NEW Standard Debate in the UPC! "Girls Leggings"!!!

[seguidordejesus]

Would you elaborate on this, please?

Come on, CS. You know if someone tells you that you HAVE to do something, you automatically have to do the opposite, donchaknow?

(it comes naturally to kids and wives :))

[Carpenter]

...The move toward women wearing pants is nothing more than a unisex movement, and besides that, the majority of women's pants are immodest.

The Church has drawn a line and applied that principle in this manner.

I don't think you were serious about the question, really, as you know many reasons why I or any other man wouldn't wear a pair of pants made for a woman.

It just looked like another "Gotcha!"

I don't think so.:coffee2

I agree about the debate, it is either you believe it or you don't.

I am serious about the question though, of men wearing pants from the ladies department, because there is a principal behind it when you and other say that all pants pertain to men. Why can you not go and select your slacks from the woman's department?

Secondly, there is no "Gotcha here" Why doesn't the church simply be honest and say that while the biblical evidence for women wearing pants is skinny at best (besides we have bigger fish to fry with our women taking on the mantle of men) and just say, our culture believes that pants are immodest and we demand our women not wear them. Instead they attach the SIN label and like I said earlier, you can get someone to do just about anything if you put their salvation at stake.

[ILG]

Would you elaborate on this, please?

When I came into the UPC, I loved the idea that skirts were for women and that I had a great way to express my femininity. This was a principle in my mind. However, over the years something subtle happened from listening to UPC preaching. I came to think that not only was it a great way to express femininity but that it was an ABOMINATION for women to wear pants. That made it salvational. That small shift....what I wouldn't have even been able to explain or elaborate on to anyone made the difference between wearing skirts daily out of love for God and an expression of my Christianity into a law that had to be kept by everyone lest we be thrown into hell. From love to fear. Very bad. That small subtle seed of difference is like leaven which leavens the whole lump. That leaven is very bad, wrong and dangerous. And why I wear pants today.

[Carpenter]

When I came into the UPC, I loved the idea that skirts were for women and that I had a great way to express my femininity. This was a principle in my mind. However, over the years something subtle happened from listening to UPC preaching. I came to think that not only was it a great way to express femininity but that it was an ABOMINATION for women to wear pants. That made it salvational. That small shift....what I wouldn't have even been able to explain or elaborate on to anyone made the difference between wearing skirts daily out of love for God and an expression of my Christianity into a law that had to be kept by everyone lest we be thrown into hell. From love to fear. Very bad. That small subtle seed of difference is like leaven which leavens the whole lump. That leaven is very bad, wrong and dangerous. And why I wear pants today.

Coonskinner, this is exaclty the point I was trying to make above.

Great post ILG!

[ILG]

Coonskinner, this is exaclty the point I was trying to make above.

Great post ILG!

Thanks Carp.

[Coonskinner]

I got the answer I thought I would get.

[Carpenter]

I got the answer I thought I would get.

Well at least you got an answer. :D

[Coonskinner]

Well at least you got an answer. :D

I answered your question, didn't I?

[Subdued]

I agree about the debate, it is either you believe it or you don't.

I am serious about the question though, of men wearing pants from the ladies department, because there is a principal behind it when you and other say that all pants pertain to men. Why can you not go and select your slacks from the woman's department?

Secondly, there is no "Gotcha here" Why doesn't the church simply be honest and say that while the biblical evidence for women wearing pants is skinny at best (besides we have bigger fish to fry with our women taking on the mantle of men) and just say, our culture believes that pants are immodest and we demand our women not wear them. Instead they attach the SIN label and like I said earlier, you can get someone to do just about anything if you put their salvation at stake.

Why are pants immodest for women but not for men?

[Carpenter]

I answered your question, didn't I?

No, you just said I wasn't serious and dismissed the question/comment.

[Carpenter]

Why are pants immodest for women but not for men?

Because the men made the rules...and we have done a brilliant job at causing them to think our desires are their revelations. :D

[Subdued]

Because the men made the rules.

Ahh... But of course.

[ILG]

I got the answer I thought I would get.

So, is it an abomination to God for women to wear pants?

I say no. Women wearing skirts is an expression of Deut 22:5 but not the ONLY way to express it.

[Carpenter]

So, is it an abomination to God for women to wear pants?

I say no. Women wearing skirts is an expression of Deut 22:5 but not the ONLY way to express it.

I still say the argument is untenable. Either you are following the law that a woman does not wear that which pertaineth, or you are following it because pants are immodest. It cannot be both. If you follow just one law you will be judged by the whole law...and I don't see the church too concerned about other stuff they do that are abominations as outlined by the mosaic law.

Again, the church should just be honest with themselves.

[ILG]

I still say the argument is untenable. Either you are following the law that a woman does not wear that which pertaineth, or you are following it because pants are immodest. It cannot be both. If you follow just one law you will be judged by the whole law...and I don't see the church too concerned about other stuff they do that are abominations as outlined by the mosaic law.

Again, the church should just be honest with themselves.

I don't agree that it is following a law to respect the principle in Deut 22:5. I still follow the principle. I do not wear men's clothes.

[CupCake]

When I came into the UPC, I loved the idea that skirts were for women and that I had a great way to express my femininity. This was a principle in my mind. However, over the years something subtle happened from listening to UPC preaching. I came to think that not only was it a great way to express femininity but that it was an ABOMINATION for women to wear pants. That made it salvation. That small shift....what I wouldn't have even been able to explain or elaborate on to anyone made the difference between wearing skirts daily out of love for God and an expression of my Christianity into a law that had to be kept by everyone lest we be thrown into hell. From love to fear. Very bad. That small subtle seed of difference is like leaven which leavens the whole lump. That leaven is very bad, wrong and dangerous. And why I wear pants today.

Amen ~
It's clear what ILG is saying no need to be a rocket science to figure it out !


The real kicker is this, if wearing pants is such an issue with God why is it most women feel no convention or fear from God when they put on a pair of pants, what they fear most is being caught by the nosy gossiping busybodies within the church membership, running here and there to report to the pastor anything and everything under the sun, so as to get into his good grace, not Gods.
In fact God not the one causing or inflection such fears into your heart, man is. One would think, after all God see and knows all things, yet they don't fear God or hide from Him while in pants. What they fear is being disowned called a backslider not being used in church and having their walk and salvation brought into questing. So when they run into a church member they try hide so as not to be judge, or cast into hell of dress standards made up by man so they can tell who is who, because man does not trust God to do the inner heart work. History show us man always looking for a sign, in this case it called outward dress~ It's called conditioning, it happen a lot within the church, I recall how women stood up during testimonies service and proclaim how God deliver them of their pants, makeup, jeweler, hair etc , this went on for weeks until they newbie would conform! And can't leave this one out, obey them that have rule over you, so who rule you? God or man? When a teacher or pastor step outside the word by adding or taken from what the word really said, they are no longer preaching truth that apostles and Jesus taught as well, nor are you obligated to obey these so sayer!


Like I said you preach another gospel, one of man not grace as taught by the apostles or by Jesus Himself ! Still Duet 22:5 has nothing to do with pants.

[Carpenter]

I don't agree that it is following a law to respect the principle in Deut 22:5. I still follow the principle. I do not wear men's clothes.

I agree with you, and it is about intent. What is the reason for wearing certain clothes?

There are women all over the church on any given Saturday morning work day wearing their husbands old shirts while they go about their duties in a skirt...because they are admonished or believe they shouldn't wear men's clothing.

So would you wear certain articles of clothing with the intent of being or acting, or taking the place of a man? Probably not.

This is why the principal is SOOO important that women not wear the persona or nature of a man with the intent to exact his authority, position, or identity. This is what I believe Deut 22 is ALL about.

[AGAPE]

Have you heard that there is a Debate over whether females ought to be allowed to wear Leggings under their skirts ??????


I heard a report that it's the Rage for UPC girls to wear long johns or jogging Pants under their skirts and some folks are in a tizzy over it.

There was even a report of a CA. Con church doing this and brows were raised.


Do you feel this is wrong as it pertains to the doctrine of Duet 22 ????

would you allow it in your church??

your opinions please

NO WAY


SAY NO to LEGGINgS

[Newman]

Because the men made the rules...and we have done a brilliant job at causing them to think our desires are their revelations. :D

You have said a mouthful. :donuts

[Scott Hutchinson]

What exactly was the difference between the tunics of men and women in the Bible ?

[CupCake]

Originally Posted by Carpenter View Post
Because the men made the rules...and we have done a brilliant job at causing them to think our desires are their revelations.

Carpenter can I have your permission to use this as a signature?

[Carpenter]

Carpenter can I have your permission to use this as a signature?

I would be honored.

[Subdued]

So then we've established the reason pants are immodest for women, but not for men...?? Just checking.

[Carpenter]

So then we've established the reason pants are immodest for women, but not for men...?? Just checking.

It's obvious, men don't believe that men wearing pants is immodest...and again, we have the benefit of having made the rules.

Besides, it would be difficult, even considering that our loins were wrapped beneath, to wear tunics and still have the ability to step over stadium seats, safely climb ladders, go hunting, etc...they don't prohibit us from singing in the choir, but they would for other manly stuff. :D

[Newman]

What exactly was the difference between the tunics of men and women in the Bible ?

Well now the tunics didn't have to be that much different from each other since the God-given beard that the man was wearing clearly and unequivicably identified his masculine identity. ;)

[Newman]

It's obvious, men don't believe that men wearing pants is immodest...and again, we have the benefit of having made the rules.

Besides, it would be difficult, even considering that our loins were wrapped beneath, to wear tunics and still have the ability to step over stadium seats, safely climb ladders, go hunting, etc...they don't prohibit us from singing in the choir, but they would for other manly stuff. :D

Hahahaha! :hypercoffee

[Carpenter]

Well now the tunics didn't have to be that much different from each other since the God-given beard that the man was wearing clearly and unequivicably identified his masculine identity. ;)

So then should we say that the wrapping of loins without an outward cover is immodest? NOW THAT WOULD BE TRUE SEPARATION FROM THE WESTERN WORLD! :D

Paul should have thought of that one when he was speaking to the Corrinthians...or at a minimum, Moses should have tossed his two cents when he was penning Deuteronomy. Oh the thought!

[Scott Hutchinson]

I mean were they sewed diferently or such ,or perhaps colors where different as to tell what were women ,and men's garments?
Newman I want to pm you ,about a legal matter hang on just a minute.

[Newman]

I mean were they sewed diferently or such ,or perhaps colors where different as to tell what were women ,and men's garments?
Newman I want to pm you ,about a legal matter hang on just a minute.

Bro. Scott- I answered you privately but wanted to use your post to let others know that unfortunately I am not qualified or licensed to answer most legal questions outside of my state. Consequently, I can't, don't, and won't be able to respond to poster questions about the law.

Now back to our regualar programing... :tvhappy

[CupCake]

I would be honored.

Thank you so much, I'll have my daughter host it for me, if that's the right lingo. ~Lol....;)

[HeavenlyOne]

what other laws did i cover? the 10 commandments ?

as far as the sabbath, that's a no-brainer and you know that. Jesus said he was the Lord of the sabbath who fulfilled it. Paul said judge No man according to days . so we know that the sabbath is the one exception of the 10 that has been done away with for the gentiles unless you are a sabbath believer ??

the holy ghost IS our rest !

So then there are 9 commandments now?

So there is an exception to one commandment (which I don't find in the Bible) but we still want to insist that Deut. 22:5 is speaking about women not wearing pants???

[HeavenlyOne]

when is the last time you saw a man prancing around in a dress?
do you endorse that ???

There is a man who wears a robe who lives in the US. He's never been accused of cross-dressing, even though what he wears is close to women's attire.....according to standards believers.


There are other countries where men don't wear pants as part of their cultural attire. You go over there and preach this doctrine and they will reject it.

[HeavenlyOne]

You're either missing the point or evading the question. How long does something have to be a part of culture before it is acceptable? Years ago some believed wearing certain colors would send you to hell. Open toe shoes would send you to hell. Very few people believe that nonsense now. It is part of culture. THe question again, how long does something have to be ingrained in culture before it is accepted by apostolics.

To answer your question. A man prancing around in a dress violates Biblical PRINCPLE of gender separation.

Nobody has yet to address the point I've made a few times now that 400 years ago, when men started wearing pants, it was considered immodest and, in some areas, it was considered women's attire.

Looks like culture took care of that line of thinking, didn't it?

