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

[HeavenlyOne]

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

So every woman who wears pants is a cross dresser, no matter what she looks like?

Tell me, if a man wears those same clothes, will he not be seen as a cross dresser? Be honest.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

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.

Do you wear pants?

[Thad]

So every woman who wears pants is a cross dresser, no matter what she looks like?

Tell me, if a man wears those same clothes, will he not be seen as a cross dresser? Be honest.


a woman who wears male clothing is gender crossing just as a man who wears women's attire- same thing.

again, the Key word is PERTAINETH

[Thad]

i have to leave- our choir is singing out of town tonight
talk to you later

[HeavenlyOne]

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 ?

Aha! Thad, IN OUR CULTURE RIGHT NOW, women can wear pants!

Thanks for helping me prove the point. I think you are getting it now.

See, you won't dress like men of long ago because, in your words, 'it's not our culture now', however, you expect women to dress like they did long ago, refusing to see the same culture relevance you apply to men!

Oh, and men wore skirts 400 years ago, Thad.

As for your last statement, let's keep the conversation honest.

[HeavenlyOne]

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@

Um....I also agreed. :D

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

i have to leave- our choir is singing out of town tonight
talk to you later

All those men in Robes?

[HeavenlyOne]

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

Well, culture only applies to men's clothing, donchaknow?

[Tech]

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


Sorry brother.I am male.

[HeavenlyOne]

look on the sign of the public bathroom door

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

Ahhh...the bathroom signs are where we are to take our dressing cues from??

That man on the bathroom sign doesn't have hair.....neither for men nor women, Thad. Do you have hair?

If you visit another country and their man on the bathroom sign has a robe on, will you change clothes before entering?

The bathroom sign argument is weak. Even those who agree in no pants on women agree with me on that.

[ILG]

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.

Do men wear apparel too? Why don't men wear robes? Seriously.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Do men wear apparel too? Why don't men wear robes? Seriously.

:popcorn2

[Subdued]

Well, culture only applies to men's clothing, donchaknow?

Are you saying that whatever men decide to wear is culturally acceptable... And whatever THEY choose, women cannot wear?? So, if men began wearing skirts (or kilts) in our country - that would become the "norm" and women would no longer be able to wear them...? Is that what you're saying? LOL

Tell me this, H1... If I go visit Scotland, could I wear a plaid skirt; or would I be cross dressing? Just want to be prepared, just in case.

[HeavenlyOne]

a woman who wears male clothing is gender crossing just as a man who wears women's attire- same thing.

again, the Key word is PERTAINETH

Exactly! And pertaineth means what? And how does that relate to pants but not shirts?

[HeavenlyOne]

i have to leave- our choir is singing out of town tonight
talk to you later

I have to go paint LR's back porch. Later.

[HeavenlyOne]

All those men in Robes?

Our culture today says you don't have to wear them anymore.

Women, on the other hand, are stuck dressing like we did 100 years ago, according to Thad.

[ILG]

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 wonder why they both wore robes in NT days then. Maybe they were all wearing unisex clothing.

[Subdued]

Ahhh...the bathroom signs are where we are to take our dressing cues from??

That man on the bathroom sign doesn't have hair.....neither for men nor women, Thad. Do you have hair?

If you visit another country and their man on the bathroom sign has a robe on, will you change clothes before entering?

The bathroom sign argument is weak. Even those who agree in no pants on women agree with me on that.

Oh man! Do I really have to dress like the stick figures on bathroom doors? But, I prefer to dress like THESE stick figures!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/theala/strmgm2b.gif

[HeavenlyOne]

Are you saying that whatever men decide to wear is culturally acceptable... And whatever THEY choose, women cannot wear?? So, if men began wearing skirts (or kilts) in our country - that would become the "norm" and women would no longer be able to wear them...? Is that what you're saying? LOL

Tell me this, H1... If I go visit Scotland, could I wear a plaid skirt; or would I be cross dressing? Just want to be prepared, just in case.

