Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2015 15:03:27 GMT -5
I guess the reason to wear dresses to meeting is "respect". Somehow a dress (even short) is seen as more respectful than trousers (viewed by some as men's clothing). Many of my professing female facebook friends would wear trousers camping, at get togethers etc. Will this change someday? Some nurses would wear trousers to funerals if they had limited time to change. But somehow a dress is still seen as proper attire for ladies in "truth" and other similar sects.
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Sept 27, 2015 15:28:52 GMT -5
Oh, they "can" because there are no rules, you see. However, it is very much frowned upon. I figured this out in the first week weeks of my meeting attendance. When I would wear pants I would get remarks like "My, didn't you feel uncomfortable being the only one not wearing a skirt?" Couple that with the praise I would receive when I wore a skirt, I figured out pretty quick what was expected even though no one told be it was a rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2015 15:58:18 GMT -5
Oh, they "can" because there are no rules, you see. However, it is very much frowned upon. I figured this out in the first week weeks of my meeting attendance. When I would wear pants I would get remarks like "My, didn't you feel uncomfortable being the only one not wearing a skirt?" Couple that with the praise I would receive when I wore a skirt, I figured out pretty quick what was expected even though no one told be it was a rule. Breakingfree, clearly you weren't listening to the voice of God when you were getting dressed for meeting. If you were, God would have revealed to you what was acceptable to wear to meeting and what was not. The mistake that people often make is thinking that the 2x2 church has rules. It hasn't. What it relies on is people having a true revelation of God. If you have a true revelation, God will write upon your heart what is godly and what is not. Had you had a true revelation you would know that wearing pants to meeting is not good in the sight of God. There are many things that aren't good in the sight of God. Wearing make-up is one. Jewellery is another one. Having a telly is another. And smoking. God really hates smoking. Of course what isn't good in the sight of God on one day may become good in the sight of God on another. God sometimes changes his mind. He did it with computers. He did it with the radio. He even did it with the telly. God keeps abreast of technology. And fashion. Someday pants could become acceptable. In Roman times men wearing dresses was fashionable and God was ok with it. Even Jesus wore a tunic on his ascent up to heaven. You wouldn't get away with that in meeting. Not in my day anyway. Neither would you get away with sandals, not unless you wore dark coloured socks and your feet were clean. Things change. Even alcohol is now permitted. In my day it was a total no no. Presumably God has now realised that one can have a glass of wine without getting blotto, becoming an alcoholic and descending into prostitution. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 27, 2015 16:57:07 GMT -5
If you have a true revelation, God will write upon your heart what is godly and what is not. Had you had a true revelation you would know that wearing pants to meeting is not good in the sight of God. There are many things that aren't good in the sight of God. Wearing make-up is one. Jewellery is another one. Having a telly is another. And smoking. God really hates smoking. God really hates child sexual abuse too. It seems that some folks didn't get the memo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2015 17:29:16 GMT -5
Subject: THE WEDDING NIGHT:
Mark was going to be married to Karen, so his father sat him down for a little chat. He said, 'Mark, let me tell you something. On my wedding night in our honeymoon suite I took off my pants, handed them to your mother, and said, 'Here - try these on' She did and said,' These are too big I can't wear them.' I replied, 'Exactly...I wear the pants in this family and I always will.' Ever since that night we have never had any problems.' 'Hmmm,' said Mark. He thought that might be a good thing to try. On his honeymoon, Mark took off his pants and said to Karen, 'Here try these on.' She tried them on and said, 'These are too large. They don't fit me. 'Mark said, 'Exactly... I wear the pants in this family and I always will. I don't want you to ever forget that. 'Then Karen took off her pants and handed them to Mark. She said, 'Here -you try on mine.' He did and said, 'I can't get into your pants.' Karen said, 'Exactly. And if you don't change your smart ass attitude, you never will. "And they lived happily ever after. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2015 19:07:36 GMT -5
Sheep and goats
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 28, 2015 1:35:06 GMT -5
Dear Matt 10, No laws,no they have none but funny if you break one bad enough you will be ostracised and put on the gossip list,that is it "OUT", No forgiveness for a mistake even a sin. But If you are one of the preachers and perhaps found out as an habitual paedophile or womaniser,you will be OK you will be sent to an exciting far away State even Country,mainly of course hoping out of site out of mind. If you are a Preacher no worries,if you are an underdog of workers,break one and their no laws,it is savage no love cruel laws of bondage"OUT".If you crawl back dunked again,and every year after that you are marked for you non- forgiven mistake forever,it will never be buried until years after you are.One of the great 2x2 sins are called judging and gossip..
|
|
|
Post by kurtzphil69 on Sept 28, 2015 16:10:30 GMT -5
Must be running out of topics to discuss... When all else fails don't talk about the weather...talk about the dress code!
