Standards of dress

[RAIDER]

But, if you believe that a lady wearing pants automatically violates Biblical gender roles, you would, of necessity, believe that a woman wearing pants is violating/disobeying Scripture.
Wouldn't you...to be consistent? 

Yes, if one believes your first sentence he/she would also have to believe your second sentence.

So, you are one, I conclude.

Raider: I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

Again, I conclude you know this because...the fashion designers 'designed them as such'....

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If I see one more person wear their pajamas at Walmart one more time, I think I'm going to have to take the belt off my robe and choke them!

;D

 

[cast.sheep]

But, if you believe that a lady wearing pants automatically violates Biblical gender roles, you would, of necessity, believe that a woman wearing pants is violating/disobeying Scripture.
Wouldn't you...to be consistent? 

Yes, if one believes your first sentence he/she would also have to believe your second sentence.

So, you are one, I conclude.

Raider: I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

Again, I conclude you know this because...the fashion designers 'designed them as such'....

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

How do you stand on the issue of culottes?  I mean, the kind that look like a skirt in the front AND the back? 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

But, if you believe that a lady wearing pants automatically violates Biblical gender roles, you would, of necessity, believe that a woman wearing pants is violating/disobeying Scripture.
Wouldn't you...to be consistent? 

Yes, if one believes your first sentence he/she would also have to believe your second sentence.

So, you are one, I conclude.

Raider: I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

Again, I conclude you know this because...the fashion designers 'designed them as such'....

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

But, if you believe that a lady wearing pants automatically violates Biblical gender roles, you would, of necessity, believe that a woman wearing pants is violating/disobeying Scripture.
Wouldn't you...to be consistent? 

Yes, if one believes your first sentence he/she would also have to believe your second sentence.

So, you are one, I conclude.

Raider: I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

Again, I conclude you know this because...the fashion designers 'designed them as such'....

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

How do you stand on the issue of culottes?  I mean, the kind that look like a skirt in the front AND the back?

The problem with culottes is that they aren't pants because the designers say they aren't pants.....

 

[RAIDER]

But, if you believe that a lady wearing pants automatically violates Biblical gender roles, you would, of necessity, believe that a woman wearing pants is violating/disobeying Scripture.
Wouldn't you...to be consistent? 

Yes, if one believes your first sentence he/she would also have to believe your second sentence.

So, you are one, I conclude.

Raider: I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

Again, I conclude you know this because...the fashion designers 'designed them as such'....

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

How do you stand on the issue of culottes?  I mean, the kind that look like a skirt in the front AND the back?

I have seen culottes that are nothing more that cut off pants.  I have also seen culottes made from the Christian Womanhood pattern that look just like a pleated skirt.

 

[cast.sheep]

But, if you believe that a lady wearing pants automatically violates Biblical gender roles, you would, of necessity, believe that a woman wearing pants is violating/disobeying Scripture.
Wouldn't you...to be consistent? 

Yes, if one believes your first sentence he/she would also have to believe your second sentence.

So, you are one, I conclude.

Raider: I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

Again, I conclude you know this because...the fashion designers 'designed them as such'....

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

How do you stand on the issue of culottes?  I mean, the kind that look like a skirt in the front AND the back?

I have seen culottes that are nothing more that cut off pants.  I have also seen culottes made from the Christian Womanhood pattern that look just like a pleated skirt.

How do you stand on the issue of Christian Womanhood pattern culottes?

 

[Bruh]

So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?

See this is where my disconnect comes in. 

No one has answered this question for me and I have asked it a few times.   

Were robes accepted in the old testament as a mans garment?  If so, then that is culture, or would you disagree with this that it was culture? 

Our culture today would say that a robe is a woman's garment, would you agree with this? 

To me it is culture.  And yes, I believe a woman can wear pants modestly.

I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT. I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

I don't believe robes were ever the man's attire in our culture.  Until "recent" times men wore pants and woman wore dresses in our society.

Now, back to my question to you, "So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?"

So are pants and this is why you wouldn't shop for pants in the woman's department. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Raider:I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.  I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

I have seen ladies wear some semblance of 'breeches' under their skirts in order to take part in 'sporting activities'...but I guess that's *different* as well!