Well, men were the first to wear stockings and high heels, now look who took over those items!

And if you wear a skirt that resembles a kilt, make sure you wear something underneath......something the Scots don't do.........:D

[Subdued]

Well, men were the first to wear stockings and high heels, now look who took over those items!

And if you wear a skirt that resembles a kilt, make sure you wear something underneath......something the Scots don't do.........:D

But would the SKIRT be okay? Let's not get into UNDERclothing!

[HeavenlyOne]

Oh man! Do I really have to dress like the stick figures on bathroom doors? But, I prefer to dress like THESE stick figures!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/theala/strmgm2b.gif

Yes, that means you also have to shave your head and lose weight!

There is a reason why they don't have fat stick figures you know!!!

(For clarification, Subby isn't fat in any way....but she doesn't have the....um.....body shape like the woman stick figure either. :D)

[ILG]

But would the SKIRT be okay? Let's not get into UNDERclothing!

Anything women wear has to be flowing. SE said so. :D
:thad

[HeavenlyOne]

But would the SKIRT be okay? Let's not get into UNDERclothing!

You might have to contact the Scottish consulate here in the states and ask for the cultural norms so they don't stone you if you are cross-dressing.

[HeavenlyOne]

Anything women wear has to be flowing. SE said so. :D
:thad

There goes my church wardrobe.

I don't think I own anything that flows.

[Subdued]

Yes, that means you also have to shave your head and lose weight!

There is a reason why they don't have fat stick figures you know!!!

(For clarification, Subby isn't fat in any way....but she doesn't have the....um.....body shape like the woman stick figure either. :D)

Hahaha! Gotta go for now... gotta go shave my head so I can look more like the bathroom door stick figures.

Later.

[Steve Epley]

Do men wear apparel too? Why don't men wear robes? Seriously.

Pants cannot fit into this definition. It violates the passage.

[ILG]

There goes my church wardrobe.

I don't think I own anything that flows.

Well, technically he said "long loose fitting outer garment". Does that work for you? ;)

[ILG]

Pants cannot fit into this definition. It violates the passage.

But do men wear apparel?

[Steve Epley]

But do men wear apparel?

There is NO command for men to wear apparel however there is for a woman!

[HeavenlyOne]

There is NO command for men to wear apparel however there is for a woman!

I haven't seen the command for women to wear apparel, but it's obvious that men wore apparel too.

Ac 1:10
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Ac 20:33
I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.

Jas 2:2
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

[CupCake]

Does the Bible Say It's a Sin for Women to Wear Pants?

The Truth About Deuteronomy 22:5

by Jason Young

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This verse -- Deuteronomy 22:5 -- is one of the most commonly quoted and debated verses in the Old Testament.

Some Christians have taken this verse to mean that Christian women shouldn’t wear pants, arguing that pants are that which “pertaineth unto a man.” Many sincere and honest Christians have grappled with this issue, wanting to be pleasing to God. This teaching, as with all teachings regarding the scriptures, needs to be carefully examined. It is just as much an error to teach something that the scriptures don’t say as it is to ignore what the scriptures do say.

The teaching that it is wrong for Christian women to wear pants is based upon the following beliefs:

1) Deut 22:5 teaches that women should not wear that which pertains unto a man.

2) Pants pertain to a man because they were not only exclusively invented for men, but they also have historically been worn only by men.

3) The Bible teaches separation of the sexes and since there is so little distinction between men’s and women’s pants, they are essentially unisex and therefore do not provide adequate separation.

The first assertion, which states that Deuteronomy specifically forbids the wearing of “that which pertaineth unto a man,” deserves careful study. As with the study of any scripture, it is important to read the passage in context and examine the relevant words and their meanings in the original text. A reputable Bible dictionary or lexicon can be an invaluable aid.

