OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 03:44:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Head coverings, modesty, and the weakness of me  (Read 10328 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #720 on: February 03, 2014, 10:19:05 PM »

So I'd like everybody that thinks the command is worthless or not applicable to explain exactly what this scripture means in the Torah.  These are God's words.

You guys are not arguing with me, but with God's words.

No, we are arguing with your interpretation of God's words. God did not command Moses to say "Pants are for men. Skirts are for women!" As you said, they wore different styles of garments (though both were tunic based), and though they look quite similar to us today, they obviously could tell the difference. In that sense, nothing has changed. If you want to make the argument that God is against cross-dressing, then fine. But you and I and everyone who is familiar with what is customary dress for our time knows the difference between a woman dressing to look like a man, and a woman wearing pants.

My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  This is a time when women generally quit being keepers at home too.  
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #721 on: February 03, 2014, 10:19:30 PM »

In most of American history up until women's lib and in most cultures around the world, women wore dresses.  In consideration of the scriptures:

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

You can argue with the scriptures if you want.

Well men didn't wear trousers back then either.

So obey the standards of the time before you tell us to.

They did wear different style garments.


and you are now going to argue that men's trousers and a women's pair are -exactly- the same...

bzzzzzzt  



When that verse was written, there were -no- trousers being worn by pretty much anyone....so applying it -just- to females, and specifically to trousers...is a very erroneous application of the verse.  So since I am fairly sure that most women do not shop in the men's department, we are not wearing men's clothing.  

Honestly, all this fuss just because you can't work on your temptation issue.....

Tell me what Deuteronomy 22:5 means then, and why God said this.

The verse wasn't just "written", it was the words of God Moses recorded.

It is applied to men as well, and I didn't apply it just to women either.  The discussion in the thread was SLACKS on women.

So tell me what God meant by this verse.


so by following this verse...ALL the women you posted as being tempting to you due to holes in the lace of their shirts....alluring head covers...etc.....are well within the verse.  

SO......pick one...are you arguing the verse, or are you arguing what tempts you personally?


you cannot keep switching back and forth when someone traps you in a corner....first it was 'they are ok, but its my problem'

now its

none of you are obeying an OT law.

news flash, we are not under the laws of Moses.

Oh good.

LOL

too much.   Go murder, commit adultery, steal, and lie.... No Moses law eh?
You can't show me 1 single place in the bible that slashed this law.   There are areas of some change in the law, but not eradication.

Explain exactly what the verse meant.  Deuteronomy 22:5.
Oops that's right, you can't, because then you'd have to be on my side of the argument.



actually no I wouldn't.


It says 'women, don't wear men's clothing.  men don't wear women's clothing'


it does not say 'of what era'  so applying it specifically to forbid the wearing of trousers by women, is an error, since it could not have been specifically indicating that since they were not in use then.

I do not wear clothing that could allow for anyone to mistake me at all for a man.....nor any actual clothing made FOR men, or a style that is only male.






Yes, and in my post about this I referenced the cultural norm for MOST of the world for the most part for the last several hundred years.   Women in dresses, men in pants.  I said there was exceptions to the rule.  But for the most part, women wore dresses, men wore pants.

It wasn't until women's lib (for the most part) where women in America began to wear pants instead of dresses.

And one other thing, women are supposed to be keepers at home too!

And once again, look at monastery rules, where women are required to wear modest dresses (by their own admission because of lust).  

This entire thread got sacked when I busted the monastery links.  Every person arguing with my points just got blown out of the water by their own Orthodox brethren - and respected brethren at that - the monastics.

There is no argument past the links I posted to the monastery dress codes that cite "The monks want to avoid sexual temptation" and that people will "be turned away" who don't abide.   If deep thinking and heavy worshiping brothers who dedicate their life to poverty & prayer can deeply think about the sins of lust, then certainly it has merit.



If that argument was so fantastic and irrefutable then why did you bring the OT verse into it?   Since modesty has nothing to do with wearing of the opposite sex's clothes.

