I applaud your entire comment, however, did you mean maya angelou?

Lol, yes, I stand corrected. Thank you.

It sounds similair to my life story, when The Lord saved and healed my heart I became modest. I couldnt wear that ' sexy' stuff anymore. Also stopped with botox, tanning and a lot of make up etc. You can dress yourself beautiful without exposing yourself and to make yourself a lustobject. The Lord has changed me so much and I don t regret that ❤️🙏🙌 God bless you sister !!!! All praises to our Lord and Savior .. Warm love from the Netherlands 🇳🇱

@@gucciblueeyes2608 Bless you, that's amazing and remember this, what's already beautiful, can not be made more beautiful. It's already beautiful. Father God created you beautiful, & everything that He created, He said it is good.

Well that’s obviously wrong for her to do. I don’t even bother returning to churches that allow that stuff.

I get excited and full of lust.

Agreed

@@iThinkBiblically I AGREE TOO

"They never caused anyone to lust".....then how was it possible for a man to "look upon a woman with lust" as Christ said? I agree with dressing modestly, but how far are we going to take it? Are we going to have them cover their ankles and wrists as the Islamists demand....so as not to cause their reprobate male followers to lust?

Things have changed

@@susanmudau9000 God is the same forever. Clothing may have changed but the goal should be to cover up. We shouldn't show much of our body

@bootsie280 No, she is a mature Christian who is well aware of the attacks of Satan. Just last night, after working all day at a high stress job, we took a bus load of kids to the park and told them about Jesus. Most of these kids wouldn't be welcome at IFBB churches either, as some are mixed race, and none are wearing black suits and cullotes. I learned sound doctrine as an ordained IFBB, but their rigidness (they call it standards, sheesh) and hateful attitudes toward everyone and everything drove us far away from that cult-like setting.

I think you are conservative but not legalistic tho. What I found a good thing. My church lets women teach men and pastor. Do you think I am legalistic for leaving the church ? Thank you in advance

Do you recommend a youtube channel I can follow ?

@lenajanssens7859 No, you are not a legalistic for leaving a "church" that allows women to preach to and teach men. It is clearly unbiblical, as the Lord has created us for equal, yet different roles in the church. Some ministries I highly recommend are as follows, in no particular order: Adrian Rogers-Love Worth Finding. Gone to be with the Lord nearly 20 years ago, but still as relevant as ever. Dr. John Barnett- DTBM Jack Hibbs- Real Life I also like Charles Stanley (but stay FAR away from his son Andy!), David Jeremiah, the Christian Worship Hour, and others. However, there are a lot of false teachers out there, and I would line everything up with Scripture. Just recently, a man I admired and listened to for decades promoted the false doctrine of Universalism, that everyone is saved, whether they have heard of Jesus or not. Of course, if you are really desperate, you can listen to my KZfaq channel, Messages From the Bible. I preach the same Gospel as those other fellas I mentioned, however, I am just not nearly as well spoken or charismatic. I pastor a small, but evangelistic church, that brings in a bunch of kids, and we see folks come to saving faith in Christ frequently. None of these men are perfect, but the ones I mentioned are solid and will not lead you astray. Just for info, I did not grow up in a conservative, Bible preaching church, but in a denomination that had many false doctrines, including that of women pastors. When I threw aside denominational beliefs, and instead trusted the Scripture, I got saved (Nov. 26th, 1994) and have been proclaiming Jesus the best I can since.

@@PastorBrian1969 Thank you very much ! I am in hunger for a solid teacher. No matter how elquont tge preacher or how big the church. So thank you very much. And yes you still need to verify even a pastor you trust cause you never know ! Thank you and I will follow you too !!

That part 💯. When I wear mines, top covers the front & back. Cute tops tho. 😅

That is for this comment. Glad you appreciated me using the Kjv

Good for you. Pentecostals are full of extra biblical stuff I found and they look down on others who don’t

Modesty is not nonese . Modesty is biblical.

