Bible Modesty - Part 1

[swaimj]

Some replies:

To James:
Thanks for answering the questions I asked and for the historical information. Your information dates the view of "Pants for men and dresses for women" to about the 16th century. You see, this is a cultural standard that has been challenged and changed over time. It is a human idea, but it does not come from scripture. One question that I asked and for which I saw no answer was "who made the rule that pants are for men only?" This is a man-made rule. You asked me "who made the rule that dresses are for women?" The answer is the same. Men did. These rules do not have divine authority. They are open to challenge and they can be changed.

To Blammo:
Thanks for posting the picture of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her sisters (I presume). I see that they are not wearing pants. They are not wearing smiles either. And it is correct that women in that time who had to wear long dresses while cooking next to open fire places were very often victims of death by fire.

As for Brother Tony:
I have been working a 12-hour shift today in the automobile showroom with not one customer. This thread has been mighty entertaining for me. If you'd like to come in tonight and buy a Subaru I'll happily cease my activity on this thread!

 

[Blammo]

So far....

Two people took my joke seriously. :laugh:

 

[James_Newman]

Some replies:

To James:
Thanks for answering the questions I asked and for the historical information. Your information dates the view of "Pants for men and dresses for women" to about the 16th century. You see, this is a cultural standard that has been challenged and changed over time. It is a human idea, but it does not come from scripture. One question that I asked and for which I saw no answer was "who made the rule that pants are for men only?" This is a man-made rule. You asked me "who made the rule that dresses are for women?" The answer is the same. Men did. These rules do not have divine authority. They are open to challenge and they can be changed.

Well, to be more specific, the 16th century was when pants became the standard leg covering for men. They wore pants before then and knee-breeches as well. But it was not commonly accepted for women to wear such until the 20th century. If it was ok for women then to take on the dress of the men, why is it not ok for men today to don the dress of a woman?

 

[Amy.G]

Well, to be more specific, the 16th century was when pants became the standard leg covering for men. They wore pants before then and knee-breeches as well. But it was not commonly accepted for women to wear such until the 20th century. If it was ok for women then to take on the dress of the men, why is it not ok for men today to don the dress of a woman?

Hairy legs.

 

[Rufus_1611]

And it is correct that women in that time who had to wear long dresses while cooking next to open fire places were very often victims of death by fire.

Will you (or the others that share this view) please provide some sourced data for the fire hazard defense and a view on whether or not this would be a relevant issue if women today began wearing that which pertaineth to women?

 

[swaimj]

Will you (or the others that share this view) please provide some sourced data for the fire hazard defense and a view on whether or not this would be a relevant issue if women today began wearing that which pertaineth to women?

Perhaps Helen can help you with written sources for this info. My knowledge of it is from a tour of colonial homes around Boston, MA that were significant in the Revolutionary War. In several houses the tour guides pointed out the women often suffered death and injury when their dresses caught fire as they tended the various cooking devices in or near the open fire places.

 

[tinytim]

The problem is, pants designed for women, pertaineth to women...That is what we are really debating...

I know, I would look funny (pun intended) if I put on my wife's jeans!!!
If we were the same size.

 

[swaimj]

But it was not commonly accepted for women to wear such until the 20th century. If it was ok for women then to take on the dress of the men, why is it not ok for men today to don the dress of a woman?

The church is over 2,000 years old, yet pants on men are much more recent. So pants on men is not a biblical standard it is a cultural one. You guys are slaves to human tradition (pants on men, dresses on women) that you cannot preserve or defend and you are scared to death of a possible change in culture (men wearing dresses) that will never come to pass.

And with that, my work day is coming to an end and so is my participation here. Thanks guys! It was a hoot!

 

[Helen]

Will you (or the others that share this view) please provide some sourced data for the fire hazard defense and a view on whether or not this would be a relevant issue if women today began wearing that which pertaineth to women?

