|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 10, 2008 21:10:38 GMT -5
Last year around March I was accused by some on this board in the Charlotte area of supposedly calling a very godly Christian girl a "whore" because she was wearing shorts.
In the first place I have never called anyone a whore because they wear shorts.
In the second place I do not know any godly women who wear shorts in public.
Godly women dress modestly. Shorts are not modest.
I offered to discuss this matter on the phone with those making these charges but they refused.
Someone else mentioned this same incident recently.
I challenge my accusers to come and meet with me face to face.
Lord willing I plan to preach at UNC Charlotte October 14-17.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Oct 10, 2008 21:34:58 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, you said that the way it usually goes is like this; A young lady offers a word of encouragement, you notice her shorts and ask her why she dresses like a sleeper/harlot or something like that (because she shows her knees). So you did not call her a sleeper but that she was dressed like a sleeper or something to that effect. Correct me if I am wrong.
1) My wife is a godly woman and wears shorts from time to time. I wear shorts in public also.
2) I know many godly women who wear shorts. I know many godly men who wear shorts.
3) Shorts can be worn modestly.
4) I have no desire to meet with you to discuss fashion
5) God bless you in your time at UNCC
6) Preach your convictions, I will preach mine, God will judge us both.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 10, 2008 21:56:28 GMT -5
I agree with the second guy............and no it isn't just because I like looking at girl's legs.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 11, 2008 10:59:52 GMT -5
No I never said that. Since you never talked to me over the phone (even though I offered) please show me where I said that. That is probably what she said.
How are shorts modest?
1 Timothy 2:9-Women, modest and apparell. Apparell refers to long flowing garment.
I do not want to discuss fashion either although that is a great way to skirt the issue of modesty.
Since this is still out there (it was brought up to me again a few days ago) I want to discuss the incident face to face.
Then you will see for yourself what really happens out there.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Oct 11, 2008 16:59:23 GMT -5
You said;
By your standard, my wife is not a real Christian, nor was the young lady you spoke to. I have not brought this up again as I told you last year I would not bring it up again. I don't know why you brought it up again to me. Again, you preach your convictions, I will preach mine, God will judge us both.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 11, 2008 17:25:36 GMT -5
I do not want to discuss fashion either although that is a great way to skirt the issue of modesty. ;D hehe i see what you did there. Very clever. lol
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 13, 2008 14:14:49 GMT -5
In the first place the quote you have from me above is very different from the accusation of me calling the girl a sleeper for wearing shorts.
Don't you think there is a little discrepency there?
I am not going to change the Word of God just because street preachers or people they know wear shorts.
I do not think preachers should preach in shorts.
I will repeat the question again. How are shorts modest?
How do you get shorts are ok for women from 1 Timothy 2:9? Apparel means a dress and not shorts.
Women wearing shorts or pants opens the door to men wearing dresses and having long hair. Gender confusion. No gender distinction. Gender neutral. Do you see this?
Where do you draw the line then on modesty? Is it determined by our society or is it determined by the Bible?
What is modest today on a college campus would have been the attire of a harlot years ago.
By the way if you said you were not going to bring this up again then I apologize. That was why I contacted you privately about it. I did not mention names publicly.
The reason I brought it up again is because someone brought it up to me again last week.
Since I would be in the Charlotte area I thought the Biblical thing to do would be to deal with the issue face to face and find out the real truth.
Finally Charlotte does not have school on Monday and Tuesday of this week. I am not sure at this point now if I will be there this week. I will post back.
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 13, 2008 14:25:22 GMT -5
Did they not even wear pants in the times of the Bible? I really don't see what you guys are arguing about. How can you argue about something that wasn't even invented yet?
Most people back then wore robes and things like that. I don't believe dresses had been around yet either. Most likely not till somewhere around 1300 to 1500.
Why does anyone have the right to judge anyone else for what they wear? You should judge people on their actions, not on their choice of fashion.
I think neck ties are stupid and unnecessary. Does that mean I should condemn anyone who wears a neck tie?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Oct 13, 2008 15:18:17 GMT -5
I have her words and I have your words. I wasn't there, so I don't know what was actually said. I assume they interpreted your words differently than you intended them.