[Thad]

So then there are 9 commandments now?

So there is an exception to one commandment (which I don't find in the Bible) but we still want to insist that Deut. 22:5 is speaking about women not wearing pants???


you already know the answer to this.

[HeavenlyOne]

Carp,

I have answered questions like this in the past, and have just about sworn off debating the specifics of standards with anybody anymore, because it is tiresome and frankly, boring, especially among those of us who have been doing this for a while.

In our culture, pants were exclusively men's apparel until there began to be a societal shift during WWII.

Then, with the rise of feminism, the separation between genders got even more fuzzy.

At some point, the Church has a responsibility to draw a line against the encroachment of an ever more degenerate and ungodly culture, and its pressure to erase godly principles.

The move toward women wearing pants is nothing more than a unisex movement, and besides that, the majority of women's pants are immodest.

The Church has drawn a line and applied that principle in this manner.

I don't think you were serious about the question, really, as you know many reasons why I or any other man wouldn't wear a pair of pants made for a woman.

It just looked like another "Gotcha!"

I don't think so.:coffee2

What was the gender distinction when for thousands of years, men and women wore the same garment?

Until the last 400 years, men and women wore the same garment. How do you explain your post above with this fact?

I'm seriously wondering why people talk about the blurring of gender distinction lines because our culture allows for women in pants when it was that way with dress-like garments for thousands of years.

[HeavenlyOne]

Why are pants immodest for women but not for men?

I believe that pants are quite immodest for men in many cases......and I'm speaking of men in the church, not in the world.

[HeavenlyOne]

I agree with you, and it is about intent. What is the reason for wearing certain clothes?

There are women all over the church on any given Saturday morning work day wearing their husbands old shirts while they go about their duties in a skirt...because they are admonished or believe they shouldn't wear men's clothing.

So would you wear certain articles of clothing with the intent of being or acting, or taking the place of a man? Probably not.

This is why the principal is SOOO important that women not wear the persona or nature of a man with the intent to exact his authority, position, or identity. This is what I believe Deut 22 is ALL about.

I completely agree. That verse isn't about the wearing of certain articles AT ALL, but the intention of wearing them.

If a woman is out in the garden wearing her husband's clothes because she doesn't have anything that she can afford to be ruined, she isn't violating anything Biblically. If she dresses in his clothes and adapts mannerisms of a man and goes out in public, well, I'd have to question her motives.

I worked in a store while going to nursing school a few years ago and there was a man who frequented the place. He was very kind, but sounded like a woman when he talked. I didn't think anything of it until I found out he was really a woman who's name is Shirley.

She is a prime example of violating Deut. 22:5.

[HeavenlyOne]

What exactly was the difference between the tunics of men and women in the Bible ?

Good question.

[Kutless]

What was the gender distinction when for thousands of years, men and women wore the same garment?

Until the last 400 years, men and women wore the same garment. How do you explain your post above with this fact?

I'm seriously wondering why people talk about the blurring of gender distinction lines because our culture allows for women in pants when it was that way with dress-like garments for thousands of years.I would also like to see some answers to some of these type questions.

But when it gets down to the nitty gritty "freakycons" don't want to answer. They would rather live in generalities and allow themselves to be defined by a 10 year period.

[HeavenlyOne]

It's obvious, men don't believe that men wearing pants is immodest...and again, we have the benefit of having made the rules.

Besides, it would be difficult, even considering that our loins were wrapped beneath, to wear tunics and still have the ability to step over stadium seats, safely climb ladders, go hunting, etc...they don't prohibit us from singing in the choir, but they would for other manly stuff. :D

400 years ago, when pants for men first came on the scene, it was considered immodest attire and was rejected. It was also considered to be women's attire in some areas.

[HeavenlyOne]

Bro. Scott- I answered you privately but wanted to use your post to let others know that unfortunately I am not qualified or licensed to answer most legal questions outside of my state. Consequently, I can't, don't, and won't be able to respond to poster questions about the law.

Now back to our regualar programing... :tvhappy

Ahhh....now we know you don't live in Alabama! LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

I would also like to see some answers to some of these type questions.

But when it gets down to the nitty gritty "freakycons" don't want to answer. They would rather live in generalities and allow themselves to be defined by a 10 year period.

That 10 year period which doesn't happen to be even in the recent past. I wonder why we don't adopt the cultural dress practices of the Western World from say, 400 years ago instead of 80 years ago.

[Subdued]

That 10 year period which doesn't happen to be even in the recent past. I wonder why we don't adopt the cultural dress practices of the Western World from say, 400 years ago instead of 80 years ago.

Sounds like a plan! When do we start?

[CupCake]

Nobody has yet to address the point I've made a few times now that 400 years ago, when men started wearing pants, it was considered immodest and, in some areas, it was considered women's attire.

Looks like culture took care of that line of thinking, didn't it?

~There is no verse in the Scriptures prohibiting women wearing pants or saying that a dress was all a female could wear. Instead we find, in the Bible and in history, men wearing similar garments to women what we would call dresses today~

~Duet 22:5 has nothing to do with pants~.

[CupCake]

you already know the answer to this.

Enlighten us ~

[HeavenlyOne]

Sounds like a plan! When do we start?

NO THANKS! Have you any idea how those women dressed back then? It would take me three hours just to get my clothes on!! LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

Enlighten us ~

When it comes to Thad, I don't require anything of him because he not only speaks as a man (cause he is one), but is only repeating what he's been told. Until he does some research on his own, the only answers he'll give are what has been told to him by someone else.

[Subdued]

NO THANKS! Have you any idea how those women dressed back then? It would take me three hours just to get my clothes on!! LOL!

Just get up earlier.

[Thad]

HO,

I've come to the conclusion that you women who want to wear pants are going to find a loop hole no matter what. I know how coon feels now. IF you want a way out to wear pants no matter what any one says you and others will reason it out period. There is a way that seems right but the END is destruction. you might win the argument on paper,i'm certain makes you feel all the more justified,but the spiritual destruction that is taking place before our very eyes is the Real Proof in the pudding. Anyone who cannot see it has spiritual blinders on.

[Subdued]

HO,

I've come to the conclusion that you women who want to wear pants are going to find a loop hole no matter what. I know how coon feels now. IF you want a way out to wear pants no matter what any one says you and others will reason it out period. There is a way that seems right but the END is destruction. you might win the argument on paper,i'm certain makes you feel all the more justified,but the spiritual destruction that is taking place before our very eyes is the Real Proof in the pudding. Anyone who cannot see it has spiritual blinders on.

Why didn't Deut 22:5 (as interpreted by you) apply in biblical times, Thad (or whomever wants to answer)?

----------------

The Bible covers a time span of several thousand years, but the type of clothing worn by most Jewish people during that time did not change much. Jewish styles seem to have been influenced by both the simplicity of the Egyptians and the flamboyance of the Mesopotamians. Jewish clothing was fringed, but not like Mesopotamian clothing, which had fringes, overlapping fabric, frills, borders and colored braiding - less was not more in ancient Mesopotamia.

Both women and men wore a loincloth, the equivalent of underpants. This was a long thin strip of cloth which was wound around the waist and then between the legs, with the end tucked in at the waist. Women probably wore some sort of binding around their breasts.

The main garment, worn by both women and men, was the halug, a tunic. This was made of two rectangular pieces of cloth joined in a long seam along the top of the arms, with a hole left for the head to go through. It also had a seam running down both sides, with holes left for the arms.

The halug could be gathered up in a bunch at the shoulders, either with a clip or a tip-loop, or it could be tucked up at the waist if heavy work was being done. Halugs made of fine linen or wool could be draped to fall gracefully.

The halug was worn with a belt, either leather or metal, the decoration depending on the wealth of the wearer.

A cloak could be worn over the halug. The edges and fringes of the cloak were often decorated.

When women went into public places, they wrapped their long hair in a piece of cloth. This cloth held their hair in place and acted as a head covering in the hot climate. It could also be used as a face covering. Rebecca used it to hide her face when she first met Isaac (Genesis 24:65).

Total veiling, as worn by some Islamic women today, was not practiced. Sarah’s beauty was obviously visible to those around her (Genesis 12). Rebecca was not veiled when she was drawing water from the spring (Genesis 24:16).

Ancient people loved to decorate themselves with jewelry, which, as today, was valued for its beauty and for the status it gave to its owner. Every woman had jewelry, which was part of her personal wealth.

We have a good idea of clothing in New Testament times because of a discovery made in Israel in 1960. Bedouin tribesmen found many artifacts in a cave near En-gedi on the Dead Sea, which were dated to the Bar Kokhba War in 132CE. The cave was in a rocky cliff-face.

It appears that during the Bar Kokhba War a group of 17 people, including six children, were trapped in the cave. They starved to death there, rather than surrender to the Roman soldiers who were camped immediately above the entrance to their cave. A range of textiles was found with their skeletons. There were women’s cloaks, a child’s linen shirt, and skeins and balls of unspun purple wool. Laboratory analysis showed that three basic dyes had been used to obtain 34 different colors of thread (the three dyes were saffron yellow, indigo blue and alazarin red).

Among the artifacts found in the cave were pieces of jewelry, a box for powder and a brass mirror in a wooden frame.

Source: http://www.womeninthebible.net/BIBLE-3.5.htm

[HeavenlyOne]

HO,

I've come to the conclusion that you women who want to wear pants are going to find a loop hole no matter what. I know how coon feels now. IF you want a way out to wear pants no matter what any one says you and others will reason it out period. There is a way that seems right but the END is destruction. you might win the argument on paper,i'm certain makes you feel all the more justified,but the spiritual destruction that is taking place before our very eyes is the Real Proof in the pudding. Anyone who cannot see it has spiritual blinders on.

Thad, I realize that you are posting your feelings based on what others have told you, but until you study this out for yourself, you will continue just repeating the same things over and over.

I did that for a long time, myself. Even after getting the internet, for several years I debated over and over, but all I was doing was repeating what I'd been told all my life. I posted the words you also post above. It was when I decided to study things out for myself that I found out the truth.

I'm not here seeking justification for my actions, regardless what they might be. I live according to the word of God and will continue to do so.

I totally understand why you believe as you do and that's ok. I still love ya.

[CupCake]

When it comes to Thad, I don't require anything of him because he not only speaks as a man (cause he is one), but is only repeating what he's been told. Until he does some research on his own, the only answers he'll give are what has been told to him by someone else.

Lol~ ....;) I agree~

The thing is once you learn something you been taught as a truth is not so, you begin to wonder what other so- called truths are not so so true! This house of sandy many have built on false truths will cave in once they dig around ~

[CupCake]

HO,

I've come to the conclusion that you women who want to wear pants are going to find a loop hole no matter what. I know how coon feels now. IF you want a way out to wear pants no matter what any one says you and others will reason it out period. There is a way that seems right but the END is destruction. you might win the argument on paper,i'm certain makes you feel all the more justified,but the spiritual destruction that is taking place before our very eyes is the Real Proof in the pudding. Anyone who cannot see it has spiritual blinders on.

Thad all that said, Duet 22:5 has nothing to do with wearing pant! Please go study this matter out for yourself, even pastors can be wrong~

[Newman]

400 years ago, when pants for men first came on the scene, it was considered immodest attire and was rejected. It was also considered to be women's attire in some areas.

HeavenlyOne- Of course you make a great point but... what is the 400 years you speak of?

As far as I know, none of the men who signed the Constitution of the United States a little over 200 years ago wore pants as we know them today. :usa

[Subdued]

HeavenlyOne- Of course you make a great point but... what is the 400 years you speak of?

As far as I know, none of the men who signed the Constitution of the United States a little over 200 years ago wore pants as we know them today. :usa

Newman, you know none of that matters. :hypercoffee

[HeavenlyOne]

Thad all that said, Duet 22:5 has nothing to do with wearing pant! Please go study this matter out for yourself, even pastors can be wrong~

Thad has no reason to study this out for himself because it doesn't apply to him. This is why the men make comments to the women about seeking to justify themselves or looking for loopholes to do what they want to do.

It's easy to sit back and criticize someone else from your easy chair when the subject matter has nothing to do with you.

[HeavenlyOne]

HeavenlyOne- Of course you make a great point but... what is the 400 years you speak of?

As far as I know, none of the men who signed the Constitution of the United States a little over 200 years ago wore pants as we know them today. :usa

I'm talking about pants at all, but you are correct. Those men were immodest 200 years ago!