@@CalledUntoHoliness Modesty isn’t not wearing pants. It’s about not flaunting your wealth. I get looked down on for wearing a 2 dollar thrift shop short sleeve dress shirt yet the others wear expensive fitted suits. Don’t be a whore yes but pants isn’t automatic whore or cross dresseing woman.

​@@CalledUntoHoliness there are skirts that are more erotic and exposing and immoral than pants

​@@dooior4092 skirts in general are more modest

I think both the tempter and the one who falls into sin as a result of that temptation are in the wrong. When Satan tempts us we have a choice but that doesn't mean that Satan didn't do anything wrong when he tempted us. I think its good your family dresses modestly. Praise God. But yes, even then people will still sin.

It's not a sin, however, women en masse seemed to have stopped wearing dresses around 1990 We used to wear dresses/skirts or pants I still wonder, if some of this could cause confusion in young children? If women/girls, don't wear skirts/dresses at least some times

How far to take it so "the brothers" don't have to stumble because of their OWN lack of self control? Maybe the Burka...making sure the wrists and ankles are covered...."so the brothers don't stumble"

So murder, stealing, adultery, sleeping with your own sister, being a sodomite is now ok? How do wile determine which laws still apply, because let’s be honest, most of God’s laws are given in the OT

That's going a little too far that's just symbolic we're getting religious here didn't Jesus say let it be the hidden man of the heart? We have to go by the times we live in too . Of course there's homosexual men which of course I do not agree with but they wear pants that look feminine you can tell so there is a difference between masculine and feminine pants

⁠@@Janalyn1212homos and heterosexuals wear skinny jeans nowadays so thats a bad argument IMO

Good point....well thought out.

Exactly it’s the intention of the person

Being an undergarment makes no sense since the Bible says it’s supposed to cover your nakedness, underwear is not meant to cover one’s nakedness, that’s what the skirt or pant’s job is

@@wendymtzc You are thinking about modern undergarments, not what the passage is talking about.

@@randyd9805 no, I’m citing a clear verse and the description does not fit that for underwear, we can agree to disagree, have a good night

@@wendymtzc I agree with you. I think the pastor is missing the passage that equates the display of the thigh with nakedness. Also, he says that the priests might expose more than intended (i.e., their private parts) if the command for the "underpants" were not given. I think that is not only pure conjecture, but if the priests wore a long robe, how realistic is it to think that a person could see very far up that robe unless they were lying on their back right between the priest's legs and looking up there with a flashlight? When I was in jr/ hi public school in the early 1960s, there were stairs going up to the second floor classrooms. All girls wore skirts and dresses back then - it was the dress code. I knew of some boys who wanted to look up the girls' skirts but they never got much of a view past the knee. Of course I believe that was wrong, and almost all of the boys I knew had more respect for the girls than to do such a thing. I didn't have sisters, but many of my buddies did and they would clean some dude's clock if they knew he was doing such a thing to his sister. Times have really changed.

No sinful pants for women

Most of the time that's true but not always and the reason why most of the time that's true is because most are sinful. But I tell you I like wearing my jeans and I do not have a provocative part at all, I can assure you of that one

If anyone judged me for my clothing especially if I don't have my breasts hanging out which I don't believe in, I wouldn't go to the church if I'm being judged by the clothing why should I go?t I'm not hearing anything about love. Isn't God love? Just because we wear a dress on the outside it doesn't mean we're transformed on the inside

If men stumble then maybe they need to deal with the sin of lust in the heart and if we want to talk about the outside, what about the sin of gluttony? See this is what I'm saying. If you're going to judge one sin another one can be judged as well we can't live the law in the flesh for in religion which is based on a flesh it has to be a transformed h e a r t