1Ti 2:9 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;
I believe the context is pretty clear. The passage is talking about wearing expensive/ornate clothing that is intended to draw attention. I think of that lady on TBN wearing all the rings and gold, not a girl in shorts. I agree that some shorts can be used to attract the wrong kind of attention, but dresses and even jeans can be used to do the same thing.
I have preached modesty and purity on the street and in pulpits, but shorts aren't really the issue. If we dressed like Jesus and the Apostles, people would think we were cross dressing. They had a different wardrobe. They had what we consider long hair. These are all cultural distinctions. I spent some time studying the Amish, and they consider it a shame for a man's hair to not cover his ears or hang to his collar. They hold that their position is the biblical one. They would agree with you on the shorts though. I can respect their position, I just don't think there is reason enough to accept it as dogma.
A man purposefully trying to pose as a woman is easily distinguished. A woman trying to pose as a man is easily distinguished. A woman wearing clothing that is intended to make men lust after her is easily distinguished. It's hard to judge intentions without taking the culture into consideration.
I would be glad to meet with you sometime, but I do work long hours and don't make it out to college campuses more than a several times a year as the times don't line up very well. I'm not big on phone conversations with people I don't know. If we are at odds to the point in which you don't think my wife is a Christian because she wears shorts, we probably don't need to meet and make small talk. We can just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 13, 2008 15:43:33 GMT -5
You keep ignoring the word aparel. Have you looked it up or studied the greek?
No I do not make pants or even modest shorts a big issue on campus.
For me to make this an issue with this girl she would have had to be immodest.
Yes I realize some girls are wearing pants that are not really tight or long shorts that are loose and they think they are modest (and by the standards around them they are).
I am not going out and nitpicking on things like that.
So are shorts above the knees that show a woman's thigh's considered modest? Why or why not?
By the way let's clarify something (although I thought I already made it clear). I wanted to discuss the allegation of this student and not make small talk.
Where did you ever get the idea I wanted to meet, hang out and make small talk?
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 13, 2008 15:57:34 GMT -5
Are shorts above the knees that show a woman's thigh's considered modest?
I think that depends on the guy looking at her. If he thinks sexual thoughts that is his fault.
I don't think there is anything wrong with admiring the beauty of a woman.
Being naked is only frowned upon because we are not use to it. If you went to a nudist colony with an open mind I guarentee you would see that the people that live within them are very modest and respectful towards each other. Sure not all of them are but no one in one group is the same.
|
|
|
Post by evilart on Oct 13, 2008 16:00:39 GMT -5
Micah, just shut up. Nice that you have the power to stand in judgement over others, you loudmouthed hypocrite. I have other news for you, Micah, no one wants to hang out or make small talk with you either, because you are an arrogant, delusioned braggart. Why don't you live up to your earlier statement about not coming to this board as often as you once did? Give us relief from you.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Oct 13, 2008 19:52:46 GMT -5
Yes, I have studied the greek. The passage defines itself when describing the type of dress he is speaking of;
not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
No mention of shorts. The young lady in question had on a pair of baggy shorts that came just above her knees. She showed me the shorts and asked my opinion of them. They weren't tight or short. She had just finished jogging.
How do we define modest? Is it defined by our own personnel lust? In Paul's day and culture, immodest dress was ornate clothing adorned with silver, gold and other costly items. No one was wearing shorts and that wasn't what he was speaking of in this passage.
I remember studying the missionary efforts to reach remote tribes in S. America. The people there didn't consider going topless sinful, but they believed wearing purple was sinful. The men didn't lust after the topless women but got all worked up over a woman wearing a colored shaw. In that tribe, the heathens wore more clothes than the virtuous. As they were influenced by some of the missionaries, some of the tribes began to cover their upper body for social events and times of worship. They all still show their knees as well as their thighs without ever thinking twice about it. Purple is still taboo, being ornate clothing designed to attract men.