[CupCake]

Thad has no reason to study this out for himself because it doesn't apply to him. This is why the men make comments to the women about seeking to justify themselves or looking for loopholes to do what they want to do.

It's easy to sit back and criticize someone else from your easy chair when the subject matter has nothing to do with you.

Amen~ ...;)


http://www.livingwithsheep.com/photos/sheep.jpg

[Thad]

Enlighten us ~


Do you believe the 10 commandments no longer apply to us ????

afterall, that's old testament law


since the holyghost came, keeping the sabbath was the only one of the 10 laws that was done away with and that is quite obvious. it's evident that lying , stealing, adultery is yet a moral sin however Jesus came to fulfill the sabbath. paul said in Col 2:16 we are no longer judged according to meats or sabbath days

[Thad]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

[revrandy]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

Thad are you still arguing for the Leggin's ??? :donuts

[Thad]

Thad are you still arguing for the Leggin's ??? :donuts



No cuz we can't even get past the Pants issue.

hardly one Con has come to my defense. I've been left out here by myself to my surprise

[Whole Hearted]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

:thumbsup

[Michlow]

Do you believe the 10 commandments no longer apply to us ????

afterall, that's old testament law


since the holyghost came, keeping the sabbath was the only one of the 10 laws that was done away with and that is quite obvious. it's evident that lying , stealing, adultery is yet a moral sin however Jesus came to fulfill the sabbath. paul said in Col 2:16 we are no longer judged according to meat of sabbath days

I believe that 10 commandments are part of the old testament law and no longer apply IN A MANNER OF SPEAKING.

We now must follow the great commandments to love the Lord with all our mind soul heart and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Which takes care of almost all the commandments anyway. Obviously the sabbath command is one that no longer applies.

[Whole Hearted]

No cuz we can't even get past the Pants issue.

hardly one Con has come to my defense. I've been left out here by myself to my surprise

I'm behind you bro. Leggins are wrong.

[revrandy]

I don't mind them if they are worn under a skirt that is modest...

[HeavenlyOne]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

Thad, I haven't said that it doesn't apply at all, but that it doesn't apply to women wearing pants. There are countries where women wear pants as part of the cultural attire and it's been that way for centuries.

[HeavenlyOne]

Do you believe the 10 commandments no longer apply to us ????

afterall, that's old testament law


since the holyghost came, keeping the sabbath was the only one of the 10 laws that was done away with and that is quite obvious. it's evident that lying , stealing, adultery is yet a moral sin however Jesus came to fulfill the sabbath. paul said in Col 2:16 we are no longer judged according to meat of sabbath days

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Where does this say that the Sabbath no longer applies?

I see it saying that we shouldn't be judged by what we eat or drink in respect to holy days, sabbath days, or new moon days, but not that it no longer applies as a holy day.

[HeavenlyOne]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

Here ya go, Thad.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/firebombing/personal.htm

[CupCake]

Do you believe the 10 commandments no longer apply to us ????

afterall, that's old testament law


since the holyghost came, keeping the sabbath was the only one of the 10 laws that was done away with and that is quite obvious. it's evident that lying , stealing, adultery is yet a moral sin however Jesus came to fulfill the sabbath. paul said in Col 2:16 we are no longer judged according to meats or sabbath days

Yes I still believe in the Ten, but Thad we are not decision the Ten Commandments here. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment of all He answer with this~

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12:28-31).


Now back to subject at hand~ Duet 22:5 has nothing to do with pants Thad, nor is it anywhere in the bible for that matter~

[CupCake]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

Duet 22:5 may apply, but it has nothing to do about pants. Thad no one saying it's not for today, what we are saying is it has nothing to do with wearing pants, Period! Study it out~

[ILG]

I agree with you, and it is about intent. What is the reason for wearing certain clothes?

There are women all over the church on any given Saturday morning work day wearing their husbands old shirts while they go about their duties in a skirt...because they are admonished or believe they shouldn't wear men's clothing.

So would you wear certain articles of clothing with the intent of being or acting, or taking the place of a man? Probably not.

This is why the principal is SOOO important that women not wear the persona or nature of a man with the intent to exact his authority, position, or identity. This is what I believe Deut 22 is ALL about.

Good post.

[ILG]

Bro. Scott- I answered you privately but wanted to use your post to let others know that unfortunately I am not qualified or licensed to answer most legal questions outside of my state. Consequently, I can't, don't, and won't be able to respond to poster questions about the law.

Now back to our regualar programing... :tvhappy

Can't charge that hefty lawyer fee either. :girlnails LOL!

[CupCake]

When you all start having your boys were their sister's frilly sunday dresses then come and let's talk. until then, don't tell me that you don't believe that Duet 22 does not apply

This issue involved in matters of cross-dressing. Sometimes a man wishes to be seen as a woman or a woman wishes to be seen as a man. This would be an abomination to the Lord.

It is important to understand that the law of Moses was never intended for any people group other than Israel. Many laws were given to give Israel a distinction from other nations. A case in view is the use of phylacteries which the Jews take from Deu6:8; "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead."

To go back to the Law to prove a thing isn't always a good thing to do. Paul said that if we wish to apply the law of Moses as pertaining to our righteousness before God, then we must apply all the Law and not just selected portions, as the church does The reason is because the Law of Moses contained a curse on the person who did not apply all the law.

This does not mean that the law of Moses has no moral codes to consider. Paul said that the Law could be used as a teaching instrument as long as we used it 'lawfully,' which means that we cannot use the law as an instrument of righteousness. We are not under the law of Moses, but under the law of Christ.

[CupCake]

Bump for Thad~....:hypercoffee

[Whole Hearted]

No ungodly leggings and mini skirts here.

[MissBrattified]

No ungodly leggings and mini skirts here.

Who said anything about approving of mini skirts????

I don't see how leggings are any different from tights.

[rgcraig]

No ungodly leggings and mini skirts here.
They are only ungodly if you don't wear something OVER them.

[Subdued]

They are only ungodly if you don't wear something OVER them.

Not only ungodly - but a little weird, too!

[HeavenlyOne]

No ungodly leggings and mini skirts here.


I hope you don't even wear full length skirts. And I'm sure you can do without the leggings.

[Tech]

Deut 22:5 has nothing to do with females wearing pants as everyone wore robes.Another man made rule with no substance.


Is this a sin?
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What about this one?
Deuteronomy 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself

Apparel In Old Testament times the distinction between male and female attire was not very marked. The statute forbidding men to wear female apparel (Deuteronomy 22:5) referred especially to ornaments and head-dresses. Both men and women wore (1) an under garment or tunic, which was bound by a girdle.




The general characteristics of Oriental dress have preserved a remarkable uniformity in all ages: the modern Arab dresses much as the ancient Hebrew did. The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages, such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe of a woman. (Deut 22:5)

Dress common to both sexes:


(1) The inner garment was the most essential article of dress. It was a closely-fitting garment, resembling in form and use our shirt, though unfortunately translate "coat" in the Authorized Version. The material of which it was made was either wool, cotton or linen. It was without sleeves, and reached only to the knee. Another kind reached to the wrists and ankles. It was in either case kept close to the body by a girdle, and the fold formed by the overlapping of the robe served as an inner pocket. A person wearing the inner garment alone was described as naked. (2) There was an upper or second tunic, the difference being that it was longer than the first. (3) the linen cloth appears to have been a wrapper of fine linen, which might be used in various ways, but especially as a night-shirt. (Mark 14:51) (4) The outer garment consisted of a quadrangular piece of woollen cloth, probably resembling in shape a Scotch plaid. The size and texture would vary with the means of the wearer. It might be worn in various ways, either wrapped round the body or thrown over the shoulders like a shawl, with the ends or "skirts" hanging down in front; or it might be thrown over the head, so as to conceal the face. (2 Samuel 15:30; Esther 6;12) The ends were skirted with a fringe and bound with a dark purple ribbon, (Numbers 15:38) it was confined at the waist by a girdle. The outer garment was the poor man’s bed clothing. (Exodus 22:26,27)


The dress of the women differed from that of the men in regard to the outer garment, the inner garment being worn equally by both sexes. (Solomon 5:3) Among their distinctive robes we find a kind of shawl, (Ruth 3:15; Isaiah 3:22) light summer dresses of handsome appearance and ample dimensions, (Isaiah 3:24) The garments of females were terminated by an ample border of fringe (skirts , Authorized Version), which concealed the feet. (Isaiah 47:2; Jeremiah 13:22)

[Trouvere]

those leggings with a short skirt would be totally immodest so I doubt they would be allowed in the door of my home.The trash can maybe but not on my girls.Sorry but modesty is what the bible teaches not trends.If the skirt was long and it was winter and they could wear them like long johns that would be different but basically they look like underwear.

[CupCake]

those leggings with a short skirt would be totally immodest so I doubt they would be allowed in the door of my home.The trash can maybe but not on my girls.Sorry but modesty is what the bible teaches not trends.If the skirt was long and it was winter and they could wear them like long johns that would be different but basically they look like underwear.

They look like underwear, where on earth do you shop??? I've never wore a pair of undies that cover my whole legs in all my life and I'm old~ :hypercoffee

[Trouvere]

They look like underwear, where on earth do you shop??? I've never wore a pair of undies that cover my whole legs in all my life and I'm old~ :hypercoffee

They look like long underwear.Where have you been? Haven't you ever gone hunting before? No thanks we won't be buying those but notice I mentioned for me and my house.If you feel no convictions then by all means wear them.
Knock yourself out.You have to stand before God for what you do not me.I feel they are to tight to be in public with a short skirt and are much like long underwear.

[CupCake]

They look like long underwear.Where have you been? Haven't you ever gone hunting before? No thanks we won't be buying those but notice I mentioned for me and my house.If you feel no convictions then by all means wear them.
Knock yourself out.You have to stand before God for what you do not me.I feel they are to tight to be in public with a short skirt and are much like long underwear.

first off I'm not going to wear a short skirt, and they look to be no different then a pair of nylons just as tight! As for God, I think you'll be very surprise ~

[Carpenter]

HO,

I've come to the conclusion that you women who want to wear pants are going to find a loop hole no matter what. I know how coon feels now. IF you want a way out to wear pants no matter what any one says you and others will reason it out period. There is a way that seems right but the END is destruction. you might win the argument on paper,i'm certain makes you feel all the more justified,but the spiritual destruction that is taking place before our very eyes is the Real Proof in the pudding. Anyone who cannot see it has spiritual blinders on.

You know I loves you Thad, but every time I see a man working sooo hard to prove Deuteronomy 22 is evidence that women shouldn't wear pants, I just get the feeling that something is up.

Why is it such a big deal for us to make this proof stick? Is it to be sure we sequester the hind ends of the women in our fellowship so that we will not sin?

It doesn't make any sense, and you are talking about loopholes? I think just the opposite. The A-church is doing all these theological gyrations trying to prove for the last three decades that women aren't supposed to wear pants.

They say lots of things and very little has any biblical basis, it is mosty religious culture and social identification.

Things like...

Women don't wear pants in order to please God
Women obey the commandment to not wear that which pertaineth to a man, but it is ok to wear their shirts, socks, shoes, hats, jackets, coats, sweats and pajama bottoms.
Women don't wear pants because they want to be holy
Women don't wear pants because they want to be separated from the world
Women don't wear pants because they believe in standards around here.
Women don't wear pants because they are immodest.

All of these?

Wow, and y'all say you aren't into legislating corporate and collective morality?

All of this is fine and good, but it is disingenuous when you tie it to be pleasing to God with the inferrence that women wearing pants displeases God. No way can I believe that, if so, then men should be guilty as well of displeasing God.

Just be honest with yourself, that is all I can think of asking the church to be.

[HeavenlyOne]

You know I loves you Thad, but every time I see a man working sooo hard to prove Deuteronomy 22 is evidence that women shouldn't wear pants, I just get the feeling that something is up.

Why is it such a big deal for us to make this proof stick? Is it to be sure we sequester the hind ends of the women in our fellowship so that we will not sin?

It doesn't make any sense, and you are talking about loopholes? I think just the opposite. The A-church is doing all these theological gyrations trying to prove for the last three decades that women aren't supposed to wear pants.

They say lots of things and very little has any biblical basis, it is mosty religious culture and social identification.

Things like...

Women don't wear pants in order to please God
Women obey the commandment to not wear that which pertaineth to a man, but it is ok to wear their shirts, socks, shoes, hats, jackets, coats, sweats and pajama bottoms.
Women don't wear pants because they want to be holy
Women don't wear pants because they want to be separated from the world
Women don't wear pants because they believe in standards around here.
Women don't wear pants because they are immodest.