A person could wear modest clothing of the opposite sex..... or very immodest clothing of their own.



Face it....you swap arguments whenever you feel like people are not listening and agreeing with you.



Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #722 on: February 03, 2014, 10:21:17 PM »

This entire thread got sacked when I busted the monastery links.  Every person arguing with my points just got blown out of the water by their own Orthodox brethren - and respected brethren at that - the monastics.

It's like we're reading two separate threads.

No, it's the same thread, just two different universes. 

Yes, the universe where my arguments are generally backed up by the monastics dress code because they don't want to fall into lust (as I admit I do slightly).

Then there is the universe where people are saints and never fall into lust thus they berate the weakness of their brothers who ASK for modesty.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #723 on: February 03, 2014, 10:21:40 PM »

So I'd like everybody that thinks the command is worthless or not applicable to explain exactly what this scripture means in the Torah.  These are God's words.

You guys are not arguing with me, but with God's words.

No, we are arguing with your interpretation of God's words. God did not command Moses to say "Pants are for men. Skirts are for women!" As you said, they wore different styles of garments (though both were tunic based), and though they look quite similar to us today, they obviously could tell the difference. In that sense, nothing has changed. If you want to make the argument that God is against cross-dressing, then fine. But you and I and everyone who is familiar with what is customary dress for our time knows the difference between a woman dressing to look like a man, and a woman wearing pants.

My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  This is a time when women generally quit being keepers at home too.  


Wait...I thought your argument was that women are all immodest and tempt you unjustly?


That has again, about ZERO to do with them taking care of homes, or women's lib.


Although, it really does speak to what you actually think....the female half should put on a dress, cook for you, be tempting when you want them to be, but a nun the rest of the time......

Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #724 on: February 03, 2014, 10:21:50 PM »

This entire thread got sacked when I busted the monastery links.  Every person arguing with my points just got blown out of the water by their own Orthodox brethren - and respected brethren at that - the monastics.

It's like we're reading two separate threads.

No, it's the same thread, just two different universes. 

That must be it.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #725 on: February 03, 2014, 10:23:19 PM »

In most of American history up until women's lib and in most cultures around the world, women wore dresses.  In consideration of the scriptures:

Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

You can argue with the scriptures if you want.

Well men didn't wear trousers back then either.

So obey the standards of the time before you tell us to.

They did wear different style garments.


and you are now going to argue that men's trousers and a women's pair are -exactly- the same...

bzzzzzzt  



When that verse was written, there were -no- trousers being worn by pretty much anyone....so applying it -just- to females, and specifically to trousers...is a very erroneous application of the verse.  So since I am fairly sure that most women do not shop in the men's department, we are not wearing men's clothing.  

Honestly, all this fuss just because you can't work on your temptation issue.....

Tell me what Deuteronomy 22:5 means then, and why God said this.

The verse wasn't just "written", it was the words of God Moses recorded.

It is applied to men as well, and I didn't apply it just to women either.  The discussion in the thread was SLACKS on women.

So tell me what God meant by this verse.


so by following this verse...ALL the women you posted as being tempting to you due to holes in the lace of their shirts....alluring head covers...etc.....are well within the verse.  

SO......pick one...are you arguing the verse, or are you arguing what tempts you personally?


you cannot keep switching back and forth when someone traps you in a corner....first it was 'they are ok, but its my problem'

now its

none of you are obeying an OT law.

news flash, we are not under the laws of Moses.

Oh good.

LOL

too much.   Go murder, commit adultery, steal, and lie.... No Moses law eh?
You can't show me 1 single place in the bible that slashed this law.   There are areas of some change in the law, but not eradication.

Explain exactly what the verse meant.  Deuteronomy 22:5.
Oops that's right, you can't, because then you'd have to be on my side of the argument.



actually no I wouldn't.


It says 'women, don't wear men's clothing.  men don't wear women's clothing'


it does not say 'of what era'  so applying it specifically to forbid the wearing of trousers by women, is an error, since it could not have been specifically indicating that since they were not in use then.