You are correct. The Greek word is "katastole" and is used of a woman's garment. The frequently used phrase "gird up the loins" is sometimes a metaphor, as in Ephesians 6:14, but in other places it is literal, as in Job 38:3 & 40:7 (KJV) "Gird up your loins like a man." Other translations render the figurative translation indicating preparedness, or readiness. That's one of the challenges of OT Hebrew is that the vocabulary is limited to just a few thousand words, and much is left to the translator for interpretation. However, the imagery, whether literal or figurative, is based on the common practice of men gathering the loose ends of their tunics and binding them up between their legs and securing them with the belt (girdle - hence the verb "gird"). The Davis Bible Dictionary actually has a 20th century photo of men in a robe/tunic who still dress in this way. For such a phrase to have come into the vernacular of both OT and NT idioms, it is highly probably that it was a common practice among men of the day. The only reference to a women "girding the loins" is in Proverbs 31:17 "She girds herself with strength, and strengthens her arms." The phrase "girds herself with strength" is very clearly a metaphor just as it is in Ephesians 6:14. The way one can distinguish a metaphoric usage is by trying to picture the phrase in a strict literal sense. In Ephesians 6:14-17 the list of items for the armor of God are all metaphorically used. One cannot picture a literal "shield of faith," shoes that look like the "Gospel of peace," a "helmet of salvation," or loins "girded with truth." This would be like trying to picture the "smell of blue," or the "taste of dark."

..... I used to be in a church that forbid women from church ministry, even teaching Sunday school, if wearing pants. I was completely shocked when I realized when Deuteronomy was written, both men and women looked very similarly dressed in ROBES. There were subtle differences but still long robes.

Bible states, "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"… what garment is this talking about?

@@wendymtzc Thanks for asking… the Bible is speaking about just what it says … cross dressing. Men wearing women clothing and women wearing men clothing. Pants are universal made for both men and women just like T- shirts. Clothing based on gender specific clothing for a male or female appropriately 😊👍

@@tammycovington3288 no, it’s not about cross dressing, it clearly speaks of a garment so if it’s not pants then what is it

@@wendymtzc To each its own Wendy… It is NOT speaking specifically of pants and in those times men often wore long tunics which is similar to a dress by as stated in my original comment God looks at the heart not physical appearance. Modesty is important to God and it should be important to us as well regarding our dress😊

@@tammycovington3288 I agree, it does not specifically mention pants or dresses but that’s exactly the implication IMO given the fact that the Bible nowhere teaches both men and women wore long tunics or robes, as a matter of fact Jesus specifically reproves men for wearing long robes, the word pants was not yet invented, it does not mean that garment didn’t exist back then, pants are mentioned in the Bible, just with a different name (hosen and breeches) and I totally agree that what’s inside our heart is more important than our appearance… have a blessed night

No jeans or sinful pants. Dresses below the knees are allowed

And it's better for women to wear yoga pants than no pants. Do you see what you have submitted to here? That is moral relativism, straight and simple - which is what so many of the uncritically thinking commenters have espoused here, most, unwittingly - because they have never been taught basic logic and critical thinking skills. Such skills provide the necessary tools for proper interpretation of the Bible, particularly on difficult topics. If there are no objective moral standards, then the Deuteronomy passage being discussed is irrelevant. In fact so are all the other passages which declare certain acts as "abomination unto the LORD."

Pants were created for men..

Well, in some cultures men where kilts. In many Arab countries men do not wear trousers. It’s based on the culture. What is considered manly and feminine in that culture?

Yeah, it’s actually a big deal in some circles.

You laugh about it but then go on to explain exactly why it’s wrong

@@wendymtzc so what !

WEL SAID AND WELL PUT ............

Good logic, I commend your critical thinking skills. May I add a bit more? If pants and skirts are both women's garments (as many have claimed in these comments), then what exactly is a man's garment? If a man wears a skirt, you can be sure he will be accused of dressing like a woman; but, if he wears pants HE IS STILL dressing like a woman. What choices does he have? Many among the Gen Z youth clearly see the hypocrisy, but instead of calling it out as wrong, they have jumped headlong into the LGBTQ agenda and are all for men wearing anything they want since women have been able to do that for decades. The only cure is for Christians to wise-up, straighten-up, and be different. Rom. 12:1-2.

That's a stretch. Girding one's loins is about being manly it's not about outfit.