All of these?

Wow, and y'all say you aren't into legislating corporate and collective morality?

All of this is fine and good, but it is disingenuous when you tie it to be pleasing to God with the inferrence that women wearing pants displeases God. No way can I believe that, if so, then men should be guilty as well of displeasing God.

Just be honest with yourself, that is all I can think of asking the church to be.

I'm hoping that if he continues in these types of discussions that he will educate himself instead of just repeating what he's been told.

Let's face it....men talk about standards more than women, but they don't have any for themselves other than being modest at all times. Big deal.

It's easy to talk about how easy it is for someone else to plant a corn field by hand while you sit on your front porch drinking iced tea.

[Carpenter]

It's easy to talk about how easy it is for someone else to plant a corn field by hand while you sit on your front porch drinking iced tea.

Actually it is easier if we men are watching, drinking Ice Tea, and the women are planting the corn-field. :D

[Nahum]

I think its perfectly fine for women to have legs.

[Thad]

Bump for Thad~....:hypercoffee



GOD BLESS YOU TOO !

[HeavenlyOne]

Actually it is easier if we men are watching, drinking Ice Tea, and the women are planting the corn-field. :D

LOL! I thought I just said that!

[ILG]

I think its perfectly fine for women to have legs.

Whew! I'm sure relieved to hear that! I was getting really worried! :hypercoffee

[ForeverBlessed]

Deut 22:5 has nothing to do with females wearing pants as everyone wore robes.Another man made rule with no substance.


Is this a sin?
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What about this one?
Deuteronomy 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself

Apparel In Old Testament times the distinction between male and female attire was not very marked. The statute forbidding men to wear female apparel (Deuteronomy 22:5) referred especially to ornaments and head-dresses. Both men and women wore (1) an under garment or tunic, which was bound by a girdle.




The general characteristics of Oriental dress have preserved a remarkable uniformity in all ages: the modern Arab dresses much as the ancient Hebrew did. The costume of the men and women was very similar; there was sufficient difference, however, to mark the sex, and it was strictly forbidden to a woman to wear the appendages, such as the staff, signet-ring, and other ornaments, of a man; as well as to a man to wear the outer robe of a woman. (Deut 22:5)

Dress common to both sexes:


(1) The inner garment was the most essential article of dress. It was a closely-fitting garment, resembling in form and use our shirt, though unfortunately translate "coat" in the Authorized Version. The material of which it was made was either wool, cotton or linen. It was without sleeves, and reached only to the knee. Another kind reached to the wrists and ankles. It was in either case kept close to the body by a girdle, and the fold formed by the overlapping of the robe served as an inner pocket. A person wearing the inner garment alone was described as naked. (2) There was an upper or second tunic, the difference being that it was longer than the first. (3) the linen cloth appears to have been a wrapper of fine linen, which might be used in various ways, but especially as a night-shirt. (Mark 14:51) (4) The outer garment consisted of a quadrangular piece of woollen cloth, probably resembling in shape a Scotch plaid. The size and texture would vary with the means of the wearer. It might be worn in various ways, either wrapped round the body or thrown over the shoulders like a shawl, with the ends or "skirts" hanging down in front; or it might be thrown over the head, so as to conceal the face. (2 Samuel 15:30; Esther 6;12) The ends were skirted with a fringe and bound with a dark purple ribbon, (Numbers 15:38) it was confined at the waist by a girdle. The outer garment was the poor man’s bed clothing. (Exodus 22:26,27)


The dress of the women differed from that of the men in regard to the outer garment, the inner garment being worn equally by both sexes. (Solomon 5:3) Among their distinctive robes we find a kind of shawl, (Ruth 3:15; Isaiah 3:22) light summer dresses of handsome appearance and ample dimensions, (Isaiah 3:24) The garments of females were terminated by an ample border of fringe (skirts , Authorized Version), which concealed the feet. (Isaiah 47:2; Jeremiah 13:22)

Good post, I printed it for reference. While I do agree totally with it, I still prefer to wear dresses/skirts.

I think most are made to accentuate female anatomy and I consider most women's pants that are fashionable to be immodest as they are usually too tight.

However, Duet 22:5 is not in reference to pants, but cross dressing.

[Thad]

Good post, I printed it for reference. While I do agree totally with it, I still prefer to wear dresses/skirts.

I think most are made to accentuate female anatomy and I consider most women's pants that are fashionable to be immodest as they are usually too tight.

However, Duet 22:5 is not in reference to pants, but cross dressing.


The problem is, folks are not rightly dividing the word. now i realize that HO is the only one who has a corner on this, however, many things mentioned were an abomination unto Israel and not to unto the Lord. for instance, laws of cleanliness were for the sake of their own health and well being.
Duet does not state Pants specifically BUT the moral principle still applies.
the bible does NOT say anywhere that you can't smoke a joint does it? but wouldn't you agree that there are scriptures that apply that would prohibit it?
again, when HO and others start dressing their little boys in ruffles, frills and dresses, might as well throw in a purse and bonnet, then lets talk about who doesnt believe in "that which pertaineth". you can't have both ways

[Steve Epley]

The word "apparel" in 1Tim.2:9 means a long loose fitting outer garment like a robe or cloak. How would pants fit into that.
And the men who signed the Declaration of Independence most certainly did wear pants.

[rgcraig]

The word "apparel" in 1Tim.2:9 means a long loose fitting outer garment like a robe or cloak. How would pants fit into that.
And the men who signed the Declaration of Independence most certainly did wear pants.
They also wore ruffles!!!!!

[crakjak]

I think its perfectly fine for women to have legs.

And all the men give a hearty 'AMEN'.

[crakjak]

They also wore ruffles!!!!!

I was going to say that, they also wore powdered wigs. Why can't we just admit that culture changes, and scripture pertaining to apparel doesn't meet even what "apostolics" wear today. Good grief, "man looks on the outward, but God looks at the heart".

[Trouvere]

first off I'm not going to wear a short skirt, and they look to be no different then a pair of nylons just as tight! As for God, I think you'll be very surprise ~

I doubt I will be surprised as for God.Sorry but I disagree.But if you want to wear them go ahead we won't be.

[Steve Epley]

They also wore ruffles!!!!!

So what???????????

The pants comment was not correct!

Ruffles are a different subject.

[Newman]

And the men who signed the Declaration of Independence most certainly did wear pants.

Prove it. :donuts

[Steve Epley]

Prove it. :donuts

I have saw their pictures they had pants on what do you think they were wearing? Looked like pants to me.

[Newman]

I have saw their pictures they had pants on what do you think they were wearing? Looked like pants to me.

I will pay you $100.00 to wear the britches that they wore with long stockings around your home town for a week. :hypercoffee

Could some of you techno-savy posters show Bro Epley a couple of pictures on this thread? :popcorn2

[philjones]

I will pay you $100.00 to wear the britches that they wore with long stockings around your home town for a week. :hypercoffee


Before his tragic death Payne Stewart got rich wearing those type of pants and long stockings!:donuts

Give it a go, Elder Epley!:preach

[Thad]

They also wore ruffles!!!!!


these are the small details of style that change over time
you arguing fine points when in fact it is the principle of gender distinction that is important .no one argues even those who believe pants for women are okay that in our western culture, men in dresses are a form of cross dressing and inappropriate.

[Steve Epley]

I will pay you $100.00 to wear the britches that they wore with long stockings around your home town for a week. :hypercoffee

Well now that might be a problem however they were wearing britches. Wearing a corset and bustle is ladylike that doen't mean you would wear them today however they are feminine.

[Newman]

Before his tragic death Payne Stewart got rich wearing those type of pants and long stockings!:donuts

Give it a go, Elder Epley!:preach

The word "bloomers" comes to mind. :donuts

[Steve Epley]

The word "bloomers" comes to mind. :donuts

These were long pants that came below their knee sounds like pants to me.

[Newman]

Well now that might be a problem however they were wearing britches. Wearing a corset and bustle is ladylike that doen't mean you would wear them today however they are feminine.

The point being that "pants" as we know and understand them are a relatively new to the scene for both men and women. Men and women wore tunics many more centuries than pants and dresses. :cool:

[Newman]

These were long pants that came below their knee sounds like pants to me.

OK then. This should be easy money. A hundred dollars is yours when you wear such "pants" around your town for a week. ;)

[Steve Epley]

OK then. This should be easy money. A hundred dollars is yours when you wear such "pants" around your town for a week. ;)

And you wear a bustle and corset?????????????????????????? In court????

[The Mrs]

A man of importance. Costume period 1775-85.

http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/v&amuseum/9.jpg

[Steve Epley]

A man of importance. Costume period 1775-85.

http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/v&amuseum/9.jpg

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PANTS they are.

[Thad]

A man of importance. Costume period 1775-85.

http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/v&amuseum/9.jpg


still pants with Tube- like looking socks so what ???

[Newman]

And you wear a bustle and corset?????????????????????????? In court????

Ah yes.... but I never denied that women dressed differently today than 225 years ago. I have also never suggested that Deuteronomy 22:5 required that men wear pants and women wear dresses. :donuts

[Steve Epley]

Ah yes.... but I never denied that women dressed differently today than 225 years ago. I have also never suggested that Deuteronomy 22:5 required that men wear pants and women wear dresses. :donuts

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

[The Mrs]

HO,

I've come to the conclusion that you women who want to wear pants are going to find a loop hole no matter what. I know how coon feels now. IF you want a way out to wear pants no matter what any one says you and others will reason it out period. There is a way that seems right but the END is destruction. you might win the argument on paper,i'm certain makes you feel all the more justified,but the spiritual destruction that is taking place before our very eyes is the Real Proof in the pudding. Anyone who cannot see it has spiritual blinders on.

If there was anything on this thread I would take issue with, it would be this statement.

You couldn't be farther from the truth in my book with this statement Thad.

[The Mrs]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

Intersting statement seeing how for century upon century men AND women wore the same garments. :dunno

[Thad]

If there was anything on this thread I would take issue with, it would be this statement.

You couldn't be farther from the truth in my book with this statement Thad.

okay but I still stand by it .

[Steve Epley]

Intersting statement seeing how for century upon century men AND women wore the same garments. :dunno

NOT SO they were different!!!!!!!!!

[Newman]

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PANTS they are.

Hmm.... I think you might not let Old Paths or Actaeon preach in your church if they showed up in these "pants." :coffee2

Thanks the Mrs. for posting. :hypercoffee

[freeatlast]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

are you for real????? God hates a women who does not wear a dress, wears ladies slacks, as he abores homosexuality???


sounds like you are the one hedging Steve

[The Mrs]

NOT SO they were different!!!!!!!!!

Bro. Epley...this is one of the reasons why using Deut. 22:5 they way you do makes it even more confusing. You can't sit there and tell me that the ROBES worn by both sexes were different enough to NOT be considered ROBES. There were subtle differences in material, color, decorations...but they were still ROBES.

Just as Pants today. The women's pants are made of different materials, colors, and decorations. They are feminine. But they are still PANTS.

Unisex???

Which generation is wearing unisex clothing? :dunno

[Newman]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

If God truly hates the unisex look; how on earth can men shave their faces? And why are pants unisex while robes were not? Why are shirts, jackets and tennis shoes ok but pants taboo?

Inconsistent. Inconsistent. Inconsistent. :girlnails

[Thad]

Bro. Epley...this is one of the reasons why using Deut. 22:5 they way you do makes it even more confusing. You can't sit there and tell me that the ROBES worn by both sexes were different enough to NOT be considered ROBES. There were subtle differences in material, color, decorations...but they were still ROBES.

Just as Pants today. The women's pants are made of different materials, colors, and decorations. They are feminine. But they are still PANTS.

Unisex???

Which generation is wearing unisex clothing? :dunno


They were different. Do you think that in such a middle eastern Matriarchal
society they would really advocate unisex Robes?? come on.

what you described still PERTAINS to a man's garment for our day and time. If not, would it be okay for men to wear dresses so long as the fabric and colors are different ?????

.

[The Mrs]

okay but I still stand by it .


It may be true for some...As many people as are out there, they all have different opinions, and different journeys they've travelled. We didn't all take the same road.

Some women who left standards probably didn't and still don't have any reason for studying and finding out for themselves what God really dictates. They really have no clue. Some have probably just left the church thinking they are backslid, so what's the point in continuing on with wearing of dresses.

