we have the one of people wearing things which indecently expose their bodies or dress in sexually appealing way, this one is not yet accepted as trouser is accepted in churches today but its also spreading like wild fire. Young mothers are dressing their kid girls in this way and call it civilization. This children grow up with this style of dressing, their minds are equally growing to accept this as normal
way of dressing. In some years to come when all this generation of kids will mature, some of them will become pastors wife and so on, then their pastor husbands will also look for how they will interpret the bible to suit the indecent wears their wives are wearing.

alexleo:

image123,
its already accepted as you rightly said. Just that its not like that of trouser yet because some of them are saying here that we should be condemning indecent dressing and not trouser. so sad that satan is subtly gaining more ground in the church and deceiving them with cheap interpretations of the bible. Heaven cannot be so cheap. Today the church is now copying the world rather than the world copying the church.
Thats why you see the new generation pastors using bible to give all sorts of cheap interpretations to this copy copy acts. Take for example the music industry, Somebody will release an album talking all sorts of rubbish in it, as soon as that album becomes a hit, you will see the so called gospel musicians turn the same song to gospel by changing the lyrics and it will be sang in the church with people dancing it like crazy, Forgetting that the spirit that brought the inspiration to the person that composed the song was not of God. The bible says that you cannot pour old wine in a new bottle but that is what this so called gospel musicians do and their pastors accepts it and they are even ready to support it with bible. I pity such churches.
If care is not taken, in some years to come every sinful acts would have been given interpretations that will make them appear righteous by these new generation pastors and many will fall into them and be doomed. Signs of the end-time. Lets keep praying for the church.

Image123:

Can there truly be decency and modesty without form? How decent can a man look, for example with bra. What pertains to another cannot be decent/modest.

and _{with all due respects} i guess your wives, mothers and sisters wear this 'male shirts' in the name of blouses. ^{how come you dont judge them oh you dont see anything wrong in it abi OK!}

And to make matters worse you and I are witnesses to the way perverts have turned this form to look seductive, so again you see it was not about the shirts (form) but about the seductive way the shirts (form) were worn that mattered.

3. Again, its a historical fact that females in france originated the wear called

Form doesnt matter but the decency and modesty in which you put on that form is what matters" like 1Timothy 2:9 puts it

Do you agree that average of the clothes you and I put on were all descents from the colonials (i.e. the Britons) meaning whether you like it or not. . .

Now do you realize that even in that time, they still had alot of females who had their gowns sown to be seductive

Image123:


Oh you can't seperate form from decency and modesty.

the same britons saw the need for females who started going to schools with males to start putting on shirts (short sleeves, long sleeve and T-shirts), and with time it became known as blouses for females, meaning females wore male shirts and later 'fashinonized' it to be blouses

Tonye-t:

Pls what is seductive about the trousers in Pix 1 , yet it is a form of clothline called TROUSERS the same clothline as that of the Pix2. so you see form aint the issue but the mode in which it is sewn to be worn.

Again, its a historical fact that females in france originated the wear called 'lingerie' which is designed to be worn under to protect their b.reast as well as buttocks from excessive exposure to heat.colonials saw the need to start putting on these underwears which THEY BORROWED FROM THE FEMALES and called it pantaloons and singlets. And with all due respect tell me you dont wear pants and singlets today

Image123:

Every decent human puts on underwear/undergarment.

Image123:

Colonialists weren't the first to put on underwear for seun's sake. Every decent human puts on underwear/undergarment. Some people spread their garments for Jesus to ride on, Jesus put aside his garment to wash the disciples' feet. Jesus' vesture was parted while on the cross. I hope you'll agree that all these without garments were not completely unclothed. Point being that underwear ideas did not start with slave traders or french women.
I'll rather say gay and homosexual activity has been on increase because of poor distinction of sexes in clothing, not sexy underwear design.

Image,

guy you amaze me the more with these posts, we are not talking about garments here we are talking about underwears. so are you saying some people spread their pantaloons(underwears) for Jesus to ride on? goosh this guy   _{the extent peeps will go to argue baseless stuffs}

I laugh when people say trousers were not for females, maybe someone should. . . , and to my Bro. Image, pls if you want to wear bra

Image123:

^
No, i think i have issues both with the poses and the cloth. Long gown is not a mark of holiness, it's supposed to be normal clothing. But seeing the horrible society we dwell in, anyone who puts on something long must be feigning holiness, no. Even people of other religions dress in DECENT long gowns.

Image123:

That's more a question of a seductive pose than a seductive trouser. If the woman in pix 1 stands that way, one may argue for seduction, yes. Oh wait till she puts on a shorter blouse and sit in danfo going to Yaba, hahahaha. Precap cool down, i dey come your side. Patience is a virtue, and btw when last did you read the whole best seller Leviticus book. Don't put a grievous burden on me if you wouldn't move it with moi

You reply to the pics posted above is only one of rhetoric and not of substance. A person dressing in the manner of pix1 most likely would not pose like the person in pix2 [b].

But the question is not about pose but about how sinful is the dressing in pix1.Talking about [b]virtue, the only thing I remember about it is that it's easily turned to vice especially the virtue of patience.

As for reading Leviticus, may I say with all humility and truthfulness that I read the entire Bible every six months and that means I do it twice a year, not adding other minor readings in church and for personal lessons on scriptural exposition. It's no big deal to ask you to read Leviticus my bro. Holla!

Tonye-t:

Image,

did you read the word 'lingeries' as used in my post?