I do not wear clothing that could allow for anyone to mistake me at all for a man.....nor any actual clothing made FOR men, or a style that is only male.






Yes, and in my post about this I referenced the cultural norm for MOST of the world for the most part for the last several hundred years.   Women in dresses, men in pants.  I said there was exceptions to the rule.  But for the most part, women wore dresses, men wore pants.

It wasn't until women's lib (for the most part) where women in America began to wear pants instead of dresses.

And one other thing, women are supposed to be keepers at home too!

And once again, look at monastery rules, where women are required to wear modest dresses (by their own admission because of lust).  

This entire thread got sacked when I busted the monastery links.  Every person arguing with my points just got blown out of the water by their own Orthodox brethren - and respected brethren at that - the monastics.

There is no argument past the links I posted to the monastery dress codes that cite "The monks want to avoid sexual temptation" and that people will "be turned away" who don't abide.   If deep thinking and heavy worshiping brothers who dedicate their life to poverty & prayer can deeply think about the sins of lust, then certainly it has merit.



If that argument was so fantastic and irrefutable then why did you bring the OT verse into it?   Since modesty has nothing to do with wearing of the opposite sex's clothes.

A person could wear modest clothing of the opposite sex..... or very immodest clothing of their own.



Face it....you swap arguments whenever you feel like people are not listening and agreeing with you.





Huh, don't put words in my fingers.

I didn't say that.  Others on the thread were talking about slacks.  I made an OT reference.  I was not talking about modesty then.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #726 on: February 03, 2014, 10:23:40 PM »

So I'd like everybody that thinks the command is worthless or not applicable to explain exactly what this scripture means in the Torah.  These are God's words.

You guys are not arguing with me, but with God's words.

No, we are arguing with your interpretation of God's words.

My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  

Is that your argument or God's?  Huh
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #727 on: February 03, 2014, 10:26:08 PM »

So I'd like everybody that thinks the command is worthless or not applicable to explain exactly what this scripture means in the Torah.  These are God's words.

You guys are not arguing with me, but with God's words.

No, we are arguing with your interpretation of God's words.

My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  

Is that your argument or God's?  Huh

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,977


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #728 on: February 03, 2014, 10:29:17 PM »

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

Would you rather they threw out their dresses and not put on pants? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #729 on: February 03, 2014, 10:31:51 PM »

So I'd like everybody that thinks the command is worthless or not applicable to explain exactly what this scripture means in the Torah.  These are God's words.

You guys are not arguing with me, but with God's words.

No, we are arguing with your interpretation of God's words.

My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  

Is that your argument or God's?  Huh

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.


And since that happened.....the cultural norm is now that trousers are not a 'male' garment.


So it would appear that there is no issue here, since you clearly cannot be suggesting we take the verse -outside- of cultural norms, since that would require wearing the clothing of Biblical times.
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #730 on: February 03, 2014, 10:35:36 PM »

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

Would you rather they threw out their dresses and not put on pants? 

I would have rather them remained as they were, keepers at home as the bible tells them to.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #731 on: February 03, 2014, 10:36:45 PM »

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

Would you rather they threw out their dresses and not put on pants? 

I would have rather them remained as they were, keepers at home as the bible tells them to.


again....what is the link to clothing?

I know quite a few homemakers who wear trousers.


Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #732 on: February 03, 2014, 10:39:31 PM »

So I'd like everybody that thinks the command is worthless or not applicable to explain exactly what this scripture means in the Torah.  These are God's words.

You guys are not arguing with me, but with God's words.

No, we are arguing with your interpretation of God's words.

My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  

Is that your argument or God's?  Huh

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.


And since that happened.....the cultural norm is now that trousers are not a 'male' garment.


So it would appear that there is no issue here, since you clearly cannot be suggesting we take the verse -outside- of cultural norms, since that would require wearing the clothing of Biblical times.

Women's lib brought in abortion, women leaving the home to work (no longer being keepers at home), and adorning men's clothing.  

