Modesty

[Brother Bob]

Shane, honey, you gotta quit confusing me with other folk. I never said that you sinned. Period. I have never addressed your sin. I have addressed your arrogance and know-it-all attitude and even this idea you seem to have that you must be right and the rest of us wrong. But I have not accused you of sinning.

Now as far as this whole judging thing, let me quote YOU:



Now, I really think you need to reread your own words and consider that everyone else on this board own a copy of God's word and are perfectly capable of deciding these same issues for themselves.

But yet, you continue to put yourself forth as the authority on what God's word says and the rest of us, evidently, just don't know how to read.

On the pants issue: You have already been informed that the word breeches does not equal the word britches when used in the OT descriptions of preistly garments. Breeches were clearly described as undergarments, most closely compared to b*xer shorts in our culture.

Will it surprise you much, Shane, to discover that women wore no such thing that could be compared to p*nties in the day that the Bible was translated? Will it also surprise you that men wore "dresses" and "hose" in that same day? (and I'm not talking just kilts either, but even a kilt fits the definition of the word skirt!) Will you be even more surprised to discover that the first "pants" were "pantaloons" worn by Arabic women back in the day of harems and were considered strictly women's wear?

:laugh: Before you go off all rantly on the subject of women's clothing and sin, you should do some research!

I didn't know that, but again, I guess I had no way of knowing...............

If women didn't wear p*nties, then I guess "women rights" and the liberation of women started even back then, right??????????????

BBob,

 

[nunatak]

If women didn't wear p*nties, then I guess "women rights" and the liberation of women started even back then, right??????????????

BBob,

If women aren't wearing them, thats not right, its wrong.:laugh:

 

[Brother Shane]

I'm not doing your homework for you, menageriekeeper. There are plenty of links that will talk about the history of pants, some even contradict their selves with yours and yours with mine. Honestly, I wouldn't rely on these as final sources.

I still ask if pants aren't men's clothing, what is?

 

[Brother Bob]

If women aren't wearing them, thats not right, its wrong.:laugh:

Depends....

I think that is what they use now.

Bbob,

 

[menageriekeeper]

Honestly, I wouldn't rely on these as final sources.

Exactly why I pointed you to a primary document, art work from the period, to support my arguement. Primary documents always trump information found in books and articles that are written about the primary. That is why your links are called "secondary documents".

If women didn't wear p*nties, then I guess "women rights" and the liberation of women started even back then, right??????????????

LOL Bro. Bob. Perhaps we were too "liberated" and that is why we invented them.

You men still have to answer for hoisery though!

 

[DHK]

Shane, honey, you gotta quit confusing me with other folk. I never said that you sinned. Period. I have never addressed your sin. I have addressed your arrogance and know-it-all attitude and even this idea you seem to have that you must be right and the rest of us wrong. But I have not accused you of sinning.

To Both Donna and MK
Please drop the arrogant attitude and learn to debate without throwing all the under-handed insults.
Frankly, I'll be happy to close this thread any time now.

 

[Jon-Marc]

That means you were looking, unless they are on her face somewhere or they defy the law of gravity somehow. When I talk or look at someone I look at thier face, and I probably couldn't even tell you what thier clothes look like, cause I make it a point not to look, unless its blatantly obvious. No one can notice a woman's form unless they are looking at whatever part of said body. That would be like me saying 'his pants are too tight in the front.' How would I know unless I was looking somewhere I shouldn't have been?

There was a news story a while back about a man whose pants were a bit tight. There was a picture of him, and people complained that they could clearly see his "shape" in front. What I would like to know is: Why were people looking between his legs?"

My mother always insisted that I wear loose fitting pants so I wouldn't "show my shape" as she put it. I never had much "shape" to show, but why would any normal person be that interested in my "shape"?

 

[Brother Shane]

menageriekeeper, bad thing about that though is it shows a certain person wearing them and not everyone. I'd hate for someone to draw what goes on at the drama department in local schools and use that as fact what Americans dress like... :laugh:

 

[Jon-Marc]

If the guy looks, the guy sinned!

Shane is excusing sin by blaming women... geesh!

A look is normal, but when that look turns into more looks and staring, ogling, and desiring it becomes sin on the part of the one looking. If the woman's INTENT was to cause lust and be desired, then she has sinned. Why should a woman be held responsible for what goes on in the minds of horny guys who have nothing on their minds but women and sex when it was NOT her intent to cause lust?

Isn't it also normal for a man to notice an especially attractive woman and want to look? I've done my share of looking, but I never once wanted to have sex with her or desired her in any way. However, many Christians would say that I committed adultery by looking and noticing her beauty. To me it's no different from noticing other beauties of God's creation.

 

[donnA]

To Both Donna and MK
Please drop the arrogant attitude and learn to debate without throwing all the under-handed insults.
Frankly, I'll be happy to close this thread any time now.

Are you talking about a person telling us to live by O.T. laws then refuses to do so themselves? Who makes claims they can not support. Who refuses to use untwisted scripture, or actually just to present scripture, who demands facts, but refuses to accept facts? Who has called people " christian" with quotation marks which is challenging their christianity, and if you don't agree with him you get the quotation marks:tonofbricks: . I think we have the right to address his accusations, twisted scripture, or lack thereof, his demanding christians live his way.

 

[donnA]

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.

Her you go shane I even looked them up for you,
http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/All 613 laws.htm

 

[DHK]

Having reached 30 pages we will now close the thread.