|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Apr 23, 2008 12:43:50 GMT -5
Anyone wish to open this can of worms? ;D
(And before anyone goes there, no I am not calling the Word of God a can of worms)
|
|
|
|
Post by nina2 on Apr 23, 2008 14:21:50 GMT -5
OK  Here is the original commentary of Rashi: 5. A man's attire shall not be on a woman, nor may a man wear a woman's garment because whoever does these [things] is an abomination to the Lord, your God. A man’s attire shall not be on a woman making her appear like a man, thereby enabling her to go among men, for this can only be for the [purpose of] adultery. — [Nazir 59a] nor may a man wear a woman’s garment to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [In addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a] because… is an abomination The Torah forbids only [the wearing of] clothes that would lead to abomination [i.e., immoral and illicit behavior]. — [Nazir 59a] Do you have any specific direction for this study? I just went back to Torah and Rashi, but I know it can go in so many issues...  |
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Apr 23, 2008 14:36:42 GMT -5
Yeah, well no not really.........LOL
This scritpure is used for so many reasons oftentimes taken out of context. In my experience my old church used this to explain why I cannot wear pants (as was stated in another thread). However, what I wanted to do was discuss what it is really stating. What you have posted is great start!
|
|
|
|
Post by livinganewlife on Apr 28, 2008 6:52:59 GMT -5
Yeah, well no not really.........LOL This scritpure is used for so many reasons oftentimes taken out of context. In my experience my old church used this to explain why I cannot wear pants (as was stated in another thread). However, what I wanted to do was discuss what it is really stating. What you have posted is great start! Giving the time in which the scripture was written pants weren't an issue because the men wore robes.....so I have argued that point all my life..... My mom says I came out the womb yelling "Women can wear pants and make up"......LOL! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Apr 28, 2008 9:38:22 GMT -5
Yeah, well no not really.........LOL This scritpure is used for so many reasons oftentimes taken out of context. In my experience my old church used this to explain why I cannot wear pants (as was stated in another thread). However, what I wanted to do was discuss what it is really stating. What you have posted is great start! Giving the time in which the scripture was written pants weren't an issue because the men wore robes.....so I have argued that point all my life..... My mom says I came out the womb yelling "Women can wear pants and make up"......LOL! ;D ROFL! |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Jun 28, 2008 10:21:25 GMT -5
Well, there are men's pants and there are women's pants.
|
|
|
|
Post by And Such Were Some Of You on Jun 28, 2008 12:05:04 GMT -5
Well, there are men's pants and there are women's pants. True indeed, bro. However, I have been told that since pants were originally made for men then we (women) still should not wear pants (even though they made women's pants). BONDAGE! |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 28, 2008 12:06:51 GMT -5
Well, there are men's pants and there are women's pants. Most uniforms are made for men, but women have to wear them... Example: the police department, post office, bus drivers, security etc... The pant are made straight around the hip, which do not fit well on a black full figure women. Do you think those who are in uniform committing an abomination or the Lord is really dealing with homosexualities and cross dressing .... What we see today? Is it the purpose behind it? |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Jun 28, 2008 12:10:58 GMT -5
Well, there are men's pants and there are women's pants. True indeed, bro. However, I have been told that since pants were originally made for men then we (women) still should not wear pants (even though they made women's pants). BONDAGE! T-shirts were also originally made for men, as were other items. Women wear them though. I think this particular doctrine was borne out of good intentions, as it must be noted that women wearing pants in the U.S. was borne out of rebellion and women usurping traditional masculine roles. However, that has changed. So a legitimate question could be asked: is the practice justified because the context has changed, or is it a case of "poisoned root, poisoned fruit"? |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 30, 2008 9:12:43 GMT -5
IMHO, with pants, it's a little more difficult only because if you look at many of the pants that I see women wearing, even if we want to argue that they're "women's pants", they tend to be very form fitting and the way they accentuate particular areas on a women, even if pants alone are okay, many pants that are worn aren't modest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Jun 30, 2008 12:04:44 GMT -5
absolutely Nikkol.
I went to a church on Thursday evening. Our first lady was ministering there, and the praise team was also invited to minister.
there was a woman in the row before me, she sat a couple of seats away from me, but I had a good look at her attire. Her pants suit was very nice, not tight fitting, had a modest approach to it, and looked comfortable. That was until she stood up. OK, talking about the artist who drew the detailed picture of the woman's behind, well hers would have looked just like that.
I could only imagine how the brother sitting directly behind her felt, with his wife by his side. I was horrified for him. When this lady stood up, He had to stand up as well, because her tail was all in his face. The first thing Christendom would say to this brother is, "You shouldn't be looking", and in my humble opinion, she shouldn't have worn those pants.
And to me this is where we miss it. Yes you have a right to wear your pants, you have a right to dress how you want to, with the Holy Ghosts permission, but we still need to be MINDFUL of one another.
