- NEW!
by TheJoker on June 17th, 2009
Frankly I dont fancy God's chances in a fight against a Scot so they can wear whatever they like!
by Lucky on June 17th, 2009
They all wore some type of cloth robe, men and women. Pants, kilts and dresses were not invented. Better question, should a fat man wear a speedo?
by Randoley on June 17th, 2009
Pants haven't been considered exclusive male attire since the 50's and kilts are male clothing. I have 5 of them and wear them more than anything else even to church. It depends on the culture.
by LeopoldClanner on June 17th, 2009
That is a very old book, the world has changed since then. To say that would be to say that all homosexuals should be killed (Leviticus 20:13) as well as all those who work on the sabbath (Exodus 31:15).
These are some examples of why the bible should not be followed precisely by modern society. So, I doubt Christians should have a problem.
by merry1 in a Texican COAT on June 17th, 2009
Fallible men translated this long long ago and it's difficult to know exactly the original intent of the old languages. There is much linguistic dispute over even the simplest word. Your interpretation of "wear" and "pertaineth" may be different from the interpretation of others, and it's not our right to tell you what to believe and vice versa. "Love one another" is probably more important to God than how you interpret his clothing directives.
by tapatio on July 5th, 2009
" I asked this question because it seems the more controversial you are the better the response. " F of C
At first I thought I would spend time on this website discussing questions of religion, primarily Christianity, that I might learn something to help me in my witness. Now I am beginning to see what a trap this is. I can see Satan laughing as he watches so many of God's saints wasting their time instead of witnessing to a lost and dying world.
by Moonhawk on July 5th, 2009
There are lots of commands in the Old Testament that were to help prepare people for the coming of the Messiah. For Christians, the majority of those commands were made moot by the New Testament. It really doesn't matter what people wear as long as they are respectful. People need to wear what is appropriate to their culture and their climate.
It matters more what's in their hearts.
by Jade on July 5th, 2009
When that was written, both men and women wore robes. There were men's robes and women's robes, just as there are men's pants and women's pants. I think that it was just a way of saying that a woman should not put herself in a man's place as head of the family. Just my opinion, though.
by Meg on July 5th, 2009
Perhaps we are all taking the bible a bit too literally? OF COURSE WOMEN SHOULD WEAR PANTS. By wearing pants we're not hurting anyone and definately not offending anyone. It's probably preferred to a short skirt anyway. I find those way more offensive. Same goes for guys wearing kilts. Who are they harming?
I'm an atheist, but if I did believe in the bible, I would try to see the metaphor in the stories instead of taking them so literally that it doesn't make sense anymore.
by I can fly on July 5th, 2009
What did Jesus wear?
by LarryH54 on July 5th, 2009
But women's pants ARE different. If you don't believe me, try a pair on. And try to use a urinal with the zipper pushed off to one side!
by denidowi on June 17th, 2009
TOP question Young lady, yet I see how few answer it.
I always find women more attractive when they deliberately dress differently from men. I think they that were given trim waists to be 'presented' as such, and the overall bodily attraction springs from there.
As you quote here: God wants them looking different from men. Each should attract the other: this will best happen when one appears most differently from the other.
This is also why feminism fails ... because it is trying to make men and women the same - NOT equal; it is counterfeit, and confederate with the devil.
Hence the complete failure on earth right now.
by The Anonymous Witch on November 13th, 2009
it's crack pot ideas like this taken from a book written for fools to follow , that killed and murdered joan of arc . - burned as a witch .. but the actual charge was cross dressing . .. then made into a saint to save face . stop reading that crap , or we'll go back to this http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
by Daniel on November 13th, 2009
Yes, of course. And remember to stone adulterers while you are at it (also Deut 22).
by Moongrim on November 13th, 2009
And where precisely am I supposed to get a garment made out of fig leaves?
by Eclipse sleeping by moonlight on July 5th, 2009
The reference might be to jock straps and brassieres.
by Shavale is very happy on July 5th, 2009
I dunno, I just think that maybe he didn't want couples to dress the same.
by SanityClause on July 5th, 2009
Who wore pants at the time those verses were written?
by schmee2369 on July 5th, 2009
I wear pants, and Im a woman.
And I think its sexy when men wear kilts. They are very much...MAN.
But...I think its pretty much stating, if you cant tell the difference...
Why do it?
Like there used to be women who would shave their heads, and run around bear breasted...as if they were a man. - Its kinda stating...they shouldnt do that stuff.
by philosopher-saint on July 5th, 2009
I guess you'd better let God have a look in your clothes closet mornings?