But there are others...many represented here at AFF who have put many, many hours into study and research for themselves.

As for me...I would have NEVER, EVER done something so lightely as to stop doing something that I was told was pleasing to God WITHOUT laboring for truth, intense study, and much, much more prayer. A heart of love for God demands it.

[Newman]

They were different. Do you think that in such a middle eastern Matriarchal
society they would really advocate unisex Robes?? come on.

what you described still PERTAINS to a man's garment for our day and time. If not, would it be okay for men to wear dresses so long as the fabric and colors are different ?????

.

Thad the principle of 1 Corinthians is to be careful how your actions are perceived of others that they can be saved.

That being said, the great majority of Americans would have no negative thoughts or concerns about a woman in pants.

In contrast, the great majority of Americans would think that a man wearing a dress is a sexual deviant or mentally ill. :popcorn2

[Newman]

As for me...I would have NEVER, EVER done something so lightely as to stop doing something that I was told was pleasing to God WITHOUT laboring for truth, intense study, and much, much more prayer. A heart of love for God demands it.

Exactly... :cool:

[Subdued]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

Oh no!! I wore my husband's t-shirt yesterday. And once, when I was behind on laundry, I wore a pair of his socks! Come to think of it, I slipped his shoes on to go out into the garage three days ago! Is that okay or have I sinned?

[The Mrs]

They were different. Do you think that in such a middle eastern Matriarchal
society they would really advocate unisex Robes?? come on.

what you described still PERTAINS to a man's garment for our day and time. If not, would it be okay for men to wear dresses so long as the fabric and colors are different ?????

.

They were not so different...they were still ROBES. Robes are robes. Hello??? ROBES??? What was NOT unisex about wearing ROBES???


As for your other question Thad, you are playing by cultural rules...

In THIS day and age, it is a societal NORM for women to wear pants.

It is NOT a societal NORM for men to wear dresses...unless you go to a particular country where in THEIR society, that is the societal NORM. :winkgrin

[Steve Epley]

are you for real????? God hates a women who does not wear a dress, wears ladies slacks, as he abores homosexuality???


sounds like you are the one hedging Steve

Both are an abomination.

[Steve Epley]

They were not so different...they were still ROBES. Robes are robes. Hello??? ROBES??? What was NOT unisex about wearing ROBES???


As for your other question Thad, you are playing by cultural rules...

In THIS day and age, it is a societal NORM for women to wear pants.

It is NOT a societal NORM for men to wear dresses...unless you go to a particular country where in THEIR society, that is the societal NORM. :winkgrin


Can YOU give one instance in Scripture where men were mistaken for women or visa versa?????????

So evidently they were distinquished by sight.

[Subdued]

The Bible covers a time span of several thousand years, but the type of clothing worn by most Jewish people during that time did not change much. Jewish styles seem to have been influenced by both the simplicity of the Egyptians and the flamboyance of the Mesopotamians. Jewish clothing was fringed, but not like Mesopotamian clothing, which had fringes, overlapping fabric, frills, borders and colored braiding - less was not more in ancient Mesopotamia.

Both women and men wore a loincloth, the equivalent of underpants. This was a long thin strip of cloth which was wound around the waist and then between the legs, with the end tucked in at the waist. Women probably wore some sort of binding around their breasts.

The main garment, worn by both women and men, was the halug, a tunic. This was made of two rectangular pieces of cloth joined in a long seam along the top of the arms, with a hole left for the head to go through. It also had a seam running down both sides, with holes left for the arms.

The halug could be gathered up in a bunch at the shoulders, either with a clip or a tip-loop, or it could be tucked up at the waist if heavy work was being done. Halugs made of fine linen or wool could be draped to fall gracefully.

The halug was worn with a belt, either leather or metal, the decoration depending on the wealth of the wearer.

A cloak could be worn over the halug. The edges and fringes of the cloak were often decorated.

When women went into public places, they wrapped their long hair in a piece of cloth. This cloth held their hair in place and acted as a head covering in the hot climate. It could also be used as a face covering. Rebecca used it to hide her face when she first met Isaac (Genesis 24:65).

Total veiling, as worn by some Islamic women today, was not practiced. Sarah’s beauty was obviously visible to those around her (Genesis 12). Rebecca was not veiled when she was drawing water from the spring (Genesis 24:16).

Ancient people loved to decorate themselves with jewelry, which, as today, was valued for its beauty and for the status it gave to its owner. Every woman had jewelry, which was part of her personal wealth.

We have a good idea of clothing in New Testament times because of a discovery made in Israel in 1960. Bedouin tribesmen found many artifacts in a cave near En-gedi on the Dead Sea, which were dated to the Bar Kokhba War in 132CE. The cave was in a rocky cliff-face.

It appears that during the Bar Kokhba War a group of 17 people, including six children, were trapped in the cave. They starved to death there, rather than surrender to the Roman soldiers who were camped immediately above the entrance to their cave. A range of textiles was found with their skeletons. There were women’s cloaks, a child’s linen shirt, and skeins and balls of unspun purple wool. Laboratory analysis showed that three basic dyes had been used to obtain 34 different colors of thread (the three dyes were saffron yellow, indigo blue and alazarin red).

Among the artifacts found in the cave were pieces of jewelry, a box for powder and a brass mirror in a wooden frame.

Source: http://www.womeninthebible.net/BIBLE-3.5.htm

:bump

[Newman]

Can YOU give one instance in Scripture where men were mistaken for women or visa versa?????????

So evidently they were distinquished by sight.

BEARDS are quite noticible; even from a distance!

[Carpenter]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

I get a kick out of preachers who come to a conclusion on some thing, then all of the sudden characterize it as God's opinion.

It is your opinion that pants are unisex clothing, it is your opinion that it blurs the lines between genders and it is your opinion that there is a parellel between this and homosexuality, and it is your opinion that God agrees with you and hates the same thing that you hate and loves the things that you Love.

Love you Brother Epley, but a stretch is a stretch.

[Carpenter]

Can YOU give one instance in Scripture where men were mistaken for women or visa versa?????????

So evidently they were distinquished by sight.

You cannot prove a negative. Can you provide a scripture that God loves butterflies? NO? Then God must hate and abhor butterflies.

[The Mrs]

Can YOU give one instance in Scripture where men were mistaken for women or visa versa?????????

So evidently they were distinquished by sight.

And this is relevant how????

Are you saying that because the robes were so much different between the sexes that they couldn't have possibly been mistaken for someone of the opposite sex???

I would have thought the beards would have taken care of that. :winkgrin

Bro. Epley...they were still ROBES...robes are robes. Different in material, color, and decoration...but nevertheless...they were still just robes. Just as they are still just pants today. Different in material, color, and decoration. :winkgrin

[Carpenter]

And this is relevant how????

Are you saying that because the robes were so much different between the sexes that they couldn't have possibly been mistaken for someone of the opposite sex???

I would have thought the beards would have taken care of that. :winkgrin

Bro. Epley...they were still ROBES...robes are robes. Different in material, color, and decoration...but nevertheless...they were still just robes. Just as they are still just pants today. Different in material, color, and decoration. :winkgrin

Maybe it had to do with the OTHER abomination...mixing materials like silk and wool and cotton or some such thing that really no one cares about.

Pick your Mosaic law and follow it to the most distant extreme that your imagination can drum up...


I still think a woman wearing the persona and attitude of a man is worse than a woman wearing pants, but the anti-pants crowd really don't see it.

[The Mrs]

Maybe it had to do with the OTHER abomination...mixing materials like silk and wool and cotton or some such thing that really no one cares about.

Pick your Mosaic law and follow it to the best that your imagination can drum up...


I still think a woman wearing the persona and attitude of a man is worse than a woman wearing pants, but the anti-pants crowd really don't see it.

Lol... :lol

I just wanna know which generation was wearing unisex clothing! :heeheehee

[rgcraig]

Maybe it had to do with the OTHER abomination...mixing materials like silk and wool and cotton or some such thing that really no one cares about.

Pick your Mosaic law and follow it to the most distant extreme that your imagination can drum up...


I still think a woman wearing the persona and attitude of a man is worse than a woman wearing pants, but the anti-pants crowd really don't see it.

Most women have a little extra help above the waist proving they are women too which would show up even wearing a robe!

[Carpenter]

Most women have a little extra help above the waist proving they are women too which would show up even wearing a robe!

Are you saying that women wearing waste belts are immodest?

HEY! We have a NEW STANDARD EVERYONE!!!!!

God Hates and it is an abomination for women to wear waste belts!!

:D

[Carpenter]

Lol... :lol

I just wanna know which generation was wearing unisex clothing! :heeheehee

Wasn't the term unisex made up in the 1970's so what was it called before that?

[Subdued]

I have a pair of pink sweatpants. Maybe I should just pass them on to my husband. Wonder if he'd wear them out jogging.

[rgcraig]

Are you saying that women wearing waste belts are immodest?

HEY! We have a NEW STANDARD EVERYONE!!!!!

God Hates and it is an abomination for women to wear waste belts!!

:D

Lol....no, that's not what I'm saying.

Want me to draw you a picture?

[Carpenter]

Lol....no, that's not what I'm saying.

Want me to draw you a picture?

I know what you are saying, I have seen this..um...outfit...um women...um...situation in church many many times over the years and really they should add it to the list of standards. :D

[rgcraig]

I know what you are saying, I have seen this..um...outfit...um women...um...situation in church many many times over the years and really they should add it to the list of standards. :D

LOL!!!! There are some that I would like to "instruct" on how to get the proper fitting undergarment to "help" in that area. That is one garment size that shouldn't have the word "long" included in it.

[Trouvere]

LOL!!!! There are some that I would like to "instruct" on how to get the proper fitting undergarment to "help" in that area. That is one garment size that shouldn't have the word "long" included in it.

Thank God for Spanks!

[HeavenlyOne]

The problem is, folks are not rightly dividing the word. now i realize that HO is the only one who has a corner on this, however, many things mentioned were an abomination unto Israel and not to unto the Lord. for instance, laws of cleanliness were for the sake of their own health and well being.
Duet does not state Pants specifically BUT the moral principle still applies.
the bible does NOT say anywhere that you can't smoke a joint does it? but wouldn't you agree that there are scriptures that apply that would prohibit it?
again, when HO and others start dressing their little boys in ruffles, frills and dresses, might as well throw in a purse and bonnet, then lets talk about who doesnt believe in "that which pertaineth". you can't have both ways

Thad, did you miss my posts where I gave you websites that showed little boys dressed in dresses just 100 years ago? It was common for centuries to dress little children in dresses, even the boys. Even men wore gowns to bed until about 1940.

I gave you several websites. I think you are ignoring them because it messes up what you've been told all your life. Like I said, until you study it out for yourself, conversating about this issue isn't going to be beneficial because all you are doing is repeating what you've been told.

I think you are missing the point on what that verse is really saying, wanting to focus on one word when that isn't the point of the verse. It's about cross-dressing. Pants don't pertain to men, Thad. Dressing like a man does.

What is worn below the waist isn't what defines men's and women's apparel.

[HeavenlyOne]

The word "apparel" in 1Tim.2:9 means a long loose fitting outer garment like a robe or cloak. How would pants fit into that.
And the men who signed the Declaration of Independence most certainly did wear pants.

That verse applies only to women?

[HeavenlyOne]

They also wore ruffles!!!!!

And high heels and stockings!

[Tech]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.


Brother, could you please provide scripture (other than Deut 22) for God hating unisex clothing and what exactly God considers unisex.Something from the new Testement would be great.

[HeavenlyOne]

You are hedging. The principle is there God hates unisex clothing. It blurs the line between the genders and God hates it kind of like homosexuality.

Then why did both men and women wear robes for thousands of years if the blurring of gender lines was a problem?

[HeavenlyOne]

NOT SO they were different!!!!!!!!!

Prove it with Bible, please.

[HeavenlyOne]

They were different. Do you think that in such a middle eastern Matriarchal
society they would really advocate unisex Robes?? come on.

what you described still PERTAINS to a man's garment for our day and time. If not, would it be okay for men to wear dresses so long as the fabric and colors are different ?????

.

In many countries, men were a dress-like garment. It's part of male attire, so the answer to your question is yes.

There are feminine dress-like garments and there are masculine dress-like garments.

[HeavenlyOne]

It may be true for some...As many people as are out there, they all have different opinions, and different journeys they've travelled. We didn't all take the same road.