The phrase “that which pertaineth,” or simply the word pertaineth in the King James Version of the Bible, is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.”1 Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).”2 It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).”3 It is apparent that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,

“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”4

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:

“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'” (sic) 5

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”

Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...”

Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today. Many believe, however, that this verse still applies to us today because this verse states that violators of this law are an abomination to God and that which was an abomination to God in the Old Testament would also be an abomination to God in the New Testament. However, the usage of the word abomination in Deut 22:5 does not necessarily make it a timeless moral law because any violation of God’s mandates is an abomination to Him, whether it is a violation of ceremonial law or moral law. Furthermore, Deut 22:5 is placed squarely in the middle of, and is completely surrounded by, ceremonial laws. If it is indeed a principle to be literally followed today, why would God choose to bury this verse in the middle of what are clearly ceremonial laws?

The second argument against Christian women wearing pants is that pants have historically been worn by and associated with men and are therefore men’s clothing. One problem with this view is that it is not a consistently applied principle among those that advocate it. Many of the articles of clothing have histories of originating with a certain sex. Consider t-shirts – these too were invented for men and originally worn exclusively by men. The t-shirt was introduced to America during WWI when American soldiers noticed European soldiers wearing them. By WWII, the t-shirt became standard issue in the American military and was quickly introduced into American fashion.6 Not only were t-shirts originally invented for men, but they were invented specifically for the military. Considering this in light of the true meaning of Deut 22:5, which seems to be forbidding women from wearing the habiliments of a soldier, it would logically follow that a woman wearing a t-shirt would be in much greater violation of this verse than a woman wearing pants. Furthermore, there is no distinction between men’s and women’s t-shirts.

[CupCake]

If clothing history is the sole determining factor of what constitutes clothing that pertains to a man, then t-shirts must be forbidden as well if consistency is to be maintained. It would seem that in practice, however, those that teach that it is a sin for women to wear pants seem to believe that clothing distinctions only apply to what is worn on the legs while ignoring the obvious about other types of clothing commonly worn by women. In order for the teaching to be consistent, the very reasons cited for prohibiting women from wearing pants would also prohibit women from wearing t-shirts, baseball caps, team jerseys, work boots and any other article of clothing historically worn by men. Taking the concept even further, what of the color pink or blue? Should women also be forbidden to wear blue, or should men forbidden to wear pink, as these colors have historically been associated with the opposite sex? How far should this concept be taken?

Finally, the third argument, which states that God requires a distinction between men’s and women’s clothing and that pants provide little if any distinction, must also be weighed in light of the scriptures. The scriptures, as with most matters, provide a wealth of information on this issue as well.

It is curious how those that forbid pants on women, based on their idea of separation, never seem to consider the clothing norms in the Bible. Even the most basic study into biblical clothing norms reveals that there was very little distinction between the articles of clothing worn by men and women.

In Genesis, we find the first accounts of clothing mentioned in the Bible. First, we find that upon recognizing their nakedness, Adam and Eve sewed garments of fig leaves together to cover themselves (Gen 3:7). This is an interesting account in that we find humans attempting to clothe themselves, but obviously God was not pleased with their choices, as later we find that God made new clothes for them. Gen 3:21 records that God made “coats of skin” for them to wear. The word coats in this verse is the Hebrew word kethoneth and means “a long shirt-like garment.”7 Interestingly, Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose the exact same word to describe the specific type of clothing that God made for both Adam and Eve. Where is the distinction here? If God chose to make so little distinction between a man’s and woman’s clothes that a single word can describe the specific clothing worn both by Adam and Eve, then who are we to require a greater distinction?