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 28, 2015 20:05:21 GMT -5
How sad,yes we were brought up to believe Jesus would not return in a Salvation Army uniform. Walk through a Town and see the 2x2 uniform,drab may be expensive but drab,so drab that it would scare so many sensable moderate dressed christians away,tidy slacks,neat hairstyle,a little paint and moderate jewellery like the pearls mentioned in scripture ,a beaming smile. 2x2s sad suppressed,in bondage to worker demands to allow visual earthly judgement. Think of those men like Greek guards and the Scotts? Wearing dresses? What do you think Jesus and Disciples garments and tallits were designed like? And those poor Indian,Asian and Oriental woman who only wear those silken trousers,surely 2x2s bondage judgements would deem these trouser wearing ladies unworthy of God's Grace. As with the short natural hair of the Melanesian women. Remember the fuss of J.W's refusing blood transfusions. But that 2x2 cancer sufferer who tried Quack alternatives so she could avoid having radiation treatment because she would loose her hair,feeling that would remove her glory before God.She died quite young .Who was right the J.W or the 2x2?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 22:55:30 GMT -5
Quote - "Walk through a Town and see the 2x2 uniform,drab may be expensive but drab,so drab that it would scare so many sensable (sic) moderate dressed christians"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 23:00:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 29, 2015 0:42:44 GMT -5
Bert, OK? But who was right or wrong? The J.W. or the 2x2?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 29, 2015 0:44:52 GMT -5
Redback, Bid you buy that hat at Bilsons? Maggie
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 29, 2015 1:12:00 GMT -5
Oh, they "can" because there are no rules, you see. However, it is very much frowned upon. I figured this out in the first week weeks of my meeting attendance. When I would wear pants I would get remarks like "My, didn't you feel uncomfortable being the only one not wearing a skirt?" Couple that with the praise I would receive when I wore a skirt, I figured out pretty quick what was expected even though no one told be it was a rule. That was just the Holy Spirit breathing in your ears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2015 2:23:35 GMT -5
Redback, Bid you buy that hat at Bilsons? Maggie Yes Magpie, I bought it at the fire sale when Bilsons burnt down. Think Mr Pickering bought one at the same time. The Workers used to shop there, they had good gear. We needed the hats to stop maggies swooping us at this time of year.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 29, 2015 13:19:47 GMT -5
Quote - "Walk through a Town and see the 2x2 uniform,drab may be expensive but drab,so drab that it would scare so many sensable (sic) moderate dressed christians" I chuckled at that, too. Been awhile since you have seen "2x2s" Mag?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2015 16:29:47 GMT -5
Magpie you never conformed to the uniform. You were always trendy the way you dressed. Remember when you wore the pink shirt and the pointy toe shoes at convention back in the 50's. That caused a stir, and maybe why we were told from the platform, to follow the fashion afar off.