Some women who left standards probably didn't and still don't have any reason for studying and finding out for themselves what God really dictates. They really have no clue. Some have probably just left the church thinking they are backslid, so what's the point in continuing on with wearing of dresses.

But there are others...many represented here at AFF who have put many, many hours into study and research for themselves.

As for me...I would have NEVER, EVER done something so lightely as to stop doing something that I was told was pleasing to God WITHOUT laboring for truth, intense study, and much, much more prayer. A heart of love for God demands it.

And this is something that Thad has yet to do for himself. But, in his defense, he doesn't have a reason to study it out.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

In many countries, men were a dress-like garment. It's part of male attire, so the answer to your question is yes.

There are feminine dress-like garments and there are masculine dress-like garments.


And the $128 question is.

Does your current Pastor ok you wearing them?

Do you wear them to church?

[HeavenlyOne]

Oh no!! I wore my husband's t-shirt yesterday. And once, when I was behind on laundry, I wore a pair of his socks! Come to think of it, I slipped his shoes on to go out into the garage three days ago! Is that okay or have I sinned?

I just bought a red sweatshirt from the men's side of Goodwill the other day.

I have on at this moment a black mock turtleneck that I bought from the men's dept. at K-Mart at Christmastime.

I have worn both to church, but nobody thought to approach me and ask why I was dressed like a man....not even my pastor.

It's weird though, cause I could have on a pair of black knit pants with a pink dress shirt and some here would claim I was dressing in men's clothes, even though both were bought from the women's dept.

[HeavenlyOne]

Can YOU give one instance in Scripture where men were mistaken for women or visa versa?????????

So evidently they were distinquished by sight.

It wasn't the robes that distinguished them, but the accessories that did. Men wore certain accessories and women wore others. Veils and mantles are some examples.

[HeavenlyOne]

Brother, could you please provide scripture (other than Deut 22) for God hating unisex clothing and what exactly God considers unisex.Something from the new Testement would be great.

It would be nice to find examples in scripture where someone got saved and 'cleaned up their outside' by buying a new wardrobe.

[HeavenlyOne]

And the $128 question is.

Does your current Pastor ok you wearing them?

Do you wear them to church?

To the first question, I cannot say for sure. He allows the 13 and 14 yr old girls in jeans on the platform to lead service, so he apparently doesn't have that much of a problem with them. There are also women who wear culottes who participate as leaders and music. Edited to say, they don't wear culottes during church but for some events or outside church.

No, I don't wear them to church, but I don't wear my pajamas to church either, nor do I wear my work clothes there, or play clothes. I have church attire, and that's what I wear to church.

[Tech]

It would be nice to find examples in scripture where someone got saved and 'cleaned up their outside' by buying a new wardrobe.

It is a shame that one verse causes so much division among Gods people.That is the sad part.

[Thad]

In many countries, men were a dress-like garment. It's part of male attire, so the answer to your question is yes.

There are feminine dress-like garments and there are masculine dress-like garments.


we are talking about OUR western Culture not a culture 10,000 miles away.

Try prancing around town in 2000 BC Robes and see what kind of stares you get. male or female

why do people keep comparing this?

and for that matter, the top part of a garment can be similar but the OVERALL garment should be different and the what makes that so is the waist below. although!! there are still some upper garments that are ladies only as well.

[HeavenlyOne]

It is a shame that one verse causes so much division among Gods people.That is the sad part.

Well, there's the one verse on women not cutting their hair, the one verse where women can't wear jewelry, and the one verse where women can't wear pants.

Makes you wonder why those verses seem to be more important for folks than the many verses that speak about not judging your brother.

[HeavenlyOne]

we are talking about OUR western Culture not a culture 10,000 miles away.

Try prancing around town in 2000 BC Robes and see what kind of stares you get. male or female

why do people keep comparing this?

and for that matter, the top part of a garment can be similar but the OVERALL garment should be different and the what makes that so is the waist below. although!! there are still some upper garments that are ladies only as well.

The problem Thad, is that you can't preach in a country made of multiple cultures, yes, even those from 10,000 miles away and tell them that wearing their attire from their country is wrong because it resembles pants.

You then take dress styles from a time era to compare what today's cultures wear. Apples and broomsticks.

And where in the Bible does it say that the top part of a garment can be similar but the overall garment be different? Is this something someone else told you or did you read that for yourself?

You claim I'm looking for loopholes, but actually I'm looking for Biblical truth. If what you claim above is Bible, please cite the verses. If it's not, then you are just repeating the ideas of another or stated something you have rationalized in your mind.

Thanks. :tiphat

[Thad]

The problem Thad, is that you can't preach in a country made of multiple cultures, yes, even those from 10,000 miles away and tell them that wearing their attire from their country is wrong because it resembles pants.

You then take dress styles from a time era to compare what today's cultures wear. Apples and broomsticks.

And where in the Bible does it say that the top part of a garment can be similar but the overall garment be different? Is this something someone else told you or did you read that for yourself?

You claim I'm looking for loopholes, but actually I'm looking for Biblical truth. If what you claim above is Bible, please cite the verses. If it's not, then you are just repeating the ideas of another or stated something you have rationalized in your mind.

Thanks. :tiphat


I believe you are looking technicalities in order to wear your pants.
comparing the dress of 2000 BC and today is what is comparing broomsticks and apples. I never said we ought to go over to other countries and try to change every aspect of their culture UNLESS it goes against all levels of modesty. some Heathan nations have to be taught to cover their butts up and YES they should. their generations of a pagan way of life taught them all sorts of evil practices just because it's normal for their culture does not make it right.
God gave us common sense HO. a basic "T" can be worn by both genders however a lcaey frilly top would not. since you dont believe in any kind of gender distinction would it be okay if a couple got married and the man wore the lacey gown and the woman wore the suit pant ??

[HeavenlyOne]

I believe you are looking technicalities in order to wear your pants.

I need no technicalities. I dress as I believe to be right according to the word of God and that's what I weigh my decisions on.

comparing the dress of 2000 BC and today is what is comparing broomsticks and apples.

If we were comparing what was worn then to today, I would agree, but that's not the issue. The fact is, when that verse was written, men and women wore the same garment. Today, that verse is used to show why men and women CANNOT wear the same garment. That logic is faulty.

I never said we ought to go over to other countries and try to change every aspect of their culture UNLESS it goes against all levels of modesty.

Modesty according to which culture? In some countries and areas, modesty means that men have a loincloth and women have a grass skirt and both are nude from the waist up. It might not be modest to you, but you aren't of their culture.

However, I was referring to people who come here from other countries wearing the attire that is normal for them, for example, attire for East Indian women. They have a pants-like garment on but to suggest that they are wearing men's attire would be insulting to them.

some Heathan nations have to be taught to cover their butts up and YES they should. their generations of a pagan way of life taught them all sorts of evil practices just because it's normal for their culture does not make it right.

Again, you speak as an American with a different definition of what is normal and moral. To compare, you dress immodestly according to the attire men wore in Bible days, but like you said, we don't live in the time and country and therefore what they did then doesn't apply to the here and now in this country.

God gave us common sense HO. a basic "T" can be worn by both genders however a lcaey frilly top would not.

Why not? Men wore them in the 1700's and it was completely accepted then. And where is your Bible that a T can be worn by both sexes and that's ok? Or is that your loophole? ;)

since you dont believe in any kind of gender distinction would it be okay if a couple got married and the man wore the lacey gown and the woman wore the suit pant ??

Thad, again, you are bringing in an argument that socially isn't acceptable in this country, and what you mentioned has the description of one gender dressing as the other, and that's something the Bible teaches against.

This is the problem you have, Thad. A man's suit is made of a button down shirt, a vest, jacket, tie, pants, and belt.

A woman can wear a women's button down shirt and nobody thinks anything wrong about it.

A woman can wear a women's vest and nobody thinks anything wrong about it.

A woman can wear a women's jacket and nobody thinks anything wrong about it.

A woman can wear a women's tie (I prefer to call it a scarf) and nobody thinks anything wrong about it.

A woman can wear a women's belt and nobody thinks anything wrong about it.

A woman can wear all of these items at once and nobody thinks anything wrong about it.

But put on a pair of women's pants and suddenly she's dressing like a man!!!

That's not Biblical, Thad. Not in any way.

[Thad]

that's so sad. folks, can you believe there are people who do not believe there should be any gender distinctions ?

you can try to rationalize it away on logic but I truely believe that boys should not wear wedding gowns while the girl wears the tux. sorry you feel otherwise

[The Mrs]

that's so sad. folks, can you believe there are people who do not believe there should be any gender distinctions ?

you can try to rationalize it away on logic but I truely believe that boys should not wear wedding gowns while the girl wears the tux. sorry you feel otherwise


You need to read it again Thad, and not put words in HO's mouth...errr..posts.

She isn't saying what you think she said.

[rgcraig]

You need to read it again Thad, and not put words in HO's mouth...errr..posts.

Havin fun The O'Mrs.?

[The Mrs]

Havin fun The O'Mrs.?

:toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

Yes, and no. I can't get my sleep cycle right..and I got a head cold. Other than that, it's wonderful being here and getting to see the culture here. :D

[Tech]

that's so sad. folks, can you believe there are people who do not believe there should be any gender distinctions ?

you can try to rationalize it away on logic but I truely believe that boys should not wear wedding gowns while the girl wears the tux. sorry you feel otherwise


God took care of the gender distiction himself.Have you not noticed?

[Tech]

Well, there's the one verse on women not cutting their hair, the one verse where women can't wear jewelry, and the one verse where women can't wear pants.

Makes you wonder why those verses seem to be more important for folks than the many verses that speak about not judging your brother.

Thats true there are several that cause division.All having to do with apperance.No matter what the what God has done for the inside.SAD

[rgcraig]

God took care of the gender distiction himself.Have you not noticed?

Ya think that'd be enough, wouldn't ya?

[Subdued]

God took care of the gender distiction himself.Have you not noticed?

Indeed, He did! Both Renda & Newman described the distinctions quite well.

[rgcraig]

:toofunny :toofunny :toofunny

Yes, and no. I can't get my sleep cycle right..and I got a head cold. Other than that, it's wonderful being here and getting to see the culture here. :D

Oh, hopefully you'll get better soon - nothing worse than being on an airplane for a hundred hours with a head cold!

[Subdued]

And where in the Bible does it say that the top part of a garment can be similar but the overall garment be different?

I would like to know this answer, myself.

[HeavenlyOne]

that's so sad. folks, can you believe there are people who do not believe there should be any gender distinctions ?

you can try to rationalize it away on logic but I truely believe that boys should not wear wedding gowns while the girl wears the tux. sorry you feel otherwise

Thad, if you can't address what I actually said then I have nothing to discuss with you. Letting your imagination put words in my mouth isn't having honest discussion.

[HeavenlyOne]

Ya think that'd be enough, wouldn't ya?

You'd think, but then how can we tell who is holy and who isn't? :D

[HeavenlyOne]

I would like to know this answer, myself.

Thad doesn't have scripture and probably is embarrassed that I'm pointing out that he is just repeating what others have told him. I was embarrassed too, as I used to do the same thing, so I took it upon myself and researched this issue for a long time, and I still continue with the research.

I try not to make statements apply as doctrine without scripture. Thad is doing just that....applying statements without scripture. I can do that in just applying my beliefs to myself, but not for others.

[Thad]

Ya think that'd be enough, wouldn't ya?


anatomy is all that matters ....umm okay.

so the butch look on women is okay , men in drag, that's okay too because it's all old testament law goodness! It's what's in the heart after all, there should be no rules.

[rgcraig]

anatomy is all that matters ....umm okay.

so the butch look on women is okay , men in drag, that's okay too because it's all old testament law goodness! It's what's in the heart after all, there should be no rules.

What does the dress code have to do with a butch woman. A butch woman still looks like a butch woman in a dress.

[HeavenlyOne]

anatomy is all that matters ....umm okay.

so the butch look on women is okay , men in drag, that's okay too because it's all old testament law goodness! It's what's in the heart after all, there should be no rules.

Thad, do you want honest discussion, or just spewing out ridiculous claims that nobody except you have stated?

[Thad]

Thad doesn't have scripture and probably is embarrassed that I'm pointing out that he is just repeating what others have told him. I was embarrassed too, as I used to do the same thing, so I took it upon myself and researched this issue for a long time, and I still continue with the research.

I try not to make statements apply as doctrine without scripture. Thad is doing just that....applying statements without scripture. I can do that in just applying my beliefs to myself, but not for others.

every scripture that anyone has pointed out you explain away with logic.

