|
Post by sharonw on May 15, 2011 8:30:32 GMT -5
These women seem quite "stern." Are they 2x2? I don't know why anyone would call the two older ladies "stern" when actually it appears they are listening to something or someone they're also looking at. Same with these younger ladies, and again some of them might be legalistic long hair believers for they have some long hair though it is down, which I understand some long hair believers wear it down until after marriage.
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on May 15, 2011 9:25:42 GMT -5
I agree the pic has nothing to do with looking stern but all about listening to probubly a speaker as they asppear to have there eyes fixed on something.
The debate about distinction in dress has went round' and round' for many yrs. I prefer to discuss matters that are more meat of the scripture than a way of dress. If salvation is only based on an outward appearance and inward matters are not seen as important, Ill show you some shallow people. While I do follow holiness teaching, I feel I can make myself look like anything and be a totally lost vile person.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on May 15, 2011 10:20:34 GMT -5
These women seem quite "stern." Are they 2x2? .......but they certainly look a lot nicer than the OP photo!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2011 11:35:41 GMT -5
"Stern??" They appear to be part of an audience concentrating on a speaker and appear to be wearing conference delegate ID badges?
"Paying attention" is more like it. Top left may even be taking notes. Maybe they're being warned about them getting into the wrong hands?
|
|
|
Post by ru on May 15, 2011 11:46:28 GMT -5
"Stern??" They appear to be part of an audience concentrating on a speaker and appear to be wearing conference delegate ID badges? "Paying attention" is more like it. Top left may even be taking notes. Maybe they're being warned about them getting into the wrong hands? She might be an outsider taking notes in order to relay them to others on the internet for negative criticsm. She does loiok a bit foreign compared to the others. You can almost sense the different spirit.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 15, 2011 11:52:03 GMT -5
Ummm...IllinoisGal...the verses that you quoted were aimed at cross-dressing, which was a practice in the good ol' days as much as it is today. God wanted honesty in all relationships, and cross-dressing obscures the gender of the individual.
Otherwise, women are free to dress modestly and decently.
|
|
lauri
Senior Member
Posts: 324
|
Post by lauri on May 15, 2011 11:58:56 GMT -5
"Stern??" They appear to be part of an audience concentrating on a speaker and appear to be wearing conference delegate ID badges? "Paying attention" is more like it. Top left may even be taking notes. Maybe they're being warned about them getting into the wrong hands? She might be an outsider taking notes in order to relay them to others on the internet for negative criticsm. She does loiok a bit foreign compared to the others. You can almost sense the different spirit. yes- I see what your saying. lol
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 15, 2011 12:04:16 GMT -5
RE: women wearing "that which pertaineth"Here's an interpretation for the Deut.22 verses that I found pretty interesting. Does the Bible Say It's a Sin for Women to Wear Pants? The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5It explains the meaning of the Hebrew word "keliy" which Charles posted on the subject line. Here's an Excerpt:
"The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.” Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).” "It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).” "It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows: “The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on May 15, 2011 15:27:54 GMT -5
We all seem to have our opinions about the subject of it all.
|
|
|
Post by fizzy85 on May 15, 2011 16:22:44 GMT -5
I'm finding it hard to believe that we both are looking at the same photo! I see two stern women, a bit bored yes, but stern. If they turned out to be Mennonites, or anabaptists, or amish, or brethren, or any other sort of church that wasn't two by two...would you still say they were stern? I hope so Apple, perhaps you didn't see my question?
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 15, 2011 16:35:53 GMT -5
If they turned out to be Mennonites, or anabaptists, or amish, or brethren, or any other sort of church that wasn't two by two...would you still say they were stern? I hope so People with agendas generally only pick on those who they have a dislike for even if they don't know them. Yes, it was interesting to see how the people reacted to me showing up at convention with a bushy beard and my wife wearing jeans. There were a lot of rumours that went around as we found out later. People are so fickle and judge by the outward appearance. Even when Dennis found out that our motives for being there was that we loved the friends and wanted to see them after not having seen them for years. What was the word you used for such bias? twaddle? yes, that would aptly describe the views of the overseer here.
|
|
|
Post by IllinoisGal on May 15, 2011 17:28:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ru on May 15, 2011 17:30:54 GMT -5
And a few nappers and head-boppers.
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 15, 2011 17:40:25 GMT -5
If these people are professing, they look very interested in the truth of what the worker is saying. If they are not professing and listening to a worldly preacher(non worker), they look like they are straining to convince themselves of something that they know is not true? I know. I can spot the difference a mile off
|
|
|
Post by ts on May 15, 2011 18:39:38 GMT -5
yeah, and a four by four is a 16. Maybe we could just call it the "two wheel drive religion" but 2x2s is a good shorthand. Is it true that the Bible says that the preachers should go 2 and 2 and that the workers do just that? Is it true that this is a fairly unique quality among those with whom you fellowship, Linford? Do you think that since they don't take a name for themselves that they need to be referred to by some name? Do you have any suggestions of how the group you fellowship with should be nominally distinguished from other groups?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 16, 2011 1:04:18 GMT -5
Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement. It's not surprising, with the Irvine using Faith Mission's style, that 2x2 women resemble Holiness women. Sort of a parent/child resemblance. You are a funny little quizzer ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 16, 2011 1:06:19 GMT -5
I think you are talking a load of old wives tales [twaddle]. I can't speak for NZ (tho' I have quite a few friends that can, and do) but this is an accurate depiction of the way things have been in Australia. I'm not sure about the power exertion thing, but appearance was certainly pushed as advertising. My kiwi bretheren speak of things in exactly the same way, but then, hey, what would they know. You are a funny one also but they feel a huge pressure to conform to a standard imposed by the workers and elders ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 16, 2011 1:08:04 GMT -5
Come on now Kiwi, there is a "look" that the Two by Two women are expected to adhere to.The men get off light.It's the women who have to carry the burden of obeying outward rules on dress and don't bother denying these rules- the hair up in the bun, the long skirts with no splits, the black stockings.Break these rules and get labeled as "having the wrong spirit". Another funny one you need to come and have a look in our Gosp meeting
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 16, 2011 1:09:42 GMT -5
These women seem quite "stern." Are they 2x2? .......but they certainly look a lot nicer than the OP photo!!! Go by outward appearances now do we?
