Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,630
Members1,323
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89539
06/05/07 04:51 PM
06/05/07 04:51 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Honestly, it is also quite important to consider what you are sowing. I dont know in which way the 'gospel of dress reform' is not one of Pauls "another gospel" from his letter to Galatia. Weeds grow equally good on stony ground as it does on good soil. If you do have a "ministry" that has dress reform as one of its pilars Tammy, may God be mercifull.
Thomas
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: vastergotland]
#89541
06/05/07 05:03 PM
06/05/07 05:03 PM
|
|
Thomas, Dress reform is not "another gospel"....it is part of the health message which is the "opening" wedge for the gospel. I don't try to force people to dress like me...I don't push the dress message...but...it just happens to be the subject here...so, if we are going to discuss the subject, we ought to really see what counsel the Lord has given us through the writings of Ellen White. We claim to be the last day church, because, one reason anyways, is that we have a "last day prophet"...yet, we seem to not like to read what the prophet says, when it comes to practical subjects, like how we dress, what we eat, etc.
The standard of modesty, in God's eyes, hasn't changed...
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69}
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89543
06/05/07 06:37 PM
06/05/07 06:37 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
The SOP says the arms should be covered as much as the chest. Does anyone here practice that? Wondering...
By God's grace, Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: asygo]
#89546
06/05/07 07:55 PM
06/05/07 07:55 PM
|
|
The SOP says the arms should be covered as much as the chest. Does anyone here practice that? Wondering... Hi Arnold, My understanding of this is a little different than many, but, perhaps you will see some light in it. I just went and looked up a quote on clothing the arms and the legs, I'm sure there are more, but most of them, far as I know, say something very similar to this one: These mothers dress their delicate infants as they would not venture to dress themselves. They know that if their own arms were exposed without a covering they would shiver with chilliness. Infants of a tender age cannot endure this process of hardening without receiving injury. Some children may have at their birth so strong constitutions that they can endure such abuse without its costing them life; yet thousands are sacrificed, and tens of thousands have the foundation laid for a short, invalid life, by the custom of bandaging and surfeiting the body with much clothing, while the arms which are at such distance from the seat of life, and for that cause need even more clothing than the chest and lungs, are left naked. Can mothers expect to have quiet and healthy infants, who thus treat them? {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 11} When the limbs and arms are chilled, the blood is driven from these parts to the lungs and head. The circulation is unbalanced, and nature's fine machinery does not move harmoniously. ... {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 12} I believe that for health sake, if it is "chilly" outside, or inside for that matter, so that your arms & legs are chilled...then you should be wearing long sleeves and something on your legs, as well. But, if it is hot outside, then it is not a matter of health to wear long sleeves. About 25 years ago, Al and I lived in TN...it was a hot, humid Summer. Ty Gibson was just coming on the scene then, (preaching an altogether different message than he does today )and we invited him the Collegedale area. He and James Rafferty were visiting us in our home, and I had on a long dress, cottony material, with short sleeves. They gave me a good talking to, telling me I was not following the dress reform, cause my arms were not covered...and that it was really immodest, and that if I would just try it, I would find out that it was cooler to wear long sleeves. Well, we lived in a little trailer and had no air conditioning, and it was Summertime in TN! We had a little fan in the living room. The whole time Ty & James was there, they stayed right in front of the fan...and when Al went to visit them at the boys dorm where they were staying, they had their long sleeves on, and were sitting on the air conditioner... There is no doubt in my mind, when it is really hot and humid, short sleeves are much cooler. But, I do believe that no matter what the weather is, we must be modest at all times. There are some who say that short sleeves are immodest, I supposed they can be, but they sure don't have to be. I don't believe in sleeveless... I believe the counsel for clothing the limbs is normally in context with the weather....and we should apply it accordingly. What do you think?
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69}
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89575
06/06/07 03:44 PM
06/06/07 03:44 PM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
Thomas, Dress reform is not "another gospel"....it is part of the health message which is the "opening" wedge for the gospel. I don't try to force people to dress like me...I don't push the dress message...but...it just happens to be the subject here...so, if we are going to discuss the subject, we ought to really see what counsel the Lord has given us through the writings of Ellen White. We claim to be the last day church, because, one reason anyways, is that we have a "last day prophet"...yet, we seem to not like to read what the prophet says, when it comes to practical subjects, like how we dress, what we eat, etc.