The bible doesn't have a specific scripture on marboro's either. I guess because it doesn't say Though Shall not fry your lungs with cigerattes it must be okay.

The bible says that the effeminate (transvestism in the greek) shall not inherit the kingdom. That's says it plain enough for me. the bible says does not even nature teach you ???? I guess for some folk maybe not??

[HeavenlyOne]

What does the dress code have to do with a butch woman. A butch woman still looks like a butch woman in a dress.

Hahaha...you got that right!!!

Besides, we still can't judge people based on their appearance. Case in point, when I had my brain surgery, LadyRev and I got lots of stares because I had very short hair....and it didn't matter that I had a skirt on.

[Thad]

Thad, do you want honest discussion, or just spewing out ridiculous claims that nobody except you have stated?


If the bible does not teach gender distinction they why not?

Im not trying to be ridiculous but if we are going to throw out Duet 22 then we can't set rules for ANYONE!

[HeavenlyOne]

every scripture that anyone has pointed out you explain away with logic.

The bible doesn't have a specific scripture on marboro's either. I guess because it doesn't say Though Shall not fry your lungs with cigerattes it must be okay.

The bible says that the effeminate (transvestism in the greek) shall not inherit the kingdom. That's says it plain enough for me. the bible says does not even nature teach you ???? I guess for some folk maybe not??

Every scripture or the number of times one scripture has been pointed out?

There aren't 'every scripture' that exists on this topic, Thad.

I don't smoke because aside from the fact that I hate it, it would cause damage to the temple of God.

The last paragraph makes no sense and has nothing to do with the topic.

Let's have honest discussion, Thad.

[HeavenlyOne]

If the bible does not teach gender distinction they why not?

Im not trying to be ridiculous but if we are going to throw out Duet 22 then we can't set rules for ANYONE!

Thad, again, no honest discussion. Nobody said anything about throwing out chapters of the Bible. And nobody said anything about the Bible not teaching gender distinction.

The debate is that clothing is how gender distinction was made, and that's not Biblically correct.

[Tech]

anatomy is all that matters ....umm okay.

so the butch look on women is okay , men in drag, that's okay too because it's all old testament law goodness! It's what's in the heart after all, there should be no rules.

I have seen no men in drag or butch ladies at church.No one said no rules.You catchem and let God cleanem.

[HeavenlyOne]

Thad, why do you shave off one of the ways God designed for you to look distinct from your female counterparts?

[Thad]

Every scripture or the number of times one scripture has been pointed out?

There aren't 'every scripture' that exists on this topic, Thad.

I don't smoke because aside from the fact that I hate it, it would cause damage to the temple of God.

The last paragraph makes no sense and has nothing to do with the topic.

Let's have honest discussion, Thad.


I DID give you honest answers HO. you are not answering my Qs.

If we are going to do away with Duet 22 , then what rules are you going to apply to ANYONE ?????? I suppose you believe there should be no rules according to the word of God on dress. therefore every man is a law unto himself. there will be no order in the culture or in God's distinct creation

[Tech]

If the bible does not teach gender distinction they why not?

Im not trying to be ridiculous but if we are going to throw out Duet 22 then we can't set rules for ANYONE!

No one is throwing out Deut 22,it just does not mean what it is used for.If there was so much concern about a persons attire, why was it not addressed in the New Testement other than modesty?

[Thad]

Thad, why do you shave off one of the ways God designed for you to look distinct from your female counterparts?


Please clarlify thanks

[HeavenlyOne]

I DID give you honest answers HO. you are not answering my Qs.

If we are going to do away with Duet 22 , then what rules are you going to apply to ANYONE ?????? I suppose you believe there should be no rules according to the word of God on dress. therefore every man is a law unto himself. there will be no order in the culture or in God's distinct creation

I have answered all of your questions that pertain to things I've actually said. I won't answer questions based on what you think I said. This goes for the above question also. I haven't stated anything implying that I'm throwing away scripture.

Your suppositions aren't honest.

[HeavenlyOne]

Please clarlify thanks

God gave men the ability to grow beards for a reason, but not women. Why do you shave it off, making you look more like a woman in doing so?

[freeatlast]

If the bible does not teach gender distinction they why not?

Im not trying to be ridiculous but if we are going to throw out Duet 22 then we can't set rules for ANYONE!


Thad...YOU don't even have to try from what I've read of your posting here

[Thad]

No one is throwing out Deut 22,it just does not mean what it is used for.If there was so much concern about a persons attire, why was it not addressed in the New Testement other than modesty?


Tech, most of the people that are Pro Pants for women believe that Duet 22:5 is equavelant to ceremonial Law. If that is the case, then fine, let's not make it applicable. but if that's the case, there should be no laws regarding gender distinctions for Anyone group or culture.
It is my firm belief that you would have cultural chaos which is now happening in western culture. furthermore, I believe that God requires us to dress with a distinction of the sexes. this is to Protect US from the spirit of perversion. I don't see how this is so complicated to grasp.

[Thad]

God gave men the ability to grow beards for a reason, but not women. Why do you shave it off, making you look more like a woman in doing so?



I for one do not believe that facial for men is wrong. I do it out of obedience

[Thad]

Thad...YOU don't even have to try from what I've read of your posting here


Freeatlast,

Do you believe that Duet 22:5 applies for our lives and culture for today or do you believe it was part of ceremonial Law ??

[HeavenlyOne]

Tech, most of the people that are Pro Pants for women believe that Duet 22:5 is equavelant to ceremonial Law. If that is the case, then fine, let's not make it applicable. but if that's the case, there should be no laws regarding gender distinctions for Anyone group or culture.
It is my firm belief that you would have cultural chaos which is now happening in western culture. furthermore, I believe that God requires us to dress with a distinction of the sexes. this is to Protect US from the spirit of perversion. I don't see how this is so complicated to grasp.

I have also heard people make it ceremonial law, but I don't believe that.

I have already stated what I believe Deut 22:5 to be saying that happens to go along with the rest of the chapter. Making it say women can't wear pants doesn't even make sense with the chapter topic, but instead makes it stick out oddly.

I believe people in the Bible dressed with gender distinctions but not so much in their base attire but with accessories. For instance, women wore veils and men wore mantles (I think that's what I'm thinking about...I may have to look this up). A man wearing a veil would have been considered to have been wearing a woman's garment and a woman dressing in a mantle (if I'm correct) would have been wearing a man's garment. However, both wore robes that were identical.

I also don't believe that how we dress keeps us from the spirit of perversion. There was lots of perversion in the Bible that had nothing to do with what they were wearing, and there is no scripture that makes that claim.

[Glenda B]

I DID give you honest answers HO. you are not answering my Qs.

If we are going to do away with Duet 22 , then what rules are you going to apply to ANYONE ?????? I suppose you believe there should be no rules according to the word of God on dress. therefore every man is a law unto himself. there will be no order in the culture or in God's distinct creation


:preach
It's just as I said in a prior post, our boss is the only person who we will allow to dictate what we should wear, and we only allow him to do so in order to receive a check.
#1 04-25-2007, 08:21 AM
Hot Coffee Ms.
It’s OK with most people if your boss dictates what we should wear. I know plenty who dress in uniform in order to hold a job, but He’s paying us to do this. That makes all the difference. It’s ok if our Boss expects us to report to work on time, and follow some form of standard. And we tolerate it if he gets on our case occasionally, after all he pays our salary, and that makes all difference in the world. We are willing to do lots of things we may not like in order to hold a job, but you will not allow our Pastor to lead you to Jesus.

[HeavenlyOne]

I for one do not believe that facial for men is wrong. I do it out of obedience

Obedience to who, men or God? I see where God commands men to not mar the corners of their beard, but I don't read where men were permitted to shave them off, do you?

[Tech]

Tech, most of the people that are Pro Pants for women believe that Duet 22:5 is equavelant to ceremonial Law. If that is the case, then fine, let's not make it applicable. but if that's the case, there should be no laws regarding gender distinctions for Anyone group or culture.
It is my firm belief that you would have cultural chaos which is now happening in western culture. furthermore, I believe that God requires us to dress with a distinction of the sexes. this is to Protect US from the spirit of perversion. I don't see how this is so complicated to grasp.

Friend, do you practice the rest of Deut 22?If not then why one verse out of this chapter?If verse 5 is so important to you ,why not 6,7,8ect.

The Holy Ghost is there to protect you from a spirit of perversion.What a person has on or does not have on will not protect you from anything.

[freeatlast]

Freeatlast,

Do you believe that Duet 22:5 applies for our lives and culture for today or do you believe it was part of ceremonial Law ??

22:5 is part of the 613 laws of the torah Thad. To apply it to clothing today pants vs dresses is one of the most ignorant things we have ever done as OP's

Our interprtation of that scripture is heresy, plain and simple. People want to climb all over trinny's for their error of intrepetaion of the godhead, but we can be wrong as ants at a picnic and we think we get a free pass from God.

Good luck!

[Thad]

Obedience to who, men or God? I see where God commands men to not mar the corners of their beard, but I don't read where men were permitted to shave them off, do you?

this was a specific law for the hebrew male many thousands of years ago

[HeavenlyOne]

:preach
It's just as I said in a prior post, our boss is the only person who we will allow to dictate what we should wear, and we only allow him to do so in order to receive a check.
#1 04-25-2007, 08:21 AM
Hot Coffee Ms.
It’s OK with most people if your boss dictates what we should wear. I know plenty who dress in uniform in order to hold a job, but He’s paying us to do this. That makes all the difference. It’s ok if our Boss expects us to report to work on time, and follow some form of standard. And we tolerate it if he gets on our case occasionally, after all he pays our salary, and that makes all difference in the world. We are willing to do lots of things we may not like in order to hold a job, but you will not allow our Pastor to lead you to Jesus.

My boss doesn't dictate what I do and wear off the job, I don't care how much I'm paid. His authority is limited.

A pastor is no different. His authority doesn't transcend over my entire life in everything that I do. He is responsible to preach the Word of God and his authority is limited by what God has written there.

He does NOT have authority to tell me what you do according to what he believes is right without scripture. For instance, he can't tell me not to eat chicken because he believes that it's a sin.

God is the ultimate authority and it's His authority that overrides the authority of those who are outside of the Word.

[HeavenlyOne]

this was a specific law for the hebrew male many thousands of years ago

Then why did God make you have the genetic material to grow a beard? You don't agree that it was His way of gender distinction?

[Thad]

Friend, do you practice the rest of Deut 22?If not then why one verse out of this chapter?If verse 5 is so important to you ,why not 6,7,8ect.

The Holy Ghost is there to protect you from a spirit of perversion.What a person has on or does not have on will not protect you from anything.


The Holy Ghost is given to lead us to ALL truth!

gender distinction protects us as a society - tell me you don't believe that ?

[Thad]

Then why did God make you have the genetic material to grow a beard? You don't agree that it was His way of gender distinction?


show me where it is a moral law for the gentile

[Thad]

22:5 is part of the 613 laws of the torah Thad. To apply it to clothing today pants vs dresses is one of the most ignorant things we have ever done as OP's

Our interprtation of that scripture is heresy, plain and simple. People want to climb all over trinny's for their error of intrepetaion of the godhead, but we can be wrong as ants at a picnic and we think we get a free pass from God.

Good luck!


then there is no law for anyone right ? everyone dress how they wish, the perverts , the guest on jerry springer because Duet 22.5 is not a moral law it was just a law for them. let's throw out Lev ?? man shall not lay with man and the 10 commandments while we are at

[freeatlast]

The Holy Ghost is given to lead us to ALL truth!

gender distinction protects us as a society - tell me you don't believe that ?

Could you explain how this is so, Thad ?

A women in a dress protescts us as a society...sorry dude, I don't think so.

[Rhoni]

22:5 is part of the 613 laws of the torah Thad. To apply it to clothing today pants vs dresses is one of the most ignorant things we have ever done as OP's

Our interprtation of that scripture is heresy, plain and simple. People want to climb all over trinny's for their error of intrepetaion of the godhead, but we can be wrong as ants at a picnic and we think we get a free pass from God.

Good luck!

:girlnails This is good!

[Thad]

:girlnails This is good!



well it looks like a got a camp of about 12 women on my back against one man.

[freeatlast]

Are you having fun yet Thad ? I know you're smarter than this. You're just yanking our chain for the fun of it, right?

[Thad]

Could you explain how this is so, Thad ?