The brother who sat behind her, may not have been battling any issues with lust, and I say that because we like to "put things on folks", and the brother could have just been enjoying the atmosphere of worship with his wife, until the woman stood up. Even with the proper underwear, those pants was too tight around her butt. She even had a wedgie, which made it worse.
All i could think, and say was wow. I didn't question her motives, or her salvation, but I definitely knew..she shouldn't have worn those pants.
While I sat, kb's Posts kept replaying in my head..and even while I laughed (to myself), it became evident that some women do not consider the mind, and visual effects our bodies have on men.
Because if they did, we would choose what we wear very wisely. This does not excuse men, but women also need to be held accountable for their dress attire, without feeling like its my right, and ain't nobody gone put me in bondage.
|
|
|
|
Post by vindicated on Jun 30, 2008 12:14:15 GMT -5
The same thing happens with dresses all the time. Too tight. Too short. Thongs lines, panty lines, dimples, girdle lumps. Too much cleavage, armpits not shaved etc
That woman's butt would have been the same size in a skirt or dress. So whether they wear pants, skirt or dress the thing that needs to happen is it needs to have the right FIT and be the right size. If the pants had been more loose fitting you still would have seen how big her butt was but it would have been more appropriate. Same with a skirt or dress. Something, anything not so form fitting would have been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by vindicated on Jun 30, 2008 12:21:39 GMT -5
Men are visual. No matter what we do or wear it won't change that. I do agree that provocative dress should not be worn to church. We ain't there for that. But let's face it. A man can see a woman in a black robe and think she's sexy. If we as women tried to figure out how NOT to entice a man, we'd just stay home from church and never go. When a man is dealing with lust, it won't matter what you have on. When he sees you, in his eyes, you're naked anyway.
But I will also say, that if you doubt whether or not you should wear it, don't put it on. I hate being in church realizing that I keep pulling on my top because it's too low cut after all. Or if you hop around a little you look down and see that your v-neck had slid down. I sit close to the front of the church AND I'm tall. I can't just hide in the crowd. Some stuff I wear to work but not church. Some people criticize that and say if you can't wear it to church don't wear it to work. I don't totally agree with that. Some things are more appropriate in a more casaual atmostphere, but that doesn't make it inappropriate altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 30, 2008 12:54:03 GMT -5
I think esp. for African American Women who have hips, we have to be careful in everything that we were...however, I will admit that pants actually still show more shape than a skirt especially since thighs are "outlined" which can't be done in a skirt (even if it's tight).
I'll be honest, I contemplate back and forth about not really wearing pants anymore unless I'm doing some work or amusement parks..... not sure as of yet....
Jasmine: I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. I went to a church and saw the exact same thing....besides being kind of grossed out, it honestly did take more effort to get into the service because I was so shocked.....and what makes it worse is that even unsaved folks tend to know what you should and shouldn't wear to church and will "check you on it".
Side Note: You never hear about this issue with Muslim garb...... I still emember talking to someone who tried to be Muslim for a while in reference to what they wore etc. They were taught that you don't want to cause a man to lust and so that's why you cover yourself because the only person that should see you is your husband. They even wear the kimara(sp?) that comes around the front so that if someone is "endowed", it wouldn't really able to be seen...... And that was good enough for her to put that practice to use...
Why is it that this (and other issues of like matter) have so many discussions but never seem to come to an absolute truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasmine on Jun 30, 2008 13:26:59 GMT -5
Men are visual. No matter what we do or wear it won't change that. I do agree that provocative dress should not be worn to church. We ain't there for that. But let's face it. A man can see a woman in a black robe and think she's sexy. If we as women tried to figure out how NOT to entice a man, we'd just stay home from church and never go. When a man is dealing with lust, it won't matter what you have on. When he sees you, in his eyes, you're naked anyway. But I will also say, that if you doubt whether or not you should wear it, don't put it on. I hate being in church realizing that I keep pulling on my top because it's too low cut after all. Or if you hop around a little you look down and see that your v-neck had slid down. I sit close to the front of the church AND I'm tall. I can't just hide in the crowd. Some stuff I wear to work but not church. Some people criticize that and say if you can't wear it to church don't wear it to work. I don't totally agree with that. Some things are more appropriate in a more casaual atmostphere, but that doesn't make it inappropriate altogether. Yes, men are visual creatures, HOWEVER men can look at a woman and think she is Beautiful, and not just "oh she's sexy, I want to tap that". ALOT of men battle with imaginations and illusion of a woman's body, however not all men do even with being visual creatures. The jist of my previous post is this, women need to be accountable just as men. I will also state that I disgree that the woman's butt would have appeared that way in a dress or skirt. If the skirt was tight figting, then yes, however most skirts do a good job of "covering". thats also what slips or other undergarments for "covering" are for. all in all, I agree with the other things posted. |
|
