God: Women Must Not Wear Clothes That Show Body Outlines

A whacked out Southern Baptist pastor from the Great State of Virginia has warned women in his congregation that they are sinning if their clothes allow others to see the “outline” of their bodies. He went on to say that God told him this, by way of saying that He wanted women to “adorn themselves with proper clothing.”

If this weren’t enough silliness The Christian Post pointed out on Tuesday that HeartCry Missionary Society founder Paul Washer had posted the sermon to YouTube last week.

“That tells me that there is clothing that’s improper for a Christian woman,” the pastor explains. “That’s just logic.”

“My wife has a really good thing that she says: ‘If your clothing is a frame for your face, from which the glory of God is to shine, it’s proper, if it draws attention to your face. If your clothing draws attention to your body, to outline it, to make it noticed, then it’s sensual.’ What you’re doing is wrong.”

Washer adds that “godly” men would have to turn their heads when women with the wrong type of clothing walk into the room.

“Because it’s not beauty, it’s sensuality,” he says. “When you see it, you know it. There is a difference between beauty and sensuality and God is not against beauty. He is against sensuality.”

People should remember that in the dark world of Jesus Jumpers sex is really, really bad….OK?

Watch this video from Paul Washer, uploaded Jan. 22, 2014.
Thanks to RawStory for contributions to this report.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 MadMikesAmerica
Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on January 29, 2014. Filed under COMMENTARY/OPINION. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Back to Main Page

36 Responses to God: Women Must Not Wear Clothes That Show Body Outlines

  1. smith

    January 29, 2014 at 11:53 am

    my dyslexia kicked in and i thought it said “God: Women Mustn’t Wear Clothes”

    • Jess

      January 29, 2014 at 12:27 pm

      You aren’t that lucky smith 🙂 I’m ok with nudity but the Puritans here would have me busted in a NY minute, for being that way in public, because some man might see the naked form and have thoughts about it that are unhealthy. I know I don’t want to put that despair on a man.

  2. James Smith

    January 29, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    I don’t think this is my imagination. These arrogant idiots have learned that the more outrageous and obnoxious they are, the more attention they get. As attention ultimately results in contributions, they are deliberately being morons for money.

  3. Jess

    January 29, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Ah FFS, seriously, SERIOUSLY now it’s my fuckin job to go get clothing so I don’t trip a man’s sexy radar. Um, no, GFY not my fault if you can’t keep Big Willie and the twins in check because of what I happen to be wearing. Saying this bullshit…”“godly” men would have to turn their heads when women with the wrong type of clothing walk into the room.” Is like saying she asked for it because she dared wear a short skirt. That’s it, I am just going to prance around naked and let the chips fall where they may, better that than the Burqua these fuckwits want us women to be in just in case some guy gets a stiffy in our presence. Ah the old, I’ll know it when I see it crap they always say to make certain whatever causes them grief pops up again. Men, you have got to help a girl out here, by pushing back on this bullshit, really we cannot do this alone. I’ll wait to hear what Holy Joe Hagstrom thinks must happen before I say anything really bad.

  4. smith

    January 29, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    the virginia guys are bonkers , no question; but there is a grain of thruth involved in this complex issue. it is a fact that female parts are designed to excite males and the hyper displays that we have designed for female attire work very well.
    the problem is that we have the extremes ends of this issue trying to make the law.
    the virginia guy who wants women in sack cloth bags on the one hand and on the other hand the silly gals skirts that show their bush in public with their tits pushed up and out with the tightest revealing clothes you can find!
    neither of those extremes should dominate the questions of how males should interact with females in the social sexual domain.
    I dont think females should be forced to wear sacks, but should females be “loudly” advertising they are sex objects?. there should be some middle ground most folks can agree to.

    • Bill Formby

      January 29, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      Smith, with all due respect, women, at one time, ran around completely naked. Clothing worn by people in general is usually designed to make a person look attractive to the opposite sex. Even nature does that with animals. While there be some clothing on some women that I might not care to see it is none of my business. Truly, there are women these days that should never be seen in some of these skimpy outfits because everything they have that is unattractive is hanging out, but my eyes have lids, and my head has a swivel. It is their business. If you don’t like what they are wearing, don’t look.

      • Jess

        January 29, 2014 at 2:02 pm

        Thank you Bill.

    • Jess

      January 29, 2014 at 2:00 pm

      I’m just curious as to where to find the information that says anywhere female parts are designed to excite males. Women should be able to wear whatever the hell they want, like men are allowed to no questions asked. I’ll give but one little story from yours truly. I am a runner, have been since I was very young. When it gets warm I run in a sports bra and shorts. Last year, maybe year before I cannot remember now, someone in my neighborhood complained to the police I was running around with hardly any clothing. I purposely ran right past the police office for more than a week and was stopped once with a police officer telling me, I should put some clothes on because it was disturbing some of the male officers. I am not one ashamed of the body at all and I promptly lifted up my bra, showed my girls off and told the police officer I could see where that might be an issue but running covered up as I do, should not be an issue. So whoever complained needed to take it up with someone who actually gave a shit, that wasn’t me. I continued my run after leaving said police officer red faced in the middle of the street.

      • James Smith

        January 29, 2014 at 3:20 pm

        Jess, pics or it didn’t happen. If it offends me, I promise not to look. Riiiiigggghhhhtttt!

        • Jess

          January 29, 2014 at 3:37 pm

          :), hubby says one of these days my mouth will get me into so much trouble even the best of lawyers won’t get me out of it.

          • James Smith

            January 29, 2014 at 3:48 pm

            Agreed. Now, about those pics….