;-)
by Fransua3782 on July 10th, 2010
Share your answer...
by Fransua3782 on July 10th, 2010
There is a spiritual answer that may answer this when Christians look at it in a spiritual light as Christ spake parables the world didn't understand. Christians too should seek how these scriptures of old testament show Christ instead of literally how to live.
First, the Lord is the Husband and the church is supposed to be his bride. That Husband is a High Priest in an unseen heavenly kingdom. That which "pertaineth unto the man" pertaineth unto a High Priest, the man Christ Jesus. That which pertaineth unto a High Priest is the breastplate of judgment. The woman, the church, should not wear the breastplate of judgment and pass judgment on anyone.
Secondly, a woman's garment is a veil, not pants.
The word of God says that those who have gone astray have a covering, but not of his Spirit.
The hair and veil is a type and shadow of the woman, or church being covered by the Spirit of God.
For the man, Christ to be covered by the woman's garment is types and shadows of Christ being covered or saved by the woman's spirit.
The church is saved, led and covered by his Spirit when truly saved.
For Christ to put on a woman's garment and be saved is an abomination in the eyes of God as the word says our righteousness is as filthy rags.
I hope this helps.
by springissprung on February 11th, 2012
Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with pants. The ancient Hebrews of the OT period did not wear pants. Both sexes wore skirts and robe-type garments. Pants were the invention of the Medes & Persians in the 4th cen. B.C. In the NT era the Roman Empire did not wear pants. Pants were the "garb of the barbarians."
The separation of men in pants and women in dresses happened in 1340 in Europe. Prior to 1340 BOTH sexes wore DRESSES. During the Dark and Middle Ages Europe was under the influence of the Catholic Church. The big separation of men's and women's clothing reflected the view of the Catholic Church concerning marriage, which they saw as a "heirarchy", and the disdain they held for women, who were severely punished during the Middle Ages. They Catholic Church burned at the stake more than 1 million women as "witches". Women were punished with the branks, the pillory, the ducking stool, chastity belt, etc. Pants on men symbolized the harsh, cruel rule of men over women. The saying of who "wears the pants" arose at this time.
Our country's first "feminists" destroyed the association of pants with men's authority. Dress reformers did not copy men's wear (men were not the first to wear pants) but introduced women's pants into our culture by borrowing from the cultures of countries where pants were not a male garment--namely the "harems" of eastern countries. Amelia Jenks Bloomer, dress reformer, was pictured in the "Lily" in Turkish pantaloons underneath a shortened skirt in 1851. Women all over the country began wearing the outfit. Her Turkish trousers were nick-named "bloomers."
Visit my website at http://www.studyholiness.com
by my2cents--Vote for Paul on November 13th, 2009
We should dress so that people know that we are what we are. A woman can where pants as long as they are womans pants. A man can were a kilt if he is Scottish so he is actually being manly as he weres it. Man in dress no.
by fluffylucy on June 14th, 2010
Your question suggests that men at the time these books were written, wore something like pants (trousers). historical and archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. pants were a much later invention, not even known about by the writers of those books. of course what the passages are probably referring to is the accepted belief that men owned women in the same way as they owned cattle and that a woman should not be allowed to wear the pants in the family, so to speak. all ancient mumbo-jumbo
Does God really want for women to be subservient to men?(NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)"
by anil m on May 6th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What do you think of Deuteronomy 22:28-29? I personally think this would severely reduce rape if made Law as God wanted it.
by LePoupon is a proper gander. on August 30th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If your son or daughter were to become Gay, would you be against it or for it?
by applefritter on September 10th, 2010
| 2 people like this
"sexual excitement is shameful [...] venereal stimuli have their origin not in nature, but in sin" Erasmus
Thoughts?
by iwnit on June 17th, 2010
| 3 people like this
Does the act of intimacy constitute marriage? In other words, once a couple have sex, are they considered "married" in God's eyes?
by allyjae on August 3rd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading "Male and female created He them (Gen 1:27)." "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man...(Deut 22:5)." God wanted men and women to be distictly different. Should a woman wear pants? Should a man wear a dress or a kilt?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
I gave you a point because I liked your answer. Made me think of a man in a kilt wrestling an angel.
by Nice Guy In Bay Area on June 17th, 2009
Hahaha, thanks :)
Thats quite an image!
by TheJoker on June 17th, 2009
Fighting in Kilts is not recommended, always way too much on display ; - )
and readily grabbed as leverage ; - 0
by The Scotsman on November 13th, 2009
Hahahaha, if someone has the...... balls, to grab a Scotsmans balls, then good luck to em :)
by TheJoker on November 13th, 2009