* “gird up your loins like a man”. * We have a modern equivalent to that phrase... 'Stop being a wuss'.

Men wore pants and they could gird up their loins because they still have pants covering their thighs

Excellent statement. I wrote the following in response to another comment above, --------------- The frequently used phrase "gird up the loins" is sometimes a metaphor, as in Ephesians 6:14, but in other places it is literal, as in Job 38:3 & 40:7 (KJV) "Gird up your loins like a man." Other translations render the figurative translation indicating preparedness, or readiness. That's one of the challenges of OT Hebrew is that the vocabulary is limited to just a few thousand words, and much is left to the translator for interpretation. However, the imagery, whether literal or figurative, is based on the common practice of men gathering the loose ends of their tunics and binding them up between their legs and securing them with the belt (girdle - hence the verb "gird"). The Davis Bible Dictionary actually has a 20th century photo of men in a robe/tunic who still dress in this way. For such a phrase to have come into the vernacular of both OT and NT idioms, it is highly probably that it was a common practice among men of the day. The only reference to a women "girding the loins" is in Proverbs 31:17 "She girds herself with strength, and strengthens her arms." The phrase "girds herself with strength" is very clearly a metaphor just as it is in Ephesians 6:14. The way one can distinguish a metaphoric usage is by trying to picture the phrase in a strict literal sense. In Ephesians 6:14-17 the list of items for the armor of God are all metaphorically used. One cannot picture a literal "shield of faith," shoes that look like the "Gospel of peace," a "helmet of salvation," or loins "girded with truth." This would be like trying to picture the "smell of blue," or the "taste of dark."

@@intothekey The frequently used phrase "gird up the loins" is sometimes a metaphor, as in Ephesians 6:14, but in other places it is literal, as in Job 38:3 & 40:7 (KJV) "Gird up your loins like a man." Other translations render the figurative translation indicating preparedness, or readiness. That's one of the challenges of OT Hebrew is that the vocabulary is limited to just a few thousand words, and much is left to the translator for interpretation. However, the imagery, whether literal or figurative, is based on the common practice of men gathering the loose ends of their tunics and binding them up between their legs and securing them with the belt (girdle - hence the verb "gird"). The Davis Bible Dictionary actually has a 20th century photo of men in a robe/tunic who still dress in this way. For such a phrase to have come into the vernacular of both OT and NT idioms, it is highly probably that it was a common practice among men of the day. The only reference to a women "girding the loins" is in Proverbs 31:17 "She girds herself with strength, and strengthens her arms." The phrase "girds herself with strength" is very clearly a metaphor just as it is in Ephesians 6:14. The way one can distinguish a metaphoric usage is by trying to picture the phrase in a strict literal sense. In Ephesians 6:14-17 the list of items for the armor of God are all metaphorically used. One cannot picture a literal "shield of faith," shoes that look like the "Gospel of peace," a "helmet of salvation," or loins "girded with truth." This would be like trying to picture the "smell of blue," or the "taste of dark."

Sounds like the a cult! lol

@@iThinkBiblically ~ Thank you for taking the time reading my comment Caleb. l wish l knew if l could look them up on line. They are not SDA but they have some of the same rules, like the jewellery. Have a blessed day. :)

Unfortunately, you are correct about living in dangerous times. However, the frequency of rape and assault, percentage-wise, has greatly increased over the past several decades, in spite of the fact that, by far, most women who are raped or assaulted are wearing pants. Could it be, that a few generations ago, when women almost exclusively wore skirts and dresses out shopping and in public, that men were more respectful and protective of women? Since the late 1960s, women have been influenced by the humanistic propaganda of the second-wave feminists who shunned marriage and child-rearing, and placed more value on materialistic values and worldly success. In the course of that "progress" - falsely so-called - they also shunned dressing femininely and modestly - and even worse, shamed women who chose to be wives and mothers and especially those who did not adopt the feminists' sacred cow of wearing trousers. I actually know something about all this since I was born before 1950 and witnessed this first-hand.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7R4e9Jzz57Nqqc.htmlsi=Xw0hfuCny1ZuvfGK

All who rely on works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" ---Galatians 3

@TheRealRenn So are you saying I can commit murder? ‭Matthew 5:17-20 KJV‬ [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

@@TaiwoA.A.Ademiluyi I did not say anything...period. I quoted the Apostle Paul from Galatians chapter 3. Perhaps it best, since you appear to be good at throwing out multiple verses after asking a question, to go read Galatians again.