The standard of modesty, in God's eyes, hasn't changed... Firstly, considering whom Paul was once writing about, people who came to churches he had established wanting to add to the clear word of the gospel, the question here of course is thus: does this add to the gospel in any way? Do you teach dress reform as something in addition to the gospel and do people whom you teach understand or experience dress reform as something additional to the gospel? If either of these are answered yes, then it is in fact "another gospel" wether you intended it to be so or not. Secondly, dress reform as part of the health message as a wedge for the gospel. In my view, there was a time when education on dress reform did improve general health. But are not such times now gone by? People who have dirty clothes or not enough clothes or otherwise fall in a category who would benefit from dress reform for health reasons, are they still not aware of the health aspect but for other reasons are unwilling or unable to change the situation? Also, the health message as a wedge for the gospel? Health messages are wedges for everything from breakfast cereals to New Age these days. It was wise to teach health in a time when noone else did so, but today when everyone and their mother are on the health message bandwaggon? How much more will it take to have a health message fatigue among people? Thirdly, we have a last day prophet. We "have"? Ellen has been dead for almost 100 years now. In which way do we "have" Ellen as a prophet that we do not for instance "have" Paul and Peter as apostles? If Ellen had lived today and given her advice and prophecies into todays experience, would she have said the same things? Would her emphasis have been the same as it was then? No matter that some of the questions that people raised then are very different from some of the questions that people raise today? Ellen would have found little reason today to write about skirts gathering uncleanliness from the streets for the simple reason that only a very very tiny minority of people today wear such skirts. Maybe she would have suggested the wearing of long sleaved clothes on sunny and warm days as protection from unhealthy UV light instead? Thomas
Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89576
06/06/07 03:46 PM
06/06/07 03:46 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Arnold, like you, I also prefer women in modest dresses, but I am not offended when they wear modest pants. I do not believe they are violating the principles of dress reform when they wear modest pants. What do you think about men and women wearing long shorts and tee shirts while swimming together?
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Mountain Man]
#89587
06/06/07 04:47 PM
06/06/07 04:47 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Tammy, I am not the unteachable liberal sinner you make me out to be. Like you, I embrace the principles of dress reform and apply them in a way that results in optimum health and modesty. You wear short sleeve shirts based on principle even though the dress reform advocated in the SOP calls for long sleeves.
Your assumption that the requirement of long sleeves applies only to chilly temperatures is unfounded. Women simply did not wear short sleeves. It was considered immodest. It is still considered immodest in countries where temperatures are very hot. The women also wear long head coverings in spite of the heat. And they manage just fine.
In our country, though, short sleeves and modest pants are no longer considered immodest. Even long shorts is not considered immodest. Wearing long shorts (below the knees) is no more immodest than wearing a short sleeved shirt. Showing your arms and showing your legs is basically the same thing.
Do you see what I mean?
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89588
06/06/07 04:51 PM
06/06/07 04:51 PM
|
|
The SOP says the arms should be covered as much as the chest. Does anyone here practice that? Wondering... Hi Arnold, My understanding of this is a little different than many, but, perhaps you will see some light in it. I just went and looked up a quote on clothing the arms and the legs, I'm sure there are more, but most of them, far as I know, say something very similar to this one: These mothers dress their delicate infants as they would not venture to dress themselves. They know that if their own arms were exposed without a covering they would shiver with chilliness. Infants of a tender age cannot endure this process of hardening without receiving injury. Some children may have at their birth so strong constitutions that they can endure such abuse without its costing them life; yet thousands are sacrificed, and tens of thousands have the foundation laid for a short, invalid life, by the custom of bandaging and surfeiting the body with much clothing, while the arms which are at such distance from the seat of life, and for that cause need even more clothing than the chest and lungs, are left naked. Can mothers expect to have quiet and healthy infants, who thus treat them? {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 11} When the limbs and arms are chilled, the blood is driven from these parts to the lungs and head. The circulation is unbalanced, and nature's fine machinery does not move harmoniously. ... {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 12} I believe that for health sake, if it is "chilly" outside, or inside for that matter, so that your arms & legs are chilled...then you should be wearing long sleeves and something on your legs, as well. But, if it is hot outside, then it is not a matter of health to wear long sleeves. .......I believe the counsel for clothing the limbs is normally in context with the weather....and we should apply it accordingly. What do you think? I think this advice is still as relevant today. Maybe even more so. So often I see little ones hardly covered in cool weather. The mothers seem not to notice. More education in child care would be useful. My mother had a cousin die at about two years of age, back in 1945. Some 30 - 40 years later, my aunt was talking with a woman, that claimed to have seen the child outside with hardly any clothes on looking a bit blue. (wonder why she didn't do something? Today someone would most likely report to social service) His mother was often off to some social or religious gathering and tended to neglect the offspring. Just leaving the younger at home with the other children. The children were left in soiled diapers for long periods.
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Mountain Man]
#89590
06/06/07 05:22 PM
06/06/07 05:22 PM
|
|
Besides the health issue, theres is the modesty issue.
There was a time that for a woman to show her ankles even when lifting the hem for a few seconds was considered quite titillating.
Now, you can see some women in skirts that barely cover the posterior.
I suspect that immodest dress in society in general is more of a symptom of the times. As in the days of Noah. . . .
Someone said to me that the further away from God what we are, the less we cover ourselves. Do you think there is anything to it?
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Mountain Man]
#89609
06/07/07 10:25 AM
06/07/07 10:25 AM
|
|
Tammy, I am not the unteachable liberal sinner you make me out to be. Like you, I embrace the principles of dress reform and apply them in a way that results in optimum health and modesty. You wear short sleeve shirts based on principle even though the dress reform advocated in the SOP calls for long sleeves.