Intention is definitely part of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by evilart on Oct 13, 2008 20:12:02 GMT -5
The case above is a good one but far too sophisticated for someone like Micah to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Oct 13, 2008 20:59:44 GMT -5
apparel c.1250, "to equip (in any way)," from O.Fr. apareillier, from V.L. *appariculare, from L. apparare "prepare, make ready" (see apparatus), or from V.L. *ad-particulare "to put things together." The meaning "to attire in proper clothing" is from 1362; noun sense of "personal outfit or attire" is from 1330. wardrobe 1387, "room where wearing apparel is kept," earlier "a private chamber" (c.1300), from O.N.Fr. warderobe, variant of O.Fr. garderobe "place where garments are kept," from warder "to keep, guard" (see ward (v.)) + robe "garment" (see robe). Meaning "a person's stock of clothes for wearing" is recorded from c.1400. Sense of "movable closed cupboard for wearing apparel" is recorded from 1794. Meaning "room in which theatrical costumes are kept" is attested from 1711. gear c.1205, "equipment," from O.N. gervi "apparel," related to gerr "ready," and gerva "make ready," from P.Gmc. *garwin- (cf. O.E. gearwe; O.H.G. garawi "clothing, dress," garawen "to make ready;" Ger. gerben "to tan"), from PIE *garw-. Meaning of "toothed wheel in machinery" first attested 1523. Slang for "male sex organs" from 1675. British slang sense of "stylish, excellent" first recorded 1951, from earlier that's the gear, expression of approval, 1925. www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=apparel&searchmode=noneThis is more modern english than the celts, notice before 1611 The Gr. katastolç G2687 1) to send or put down, to lower 2) to put or keep down one who is roused or incensed, to repress, restrain, appease, quiet To say this word means a woman has to wear a dress is a bit beyond the Greek meaning of this word. The men and women wore tunics in that culture. I think the key here is modesty. I did find some verses that I thought to be interesting to this topic. Bro. Micah mentioned not wearing shorts for men or women while preaching.(that is another thread) Here goes: Ex 28:40-42 "For Aaron's sons you shall make tunics, and you shall make sashes for them. And you shall make hats for them, for glory and beauty. "So you shall put them on Aaron your brother and on his sons with him. You shall anoint them, consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me as priests. "And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs. A simple reading of this indicates they were wearing shorts called trousers under their tunics. Is there anyone that gets something different than that? Now before anyone gets in a tizzy, I know we are not these Hebrew priests. But we are servants of the great High priest! Here we see the priests wore shorts, under their tunics. Apparently, God thinks it is okay just to cover from the waist to the knee. I have worn shorts, but never a tunic. Any preachers out there worn a tunic? I have heard about this no preaching in shorts issue before, I still don't understand it. Maybe someone can better clarify what the following terms mean: 1. modesty 2. dress 3. tunic 4. trousers
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 13, 2008 21:29:58 GMT -5
I'd also like to hear more about the no preaching in shorts issue. I've heard open air preachers talk about this before, but I haven't been able to find anything in the Bible about this. The whole issue seems to hinge on how people define "modest". Unfortunately, I haven't found a strict definition of this in the Bible. But, hey, I am open to adjust my views. If someone shows me that I shouldn't be wearing shorts preaching or at all, I'd be willing to adjust...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Oct 13, 2008 21:39:33 GMT -5
The word translated as "modestly" in the NASB and "propriety" in the NKJV is the Greek word aidos, and according to the BDAG Greek Dictionary (one that goes a little deeper than most) it expresses the opposite of considering or treating something in a common or ordinary manner. So, Christian women should not dress in the common or ordinary manner of their culture, they should be above it.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 18, 2008 22:05:31 GMT -5
The word "robe" does not mean pants. It means a dress.
I think we all agree on the modest part. No one is arguing on whether we should be modest. We are discussing exactly what modest is.
I have repeatedly brought up the word apparel means a "robe" or a "dress" and this has been repeatedly ignored and we keep trying to go back to modest.
|
|
|
Post by kureji on Oct 18, 2008 22:09:27 GMT -5
Really? Because I was under the impression that a Robe was a Robe and a Dress was a Dress.