@@TheRealRenn I wish you a good day.

That's what I'm wondering. Is this like circumcision?

Chapter 22 is a collection of various laws, some of them are moral (like verse 5) and others are civil, or ceremonial. You might want to consider that verse 5 includes the words, "abomination unto the LORD." This is the strongest warning used in the Bible for what God considers sin. He hates it, He detests it. It goes against His will and purpose for His design for men and women to be different. God is not the author of confusion. If it's okay for women to wear trousers as the outermost garment, then is it okay for men to wear skirts? A lot of people in the "woke" crowd are advocating for just that very thing, and for genderless clothing, gender fluidity, etc. It seems that Christians are last ones to realize that there has been a sexual revolution, and that the culture war has already been lost.

@@Chazd1949 We are still making choices. Other versions use the English word detestable. That word is then used to describe a number of things that God does not want the Israelites to do. God does not label them moral or civil, we do that. I find it interesting that we find it used a lot in Proverbs where God tells us there are seven things that are detestable, a proud look, a lying tongue, a hand that sheds innocent blood, a heart that devised evil schemes, feet quick to evil, a false witness and one that stirs up conflict in the community. We spend too much time on what people wear and not enough on what they do.

@@JohnMark1313 "Detestable" yeah, okay, that's what it means, as I said, if you read my entire comment. Yes, Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven other things that God detests. You say "we spend too much time on what people wear and not enough on what they do." Well, what people wear IS SOMETHING they do. These are not mutually exclusive. You seem draw a false dichotomy here. One need not be neglected for sake of another. It's ALL sin in God's eyes. And furthermore, Christians today - particularly females - hardly give a thought to what they wear, whether it's pleasing to the Lord or not; most are more concerned with what other women think. Most Christians have a pretty shallow idea of God's holiness, so no wonder there are so many reports of sexually immoral, even heinous, acts among the leaders in churches today - just read the Roys Report. The unchurched have a very low opinion of Christianity because so many Christians look and act like heathen.

With all due respect, I smell a “red herring” in your line of reasoning. The word "abomination" is synonymous with "detestable." In addition, shifting to a synonym is the fallacy of making a distinction without a difference, if that is what you're trying to do. It is true that the Bible does not label the various laws as moral or civil/ceremonial, but that is what they are. The moral laws flow from the Holy Character of God Himself, not simply because He commands them, as He did with the ceremonial laws which were given to point to Christ.. The seven abominations in Proverbs 6:16-19 are serious sins also - ones the Christian needs to heed. You say “we spend too much time on what people wear and not enough on what people do” - sorry, but I see more faulty reasoning here. What “people wear” IS SOMETHING THEY DO!!! (:>). Furthermore, the seven abominations in Proverbs 6 and the abomination in Deuteronomy 22:5 are not mutually exclusive. There is not a conflict between obeying one over the other. Finally, of my many commentaries that cover Deuteronomy, not a single one dismisses this verse as inappropriate for Christian observance. In fact, they all warn of its severity.

Would you also say that it is not sinful for a man to wear a skirt?

@@Chazd1949 To each their own.

@@joecool97 So, would you say that you're a moral relativist? BTW: joecool97 were you born in 1997? Just curious.. . .

@@Chazd1949 None of your business. No. I grew up accepting women the way they are. When I see a woman dressed up or casual in Pants she looks beautiful.

@@joecool97 Okay, no problem. I asked about your birth year because I find studying opinions across generations to be interesting.

I agree with you, but in the time when the OT was written all men wore something we would call dresses.

