Modesty

[ReformedBaptist]

What about men who wore and wear kilts? :laugh:

 

[sag38]

Sissys (or is it sissies?) who can throw tree trunks (ever seen highland games?). That's why I call them sissys from a far.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I don't do pictures. I do facts. Those pictures don't prove to me that women wore pants before men.

Obviously you don't do facts, Shane, or you would have realized that art work created during a historical period is considered a "primary" document. Primary documents are as close to historical fact as one can get. Thus when I presented you a pics of artwork that are dated to similar time periods showing that women were wearing pants at a time when men were wearing garment that appear to be dresses, I am giving you the facts.

You can fill this thread up to page 50 in pictures... it doesn't do me a bit a good.

At this point Shane, I'm not doing this for you, but rather so everyone else out there in internet world has enough information to discern for themselves that all you have posted are merely the ramblings of an uninformed kid from Lousiana who has paid way to much attention to the rantings of legalistic, grace robbers who don't want others to read the scriptures for themselves but rather abide by a strict set of man made rules in the name of tradition.

I'll drop out of this thread when I'm reasonably sure that has been accomplished. Until then, you can put me on ignore if you wish. I won't hold it against you.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I gotta say though, a man who can toss a tree trunk across a field, can wear anything his heart desires. I'm smarter than to argue with a guy like that!

:laugh:

 

[Brother Shane]

menageriekeeper, you expect me to believe someone's artwork over a historical fact that men wore the pants before women? No, I'm not. Every historical article you read about pants says something like "bringing pants to the woman fashion" or of some soft. You continually claim that women wore the pants first because you saw a picture of a woman wearing pants. I guess the scripture in Deuteronomy means nothing to you at all, huh?

At this point Shane, I'm not doing this for you, but rather so everyone else out there in internet world has enough information to discern for themselves that all you have posted are merely the ramblings of an under-ducated kid from Lousiana who has paid way to much attention to the rantings of legalistic, grace robbers who don't want others to read the scriptures for themselves but rather abide by a strict set of man made rules in the name of tradition.

Undereducated? Please remove it, now. As far as I know, BaptistBoard.com will not tolerate personal attacks. I don't want this thread closed because you can't control your temper and name-calling. You can remove it yourself or I will contact an administrator.

 

[donnA]

Sissys (or is it sissies?) who can throw tree trunks (ever seen highland games?). That's why I call them sissys from a far.

We have highland games here every year in Glasgow, I guess because ofthe city's name and the founders were scottish, as are a lot of locals. And yes, the men do wear kilts.

 

[donnA]

MK, AMEN girl,

 

[donnA]

menageriekeeper, you expect me to believe someone's artwork over a historical fact that men wore the pants before women? No, I'm not. Every historical article you read about pants says something like "bringing pants to the woman fashion" or of some soft. You continually claim that women wore the pants first because you saw a picture of a woman wearing pants. I guess the scripture in Deuteronomy means nothing to you at all, huh?



Undereducated? Please remove it, now. As far as I know, BaptistBoard.com will not tolerate personal attacks. I don't want this thread closed because you can't control your temper and name-calling. You can remove it yourself or I will contact an administrator.

As she said, art wrok from the time period depicts people wearing what they did wear, it is fact. Doesn't matter if you are able to understand it or not.
Theres no scripture about the averman or woman wearing pants. As has already been shown, yet again you ignore facts.
Seems your the one attacking people, and unable to control yourself.

 

[Brother Shane]

donnA,

1) Please show me where I have attacked someone.

2) What fact have I ignored? I did the research per her request and found proof that the men wore the pants first and the women adopted the wear. A picture of a women dressed in pants tells me nothing. I would hope that a picture of a teenager with child from today's society wouldn't tell a young girl 300 years from now that every Christian approves of that. Pictures mean nothing to me.

 

[menageriekeeper]

[I did the research per her request and found proof that the men wore the pants first and the women adopted the wear. /QUOTE]

Then prove it Shane! I posted unbiased links to my info, post us some links that show that men wore "the pants" first.

Go ahead, I dare ya!

And that little triangle with the exclamation point inside of it on the upper right side of each post is the "report post" icon. If you think I've done something wrong, reposrt me. I'll abide by the mods decision.

 

[donnA]

donnA,

1) Please show me where I have attacked someone.

2) What fact have I ignored? I did the research per her request and found proof that the men wore the pants first and the women adopted the wear. A picture of a women dressed in pants tells me nothing. I would hope that a picture of a teenager with child from today's society wouldn't tell a young girl 300 years from now that every Christian approves of that. Pictures mean nothing to me.

1. go back and read your posts, it's there.
2. facts people have been presenting for several pages now. Again, go back and read them again.
A picture tells you that in that time period women did in fact wear pants, did all women, who knows, but at least some did. It is in fact a historical document when it depicts people of that tme period and how they lived, and dressed.
You mean facts mean nothing to you. I've seen facts presented you on more then one thread which you refused to accept were facts. You make up your own facts, and demand others live by them.

 

[Brother Shane]

menageriekeeper, here is a good list of why pants pertain to men.

"Yeah, but what makes you think that pants are a man’s garment?"


Good question. I have a four part answer to this which demonstrates that pants always pertain to men, even today.