A women in a dress protescts us as a society...sorry dude, I don't think so.


you cannot see the degregation going on in our society?
it partly started with the lines becoming too blurred.
would you be alarmed if your boy wanted to wear girly clothes or your daughter started loking like a dagger ?? what could you say to them??
you sure couldn't use scripture because you don't believe any appley in this area

[freeatlast]

you cannot see the degregation going on in our society?
it partly started with the lines becoming too blurred.
would you be alarmed if your boy wanted to wear girly clothes or your daughter started loking like a dagger ?? what could you say to them??
you sure couldn't use scripture because you don't believe any appley in this area

Thad, I don't need that scripture to talk to my boy about his dessire to sdress as a women or vice versa..that scripture DOES NOT apply to our dress today, so i will not use it out of it's context.

If you are refering to my girl wearing pants, that my dear deluded friend, were designed for a women or girl, i have no problem witht hat and neither does the bible. My children have bee tuaght to dress appropiatly and modestly.

[Thad]

Thad, I don't need that scripture to talk to my boy about his dessire to sdress as a women or vice versa..that scripture DOES NOT apply to our dress today, so i will not use it out of it's context.

If you are refering to my girl wearing pants, that my dear deluded friend, were designed for a women or girl, i have no problem witht hat and neither does the bible. My children have bee tuaght to dress appropiatly and modestly.

you have no scripture to point to. he could dress how he wishes if he came home in drag what can you say ???

im no hardline but i do believe in modesty and distinction. it is hard for me believe that you all don't believe the God and the bible backs this

[freeatlast]

you have no scripture to point to. he could dress how he wishes if he came home in drag what can you say ???

im no hardline but i do believe in modesty and distinction. it is hard for me believe that you all don't believe the God and the bible backs this

Come on Thad..it's not our boys in drag that we are even having this conversation about.

It's our use of Duet 22:5 to mandate that all girls women do not wear pants..that's all we use it for. period and you know it. Going off boys in drag...sheesh, is that a big problem in your neck of the woods............

............... opps sorry, I forgot you are from California.

[HeavenlyOne]

The Holy Ghost is given to lead us to ALL truth!

gender distinction protects us as a society - tell me you don't believe that ?

The problem is, your definition of 'gender distinction' and the real one differ greatly.

[HeavenlyOne]

show me where it is a moral law for the gentile

Show me where God said you can shave.

[HeavenlyOne]

Are you having fun yet Thad ? I know you're smarter than this. You're just yanking our chain for the fun of it, right?

Chain yanking.....that's it!

[Thad]

Come on Thad..it's not our boys in drag that we are even having this conversation about.

It's our use of Duet 22:5 to mandate that all girls women do not wear pants..that's all we use it for. period and you know it. Going off boys in drag...sheesh, is that a big problem in your neck of the woods............

............... opps sorry, I forgot you are from California.


again i say, when you are okay with your son wearing a dress (the ones made for males in the men's dept ) let me know and we'll talk.

what scripture would YOU use for lesbians dresing Butch ???

[HeavenlyOne]

you cannot see the degregation going on in our society?
it partly started with the lines becoming too blurred.
would you be alarmed if your boy wanted to wear girly clothes or your daughter started loking like a dagger ?? what could you say to them??
you sure couldn't use scripture because you don't believe any appley in this area

The degradation started in the Garden of Eden, Thad. Perversion is noted all over the Bible, but that perversion had nothing to do with what they were wearing.

Perversion is a heart matter.

[Thad]

The degradation started in the Garden of Eden, Thad. Perversion is noted all over the Bible, but that perversion had nothing to do with what they were wearing.

Perversion is a heart matter.


and depending on the perversion it often shows up on the outside depending on the specific spirit

[HeavenlyOne]

you have no scripture to point to. he could dress how he wishes if he came home in drag what can you say ???

im no hardline but i do believe in modesty and distinction. it is hard for me believe that you all don't believe the God and the bible backs this

Thad, I don't live my life only if I can prove things are Biblical. There are societal laws and mores that also must be followed as long as they don't go against the Bible.

For instance, my daughter called me 'dude' the other day. I don't have Bible to tell her why she can't refer to me as 'dude', but she did get scolded all the same.

When I tell my kids what to do, they don't ask me for Bible before obeying. You seem to think that parents can't tell their kids what to do unless they have Bible for it.

[freeatlast]

again i say, when you are okay with your son wearing a dress (the ones made for males in the men's dept ) let me know and we'll talk.

what scripture would YOU use for lesbians dresing Butch ???

Thad, trying to converse with you is like trying to climb up a rope.

Sorry, I gotta run buddy.

PM me when them men start wearing womens dresses to church out there. I'll give you some good counsel.

[Thad]

Thad, trying to converse with you is like trying to climb up a rope.

Sorry, I gotta run buddy.

PM me when them men start wearing womens dresses to church out there. I'll give you some good counsel.


I DIDNT THINK YOU COULD ANSWER THAT ONE HAHA!

NOW GO AHEAD AND RUN LIKE A CHICKEN

[HeavenlyOne]

again i say, when you are okay with your son wearing a dress (the ones made for males in the men's dept ) let me know and we'll talk.

what scripture would YOU use for lesbians dresing Butch ???

Thad, in our society, scripture isn't needed. It's against societal laws in this country for a woman to 'dress butch' and for a man to wear a dress. No scripture needed to point this out.

Let's talk about norms, Thad. Honest discussion. We aren't cross-dressing freaks on this forum.

[Subdued]

Thad, would you buy & wear pants from the women's department?

[HeavenlyOne]

and depending on the perversion it often shows up on the outside depending on the specific spirit


Do you have a Biblical example?

Men dressing in drag and women dressing 'butch' is the result of perversion, not the cause or the proof of it.

After my brain surgery, I was seen as a 'butch' because of my hair, regardless what I had on my body, yet for you to judge me as having perversion in my life would have been incorrect.

[Thad]

Thad, I don't live my life only if I can prove things are Biblical. There are societal laws and mores that also must be followed as long as they don't go against the Bible.

For instance, my daughter called me 'dude' the other day. I don't have Bible to tell her why she can't refer to me as 'dude', but she did get scolded all the same.

When I tell my kids what to do, they don't ask me for Bible before obeying. You seem to think that parents can't tell their kids what to do unless they have Bible for it.


no, as long as they are under the parents roof but I'm saying that you or the others would have no scriptural backing since you don't believe it applies at all. so when jonny gets 18 and wants to dress as a goth he has biblical grounds

[HeavenlyOne]

Thad, would you buy & wear pants from the women's department?

Knowing where Thad lives, he'd be seen as a cross-dresser if he did.

Perhaps he could explain Deut 22:5 to them so he can justify his buying women's pants......LOL!

[Thad]

Do you have a Biblical example?

Men dressing in drag and women dressing 'butch' is the result of perversion, not the cause or the proof of it.

After my brain surgery, I was seen as a 'butch' because of my hair, regardless what I had on my body, yet for you to judge me as having perversion in my life would have been incorrect.

the need is sometimes greater then the law. my SIL is going thru chemo for breast cancer- hair fell out. these are medical exceptions that we don't use as excuese for normal situations.

again, the bible says that the effeminate shall not inherit the kingdom. that word effeminate means "Transvestism" or cross dressing" .

[HeavenlyOne]

no, as long as they are under the parents roof but I'm saying that you or the others would have no scriptural backing since you don't believe it applies at all. so when jonny gets 18 and wants to dress as a goth he has biblical grounds

What my children do when they are of age is entirely up to them. I may not agree, but they have to answer for themselves.

As for 'dressing goth', what does that mean, dressing in all black?

I have on all black right now, does that mean I'm 'dressing goth'?

No, I don't have Bible that says Johnnie can't 'dress goth', but I do have Biblical principles that would tell him to abstain from the appearance of evil and such like.

[Thad]

Thad, would you buy & wear pants from the women's department?

No and neither would i buy a dress in a man's Dept.

even though the cut of women's pants are different (because of the bodily shapes and curves) It still is the basic apparrel and still pertains to a man's look. if not, then the same rule must apply to a skirt

[Thad]

What my children do when they are of age is entirely up to them. I may not agree, but they have to answer for themselves.

As for 'dressing goth', what does that mean, dressing in all black?

I have on all black right now, does that mean I'm 'dressing goth'?

No, I don't have Bible that says Johnnie can't 'dress goth', but I do have Biblical principles that would tell him to abstain from the appearance of evil and such like.



obviously you have not seen Goths ?
big difference in dressing in black and what the Goth represents thru his attire.

[Subdued]

the need is sometimes greater then the law. my SIL is going thru chemo for breast cancer- hair fell out. these are medical exceptions that we don't use as excuese for normal situations.

again, the bible says that the effeminate shall not inherit the kingdom. that word effeminate means "Transvestism" or cross dressing" .

Exactly!

[HeavenlyOne]

the need is sometimes greater then the law. my SIL is going thru chemo for breast cancer- hair fell out. these are medical exceptions that we don't use as excuese for normal situations.

again, the bible says that the effeminate shall not inherit the kingdom. that word effeminate means "Transvestism" or cross dressing" .

Although I don't agree completely, it's not enough to make an issue out of your definition, because I agree that tranvestitism and cross dressing is wrong. I don't partake of either one.

So, what does that have to do with women wearing women's pants? Cause unless you are willing to admit that all Apostolic men (and even sinner men) should feel free to shop for them and wear them, you can't say women are cross-dressing. In fact, I'm gonna make an assumption here and say that when the gay men in your neck of the woods wear women's clothing that includes pants, you believe they are cross-dressing. I don't believe you excuse their wearing pants because pants are exclusively for men.

[Thad]

Exactly!


Praise God ! a Breakthrough!

maybe we are making some headway !

[HeavenlyOne]

No and neither would i buy a dress in a man's Dept.

even though the cut of women's pants are different (because of the bodily shapes and curves) It still is the basic apparrel and still pertains to a man's look. if not, then the same rule must apply to a skirt

Thad, for thousands of years, men wore skirts. Even in the Bible.

Do they sell dresses in the men's dept where you live?

[HeavenlyOne]

obviously you have not seen Goths ?
big difference in dressing in black and what the Goth represents thru his attire.

We have a local goth group here. They wear all black, have black hair, and look very white.

But their apparel is black. Nothing wrong with wearing all black apparel.

[HeavenlyOne]

Praise God ! a Breakthrough!

maybe we are making some headway !

Ummm.......I also agreed. :D

[Thad]

Although I don't agree completely, it's not enough to make an issue out of your definition, because I agree that tranvestitism and cross dressing is wrong. I don't partake of either one.

So, what does that have to do with women wearing women's pants? Cause unless you are willing to admit that all Apostolic men (and even sinner men) should feel free to shop for them and wear them, you can't say women are cross-dressing. In fact, I'm gonna make an assumption here and say that when the gay men in your neck of the woods wear women's clothing that includes pants, you believe they are cross-dressing. I don't believe you excuse their wearing pants because pants are exclusively for men.


The whole thing is perverted a twisted period. all of it is a form of cross dressing.

[Subdued]

The whole thing is perverted a twisted period. all of it is a form of cross dressing.

I totally agree that any form of cross dressing is perverted and twisted!

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I totally agree that any form of cross dressing is perverted and twisted!

Do you call pants on a woman cross dressing?

Do you wear such attire?

[Thad]

Thad, for thousands of years, men wore skirts. Even in the Bible.

Do they sell dresses in the men's dept where you live?


that was then and what we wear is for this time. its not our culture now. if i see people floating around town in long robes they are usually nut cases and believe in something bizarre. this is a weak argument that men wore skirts 10,000 years ago.


they dont see dresses but you probably think they should sell them everywhere since you condone it right ?

[Thad]

Ummm.......I also agreed. :D


God is moving !!!

[Subdued]

Do you call pants on a woman cross dressing?

Do you wear such attire?

No, I do not consider woman wearing woman's pants cross dressing. I have seen both men's & woman's pants that were immodest, though.

[Thad]

I totally agree that any form of cross dressing is perverted and twisted!


FINALLY one female agrees with me on this ! !

you're a first and let me tell you, you are by yourself on this one




welcome to the endtimes folks@

[Subdued]

that was then and what we wear is for this time. its not our culture now.

What exactly IS our culture now [concerning clothes, of course]?

[Thad]

What exactly IS our culture now [concerning clothes, of course]?


look on the sign of the public bathroom door

how can you tell it's men or women if they use a picture only ??