@@MultiSky7 I know. The OT verse says nothing about pants. That's misguided. I'm talking based on our cultural standards. 👍

As ladies we wear women's pants, not men's. With so many people blabbing you need to dress like us. I was in one of these cult's and I'm never going back. It's spiritual abuse for complete control over you. They take everything out of context and only focus on the outside appearance. No more institutionalized church.

@@MultiSky7 Yes, but my seminary course textbook on Bible Customs and Lands states that men wore shorter robes than women; and, also, men "girded up" the ends of the garment so as to fit more like trousers today. Women did not follow that practice from what we can determine by historical and archaeological evidence; although its certainly probable that disobedient Israelites practicing pagan cult worship did cross-dress. Secondly, even if we concede that men wore long robes similar to women's, it simply does not follow that God approved of it. After all, the patriarchs and kings of Israel and Judah had multiple wives and concubines. Furthermore, most of the good kings who "did that which is right in the sight of the LORD" failed to "remove the high places" which God had forbidden. Thirdly, we are New Testament Christians. We are going to be held to a higher standard than the Old Testament saints. In fact, because we have 20 centuries of Christian scholarship and both good and bad examples, God expects we, as 21st century Christians, to learn from these and make the best choices that honor His word and glorify His name.

There are thousands of photos on Pinterest from 100 years ago or more that show women doing all kinds of activities in skirts - WW1 women doing factory work, metal machining, police work, etc. and also women hiking, hunting, fishing, snow skiing, skating, swimming, exercising, and doing all sorts of sports and outdoor activities. I have a huge file folder of these that I've downloaded. There are more than I could name here. It certainly was the rebellious feminist movement and Hollywood liberals that brought about the sexual revolution for which we are now reaping the consequences- and it started with women wanting to replace men by wearing their clothes.

It is legalism, because it doesn't say "pants". So you made it up. THAT is legalism.

@@global1007 Hi, do you know what legalism means? Or are you just saying it because you’ve heard other people use that term? Legalism pertains to the law. I don’t keep the law, because Jesus came to fulfill it. If I were saying that Christians are to offer animal sacrifices and keep the sabbath, you’d have a right to call me legalistic. Modesty is a Bible doctrine. A New Testament doctrine. The Bible says “study to shew thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” the Lord saved me and taught me to study what modesty means, what it consists of and what it doesn’t. Pants for women are not modest. Along with many other things, makeup etc.. just like there are certain things that men shouldn’t wear because it’s not modest. Any God fearing woman or man will be careful to dress in a way that’s pleasing to God. ”For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.“ ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ I could give you much more scripture regarding the new birth and how that should also show on the outside and the outward adorning. I haven’t seen you give me one verse of scripture to back up what you’re saying

@@Jesussaves532 I agree on modesty. I know that it is biblical. But may I be clear, legalism is also building your own law. It is not only in reference to Moses's law. You can set up a new rule, and it is legalism. Check the definition of the term. I know that modesty is important. But it does not say "pants" in any way or the other. That is your own law.

@@global1007 It doesn’t say “shorts” either or “plunging v-necks”, or “high heels” but are those modest? No. Come on. Just because a certain word isn’t in the Bible means God is fine with it? Trying to modernize God is dangerous. I recommend you don’t do that. The true God of the Bible, Jesus Christ (not the false god of modern new age Christianity) wants women to be shamefaced. To have excess of modesty. Period. Amish and Mennonites are good examples of legalistic religious groups, sure they keep themselves covered with long modest dresses which is good, but then they say things like you have to wear a head covering and not let your hair down (when the Bible says a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering) they don’t follow the Bible in the fear of the Lord, they don’t do those things with understanding, they’re just following rules of men, they’re religious. So in cases like that, I would agree that modesty can be taken too far, not because it’s excess, but because they’re adding to the scriptures.

@@global1007 I know what legalism means. Have you studied what modesty means? Where do you get your standard of modesty? Preference maybe? Other women? I get mine from the word of God.