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 19, 2008 0:56:56 GMT -5
Really? Because I was under the impression that a Robe was a Robe and a Dress was a Dress. Silly you kureji. Don't you know words in the Bible can have many many meanings? Debonaire already explained this to us. It makes perfect sense for the Bible to use a word that is suppose to mean something else.............oh wait actually it doesn't. Never mind. ;D Have a bad day. <see what I did there. I meant have a good day but I was substituting bad for good because as we all know bad can me good or at least according to the Bible. ;D
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 19, 2008 21:11:02 GMT -5
Ok, I agree a man dressing like a woman is easily distinguished. What would he wear? Long hair, heels, dress, etc.
Now please tell me how a woman trying to dress like a man is so easily distinguished?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 19, 2008 21:14:28 GMT -5
Ok, I agree a man dressing like a woman is easily distinguished. What would he wear?
Now please tell me how a woman trying to dress like a man is so easily distinguished?
Do you guys think Deuteronomy 22:5 has any relevance for today or not?
|
|
|
Post by davidvalley on Oct 19, 2008 22:30:49 GMT -5
Ok, I agree a man dressing like a woman is easily distinguished. What would he wear? Now please tell me how a woman trying to dress like a man is so easily distinguished? Do you guys think Deuteronomy 22:5 has any relevance for today or not? Not?
|
|
|
Post by kureji on Oct 20, 2008 0:13:58 GMT -5
As much as any other fiction, such as Green Eggs and Ham.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Oct 20, 2008 9:35:57 GMT -5
Ok, I agree a man dressing like a woman is easily distinguished. What would he wear? Now please tell me how a woman trying to dress like a man is so easily distinguished? Do you guys think Deuteronomy 22:5 has any relevance for today or not? I don't think you can categorize dressing like a man with a particular article of clothing (wearing pants, or button down shirts, etc.). My wife was telling me about a student of hers who dressed and carried herself just like a boy. Now she was dressed in jeans and a t-shirt just like some of the other girls in the class. The difference was that the other girls carried themselves in a feminine manner and appeared as such. There was no way you could mistake the other girls for a boy, but this young lady looked just like a boy. Granted her hair was extremely short, she had on boots and masculine colors, but for the most part, it was her demeanor that made my wife initially think she was a male student. I met a homosexual man Saturday who dressed like a man, but carried himself in a very effeminate manner. There was no question about his sexual orientation, or at least his projected orientation. If I would have taken a picture of the him and the girl he was with, you would have thought they were a heterosexual couple. If I would have made a video of his demeanor, you would have been able to see how effeminate he was, regardless of what he was wearing. All this to say that not everything is as black and white as we would like. I tell my wife to look in the mirror before she leaves the house and ask herself if God would be pleased with the way she is dressed. That's what she does, and I think He is.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Oct 24, 2008 13:07:41 GMT -5
Yes, especially with all the short haired, pants wearing women walking around.
|
|
|
Post by evilart on Oct 24, 2008 14:08:01 GMT -5
Micah, you are a real weirdo. I am glad you do not live next to me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Oct 24, 2008 19:34:02 GMT -5
Ok, I agree a man dressing like a woman is easily distinguished. What would he wear? Now please tell me how a woman trying to dress like a man is so easily distinguished? Do you guys think Deuteronomy 22:5 has any relevance for today or not? The question of what would he wear... is that not culture based? Because if you ask an American or someone from Scotland (kilts), you might get a different answer. If you ask someone 2000 years ago, you might still get an different answer. Robes on men are much more modest than pants. Remember, women can lust too. To me, it seems that if everyone wore something like a robe (male and female) you would not really be able to see the curves of the body- which in most people's mind effects if something as seen as modest or not. If something is really tight ie you can see all the curves of the body, it is seen as immodest, right? I once heard Ravenhill say something, somewhat in jest, that was probably shocking to some people. He said, "The greatest holiness preacher ever wore shorts." He was referring to John the Baptist. With that said, I do always smile when I hear my holiness pentecostal friends say something like "when you are in a place and find the restrooms, how do you know which door to go into?"
|
|
|
Post by Paul Mcgrade on Oct 25, 2008 2:39:25 GMT -5
Uhhhh....Are you forgetting the other sign?
|
|
|
Post by fs on Oct 26, 2008 8:25:12 GMT -5
Instead of arguing with each other with trivia why aren't you out there fighting the real enemy who is Satan and stealing souls every minute.
|
|