Your assumption that the requirement of long sleeves applies only to chilly temperatures is unfounded. Women simply did not wear short sleeves. It was considered immodest. It is still considered immodest in countries where temperatures are very hot. The women also wear long head coverings in spite of the heat. And they manage just fine.
In our country, though, short sleeves and modest pants are no longer considered immodest. Even long shorts is not considered immodest. Wearing long shorts (below the knees) is no more immodest than wearing a short sleeved shirt. Showing your arms and showing your legs is basically the same thing.
Do you see what I mean? No MM, I do not see what you mean. Short sleeves (not sleeveless) cannot be compared to shorts. Please find me a statement in the SOP that says we should wear long sleeves for modesty? Please consider the following two quotes: The first garments to be worn by the child should be made of fine, soft material, with long sleeves, and little loose bodices, or waists, to support them from the shoulders. Thus warmth, protection, and comfort will be secured, and one of the chief causes of irritation and restlessness will be removed. The baby will have better health, and the mother will not find the care of her child so heavy a tax on her strength and time. {PHJ, June 1, 1905 par. 6} Instead of Dick and Jane, the reader Ellen Harmon used had none other than a little girl named Ellen as a heroine. The sketches that illustrate the primer show Ellen wearing a long, straight, light-colored skirt. The hem had a little ruffle that came just to the top of her shoes. The blouse had a broad collar and short, puffed sleeves and was fastened down the front with hooks and eyes. Other pictures of the primer depict long-sleeved dresses for older girls and sometimes a hat with a gracefully upturned broad brim and a low, round top. One lesson about Ellen is titled "A Good Girl." {1BIO 26.1} The first quote, like every other than I have found, always puts long sleeves in the context of "warmth, protection and comfort", NOT "modesty" as you are trying to imply. The second quote, shows that people did wear short sleeves in those days, and it was not considered immoral. You are trying to "muddy the waters" as they say, by comparing short sleeves to shorts. The legs of a woman are quite different than the arms of a woman, I can't say that I ever heard of a man who was staring at a woman's arms, but I've heard of many who couldn't keep their eyes off a woman's legs. Here is what she says about woman wearing pants, and please, I pray that any woman reading this, will not be offended, but search and pray and ask God to show you the truth. It is not easy to give up wearing pants, especially if you are a "tomboy" type of woman...I threw all my pants out THREE times (over 10 years ago), before I was finally able to "pick up the cross" and carry it. And yes, Dress Reform is a "cross"...I'll give you that quote in a moment... I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to Deuteronomy 22:5: "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." God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ. {1T 421.2} There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:9. {1T 421.3} Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform (the world's version of "dress reform" was women wearing pants) might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women. Spiritualists have, to quite an extent, adopted this singular mode of dress. Seventh-day Adventists, who believe in the restoration of the gifts, are often branded as spiritualists. Let them adopt this costume, and their influence is dead. ... {1T 421.4} With the so-called dress reform there goes a spirit of levity and boldness just in keeping with the dress. Modesty and reserve seem to depart from many as they adopt that style of dress. I was shown that God would have us take a course consistent and explainable. Let the sisters adopt the American costume and they would destroy their own influence and that of their husbands. They would become a byword and a derision. Our Saviour says: "Ye are the light of the world." "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." There is a great work for us to do in the world, and God would not have us take a course to lessen or destroy our influence with the world. {1T 422.1} (words in () are mine) And here is the quote about dress reform being a "cross". Many who profess to believe the Testimonies live in neglect of the light given. The dress reform is treated by some with great indifference and by others with contempt, because there is a cross attached to it. For this cross I thank God. It is just what we need to distinguish and separate God's commandment-keeping people from the world. The dress reform answers to us as did the ribbon of blue to ancient Israel. The proud, and those who have no love for sacred truth, which will separate them from the world, will show it by their works. God in His providence has given us the light upon health reform, that we may understand it in all its bearings, follow the light it brings, and by rightly relating ourselves to life have health that we may glorify God and be a blessing to others. {3T 171.1} But, Jesus will help us carry the "cross", and honestly, it truly is as He promised it would be, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." MM, please don't confuse people... The SOP has given us specific directions even as to how long our dresses should be... In view of existing prejudices against the reform dress, it becomes our duty in adopting it to avoid all those things which make it unnecessarily objectionable. It should reach to within eight or nine inches from the floor. The skirt of the dress should not be distended as with hoops. It should be as full as the long dress. With a proper amount of light skirts, the dress will fall properly and gracefully about the limbs. {HR, September 1, 1868 par. 17} I've never read anything how sleeves should be within so many inches of the wrist... As I said, you are mudding the waters and trying to confuse the issue. The principles as I read them, are #1. That our limbs should be covered for warmth and healths sake, according to the weather. #2. Women's legs should not be exposed for the sake of modesty.
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69}
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|