Here's a little history:

--------------

Watson’s Mill: In 1859 an entrepreneur named Courier opened Watson’s Mill. It was the fruition of a dream and before long became the lifeblood of the community. Soon after he met and married the love of his life. But tragedy ended it all, when just two months after their marriage, when the newly weds were touring the mill with friends her long dress got entangled in the machinery. Before she could get help the machine spun her around and she struck her head against a post, killing her.
http://www.creepy.tv/season1_e1.html

To keep a hearth fire going required constant attention and lots of work. The cook knelt by open flames where cinders flew from unscreened fires, lifting and moving heavy pots, and reaching into the heat to stir or turn cooking food. Burns were common injuries, and women's long dresses sometimes caught fire.
http://www.edheritage.org/1910/1910foodway.htm

Accidents. Many different types of accidents happened on the trails. There are many entries in diaries that record accidents that happened during routine activities--accidents while cleaning guns or hunting, skirts catching fire while cooking, children falling off wagons, and travelers tripping and falling.
http://www.jocohistory.net/teachers/4-5/trails/trailsall.asp

A danger to women was working around open fires in long skirts. Shifting winds often caused skirts to blow into the fires, so women pinned or tied back their skirts to avoid this danger.
http://www.jocohistory.net/teachers/4-5/trails/activities/5.asp

It could be dangerous bending over the boiling pots while wearing long skirts, which might catch on fire.
http://www.nps.gov/foda/forteachers/upload/womenofftdavis.pdf

Colonists did most of their cooking over an open fireplace. Women had to be especially careful to keep their long skirts out of the fire while they were cooking.
http://ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/ohe/archaeology/edenhouse/print/fulltext.html

To the left of the fireplace, is the "beehive oven" where much of the baking was done. It would originally have been located inside a larger walk-in fireplace and far more dangerous for women in their long skirts to use.
http://www.chelmhist.org/keepingroom.htm


---------------------

As for the danger to me personally today, I have already stated that. I work with animals. We do rescue work with horses. Fluttering things can spook them.

In addition, tripping over long skirts is as much a hazard today as it ever was. Getting them caught on bushes, in doors, or even on low objects is no different now than it always was.

In addition, when it is winter in the colder areas, pants are a great comfort. It's nice to have warm legs...

 

[annsni]

When I am mucking out stalls, a skirt would be horridly in the way and get messy. When I am dealing with a nervous horse, a skirt -- especially if there is wind -- could be flat out dangerous.

I can say a hearty AMEN to this! I know women did it but women also died at such an early age - NOT something I'm wanting to emulate! Hey, I'm recovering from a fall off a horse with only whiplash - thank God I had a helmet to save me from scrambling my brains (had a CT to check on that yesterday). People didn't wear helmets back then - maybe I should have left it at home! Is the helmet I wear originally from a soldier's hat and therefore something of a man??

 

[Scarlett O.]

The problem is, pants designed for women, pertaineth to women...That is what we are really debating...

Why on EARTH did it take 27 pages for someone to say this!?!?!?!?!?!

This is the whole crux of the matter......I do not want to walk into a man's department and wear men's clothing.

I have worn an old boyfriend's football jersey as an oversized nightshirt and I have worn my dad's plaid jacket when I was a teenager playing outside in the snow, but other than that I have NO desire to look like a man in my appearance.

My pants do not look like men's clothes. And a man who is my size would look stupid wearing them.

My pants are women's pants......my clothes sooooo obviously pertain to women's clothing that there is no mistaking me for a man.

Well said, TinyTim.....and finally said.

 

[tinytim]

I can say a hearty AMEN to this! I know women did it but women also died at such an early age - NOT something I'm wanting to emulate! Hey, I'm recovering from a fall off a horse with only whiplash - thank God I had a helmet to save me from scrambling my brains (had a CT to check on that yesterday). People didn't wear helmets back then - maybe I should have left it at home! Is the helmet I wear originally from a soldier's hat and therefore something of a man??

Don't you know that if you were in the kitchen where women belong, you would not have fallen off a horse... which begs another question...

You were riding side saddle weren't you? It is a sin not too....
(roll eyes)

 

[Rufus_1611]

Why on EARTH did it take 27 pages for someone to say this!?!?!?!?!?!

This is the whole crux of the matter......I do not want to walk into a man's department and wear men's clothing.

I have worn an old boyfriend's football jersey as an oversized nightshirt and I have worn my dad's plaid jacket when I was a teenager playing outside in the snow, but other than that I have NO desire to look like a man in my appearance.

My pants do not look like men's clothes. And a man who is my size would look stupid wearing them.

My pants are women's pants......my clothes sooooo obviously pertain to women's clothing that there is no mistaking me for a man.

Well said, TinyTim.....and finally said.

If pants designed for women are acceptable for women are dresses designed for men acceptable for men?

 

[Dale-c]

If pants designed for women are acceptable for women are dresses designed for men acceptable for men?