Later, throughout the Old and New Testament, common dress consisted of two separate pieces. In the Old Testament, the first part of the Jewish costume was still the kethoneth such as was worn by Adam and Eve. In the New Testament, this garment is called chiton in the Greek and is often translated as coat in the King James Version Bible. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the kethoneth/chiton was,

“…a long-sleeved tunic worn over the sadhin, likewise a shirt with sleeves... Here the ‘coat’ (Hebrew ‘KThohneth) was the ordinary “inner garment ‘worn by the Jew of the day, in which he did the work of the day (see Mt 24:18; Mk 13:16). It resembled the Roman tunic, corresponding most nearly to our ‘long shirt,’ reaching below the knees always, and in case it was designed for dress occasions, reaching almost to the ground.” 8

Easton’s Bible Dictionary states that this basic garment was worn by both men and women:

“The ‘coat’ (kethoneth), of wool, cotton, or linen, was worn by both sexes.”

Easton’s further states that,

“The robes of men and women were not very much different in form from each other.” 9

The second part of the common Jewish costume was the “outer garment.” Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the outer garment varied in size, shape and purpose. It is given various names (both in the original Hebrew and in translation) and is used in a variety of ways. This outer garment was commonly used to cover the head of both men and women (cf. Ruth 3:15, 2 Sam 15:30) and was also commonly wrapped around the shoulders (cf. Isa 3:22). While the outer garment served many purposes and was at times used in different ways by men and women, the way it was used was not consistent with either sex. The garment itself does not appear to have been made functionally different to any significant degree, and the distinctions between the male and female outer garments were merely stylistic (i.e. color, trim, size, etc.).

In light of the ample information we have on male and female garments in the Bible, it is hard to justify the radical distinction between men’s and women’s clothing required by Christians that forbid women from wearing pants. There is no evidence that such a radical distinction existed in biblical times. While there was a difference in men’s and women’s clothing in the scriptures, these differences were merely stylistic and not functional differences. The differences were only found in color, trim, size, etc. and not in the actual form or function of the clothing as is seen in pants and skirts or dresses. The differences between men’s and women’s pants today are as great as the differences between men’s and women’s garments in the Bible. Essentially, Christians today that forbid women from wearing pants demand a difference in form and function in men’s and women’s clothing, whereas the Bible only records a stylistic difference. This amounts to adding to God’s Word and placing requirements on our sisters in the Lord that the Bible does not support.

Many that forbid women to wear pants argue that if it is acceptable for women to wear pants, then it should be acceptable for a man to wear a dress or a skirt. This is a valid point. However, there is no inherent sin in a man putting on a skirt-like garment, which is a common practice in some cultures around the world just as it was in the Bible. The error would be in the fact that a man wearing a skirt in modern American society would be deemed as counter-culture to the very people we, as Christians, are trying to be examples to -- namely unbelievers. However, women wearing pants is hardly counter-culture. While there was once a time in our society when a woman in pants would have been viewed negatively by society, such is not the case today. Is that because society’s morals have declined, and it no longer sees women in pants as the sin that it is? Of course not, it is merely a change in fashion. Just because society had a particular view in the past, does not mean that such a view was inherently more moral. Ford once made only black cars and refused to make any other color. Today, Fords come in every color under the sun. Was that the result of some sort of moral backsliding? No, it is just that society's tastes have changed. In Renaissance Europe, silk hosiery were considered appropriate attire for men, yet today they are deemed as feminine. Changes in style and fashion aren’t inherently sinful and most of the time only reflect a change in taste. Women’s pants are no different. Women did not start wearing pants as a means of rebellion or to be more “manly” but because they were more comfortable and functional. Fashion has been moving in the direction of more function and less style for well over a century now. This is evidenced most recently by the fact that suits and ties are much less common in the workplace now, having been replaced by khakis and button-up shirts. Does that signal some moral decline? Absolutely not -- it only reflects a trend in fashion for more basic and functional clothing just as women’s fashions did in moving toward pants. It is important that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction to every change in fashion. Clearly, some are indicative of moral decline, but many are not. As with everything, changes in fashion must be weighed against biblical truths to make the determination.

