Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-22-2019, 01:32 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
Yes, India was indeed a colony of the British Empire. How did that impact their clothing choices for men and women? And how does that, in your opinion, impact the issue at hand?
This is part and parcel of empire conquering the people. The influence of the Greeks (since Alexander the Great) gave us an entire Greek New Testament.
So, when the United States placed its military in defeated Japan, some adopted the fashion.Early Americans looking to make dealings with the Japanese in the 1800s brought with them their fashions. Just like the Indian chief below adopted the fashion of the colonists who conquered his land.





__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-22-2019, 02:46 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Women Wearing Pants

In Sir John Glubb's Fate of Empires, it states, the final stage is an Age of Decadence which noted by frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the welfare state and weakening of religion. Let me say this, there is none so blind who will not see. It is about over boys and girls. This country is at the early stages of its trip to the abyss. Pants on women is just a pimple on the tail end of a gnat. Symbols have strong meaning, whether you believe them or not. We in trouble boys, and unless we get some prayer going we might not have enough to scrape together when this whole thing capsizes.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
  #103  
Old 06-22-2019, 03:02 PM
Scott Pitta's Avatar
Scott Pitta Scott Pitta is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Wisconsin Dells
Posts: 2,941
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with western culture.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-22-2019, 03:26 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with western culture.
No, this does.

__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
  #105  
Old 06-22-2019, 03:34 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with western culture.
Scott, let me explain something to you. Western Culture didn't pop out of the head of Zeus. It was formulated by the Bible, as impossible for you to believe that, it was. Because it was Christianity in whatever form was available to them is how their culture formed. Looking at any history of fashion from 1000 A.D. to 1940s we have women in dresses. Deuteronomy 22:5 says exactly what it means men don't dress in female attire, and women don't dress in masculine attire. Oh, while you are at it, don't place a railing around an occupied flat roof, and see if OSHA agrees with Moses.
__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-22-2019, 04:54 PM
Scott Pitta's Avatar
Scott Pitta Scott Pitta is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Wisconsin Dells
Posts: 2,941
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Dresses are not mentioned in Deut. 22:5.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-22-2019, 05:46 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 772
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
Looking at any history of fashion from 1000 A.D. to 1940s we have women in dresses. Deuteronomy 22:5 says exactly what it means men don't dress in female attire, and women don't dress in masculine attire. Oh, while you are at it, don't place a railing around an occupied flat roof, and see if OSHA agrees with Moses.
I am sympathetic with many of the things you have expressed. I don't, however, think the average person is going to be persuaded. Women whom I know who wear pants aren't trying to be men or rule over their husbands. Nothing could be said to them to convince them that they are the pawns in a great struggle to overthrow traditional morality.

A problem in the quote above is that you're implying women in dresses wasn't the norm before 1000 AD. The point is this: if it is ever conceded that fashions ever changed then there is no justification to fix a particular era as the norm going forward.

Non-Pentecostals with whom I have discussed Deut 22:5 (and perhaps weren't even aware before of the verse) universally have thought it was forbidding crossdressing/transvestitism. That is, it is forbidding the practice of someone trying to pass themselves off as a member of the other gender. That's what I thought when I first read it. Most people are likely going to feel repulsed by this behavior and would naturally understand that Deut 22:5 says it is an abomination to God. The problem is that there is just not enough information to know exactly what is being forbidden. At any rate it is not clearly forbidding clothing that is remotely similar to the other gender's. Yes there must be some distinction and it should not be possible to confuse someone for the opposite gender by the way they are dressed. This can be done with women in pants.

The ultimate point of this thread is there are no other passages in Scripture apparently that would demand that garments be radically different for each gender. At least none have really been put forward.

And why limit this to skirts and pants? If this is wrong then it is wrong for men and women to wear any clothes that are similar. Can a woman wear a t-shirt, a button down shirt?

The bottom line is trousers are no longer exclusively masculine attire, and that has been so for many decades now, so they are no longer forbidden for women as long as she is not trying to actually present herself as a man.

I know we won't agree on this, but I appreciate all the information you have presented.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-22-2019, 07:23 PM
Tithesmeister Tithesmeister is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,774
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
No, this does.

Well, I watched the whole video. I’d just like to say. Don’t all of you remember those occasions where girls transitioned to boys and were dominating the boys sporting events? Remember?