This "cultural norm" was brought in by disobedience to the scriptures.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #733 on: February 03, 2014, 10:39:55 PM »

Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

You can stop acting like "women's lib" was this malicious movement wherein housewives conspired to burn their aprons and skirts en masse. Though there have been bad fruits for sure, there has also been a lot of good. Now we can vote, have maternity leave, get equal pay (theoretically, if not in actuality), have better resources and support for sexual harassment and domestic violence, etc.

Unless it's your argument that women should not vote, be paid fairly, or whatever...
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #734 on: February 03, 2014, 10:41:28 PM »

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

Would you rather they threw out their dresses and not put on pants? 

I would have rather them remained as they were, keepers at home as the bible tells them to.


again....what is the link to clothing?

I know quite a few homemakers who wear trousers.


Read the question I was asked.  It was a joke.  I answered it seriously.   If you read my answer, it was in the context of women being keepers at home prior to women's lib when they wore dresses.  It's implied.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #735 on: February 03, 2014, 10:41:49 PM »

Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

You can stop acting like "women's lib" was this malicious movement wherein housewives conspired to burn their aprons and skirts en masse. Though there have been bad fruits for sure, there has also been a lot of good. Now we can vote, have maternity leave, get equal pay (theoretically, if not in actuality), have better resources and support for sexual harassment and domestic violence, etc.

Unless it's your argument that women should not vote, be paid fairly, or whatever...

Housewives don't get paid...so of course he doesn't care if the pay is fair.......and why would they need -maternity leave- if they don't have a job...


Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #736 on: February 03, 2014, 10:43:13 PM »

Pants are not de facto a man's garment, however much you insist it is so. Your argument does not apply in all times and places. People dress differently in all parts of the world, and always have. Some of the ways people dress normally in hotter cultures might make you blush. It's not a moral imperative not to wear pants.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #737 on: February 03, 2014, 10:45:42 PM »

Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

You can stop acting like "women's lib" was this malicious movement wherein housewives conspired to burn their aprons and skirts en masse. Though there have been bad fruits for sure, there has also been a lot of good. Now we can vote, have maternity leave, get equal pay (theoretically, if not in actuality), have better resources and support for sexual harassment and domestic violence, etc.

Unless it's your argument that women should not vote, be paid fairly, or whatever...

Women had the right to vote since the 1920's well before women's lib.

Maternity leave, equal pay, and sexual harassment at work are all part of a woman not being a keeper at home.  Though not a part entirely of women's lib, it is also the failure to obey the scriptures that these things exist.

Domestic violence has always existed and has not reduced.  It is unfortunate these things happen and completely unbiblical too.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #738 on: February 03, 2014, 10:46:33 PM »

Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

You can stop acting like "women's lib" was this malicious movement wherein housewives conspired to burn their aprons and skirts en masse. Though there have been bad fruits for sure, there has also been a lot of good. Now we can vote, have maternity leave, get equal pay (theoretically, if not in actuality), have better resources and support for sexual harassment and domestic violence, etc.

Unless it's your argument that women should not vote, be paid fairly, or whatever...

Housewives don't get paid...so of course he doesn't care if the pay is fair.......and why would they need -maternity leave- if they don't have a job...

The bible says women should be keepers at home.  Period.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #739 on: February 03, 2014, 10:47:00 PM »

Women had the right to vote since the 1920's well before women's lib.


Women started wearing pants in the early 1900's, well before women's lib.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #740 on: February 03, 2014, 10:48:47 PM »

Pants are not de facto a man's garment, however much you insist it is so. Your argument does not apply in all times and places. People dress differently in all parts of the world, and always have. Some of the ways people dress normally in hotter cultures might make you blush. It's not a moral imperative not to wear pants.

I didn't make that argument you are accusing me of.

I threw it out there to think about.   It was women's lib that brought women into wearing pants (for the most part) in this country and many other parts of the world.  With the "liberation (actually enslavement)" of women from women's lib, women cast of many biblical values of a woman.

Was the dress to pants part of this, and does it apply to Deuteronomy 22:5?  That's all I'm saying.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #741 on: February 03, 2014, 10:49:13 PM »

The bible says women should be keepers at home.  Period.