In short, the issue of clothing must always be carefully, thoughtfully and honestly studied from a scriptural perspective while allowing the scriptures to be the ultimate authority on such issues. A thorough study into the clothing norms of the Bible reveals that there was no distinction between men’s and women’s clothing in the Bible beyond stylistic differences such as trim, color and size. In fact, God Himself made clothing for Adam and Eve that was so similar that one word (kethoneth) could describe the specific garment he made for each of them. This same word describes the clothing worn by Godly men and women throughout the Bible from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Yet today, many Christians demand much more than even the Bible did by requiring not only a difference in style but a difference in function and form as well. If God makes no such clothing demands on His people, then who are we to make them? Do we know better than God?

http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

[freeatlast]

CupCake: don't try to confuse us with facts. Us UC's done got our minds made up. ;-)

[CupCake]

CupCake: don't try to confuse us with facts. Us UC's done got our minds made up. ;-)

I know, but there always hope....;)

[MissBrattified]

There is NO command for men to wear apparel however there is for a woman!

Huh?

[Steve Epley]

So then women cannot wear a millitary uniform!!!

I have researched this angle and have only found ONE source all the others say it pertains to cross dressing or unisex clothing. Look at the context of the chapter.

[MissBrattified]

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.

In my Strong's dictionary it just says that "apparel" means "deposit" or "costume."

...okay...I looked it up elsewhere, and the definition is:

" 1. a lowering, letting down
2. a garment let down, dress, attire "

(from KJV with Strong's #'s, www.bible.crosswalk.com)

[ILG]

There is NO command for men to wear apparel however there is for a woman!

LOL! I don't think there is any right response to this.:killinme :heeheehee :ursofunny

[Steve Epley]

In my Strong's dictionary it just says that "apparel" means "deposit" or "costume."

...okay...I looked it up elsewhere, and the definition is:

" 1. a lowering, letting down
2. a garment let down, dress, attire "

(from KJV with Strong's #'s, www.bible.crosswalk.com)

Katastole means a long, loose outer garment like a cloak, robe.

[CupCake]

Katastole means a long, loose outer garment like a cloak, robe.

This would pertain to both male and female then. If we are to carry it out men should not wear pants as well~

[Steve Epley]

This would pertain to both male and female then. If we are to carry it out men should not wear pants as well~

The WOMEN are to dress in modest katastoles long loose robes-cloaks NO command for the men.

[HeavenlyOne]

So then women cannot wear a millitary uniform!!!

I have researched this angle and have only found ONE source all the others say it pertains to cross dressing or unisex clothing. Look at the context of the chapter.

I completely agree with this. I believe it refers to cross-dressing. I'm not a cross-dresser just because I wear pants. I wear women's pants.

[HeavenlyOne]

In my Strong's dictionary it just says that "apparel" means "deposit" or "costume."

...okay...I looked it up elsewhere, and the definition is:

" 1. a lowering, letting down
2. a garment let down, dress, attire "

(from KJV with Strong's #'s, www.bible.crosswalk.com)

The problem with Bro. Epley's position is that men also wore long flowing garments when that verse was penned! So how can he state that the verse is for women only?

[HeavenlyOne]

The WOMEN are to dress in modest katastoles long loose robes-cloaks NO command for the men.

At the time that verse was penned, that was the attire for both men and women. I don't believe Paul wrote that verse, believing it would transcend thousands of years and millions of cultures!

It would make sense for Paul to tell women to wear long robes. That was the attire of his day! It was also the attire for men of his day as well.

[ILG]

The problem with Bro. Epley's position is that men also wore long flowing garments when that verse was penned! So how can he state that the verse is for women only?

What he is saying is that it is fine for men to dress immodestly. :)

[CupCake]

What he is saying is that it is fine for men to dress immodestly. :)

:hypercoffee

[HeavenlyOne]

What he is saying is that it is fine for men to dress immodestly. :)

I stand corrected!

[MissBrattified]

The WOMEN are to dress in modest katastoles long loose robes-cloaks NO command for the men.

