Why So Many Rules? - Duggars

[Quiverless]

Wikipedia says some forms of trousers has been around since pre-Jebus times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pants

Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. At this time, not only the Persians, but also allied Central Asian peoples such as the Bactrians, Armenians, and the Tigraxauda Scythians are known to have worn them. Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.

I would like to draw your attention to the last sentence there! What's "male" and what's "female" is merely a matter of what the culture of a given time and place sees as normal. Cultures are made up of people. If a whole culture decides that ink hair ribbons are masculine, then that's what it is. Folks need to stop trying to stop the world from changing.

[Patsy]

Folks need to stop trying to stop the world from changing.

Quoted for truth. It's just futile, and the resultant bleating gets a bit annoying.

[Dinorah]

Women should not wear what pertains to a man....great! I only shop in the women's section, wear women's jeans, etc..

I don't get why they can't read the bible in context :?

This. Women wear pants that are designed for women. You can get pants that are pink, have flower prints, all sorts of pants a man wouldn't get caught dead wearing. Hence women's pants "pertain to a woman". I always assumed that that verse was an admonishment against cross-dressing, anyway.

For some reason, the skirt only rule really bugs me - and actually I love wearing skirts and dresses! But I guess I like doing it as a choice, and wearing pants when it feels better to.

[Kaylee]

The pants/skirt thing is totally culturally, and one of those many things where people choose their beliefs then search for a scripture verse to back them up. I've known for a while (because of a bit of an obsession with Hebrew/Greek word studies for a while), and heard from several pastors & Bible scholars, that the passage in Deuteronomy 22:5 referred specifically to military gear and armor/weapons, not just "men's clothing".

I recently found out that some Rabbis & Talmud scholars taught, even several centuries ago, that this was a prohibition against crossdressing in order to mix in with a group of the opposite sex for the purpose of adultery (ie, that it does not forbid wearing the clothes as an abomination, but it forbids wearing them for the purpose of committing an abomination, adultery in this case). At the very broadest, it pertains more to military clothing & weapons than to everyday clothing. Some people have said this is why Jael used a tent peg to kill the enemy king, rather than his sword, because taking up the sword could be seen as wearing the weapons of a man.

Something else amusing is that the t-shirt would fit this prohibition much more than pants would. It was originally a men's garment, created for the military when US soldiers in WWI saw European soldiers wearing similar shirts, and it became part of the military uniform, as an undershirt. Technically, a t-shirt is men's clothing, military clothing, and underwear all rolled into one.

[Kaylee]

Umm, back to the original question. From a Christian POV, I think most of the extraneous rules come from pride and the sin of believing that they know what God wants better than God himself does. Instead of just taking the Bible as ass, accepting his grace, and living, they have to add all sorts of rules.

The funny thing is the first time we see extra rules being added in the Bible is in the exchange between Eve & Satan in Genesis 3. God had told them not to eat the fruit, and Eve adds on and says that they must not eat it or touch it, or they will die (it's not clear if she decided that or if it was what Adam told her God said).

In the New Testament, most of the book of Galatians deals with these - people adding rules and telling Gentile converts they must keep all of the Jewish rules to be Christian and follow cultural rules like not eating meat sacrificed to idols (it was cheaper, and not really an issue if you didn't believe in them).

Anyway, I think a lot of people don't really want to accept salvation as God's grace. They want to feel like they are doing something and are somehow earning it themselves and more deserving of it because of things they do and rules they keep. That's why so many "fundie" testimonies are all about "I" & not God - "I did this, prayed that, started to wear this, eliminated that from my life", etc & so on, with maybe a brief mention of God or the Spirit (sometimes not even that, many tend to say "I realized...", instead of mentioning God or the Holy Spirit). I think some also secretly don't want "everyone" to be able to be saved - they want to make it an exclusive club for people like them, who abide by their rules and are part of their subculture. There's also a huge element of pride, thinking they are better than everyone else, especially other Christians, because of all the rules they follow and extra burdens they place upon themselves and their children.

[Dinorah]

The pants/skirt thing is totally culturally, and one of those many things where people choose their beliefs then search for a scripture verse to back them up. I've known for a while (because of a bit of an obsession with Hebrew/Greek word studies for a while), and heard from several pastors & Bible scholars, that the passage in Deuteronomy 22:5 referred specifically to military gear and armor/weapons, not just "men's clothing".

I recently found out that some Rabbis & Talmud scholars taught, even several centuries ago, that this was a prohibition against crossdressing in order to mix in with a group of the opposite sex for the purpose of adultery (ie, that it does not forbid wearing the clothes as an abomination, but it forbids wearing them for the purpose of committing an abomination, adultery in this case). At the very broadest, it pertains more to military clothing & weapons than to everyday clothing. Some people have said this is why Jael used a tent peg to kill the enemy king, rather than his sword, because taking up the sword could be seen as wearing the weapons of a man.

Something else amusing is that the t-shirt would fit this prohibition much more than pants would. It was originally a men's garment, created for the military when US soldiers in WWI saw European soldiers wearing similar shirts, and it became part of the military uniform, as an undershirt. Technically, a t-shirt is men's clothing, military clothing, and underwear all rolled into one.[/quote]

Exactly. And aren't there a lot of other garnments that started out as male and are now worn by both sexes, like collared shirts, blazer jackets, v-neck sweater? I feel that the ban against women's pants has more to do with its association with emancipation, the idea of "wearing the trousers" than with garnments pertaining to women or modesty (last time I checked, unless they're very tight pants do a better job of covering up a woman's legs than skirts).

[bananacat]

Some people have said this is why Jael used a tent peg to kill the enemy king, rather than his sword, because taking up the sword could be seen as wearing the weapons of a man.

Lol, this is hilarious. Nothing wrong with murdering a man, but you better not pick up that sword! That is the most legalistic technicality loophole I've ever heard. Seriously though, she probably used a tent peg because that's what she knew how to use. Swords are not easy to use if you've never done it. But she would have had plenty of experience pounding tent pegs into the ground.