But that's not the case today. Anyone that teaches that today is elevating application to a biblical truth level.
Click to expand...

Thank you.  At least your honest.  But what you are saying is that you will allow the culture to set the standard...what is acceptable in the world is what should be acceptable for the Christian.

The culture is not to set our standards - Bible principles are to set our standards in all areas of our life -- even dress! 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top