1. "Breeches" were an article of clothing designed by God for the priests who were all men. The word does not occur very often in scripture, but in every case it’s men’s apparel (Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 6:10, 16:4). According to my Hebrew lexicon, "breeches" means "trousers that extend to the knee, below the knee, or to the ankles." This would include pants, shorts, or culottes.
2. Until the advent of Hollywood and the movie screen, everyone (including lost people) knew that pants were men’s apparel and dresses were women’s apparel, and they dressed accordingly. Our culture’s (and sadly most churches’) acceptance of cross-dressing has resulted largely from the influence of television, the placement of women in the workforce, and the pressures of twentieth century feminism.
3. The universal symbol for designating a men’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a pair of pants. The universal symbol for designating a woman’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a dress. Coincidence? Hardly. Even our sinful society recognizes that there is a difference in a man’s and woman’s clothing.
4. Pants are a symbol of authority, as evidenced by the saying " I’m the one who wears the pants in the family." Sadly, most women might as well wear the pants, since they rule their homes anyway!

source: http://www.dividedbytruth.org/Evils/clothing.htm

About the personal attack, I'll do just that.​

 

[Brother Shane]

Another link...

http://www.poloindia.com/historyoftrousers/right_frame.htm

 

[Brother Shane]

Thanks for editing it, menageriekeeper. :thumbs:

 

[donnA]

Deuteronomy 22:5.

I've seen you mention this several times now. So I ahve to wonder, you, yourself, just how much old testamant law do you obey? I mean you expect christians to obey the jewish laws, I wonder if you do too.
Heres a link to the O.T. laws you are advocating we obey, I'd like you to point out which ones you are obeying. It would certainly help your argument if you were in fact obeying the same laws you expect others too. By the way, there are I think 613 of them.

 

[Brother Shane]

Are you suggesting we don't obey old testament laws?

Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Are you going to argue that sodomy isn't an abomination to God?

Can we now lie? Be prideful? Kill?

Don't just pick out the verses that won't affect your lifestyle. Modesty is even repeated in the new testament...

1 Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

And I don't believe God burned Sodom and Gomorrah to turn around and approve of things later.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Well, well, well, Shane, google is your friend after all.

Problem #1: your first link is hardly unbaised.

Problem #2: your second link is actually quite interesting but doesn't cover the time period from which I drew my information. They begin in the late 18th century and continue until modern times.

My time frame was significantly earlier: 14th though 17th centuries.

So while I don't dispute Polo's information, it is not a defense against the fact that there was a time when men wore "dresses" and women wore "pants".

Try again, but congrats on actually posting something other than your own opinion.

 

[donnA]

"Breeches" were an article of clothing designed by God for the priests who were all men. The word does not occur very often in scripture, but in every case it’s men’s apparel (Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 6:10, 16:4). According to my Hebrew lexicon, "breeches" means "trousers that extend to the knee, below the knee, or to the ankles." This would include pants, shorts, or culottes.

Yes, the closeest the bible coes to pants were priests underware, and only priests wore them, not all other men, otherwise your mixing the set apart for God priests with everyother men, denying scripture.
And since these items of clothing were only for prients even men today sin by wearing underware.
The word appears only a few times is right, and every time, it is priestly clothing. Unless your an O.T. priest going into the tabernacle or temple, then thisclothing isn't for you either.
And since your into obedience to the O.T. laws, again I ask, which ones do you obey and not obey?

Until the advent of Hollywood and the movie screen, everyone (including lost people) knew that pants were men’s apparel and dresses were women’s apparel, and they dressed accordingly. Our culture’s (and sadly most churches’) acceptance of cross-dressing has resulted largely from the influence of television, the placement of women in the workforce, and the pressures of twentieth century feminism

LOL, this laughable. It's a fact women wore pants long before hollywood. It's known women did wear pants in the 1800's west. But in shanes world, fiction before facts and truth.

The universal symbol for designating a men’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a pair of pants. The universal symbol for designating a woman’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a dress. Coincidence? Hardly. Even our sinful society recognizes that there is a difference in a man’s and woman’s clothing.

This has always been one of the all time stupidest things I've ever heard. Now a bathroom door dictates to you what you should wear. Well I bet you aren't wearing it, all black clothing, head to toe.
Beware, don't violate the bathroom door!

Pants are a symbol of authority, as evidenced by the saying " I’m the one who wears the pants in the family." Sadly, most women might as well wear the pants, since they rule their homes anyway!

Scripture? Oh, yeah, you oppose scripture usage, you've said that here on this thread a number of times, pardon me.
You use society to dictate what scripture says and means.
No surprise.

source: http://www.dividedbytruth.org/Evils/clothing.htm

You call this unbiased history of clothing, lol, thats laughable.

 

[nunatak]

Ya'll using the term "breeches" makes me chuckle. I grew up calling them britches. Now I work at a clothing retailer and we call them "denim." :laugh:

 

[donnA]

Are you suggesting we don't obey old testament laws?

Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Are you going to argue that sodomy isn't an abomination to God?

Can we now lie? Be prideful? Kill?

Don't just pick out the verses that won't affect your lifestyle. Modesty is even repeated in the new testament...

1 Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array"

And I don't believe God burned Sodom and Gomorrah to turn around and approve of things later.

remember there are 613, go look them up and let us know when you find them all. Then tell us which ones you don't obey.