So how do you teach modesty for men, then? Since they have no commandment? And considering that Peter fished naked? :coffee2

[Carpenter]

So how do you teach modesty for men, then? Since they have no commandment? And considering that Peter fished naked? :coffee2

No one needs to teach us, we just know.


:slaphappy

[Hoovie]

No one needs to teach us, we just know.


:slaphappy

YUP. Men have this inate instinct to do what is proper. :coffee2

[ILG]

YUP. Men have this inate instinct to do what is proper. :coffee2

Like the inate instinct to look the other way from a half nude woman? :D:popcorn2

[seguidordejesus]

Like the inate instinct to look the other way from a half nude woman? :D:popcorn2

Is that proper???

[ILG]

Is that proper???

Is what proper? I think it is proper to point out that women do need to dress modestly, but it is not realistic to say that men automatically do what is proper. I'd say that not lusting is the other side of the coin.

[Carpenter]

Is what proper? I think it is proper to point out that women do need to dress modestly, but it is not realistic to say that men automatically do what is proper. I'd say that not lusting is the other side of the coin.

For the record, I could never and would never lust after a woman who has adorned herself with the attitude and personification of that which pertaineth to a man.

:D

[Hoovie]

For the record, I could never and would never lust after a woman who has adorned herself with the attitude and personification of that which pertaineth to a man.

:D

:bolt

[crakjak]

For the record, I could never and would never lust after a woman who has adorned herself with the attitude and personification of that which pertaineth to a man.

:D

Great humor for a empty thread.

The men should just leave the women folks alone, if the Word of God is taught they will instinctive (by the spirit) dress modestly. This obsession with the ladies attire is really wacky, if the men are filled with the Spirit and in right relationship with their wives.....oh well it is a hopeful thought.

[CupCake]

Great humor for a empty thread.

The men should just leave the women folks alone, if the Word of God is taught they will instinctive (by the spirit) dress modestly. This obsession with the ladies attire is really wacky, if the men are filled with the Spirit and in right relationship with their wives.....oh well it is a hopeful thought.

Very true~
I have always dress modestly even before I was in the church, my parents were roll models of what true modest was, not some rule book of men or their traditions, it's always been in me. I leave my hair on the long side because my husband love it long. I want please him because I love him~

[ILG]

Very true~
I have always dress modestly even before I was in the church, my parents were roll models of what true modest was, not some rule book of men or their traditions, it's always been in me. I leave my hair on the long side because my husband love it long. I want please him because I love him~

What if he wanted it short? (Just wondering...)

[CupCake]

What if he wanted it short? (Just wondering...)

Lol~ I've had short hair before, my husband say it's up to me what I want to do with it, he prefer it longer . I come from a culture where all the women in my family have very long hair, this is due to culture, not religion reasons. Yes they keep it trim, there a lot pride in keeping it healthy.

[Thad]

From all that I have read, I think what the folk that have gone Charismatic don't understand is when you have a Society (and a church for that matter) that is devoid of all rules and no guidelines whatsoever, you have a culture and society that turns to utter chaos and godllisness.

It may not be effecting you and your household directly but let all this permissivemness keep going and let's see what this next generation turns out like. Don't try and tell me that letting the kids pierce their bodies and dress in Goth or cross dress has nothing to do with the spirit world.

[rgcraig]

From all that I have read, I think what the folk that have gone Charismatic don't understand is when you have a Society (and a church for that matter) that is devoid of all rules and no guidelines whatsoever, you have a culture and society that turns to utter chaos and godllisness.

It may not be effecting you and your household directly but let all this permissivemness keep going and let's see what this next generation turns out like. Don't try and tell me that letting the kids pierce their bodies and dress in Goth or cross dress has nothing to do with the spirit world.

Such a 70's term.

[Thad]

Such a 70's term.


in church lingo, this still indentifies exactly what i am talking about.
Charismatics are not traditional Pentecost thus the affiliation

[rgcraig]

in church lingo, this still indentifies exactly what i am talking about.
Charismatics are not traditional Pentecost thus the affiliationYou could use the more modern 90's term - "left the mothership"!