|
|
|
Post by ru on May 16, 2011 4:30:48 GMT -5
.......but they certainly look a lot nicer than the OP photo!!! Go by outward appearances now do we? Now?
|
|
|
Post by emerald on May 16, 2011 5:45:10 GMT -5
Come on now Kiwi, there is a "look" that the Two by Two women are expected to adhere to.The men get off light.It's the women who have to carry the burden of obeying outward rules on dress and don't bother denying these rules- the hair up in the bun, the long skirts with no splits, the black stockings.Break these rules and get labeled as "having the wrong spirit". Another funny one you need to come and have a look in our Gosp meeting Apple has it almost right. Skirts are not necessarily long, hair not necessarily in a bun (but tied back for meetings or worker visits) and stockings not necessarily black. The thing is, we females wear skirts, not trousers, our hair is long enough to tie back or wear up and ask any of my female friends if they consider we have a "look", then they'd say yes. Out shopping in Northern Ireland it becomes more apparent that we have a "look" (albeit one that is shared by some Brethren women) as every female we see with long hair and a skirt is given a second glance in case she is one of "ours". You can't speak for us females kiwi.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 16, 2011 5:51:23 GMT -5
Another funny one you need to come and have a look in our Gosp meeting Apple has it almost right. Skirts are not necessarily long, hair not necessarily in a bun (but tied back for meetings or worker visits) and stockings not necessarily black. The thing is, we females wear skirts, not trousers, our hair is long enough to tie back or wear up and ask any of my female friends if they consider we have a "look", then they'd say yes. Out shopping in Northern Ireland it becomes more apparent that we have a "look" (albeit one that is shared by some Brethren women) as every female we see with long hair and a skirt is given a second glance in case she is one of "ours". You can't speak for us females kiwi. Kiwi is on a boat trip in Egypt. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2011 9:11:41 GMT -5
People with agendas generally only pick on those who they have a dislike for even if they don't know them. Yes, it was interesting to see how the people reacted to me showing up at convention with a bushy beard and my wife wearing jeans. There were a lot of rumours that went around as we found out later. People are so fickle and judge by the outward appearance. Even when Dennis found out that our motives for being there was that we loved the friends and wanted to see them after not having seen them for years. What was the word you used for such bias? twaddle? yes, that would aptly describe the views of the overseer here. Funny you should say that, I often watch Judge Judy and no one can enter her court room wearing anything that she finds inappropriate. She soon lets them know in the most embarrassing manner.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 16, 2011 10:16:56 GMT -5
How is de Nile, kiwi?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 17, 2011 2:53:52 GMT -5
Another funny one you need to come and have a look in our Gosp meeting Apple has it almost right. Skirts are not necessarily long, hair not necessarily in a bun (but tied back for meetings or worker visits) and stockings not necessarily black. The thing is, we females wear skirts, not trousers, our hair is long enough to tie back or wear up and ask any of my female friends if they consider we have a "look", then they'd say yes. Out shopping in Northern Ireland it becomes more apparent that we have a "look" (albeit one that is shared by some Brethren women) as every female we see with long hair and a skirt is given a second glance in case she is one of "ours". You can't speak for us females kiwi. Almost right doesn't mean right We have long hair up down in pony tales in french twists, we have short hair on those who wish to have not many though but accepted by others. We have dresses short and long, we have skirts long, half calf, above the knee, floppy or skin tight you can take your pick. We have pantyhose in all sorts of patterns and colours, we have tights in all sorts of colours in multi colours. Many of these women would fit in to the people on our streets with out being noticed than the normal. So there sweetie I can speak about the females in this country
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 17, 2011 2:54:54 GMT -5
Apple has it almost right. Skirts are not necessarily long, hair not necessarily in a bun (but tied back for meetings or worker visits) and stockings not necessarily black. The thing is, we females wear skirts, not trousers, our hair is long enough to tie back or wear up and ask any of my female friends if they consider we have a "look", then they'd say yes. Out shopping in Northern Ireland it becomes more apparent that we have a "look" (albeit one that is shared by some Brethren women) as every female we see with long hair and a skirt is given a second glance in case she is one of "ours". You can't speak for us females kiwi. Kiwi is on a boat trip in Egypt. ;D And you are on a site seeing trip on the moon
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on May 17, 2011 2:55:53 GMT -5
Wet
|
|
|
Post by greatfull2010 on May 17, 2011 3:21:00 GMT -5
Hmmm kiwi - things must have changed dramatically in a few months then. I know youre trying to paint a picture that there isnt a look and if youre right then I guess thats a sign that the women who dont agree with some legalistic expectations are living true to their convictions not mans convictions. I do know some women in that gospel mtg kiwi who just manage to pin their hair up for a mtg.
Then that got me to thinking - if theres not agreement in the meetings about the look what does that mean??
|
|