Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: The revivals I am speaking of took place primarily in the NE region of the United States. As I recall they also affected parts of England as well.
What true believer still thinks of another human as 3/5ths human and is guilty of oppressing them whoever the ‘them’ is referring to? What land is being taken away by believers?
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).
HP: As I read the commandments and Romans, I failed to get that point.
Chapter 7.
HP: I am curious as to the opinions of those on the list, in particular the women. What do modest pants on a women consist of? Can pants be immodest? They do most often cover the entire area from the waist to the ankles don’t they?
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.
What could have possibly been the basis for what is seen now as a mere oppresive legalistic notion that existed for two thousand years, that pants on women were immodest, be a result of or be caused by?
HP: First, I was not a butterfly in the garden of Eden, so I do not know ansolutely what the distinction of dress was that God ordained. I asked a question if it was possible. We know that God indeed has looked upon man and women dress as clearly distinctive, for He warned the human race carefully not to wear clothes that specifically pertained to the opposite sex God called the practice an abomination, did He not? You don’t suppose it was open toes sandals compared to closed toed ones do you, or maybe a hair bow as opposed to no hair bow?
One clear distinction that there is biblical evidence for was the girding up of the loins on men. It clearly brought the material of their garment up between the legs of men. This was never commanded or practiced among women that I know of. My question was, IS IT POSSIBLE, that this clear distinction was ordained of God even from the garden in the covering them with skins? If God called wearing things that pertained to different sexes an abomination, would it be such a stretch to consider that God might teach them this distinction by the clothes He fitted for them so as to educate them on what God did and did not believe was an abomination? Would it be another stretch to believe that something God taught them as to dress between the sexes would be handed down for generations in the form of the exemplification of that distinction? What might this clear distinction consist of? How close should a believing Christian walk to the point of being seen as walking near a line God called crossing it an abomination?
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".