          • Michael John Scott

            January 29, 2014 at 4:26 pm

            Nahhh….You say what you think Jess but you’re smart enough to rein it in when the need arises, at least I’m pretty sure you are, unlike me, who wasn’t ever that smart 🙂

      • Michael John Scott

        January 29, 2014 at 4:27 pm

        PICS! And I promise to look 🙂

        • Jess

          January 29, 2014 at 4:50 pm

          look at you two pervs. Trust me if there were naked pics of me anywhere on these here tubes, I would have zero issue posting them. I don’t take them because I don’t want them out there.

          • Joe Hagstrom

            January 29, 2014 at 4:57 pm

            If I were to look at them it would only be to condemn with righteous indignation.

            • Jess

              January 29, 2014 at 5:14 pm

              I was waiting to see what you said 🙂 You never disappoint in making me laugh a little and this time out loud.

            • Michael John Scott

              January 29, 2014 at 5:28 pm

              LOL LOL! Me too!!

    • Michael John Scott

      January 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm

      I think the ladies should do what pleases them. If they choose to dress fashionably, albeit in a provocative manner, that’s OK. They do, however, run the risk of attracting the attention of some dirtbag who may not understand “fashion.” America is a puritanical society unlike its European counterparts and makes us look like idiots. The whole dressing thing is about Jeebus and friends, so who needs it?

  5. Joe Hagstrom

    January 29, 2014 at 12:41 pm

    So instead of telling a woman she has great boobs and ass saying her boobs and ass are beautiful would make us right with God.

    I can live with that. I just hope my good friend Mark Sanford’s reference to his Argentine hottie’s boobs as a “magnificent pair” qualifies as Godly.

  6. Bill Formby

    January 29, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    I love looking a good looking woman who is tastefully dressed to show off her assets. If that sends me to hell I want a window seat.

  7. Marsha Woerner

    January 29, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    I loved when he said that men are smarter than we women think. If they are smarter, then how we dress or adorn ourselves should have absolutely no affect on them at all. Aside from that, why is it that only women need to be careful about their sensuality? I’m sorry, men can be sensual too. How come they don’t have to dress carefully? I am much more familiar with the five books of Moses that really any of the rest of the Bible. In them, there is more emphasis put on a man’s garments that on those of a woman. I mean, why IS it that men don’t need to wear uncut sideburns or four cornered garments? I know that that’s not specifically part of the “New Testament”, theoretically, it’s still part of the Bible. I know, I know, the only parts of the Bible that are important are those that support ‘ the individual pastor’s current message. Clearly, his ” current message” had to do with the lack of guilt associated with men, compared with the “guilt” of all women who dane to dress for themselves instead of their pastors.

    • Jess

      January 29, 2014 at 5:13 pm

      What you said, all of it.

  8. James Smith

    January 29, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    What I expect next is the “pastor” to be exposed (pun intended) for sexual misconduct of some kind.

    Perhaps he is preparing a defense? “She tempted with into an irresistible impulse by wearing a dress that displayed the outline of her body. That’s exactly what I have been waring you sinners about!”

  9. Daniel Elihu

    January 29, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    I see this statement from the “pastor” for what it is, control through the subjugation of women. If he can control the women, by ensuring that they are not noticed by other men and control over their actions, then he can have the women and more importantly their money. This also leads him to be able control the men of the congregation, as they won’t get to the women without the pastor’s “blessing”. If a couple is lucky enough to find favor in the pastor’s eyes, then they will be “allowed” to marry and procreate; in order to produce new members for (actually slaves to) the church.

    James Smith: Are you a prophet or a psychic? You seem to know what’s going to happen. And, I bet that you’re correct. 😉

    Bill Formby: If you’re going to hell for that, I’ll see you there. Should be more fun than heaven!

    • James Smith

      January 29, 2014 at 4:47 pm

      I think “cynic” would not only be more appropriate, but more accurate.

      As Mark Twain said, “Heaven for the climate. Hell for the company.”

    • Michael John Scott

      January 29, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      You make some good points Daniel, and you’re right about James. He’s a great predictor. As to Bill, I guarantee he’s going to hell, so it looks like we’ll all be there except for Joe Hagstrom who has embraced Jeebus.

      • James Smith

        January 29, 2014 at 5:33 pm

        Joe is living proof of Pascal’s Wager. That god is stupid enough to be fooled by someone pretending, “just in case.”

      • jess

        January 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm

        Joe Hagstrom will be the damn door greeter showing everyone where the good parties are at. Don’t let that whole embracing Jeebus thing fool you for a second.

  10. Jess

    January 29, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    I found some safe for work boobies for you guys that just need to see them. yer welcome.


    • James Smith

      January 29, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      I never thought you were a cruel person – until now!

      • jess

        January 29, 2014 at 6:55 pm

        Hear me out here. I’m thinking, save Galapagos in the title might have been a little more than a hint for your eyes.

    • Michael John Scott

      January 29, 2014 at 5:31 pm

      How can you not love those boobies! I could stare at them all day, so unique they are.

    • Bill Formby

      January 29, 2014 at 6:29 pm

      Oh, I love dos boobies. Thank ya Jess.

  11. E.A. Blair

    January 30, 2014 at 9:19 am

    “If your clothing is a frame for your face, from which the glory of God is to shine, it’s proper, if it draws attention to your face.”

    The only women’s clothing I can think of that fits this description is the hijab or an old-fashioned nun’s habit. Has anybody heard of that ridiculous thing called a burqini?

    I wonder what Washer would say if someone tried to pass a law requiring all American women to wear the equivalent of a Burqa? I’m willing to bed he’s an Islamophobe.

  12. Norman Rampart

    January 31, 2014 at 9:51 am

    Puts me in mind of something…..what is it?…Wait….it’ll come to me….that’s it! Islam!! The Islamic State of Virginia eh?….and I thought we had problems over here in Blighty!!!