One of the most controversial subjects in America's churches today is pants on women; but there is NO controversy if you believe the Bible. 1st Timothy 2:9 clearly instructs women to dress MODESTLY, i.e., of good behavior. A woman's clothing says MUCH about her character. I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants. It's more than coincidence in a nation where most women scoff and laugh at the notion of women dressing modestly, that 48,000,000 of those same women have murdered their own children through abortion. If you don't want to listen to the Bible, then here's proof from the unsaved world why pants on women are sin.
65 comments
And in the summer time, when the pools open, ice cream sales increase. Ergo, open pools cause higher sales of ice cream.
...And skirts are so much more modest?
If you read the article, he cites a rap song about a girl in really jeans... Which proves (to him) that wearing jeans is immoral.
NO. Wearing some trousers is definitely more modest then wearing, say, a mini skirt.
Actually, I think it's just that trousers, shock horror, do kind of indicate where your groin -is-, whereas a skirt hides it.
More of the "I can't control myself, but I'll damn well control you" brigade *sigh*
"One of the most controversial subjects in America's churches today is pants on women
Yes it not terrorism no it not world hunger or homelessness .child labor .soldiers or child abuse .global warming , or nuclear war no none of these issue matter as much as the women wearing trousers .
You mean to use 'e.g.', not 'i.e'. Dumbass.
Furthermore, ... go to hell. Are you really such an idiot that you're threatened by women in pants?
Wait, that's one of the most controversial topics in America's churches?
That's kinda sad really. How far Christianity has fallen since the time where the controversial topics in Rome were what kings and nations to support.
Oh wait. I'm getting mixed up with Catholicism again.
Oh, my Gawd, not the PANTS!
Seriously, if you're threatened by women wearing pants, you might as well lock yourself in your bedroom and never come out again. Obviously the real world is too dangerous for you.
"I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants."
I have no idea what to say to this.
Please read the bit on this thread about nudity. It's really off the wall! This fundy seems to forget that an omnipresent god is watching when he's showering or on the toilet, etc, etc. The bit about Peter covering up for Jesus - maybe that was just a "boy" thing
being british, i'm amused by the term "pants", which for us means underwear, pants = y-fronts!
Aww, naughty Lex Kitten , you're filling my mind with impure thoughts. I think you deserve a spanking hehe.
edit: What the hell? i posted this 4 hours ago. Why did it post it again?
I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants.
Well, since very few women apart from American fundies have any problem with women wearing pants, and fundies don't approve of abortion, it's true that women who approve of abortion approve of women wearing pants. But that says more about the views of fundies than it says about anything else.
@Alan. Yes, I'm British and it always makes me giggle when American fundies disapprove of women wearing pants.
Marissa, I am totally going to steal that "I can't control myself ..." line.
David J. Stewart, here's a Bible tract for you.
Mandy & Alan: If pants equaled y-fronts, then I'd have to agree with David. I'd disapprove of women wearing pants, too. It just looks silly. (Citing Gina Gershon in "Bound" on this one - in one scene she's laying around wearing them, and as hot as she is it just looked...wrong). :)
I'm American, but the "down with pants!" argument using the British version of pants made me giggle, too.
Jesus didn't wear trousers. No 1st-century Middle Easterners did.
I have no idea how you made the leap from trousers to abortion (or as you erroneously called it, "murder"). Even Superman isn't capable of leaps like that.
I bet Jesus would have liked to have seen Mary M. in hot pants, if they had them back then.
Those bronze-age folks barely knew what leggings are for, they didn't know squat about pants. So unless the bible specifically states, "No pants on women", then David J. Stewart et al can treat that supposition as a suppository....
PoisonedRationality: To me, pants means Y front, boxers, briefs or any form of knickers, whether usually worn by men or women. So women not wearing pants means going commando!
Modesty =/= Dresses and skirts.
Although if you have a problem with pants, I'm sure they could just take them off....
And women who are against abortion wear pants too. Moreover, in which sense aren't pants modest?, surely many women in Timothy's congregation wore pants, bearing in mind the culture and the comunity they were living in.
David J. Stewart.
Dude.
The kind of "Modesty" that 1 Timothy 2:9 is talking about -- if you'd actually bothered to read the whole verse -- was the opposite of EXTRAVAGANCE .
The verse was instructing women not to flaunt their wealth. It had nothing whatsoever to do with showing off her smecksiness.
How is pants not dressing modestly? They show too much skin and you complain, they show no skin and you complain.
Also what does wearing pants have to do with abortion?
> I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants.
Mario couldn't make a leap like that one!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