Verses, please. If it's the ones I'm thinking of, I'm going to disagree with you.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #742 on: February 03, 2014, 10:49:59 PM »

Women had the right to vote since the 1920's well before women's lib.


Women started wearing pants in the early 1900's, well before women's lib.

Yes, I am aware of it.  Once again may I emphasize that I stated cultural norm (very clearly) and "for the most part".   There are always exceptions.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #743 on: February 03, 2014, 10:54:37 PM »

The bible says women should be keepers at home.  Period.

Verses, please. If it's the ones I'm thinking of, I'm going to disagree with you.

Titus 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Proverbs 31
She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands”
“She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet”
“She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens”
“She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy”
“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness”
“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness”

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #744 on: February 03, 2014, 11:02:43 PM »

Titus 2:5
To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Other translations say "busy at home". I see nothing here that makes it seem like one cannot be a keeper of their home and employed outside the house.

Quote
Proverbs 31
She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands”
“She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet”
“She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens”
“She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy”
“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness”
“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness”

Yeah, you left out a bunch of stuff:

"She considers a field and buys it;
From her profits she plants a vineyard.
She girds herself with strength,
And strengthens her arms.
She perceives that her merchandise is good,"

"She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies sashes for the merchants."

What sums it up for me is this: "She watches over the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness."

If a woman can watch over her household and work as well, I see nothing that Biblically prohibits it.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,405



« Reply #745 on: February 03, 2014, 11:28:19 PM »


My argument is that women didn't barely wear pants in our culture until women's lib.  This is a time when women generally quit being keepers at home too.  

May I ask what time period you have in mind for the start of "women's lib" please?  What do you know about the real history of any movement to gain such rights for women as the vote?

As to "keepers at home" does that mean not having any form of employment besides being a mother/housewife?  There were different modes of life depending on where one lived, for example in a city or a town or a village or a farm. Does this mean not having any sort of business which earns an income?  Do you mean only in the history of the U.S. or in Europe or in other parts of the world?

And referring to clothing, what makes that which covers the legs inherently male please or a skirt only female?  Clothing among peoples who living in harsh cold climates such as the Inuit and other groups is made as protection against the elements.  Wearing a skirt in an for north Canadian or Siberian winter would be insane leading to severe cold damage to the woman due to loss of body heat.  They are not wearing "men's clothing" when they wear leggins/pants, they are wearing they own.

In Japan both men and women on farms wear a form of trousers called mompe. Wearing a dress/kimono in a rice paddy or to harvest anything is wildly impractical. 

In Pakistan and other parts of that region the salwar kameez is worn by both males and females and consists of loose trousers and a long tunic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalwar_kameez

The Sarong is a garment of cloth wrapped around the waist (some might call it a "skirt") that is worn by both men and women in many parts of of the world where climates are warmer/hot such as south and southeast Asia.

with respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,405



« Reply #746 on: February 03, 2014, 11:31:18 PM »

Women had the right to vote since the 1920's well before women's lib.


Women started wearing pants in the early 1900's, well before women's lib.

Well, if you add Bloomers in various ways it's before that in the European/North American venues.  Smiley
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,405



« Reply #747 on: February 03, 2014, 11:46:36 PM »

Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

You can stop acting like "women's lib" was this malicious movement wherein housewives conspired to burn their aprons and skirts en masse. Though there have been bad fruits for sure, there has also been a lot of good. Now we can vote, have maternity leave, get equal pay (theoretically, if not in actuality), have better resources and support for sexual harassment and domestic violence, etc.

Unless it's your argument that women should not vote, be paid fairly, or whatever...

Women had the right to vote since the 1920's well before women's lib.

Women had the right to vote in local and state elections in many parts of the West prior to the Nineteenth Amendment (1920) giving the vote nationally. Wyoming Territory had women voting in 1869 for example.  However, the movement for rights for women began long before that time and it wasn't just to get the vote.  Have you read the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments from the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848?  
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/senecafalls.asp
 
Quote
Maternity leave, equal pay, and sexual harassment at work are all part of a woman not being a keeper at home.  Though not a part entirely of women's lib, it is also the failure to obey the scriptures that these things exist.