And, I conclude by your silence that you are 'one'...which I can respect, but just say it!

 

[RAIDER]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

 

[Bruh]

So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?

See this is where my disconnect comes in. 

No one has answered this question for me and I have asked it a few times.   

Were robes accepted in the old testament as a mans garment?  If so, then that is culture, or would you disagree with this that it was culture? 

Our culture today would say that a robe is a woman's garment, would you agree with this? 

To me it is culture.  And yes, I believe a woman can wear pants modestly.

I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.  I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

I don't believe robes were ever the man's attire in our culture.  Until "recent" times men wore pants and woman wore dresses in our society.

Now, back to my question to you, "So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?"

No, because not all pants are modest. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

If you say, so...but I don't come to the same conclusion.
And, as I pointed out, I have seen ladies wear 'breeches' under their skirts to participate in sports...is that wrong?

 

[RAIDER]

So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?

See this is where my disconnect comes in. 

No one has answered this question for me and I have asked it a few times.   

Were robes accepted in the old testament as a mans garment?  If so, then that is culture, or would you disagree with this that it was culture? 

Our culture today would say that a robe is a woman's garment, would you agree with this? 

To me it is culture.  And yes, I believe a woman can wear pants modestly.

I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.  I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

I don't believe robes were ever the man's attire in our culture.  Until "recent" times men wore pants and woman wore dresses in our society.

Now, back to my question to you, "So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?"

No, because not all pants are modest.

And what makes a pair of pants on a woman "not modest"?

 

[Bruh]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

But they both wore a long flowing garment to go to the market?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?

See this is where my disconnect comes in. 

No one has answered this question for me and I have asked it a few times.   

Were robes accepted in the old testament as a mans garment?  If so, then that is culture, or would you disagree with this that it was culture? 

Our culture today would say that a robe is a woman's garment, would you agree with this? 

To me it is culture.  And yes, I believe a woman can wear pants modestly.

I believe a robe was an accepted garment for men in the OT.  I believe the robes were different than a ladies.  If I understand correctly a man also wore breeches.

I don't believe robes were ever the man's attire in our culture.  Until "recent" times men wore pants and woman wore dresses in our society.

Now, back to my question to you, "So as long as the fashion designers say that it was created for a woman everything is o.k.?"

No, because not all pants are modest.

And what makes a pair of pants on a woman "not modest"?

What could make a dress or a skirt on a woman immodest?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

But they both wore a long flowing garment to go to the market?

NO self respecting MAN would be caught dead in any stinkin' market!

 

[RAIDER]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

But they both wore a long flowing garment to go to the market?

Yes.  The contour and shape of a woman's rear, crotch, and thighs was never shown in public.

 

[Bruh]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

But they both wore a long flowing garment to go to the market?

Yes.  The contour and shape of a woman's rear, crotch, and thighs was never shown in public.

Apparently neither was a man's. 

 

[RAIDER]

No, because not all pants are modest.

And what makes a pair of pants on a woman "not modest"?

What could make a dress or a skirt on a woman immodest?

If it was tight and form fitting or if it showed the contour or shape of a woman's rear or crotch.

 

[RAIDER]

Don't think I didn't know you were heading here. 

Men wore breeches,  Woman did not wear breeches.  A woman wore a long flowing garment.

But, the point is...men and women both wore robes!
Some were designated (by fashion designers, I suppose) as men's robes, others as women's robes.

Change robes to pants and  there is NO difference in the reasoning.
Ladies pants are different from men's pants...the designers' say 'so'.
If you really think there's a difference, other than the robe/pant interchange... *shrug*.

And, you didn't answer my question, are you 'one' who believes a lady wearing pants is disobedient to Scripture?

There is GREAT difference in reasoning.  When a man was to run, work, or go to battle he would gather up his robe and he would function in his breeches.  A woman did not gather up her robe nor did she wear breeches.

If you say, so...but I don't come to the same conclusion.
And, as I pointed out, I have seen ladies wear 'breeches' under their skirts to participate in sports...is that wrong?

If they lift up their skirts , yes.