Pants Or No Pants

I don't know about that either. Again, we look at outside behavior, but inside, it is not always as righteous and holy as it looks.

Still, the Churches that taught them (It appears they have all given up on that, thoygh the pastors of the untraconservative churches still seem to follow it) are on the "old-line" side of the issue, and not the contemporary Churches everyone complains about. This is apart of what I al talking aboyut, regarding this past "revival" you talk about. There were many other such rules in the past.

No, I said there that the Fall is what created all the evil in the world. However, it is true that throwing out laws at the fallen human nature only makes it more rebellious, as Paul shows in Romans 7. And how much worse will ii be with unbiblical rules mixed in eith the biblical ones. So as I said, people will rebel against them all. This has been the mistake of old time religion.

OK. But if the issue is pants on women, they can look very modest of the length and fit are done right. In fact, skirts can be looked up, so decent pants are even more covering!

 

Where exactly was this? And why did pople still regard other people as 3/5th human and justify oppressing them? Why were they still taking others' lands?

I think there may have been genuine revival, but in pockets in an otherwise secular society, just as there are pockets of people led by the Spirit today. But it was not enough to make the broad general judgments of all of past society versus present society people always keep making.

No, what He was doing was teaching us the lesson Paul brings out in Romans; that just throwing Law at man does not make him righteous.

We any clothes could be made any way. You can have a long skirt that is tight. That to me is worse than tight pants or short but looser stuff. So again, the issue is not skirts versus pants in terms of "modesty".

 

Are you saying that God clothed Adam in pants and Eve in a skirt?

In Jesus' day, even men didn't wear pants. They wore robes and so did the women. What was the distinction then?

 

Great point, Amy!!:thumbs: I think it's more of a question of "modesty" vs "immodesty" rather than pants on women.

Just my thoughts.

 

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (KJV)

How does coates of skins equate into pants for men and dresses for women?

 

A man wearing a dress still looks like a man. A woman wearing a suit still looks like a woman. Surely you can tell the difference. The point is that men are to behave like men and women are to behave like women. God made us differently and we are to behave differently. By trying to "be" the opposite sex, one is clearly defying God and His purposes.

 

I'm talking about during the past. Continuing through this same period all of this revival supposedly took place.
(Though to grant you; the revival may have helped the northeast ease up on slavery and at least for a while, racism).

Chapter 7.

I think someone said it before. There are pants that are cut a certain way, that look distinctively feminine, and it is if a man wore them, that the scripture would be violated. Feminine pants often have no zipper in the front. Also, you have kilts, which are for men. Though we are not used to that, so we see it as a female "skirt".

Pants can be immodest, but that is not what we are discussing here.

Again, as others have said, in ancient times, they wore robes, yet there was some sort of difference between male and female. Look at any illustration of the ancient garb. The males wore robes resembling our modern bathrobes, and females it was like a sort of dress. But pantaloons with a crotch were apparently not what made the distinction.

And the thing about "girding up your loins", you are really stretching to read pantaloons "between the legs" into that. Even if that was true, it would suggest they were not wearing pants with a crotch when they were not fighting or doing whatever else that required them to "gird their loins".

 

Before I go further, let me say that I am a card carrying, true blue, rock solid, bible believing conservative "baptist/pentecostal" evangelical.

OK. Now...

Of all of the silly things that sometimes creep into evangelical christianity, and some things can be veeeeery silly, I dont think there is ANYTHING more ridiculous and absurd than this MONUMENTAL weirdness that a women should not wear pants in church.

I have NEVER understood it, and it has always COMPLETLY boggled my mind how weirdness of this magnitude could ever come to be.

It just completly amazes me.

Mike

 

Building on what both my sisters are saying here (and I thing what Scarlett said eons ago), if women don't wear clothes that are too tight, too short, too revealing, then it should be ok. Same goes for men.

 

Some questions:

1) If we're going to demand that women fully comply with Deuteronomy 22:6, shouldn't we also demand that men fully comply with Deuteronomy 22:11? ("Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together.")

2) Do all of our garments have "fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself"? (Deut. 22:12)

3) Aren't all of us in big trouble if we've built a new house and didn't "make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence"? (22:8)

In conclusion: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -- (James 2:10)

 

To Bitsy and Ktn,

Amen to both of you. :1_grouphug:

 

Any reasonable commentator acknowledges that there are certain laws that are moral laws, and there are certain laws that are ceremonial laws. Do you believe that verse 8 was a ceremonial law? Or was it a moral commandment, to protect people from falling off the roof and dying? If it is a moral commandment, what justification do you have for not keeping it?

 

Problem is that man arbitrarily divides that law up based on their preferences of what they wish to keep or not. The scriptures do not divide up the law the way men do. The law is one complete monolithic unit. Jesus and James say so, and I believe them.

 

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? As for the law being one complete unit, you are correct in a sense, but there has been a change in the law. There is the law of Moses, and then there is the law of Christ, the law of Grace if you will. Jesus holds his people to a higher standard than the law of Moses.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

There are moral commandments that are just as binding today as they were in the day of Moses. Just because we acknowledge that a man is not saved through the keeping of commandments, that does not make the commandment void. Some commandments we have been given liberty in, and some we have not.

 

:thumbs: When you go into a church service and it looks like a fashion show and all the attention is focusing on what everyone is wearing or NOT wearing, there's something wrong. Modesty IS the issue. And I agree, modesty includes men also.