So all of the working class girls and women who worked in places like mills in order to survive while not being paid the same wage as men were supposed to stay home?  And sexual harassment/ill-treatment is not a new thing either.  What may be new is people standing up and objecting to being treated badly.

Quote
Domestic violence has always existed and has not reduced.  It is unfortunate these things happen and completely unbiblical too.

There's been some change in that it's not always counted as acceptable or the man's right to do it or the woman's fault and again that there isn't always silence in the face of it.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:47:35 PM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,977


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #748 on: February 04, 2014, 12:17:05 AM »

And referring to clothing, what makes that which covers the legs inherently male please or a skirt only female?  Clothing among peoples who living in harsh cold climates such as the Inuit and other groups is made as protection against the elements.  Wearing a skirt in an for north Canadian or Siberian winter would be insane leading to severe cold damage to the woman due to loss of body heat.  They are not wearing "men's clothing" when they wear leggins/pants, they are wearing they own.

In Japan both men and women on farms wear a form of trousers called mompe. Wearing a dress/kimono in a rice paddy or to harvest anything is wildly impractical. 

In Pakistan and other parts of that region the salwar kameez is worn by both males and females and consists of loose trousers and a long tunic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalwar_kameez

The Sarong is a garment of cloth wrapped around the waist (some might call it a "skirt") that is worn by both men and women in many parts of of the world where climates are warmer/hot such as south and southeast Asia.

Unfortunately, you forget one important fact: all of those people are the "unwashed masses" (i.e., unbaptised heathens).  Their cross-dressing is an abomination to the true God, and defending it as if it has some practical reason is not helping to save them from hell, it's just confirming them in their ignorance of Biblical principles. 

Ebor, please, think of the pagan babies, help save them and their parents from the jaws of hell.  You can start by wearing a dress and making me dinner.  Liza is already making me borsch, so I'll leave you to figure out what would balance out the meal.  PM me for my address so you know where to mail it.  But make sure a man takes you to the post office.  I wouldn't want you "getting into trouble" out there... 

Just kidding, Ebor.  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #749 on: February 04, 2014, 12:22:09 AM »

If you absolutely MUST wear pants, please be sure to have your husband fill this out and keep it on your person at all times:

Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,977


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #750 on: February 04, 2014, 12:24:21 AM »

I hope the husband explains what it is.  How would she know just by looking at it?  It's not like she'd know how to read.  I mean, we are talking about good women, right?   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #751 on: February 04, 2014, 12:26:27 AM »

If you absolutely MUST wear pants, please be sure to have your husband fill this out and keep it on your person at all times:



Fantastic.

Mine is signed by someone called Urs Trulee
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #752 on: February 04, 2014, 12:28:28 AM »

I don't know.  Just putting it out there to think about.

Deuteronomy 22:5 exists as his command.  What I put out is to ask WHAT do YOU think it meant if not that?  If a woman were to wear a man's garments outside the cultural norm.   Women's lib began the movement of women throwing out their dresses and wearing pants.

Would you rather they threw out their dresses and not put on pants? 

I would have rather them remained as they were, keepers at home as the bible tells them to.

Do you do everything the Bible says?

No clothes made of a blend, no unclean foods? 
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #753 on: February 04, 2014, 12:28:51 AM »

Hopefully he would explain to to her, yes. It is extremely unlikely that she'd ever need to use it, never leaving the house and all. And certainly she should keep her skirts laundered, and have one as a back-up in an emergency case with a hammer handy to break the glass. But if there were a very concentrated fire while she was showering or something- better safe than sorry!
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,977


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #754 on: February 04, 2014, 12:32:51 AM »

Do you do everything the Bible says?

No clothes made of a blend, no unclean foods? 

Don't forget the feces bread.  Yummy in my tummy!!
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #755 on: February 04, 2014, 12:33:07 AM »

Fantastic.