AS my wife just said, it appears their ultimate goal is not to separate themselves from the world, but rather to separate themselves from other Christ followers...to appear superior...more godly

I agree. My church is like that also. However, principles of gender distinction and modesty need to be the conviction of the pastors and their wives and they should set a high standard for themselves. While loving and showing kindness to those who are less mature and giving gentle guidance to the women in the church, the pastor's wife can bring about a more effective change in their hearts (first) and in their practices (a logical consequence of the heart) than would be the result of authoritative/dictatorial thumping from the pulpit. We are all a "work in progress" and we should continually strive for excellence in all things, for the glory of our Lord and Savior.

Women shouldn't even be in half of those jobs.

There are thousands of photos on Pinterest from 100 years ago or more that show women doing just such things in skirts - WW1 women doing factory work, metal machining, police work, etc. and also women hiking, hunting, fishing, snow skiing, skating, swimming, exercising, and doing all sorts of sports and outdoor activities. I have a huge file folder of these that I've downloaded. There are more than I could name here. It was the rebellious feminist movement and Hollywood liberals that brought about the sexual revolution for which we are now reaping the consequences- and it started with women wanting to replace men by wearing their clothes.

Depends what you mean by slacks. I don't think women should wear tight fitting clothes like leggings in public.

@@iThinkBiblically What I mean by pants is something like a pantsuit, like they would wear to the office or church. In public, however, yes, I agree with you , keep the leggings reserved for the gym or at home for lounging around. I'm not arguing here but I think this whole thing about women wearing pants, whether in church or in daily life, are fine on a woman, they don't need to get dolled up and put on a nice fancy dress just to do grocery shopping, it's their choice if they want to, who am I to judge? What matters is what SHE wants, not what some, sorry to say this, jackass standing behind a pulpit wants. What I'm getting sick and tired of if the legalism in the church, preferably the IFB, taking Scripture verses COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT and making a rule that "must be followed or else" It's ridiculous and downright abusive for a "pastor" to tell his church members how to dress and act. I also just heard that the JWs are going to allow women to wear pants in the Kingdom Halls and out in field service, and Men don't have to wear a tie AND can grow beards now. How's that for a newsflash?

​@@iThinkBiblicallywhat about skinny jeans? Normally, I looked at skinny jeans as an tire that covers legs. Point blank. By default some pants were made up close to the skin but of course not tight. "Tight" would be getting a size that's actually not your size. Most of the time if I wear skinny jeans I don't have the intentions to show off my curves nor look feminine. I just want to wear clothing that cover my legs. I hope to be convicted if my style becomes ungodly

That is true, but only for those who don't follow christ as they don't see a reason to follow the rules. But as believers in Jesus we must follow the word so it would not be judging to ask someone who is a believer to dress modestly. It would be judgment if we looked at it and said well im better than them because I dress better. This is about not judging but more about obey the word of God.

It's not judging them in terms of condemning regarding what we wear . But if we don't dress modestly like the bible said we should then we are putting on display temptation to young men & ladies . I'm not talk about pants but dressing in general. Let us think of out brother or sister not only ourselves when it comes to spirituality as the bible tells us. God bless 😊

Jhn 7:24 KJV - 24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 👆👆👆👆👆 This passage isn't about what a person wears/how they dress/raiment. Was there another passage you were thinking of?

@@TheCableStrain yes that is true but would it not be righteous judgment if someone is bearing sinful fruits of trying to tempt others by what they wear. I think that may be what you were trying to get across.

@@jonasodell5918 The original post was this.... "Jesus said not to judge based on how someone is dressed" I was simply saying, NO, actually Jesus didn't make that claim about judging how someone dresses. It's a totality different context. But... righteous judgment would include, telling those in the Church, or in the world, that their clothing is too revealing, immodest. In James Chapter 2, we're told not to have respect of persons to those who are dressed in wealthy/expensive clothing versus those who dressed in poor/vile raiment. But that's a different thing altogether. God bless you.

You obviously didn't watch the video.