Sure, that is essentially what they wore in the bible.
Also, what about kilts? Isn't that similar to a skirt?
Do you think that Scotsmen who where kilts are sinful?

 

[Dale-c]

The bible simply doesn't specify types of garmets. As cultures and technology has changed so have the styles.

 

[Scarlett O.]

If pants designed for women are acceptable for women are dresses designed for men acceptable for men?

Yes, they are, but you don't call them dresses.

Just the word dress, all by itself, implies female.

The word pants does not imply male or female. It doesn't imply anything.

But yes, there are men who wear kilts, sarongs, lava-lavas, and other such garments which have no legs in them. All over the world at this very moment there are very masculine men who are very hetereosexual and have no desire to cross dress or experiment with homosexuality who are not wearing garments that they have to step into.

Haven't you ever seen Asian or African or Polynesian cultures where men wear long cotton garments wrapped around their waist with a man's shirt on top? Those garments are not called dresses. They are called lava-lavas. Those clothes have nothing to do with a display of sexuality.

Men wear robes in the choir loft, bathrobes around the house, hospital gowns, and long night shirts around the house.

 

[James_Newman]

At least now I can understand why boys are showing up to school in skirts and dresses. You people are holding a double-standard with no scriptural basis. And when the boys call you on it, you have nothing to reply.

 

[Bro Tony]

Accept for their words, I am incapable of seeing the minds of others. I have no knowledge of all of the people that have viewed this thread. The only real relevant data available, is that there have been 2,726 views in approximately 30 hours, the next closest active thread has around 1,200 and that was created three days ago. Seems like there is quite a bit of interest regarding this topic. You nor I, have assurance of the number of people represented in those views, nor do we have assurance that any of those people would respond to this thread to alert us to whether or not they have, in fact, changed their minds. Much of my worldview has been established by reading and participating in message boards. While I have changed my mind on many issues, it was rare that there were instant changes, for it required additional prayer and study to determine whether or not the views expressed, matched up with the whole counsel of God. Bottom line, we have no real evidence of how the words in this thread are impacting people whether now or later.

In your opinion, some of the statements that have been made are ridiculous. In my opinion the action of calling other people's doctrinal beliefs "ridiculous", is ridiculous. By my own definition I have now made a ridiculous statement, you may now call my beliefs on the issue of what is ridiculous, "ridiculous" with a little more authority to do so. My authority is not really at issue. It is merely my opinion with no more or less authority than yours. I would say the only ones with authority would be the mods.

It may be moot to you but I am still curious as to your motivation but of course you're under no obligation to answer. If you don't like the thread you can move on, if you don't like the free exchange of ideas relative to a topic that others are apparently very interested in, you can promote the closure of the thread. Having no better answer, I suspect that this is your motivation.I really have no motive for asking that the thread be closed. It makes no difference to me one way or another. It was just a suggestion that has been made many times before when it seemed like a thread is going no where. Clearly, it was not a good idea in this case. So I will retract it, so as to not make the issue me or whether the thread should close. [/quote]

I guess I was wrong, minds can be changed. I just changed mine:thumbs:

Bro Tony

 

[Bro Tony]

Some replies:

To James:
Thanks for answering the questions I asked and for the historical information. Your information dates the view of "Pants for men and dresses for women" to about the 16th century. You see, this is a cultural standard that has been challenged and changed over time. It is a human idea, but it does not come from scripture. One question that I asked and for which I saw no answer was "who made the rule that pants are for men only?" This is a man-made rule. You asked me "who made the rule that dresses are for women?" The answer is the same. Men did. These rules do not have divine authority. They are open to challenge and they can be changed.

To Blammo:
Thanks for posting the picture of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her sisters (I presume). I see that they are not wearing pants. They are not wearing smiles either. And it is correct that women in that time who had to wear long dresses while cooking next to open fire places were very often victims of death by fire.

As for Brother Tony:
I have been working a 12-hour shift today in the automobile showroom with not one customer. This thread has been mighty entertaining for me. If you'd like to come in tonight and buy a Subaru I'll happily cease my activity on this thread!Will you sell it to me for half price?:tongue3: Actually, I have removed my ill advised request to close the thread. I repent with sackclothe and ashes. Is that enough?:smilewinkgrin: [/quote]

BTW---I like the Subaru but am not in the market right now.

Bro Tony

 

[PastorSBC1303]

I sure hope if this thread is only part 1 of Bible Modesty, that part 2 never comes around....