Yeah, me neither!
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-22-2019, 07:32 PM
Costeon Costeon is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 772
Re: Women Wearing Pants

My conclusion regarding Deut 22.5 is that there is no clear scriptural support to say that this verse is forbidding anything but transvestism or cross-dressing to pass oneself off as someone of the opposite gender. I think, in contrast, it is fare to say that there is no clear scriptural support to say Deut 22.5 only means this. The point: this verse is ambiguous, as stated in the first post. I was really hoping someone could bring up other passages that could clarify the issue, but it appears that there aren't any other verses, which seems odd if indeed the issue is so important. It seems to me that one lone ambiguous passage is inadequate to demand that women never wear trousers.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-22-2019, 07:43 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Women Wearing Pants

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
I am sympathetic with many of the things you have expressed. I don't, however, think the average person is going to be persuaded. Women whom I know who wear pants aren't trying to be men or rule over their husbands. Nothing could be said to them to convince them that they are the pawns in a great struggle to overthrow traditional morality.
As per usual Costeon is no longer holding a discussion with the poster he is quoting (me )

If anyone is interested I brought up that it is a symbol of authority and masculinity. Whether Costeon's girlfriends are pious Sadhu with begging bowls, the pants they have on are symbols of masculinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
A problem in the quote above is that you're implying women in dresses wasn't the norm before 1000 AD. The point is this: if it is ever conceded that fashions ever changed then there is no justification to fix a particular era as the norm going forward.
Here Costeon brings in an assumption of what I believe. Doesn't ask for any clarification. Little reminiscent of ZOGhasfallen

But women in all points of history looked like women, the καταστολή is what Paul describes the female garment to look like 1 Timothy 2:9. The Greek word καταστολή is still used in modern Greek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post

Non-Pentecostals with whom I have discussed Deut 22:5 (and perhaps weren't even aware before of the verse)
If they are clueless about the verse, wouldn't they therefore be clueless about its meaning? I mean who cares what the rank and file Bible dabbler thinks about any verse?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post

universally have thought it was forbidding crossdressing/transvestitism. That is, it is forbidding the practice of someone trying to pass themselves off as a member of the other gender. That's what I thought when I first read it. Most people are likely going to feel repulsed by this behavior and would naturally understand that Deut 22:5 says it is an abomination to God. The problem is that there is just not enough information to know exactly what is being forbidden. At any rate it is not clearly forbidding clothing that is remotely similar to the other gender's. Yes there must be some distinction and it should not be possible to confuse someone for the opposite gender by the way they are dressed. This can be done with women in pants.
People really do need a Bible that has a do and do not list on every page. But, Deuteronomy 22:5 is internal, and external. She wears the pants in the family, weren't just about pants or trousers. It was about the whole female authority over men. Rosie the Riveter strong like bull, and smart like tractor, issues in this country. Where female leadership, all the way up to the presidency is a possible thing. Let's face it, we are in decline and most churches can't crawl out of the cultural tar pit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post

The ultimate point of this thread is there are no other passages in Scripture apparently that would demand that garments be radically different for each gender. At least none have really been put forward.

And why limit this to skirts and pants? If this is wrong then it is wrong for men and women to wear any clothes that are similar. Can a woman wear a t-shirt, a button down shirt?
I Timothy 2:9 tells us what the Apostle Paul was looking for in a woman's clothing. But also emphasizes her behavior as in I Peter 3:1-4. You are living in a world where you are at its twilight, there are so many voices which will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post

The bottom line is trousers are no longer exclusively masculine attire, and that has been so for many decades now, so they are no longer forbidden for women as long as she is not trying to actually present herself as a man.
Bottom line homosexualityy is no longer forbidden in this country. Matter of fact men can marry men, and women can marry women. High schools must allow transgender students to compete in any sport. Frog in the kettle buddy boy, just plain old frog in the kettle. Pants on women are masculine, everyone knows this especially sinners, but sinners are usually smarter than Christians because they have nothing to hide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costeon View Post
I know we won't agree on this, but I appreciate all the information you have presented.
Yeah, sure.
__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Men Wearing Pants (women's) Hoovie Fellowship Hall 30 06-24-2019 03:09 PM
Will a MAN Go to Hell for Wearing Pants?<<<< Charnock Fellowship Hall 19 02-02-2013 12:16 AM
A question regarding women wearing pants... Sheltiedad Fellowship Hall 121 08-19-2012 10:42 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.