[Thad]

You could use the more modern 90's term - "left the mothership"!

I like the old one " gone charismatic "

I like the conotation it sends

[rgcraig]

I like the old one " gone charismatic "

I like the conotation it sendsWe can tell.

[Thad]

We can tell.




:hypercoffee :ursofunny :icecream

[rgcraig]

:hypercoffee :ursofunny :icecream

:girlnails

[Thad]

well renda you didn't deny that i was not right in what I said. you know i was telling the truth !!!

[rgcraig]

well renda you didn't deny that i was not right in what I said. you know i was telling the truth !!!

Whatever you say........

[Thad]

Whatever you say........


now that's my girl ! :bump

[ILG]

now that's my girl ! :bump

What's with the big conservative bent here lately Thad? :preach

[rgcraig]

now that's my girl ! :bump

See, even leaving the mothership, I still know how to be the submissive little woman!

[Thad]

What's with the big conservative bent here lately Thad? :preach


im not hardline but where i disagree with you that have left is, you believe anything goes. I yet believe in modesty and distinction and I feel that especially in the perverse generation that it needs to be taught

[rgcraig]

im not hardline but where i disagree with you that have left is, you believe anything goes. I yet believe in modesty and distinction and I feel that especially in the perverse generation that it needs to be taught

How would you possibly know this?

[ILG]

im not hardline but where i disagree with you that have left is, you believe anything goes. I yet believe in modesty and distinction and I feel that especially in the perverse generation that it needs to be taught

What exactly do we believe that constitues 'anything goes' and why do you think that?

[rgcraig]

What exactly do we believe that constitues 'anything goes' and why do you think that?
Because he's of the pendulum belief.......

[ILG]

Because he's of the pendulum belief.......

Yeah, but I want to hear what he has to say.

[Thad]

Yeah, but I want to hear what he has to say.



I will get back to this tonight - i have to be at church in less than one hour

[CupCake]

From all that I have read, I think what the folk that have gone Charismatic don't understand is when you have a Society (and a church for that matter) that is devoid of all rules and no guidelines whatsoever, you have a culture and society that turns to utter chaos and godllisness.



Thad~ Why is it always the extreme with you guys, Charismatic have guide lines and standard, in fact every Christian has them. But your kind seem to get stuck on the notion if they don't hold to your guidelines (UPC) it's a free for all~

[CupCake]

i
Charismatics are not traditional Pentecost thus the affiliation

Nor was Jesus in either camp as well~

[HeavenlyOne]

From all that I have read, I think what the folk that have gone Charismatic don't understand is when you have a Society (and a church for that matter) that is devoid of all rules and no guidelines whatsoever, you have a culture and society that turns to utter chaos and godllisness.

It may not be effecting you and your household directly but let all this permissivemness keep going and let's see what this next generation turns out like. Don't try and tell me that letting the kids pierce their bodies and dress in Goth or cross dress has nothing to do with the spirit world.

I agree with this post, Thad, but I haven't seen anyone here speaking about these things.

[HeavenlyOne]

im not hardline but where i disagree with you that have left is, you believe anything goes. I yet believe in modesty and distinction and I feel that especially in the perverse generation that it needs to be taught

Who said they believe anything goes? Do you have a quote?

I know I certainly never said such a thing.

[HeavenlyOne]

I will get back to this tonight - i have to be at church in less than one hour

You have said this before........

[ILG]

I will get back to this tonight - i have to be at church in less than one hour

That's what they all say...:2cents

[Thad]

That's what they all say...:2cents


I get side tracked easily lol
and couldnt think how i wanted to word my reply .

goodness! you and HO are like the Gestopo ! ! ! ! ! !

[ILG]

I get side tracked easily lol
and couldnt think how i wanted to word my reply .

goodness! you and HO are like the Gestopo ! ! ! ! ! !