Mine is signed by someone called Urs Trulee

You might get a kick out of this blog post. The author is Catholic. It makes me laugh.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #756 on: February 04, 2014, 12:35:00 AM »

Do you do everything the Bible says?

No clothes made of a blend, no unclean foods? 

Don't forget the feces bread.  Yummy in my tummy!!

I'm... sorry I missed that.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #757 on: February 04, 2014, 12:41:12 AM »

Fantastic.

Mine is signed by someone called Urs Trulee

You might get a kick out of this blog post. The author is Catholic. It makes me laugh.

Number nine for the win:

9.  If you are so concerned about how I think about myself, then why don’t you ask me what I actually think, instead of telling me what you know I will think if I only listen to you?  Not that you asked, but I’ll tell you how I think about myself:  I think that my life got a lot better when I started making reasonable decisions for myself, instead of always wondering if I’m going to disappoint some hypothetical man.  I care profoundly what my husband thinks about me, and naturally that affects how I feel about myself.  Pants.
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,977


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #758 on: February 04, 2014, 12:44:54 AM »

Don't forget the feces bread.  Yummy in my tummy!!

I'm... sorry I missed that.

Seriously?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,904



« Reply #759 on: February 04, 2014, 12:48:22 AM »

Do you do everything the Bible says?

No clothes made of a blend, no unclean foods? 

Don't forget the feces bread.  Yummy in my tummy!!

I have now been brought up to speed on biblical bread baking. Expect the first loaves sometime next year, it's damp here in the Pacific NW, so drying the fuel will be the first challenge.

But since I can now stay home and have the rent magically paid by my invisible husband, I should have time to experiment.
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #760 on: February 04, 2014, 12:50:24 AM »


As serious as the Pants Pass in my wallet.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,516


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #761 on: February 04, 2014, 02:14:09 AM »

If you absolutely MUST wear pants, please be sure to have your husband fill this out and keep it on your person at all times:



You are a lifesaver ZZ! This is so much nicer than the one I have.

I mean *obviously* I am a wonderful model of a biblical wife; I homeschool, I have 6 children, I stay a respectful distance behind my husband in public. But I have found that in the windy NW, I need to wear pants. And I have so tired of the scathing looks I get when I go out in public with our children. Obviously, wearing pants is the issue. Maybe I could make that card into a t-shirt (long sleeve turtleneck that is very baggy of course).
Logged
Ersaia
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 284



« Reply #762 on: February 04, 2014, 02:28:53 AM »

If you absolutely MUST wear pants, please be sure to have your husband fill this out and keep it on your person at all times:



You are a lifesaver ZZ! This is so much nicer than the one I have.

I mean *obviously* I am a wonderful model of a biblical wife; I homeschool, I have 6 children, I stay a respectful distance behind my husband in public. But I have found that in the windy NW, I need to wear pants. And I have so tired of the scathing looks I get when I go out in public with our children. Obviously, wearing pants is the issue. Maybe I could make that card into a t-shirt (long sleeve turtleneck that is very baggy of course).

really love it as t-shirt! but I have a problem. I am a not married woman with pants Tongue
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,278


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #763 on: February 04, 2014, 02:57:50 AM »

I don't wear pants. Pants are what men wear inside their trousers. What sensible woman would give up lacy, frilly knickers to wear Y-fronts? Tongue

(In other words: Well, if it ain't them pesky cultural - and linguistic - norms again!)

Also, women worked out of the home (in agriculture, manufacture and trade) many, many centuries before women's lib. Roll Eyes
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Ersaia
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 284



« Reply #764 on: February 04, 2014, 03:10:47 AM »

Pants are what men wear inside their trousers.

I really really really need the ONE word for this cloth Tongue
My head will burst Tongue

trousers
pants
Slacks

decide

or I will start talk Greek Tongue
Logged
Tags: st. rachel ephrem wtfbbq backflesh burqini mennonite fashion cancer Dr. Maria 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.169 seconds with 72 queries.