Talking about Magpies, we have a plague here at the moment. Counted 20 on the front lawn the other morning. They wake me up at day light with their warbling. Sure kick up a noise, all talking at once. The other problem is they crap all over the place, on outdoor furniture, back deck, car, etc. Have to clean it up every day. Have to wear that hat when I go outside, to catch the fall out. Sure am glad that Elephants don't fly.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Sept 29, 2015 18:27:05 GMT -5
From the cartoon Bert's evidently not seen any of the lady friends either and they never looked like that and nobody but Bert has that image of them. Bert's straw man - or straw woman - misdirection doesn't mean that there isn't a definite unstylish 'look' to professing gals in their buns tho even today and per the original question its still not ok to wear trousers or culottes or capri pants or harem pants or split riding skirts or similar to meeting.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2015 9:27:54 GMT -5
God really hates child sexual abuse too. It seems that some folks didn't get the memo. Knowing about it, having the power to stop it, and doing nothing about it is the definition of condoning. Perhaps condoning is viewed as consent and approval. The bible is strangely quite about the treatment of children - Well, other than having them stoned to death if they disrespect their parents or how the sale of a daughter should be conducted.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 1, 2015 12:10:34 GMT -5
Remember when you wore the pink shirt and the pointy toe shoes at convention back in the 50's. That caused a stir, and maybe why we were told from the platform, to follow the fashion afar off.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 1, 2015 12:22:12 GMT -5
God really hates child sexual abuse too. It seems that some folks didn't get the memo. Knowing about it, having the power to stop it, and doing nothing about it is the definition of condoning. Perhaps condoning is viewed as consent and approval. The bible is strangely quite about the treatment of children - Well, other than having them stoned to death if they disrespect their parents or how the sale of a daughter should be conducted. Here's a couple of mentions that spring to mind regarding the treatment of children...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2015 14:33:57 GMT -5
Here's a couple of mentions that spring to mind regarding the treatment of children... Mark 10:13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. Matthew 18:18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. It does mention children. And, true, it doesn't mention harming them. But in this case the children were used an examples to convince people they should be docile and unquestioning followers. One of the reasons why some children are easy targets for abuse. Most people agree that this is not a reference to children. But it must be remembered that slavery was still a practice that was not frowned on by the church. Certain people were considered nothing more than chattel.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 2, 2015 22:55:30 GMT -5
It is typically the female gender which is expected to conform to a dress code in most of those religions which impose one. Exceptions include the sikh, some islamic cultures and roman catholic priests. These restrictions imposed on women are an extension of the patriarchal and primitive mindset prevalent in religious beliefs and is associated with the subordination and control of females. It takes little lateral thinking to note that professing women who abide by the 'long hair in a bun, long dress or skirt in muted colours dress code', are trapped in a time-warp which manifests only subtle changes to the era this belief commenced. If true to biblical teachings, you professing fellows should be donning gowns. Why should male members be free to wear apparel which does not come with a label stating "look at me, I am professing, muslim or brethren"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 23:08:08 GMT -5
It is typically the female gender which is expected to conform to a dress code in most of those religions which impose one. Exceptions include the sikh, some islamic cultures and roman catholic priests. These restrictions imposed on women are an extension of the patriarchal and primitive mindset prevalent in religious beliefs and is associated with the subordination and control of females. It takes little lateral thinking to note that professing women who abide by the 'long hair in a bun, long dress or skirt in muted colours dress code', are trapped in a time-warp which manifests only subtle changes to the era this belief commenced. If true to biblical teachings, you professing fellows should be donning gowns. Why should male members be free to wear apparel which does not come with a label stating "look at me, I am professing, muslim or amish"? you shouldn't have mentioned the amish they have equally restrictive dress codes for BOTH the men and women...
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 2, 2015 23:11:49 GMT -5
Good point @wally. I will alter that thank you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 3, 2015 1:55:00 GMT -5
It is typically the female gender which is expected to conform to a dress code in most of those religions which impose one. Exceptions include the sikh, some islamic cultures and roman catholic priests. These restrictions imposed on women are an extension of the patriarchal and primitive mindset prevalent in religious beliefs and is associated with the subordination and control of females. It takes little lateral thinking to note that professing women who abide by the 'long hair in a bun, long dress or skirt in muted colours dress code', are trapped in a time-warp which manifests only subtle changes to the era this belief commenced. If true to biblical teachings, you professing fellows should be donning gowns. Why should male members be free to wear apparel which does not come with a label stating "look at me, I am professing, muslim or amish"? you shouldn't have mentioned the amish they have equally restrictive dress codes for BOTH the men and women...
It is true of the Amish but NOT the Apostolic Christians around our area, nor the 2x2's!
Sometimes when my husband & I were out & about the area, I would say there goes an Apostolic Christian couple. He would ask how do you know?
I'd look at him wondering why he didn't know! I finally realized that he was unaware of how the woman was dressed just so but her husband was not!
Had her husband been alone, -I would not have known that he was an Apostolic Christian. Neither I would not have known a man in the 2x2's if he were alone.
As a woman we were instantly aware of ourselves as standing out amongst a crowd like a 'sore thumb!' The men have never had to bear that stigma.
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Oct 3, 2015 3:22:11 GMT -5
How in the heck are you supposed to have meeting in a pair of trousers?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 4, 2015 11:21:57 GMT -5
How in the heck are you supposed to have meeting in a pair of trousers? It's in the works. So far they just have the top part, a sweater, done. I heard that the arms were going to be the workers quarters.
|
|