:) Seriously, I have had way too many people say they would get back and then never do.

[Thad]

What exactly do we believe that constitues 'anything goes' and why do you think that?



you and several here that have chimed in on this discusion do not believe that there are any scriptural backing for teaching gender distinction. most have shot down any and all scriptures brought up. If you don't believe there is any bible backing and believe that Duet is just old testament law that does not apply then you and all the rest advocate the "anything goes" minset of today's culture. what can you say? if it's not bible then you have nothing to go on to come against the spirit of the age

[LadyChocolate]

It's more like long underwear to me. Are pantyhose wrong?
i know of some women who won't wear them because they look like mens pants. silly to me

My point exactly. Besides the fact that leggings look tacky, what's the difference in them from pantyhose (with the except that they stop mid calf)?

I could see them preaching against it more because of it being a trend...I personally think that if I were to see a man in these, I'd think he was a lil, umm, should i say, less manly?? yep, that's what i would say.

Okay, I'm no longer a conservative...yep, you heard it from me. I went swimming in the hotel the other day and I went and bought myself a spandex skirt that went right below my knees and some of those leggings and they covered my thighs and knees. ANd I went swimming.. Of course no one else was in the pool. But it was a public pool and I don't mix bathe and I don't wear a swimsuit in public. But by no means was I going to wear a skirt and have it float up and be exposed.... I felt more modest with those crazy leggins on. and i must say i was quite cute! lolol! Yes, my conservative friends down south and back east would say I had gone liberal!

[ILG]

you and several here that have chimed in on this discusion do not believe that there are any scriptural backing for teaching gender distinction. most have shot down any and all scriptures brought up. If you don't believe there is any bible backing and believe that Duet is just old testament law that does not apply then you and all the rest advocate the "anything goes" minset of today's culture. what can you say? if it's not bible then you have nothing to go on to come against the spirit of the age

That is not true. I do believe in gender distinction and I think most others here do too. The difference is that I believe that skirts on women are not a required gender distinction biblically but that gender distinction is shown in the way people dress in general. In other words, men and woman can wear pants and still be gender distinctive just like in OT times both men and women wore robes and were also gender distinctive.

[NLYP]

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

My Opinion is that I thank God that the kooks in Ca dont set the trend for the rest of us. What to they do Thad...call a high councel meeting like the sandhedren and talk about new rules that "must" be enforced.....GAG

[Carpenter]

From all that I have read, I think what the folk that have gone Charismatic don't understand is when you have a Society (and a church for that matter) that is devoid of all rules and no guidelines whatsoever, you have a culture and society that turns to utter chaos and godllisness.

It may not be effecting you and your household directly but let all this permissivemness keep going and let's see what this next generation turns out like. Don't try and tell me that letting the kids pierce their bodies and dress in Goth or cross dress has nothing to do with the spirit world.

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Chicken_Little/Chicken_Little.jpg

[HeavenlyOne]

you and several here that have chimed in on this discusion do not believe that there are any scriptural backing for teaching gender distinction. most have shot down any and all scriptures brought up. If you don't believe there is any bible backing and believe that Duet is just old testament law that does not apply then you and all the rest advocate the "anything goes" minset of today's culture. what can you say? if it's not bible then you have nothing to go on to come against the spirit of the age

1. There has only been one verse brought up, not 'any and all'.

2. Thad, believing that if someone doesn't believe A, then they must believe B, when B happens to be the polar opposite which makes no sense.

It's like, if I ask you if you like to drink cold water and you say no, then I claim you must like to drink hot water. Does that make sense?

It's the same logic you use to say that if I don't believe in standards as taught by the UPC, then I must believe anything goes. That logic is faulty.

Let's have honest discussion. Assuming someone's beliefs isn't having it.

[HeavenlyOne]

That is not true. I do believe in gender distinction and I think most others here do too. The difference is that I believe that skirts on women are not a required gender distinction biblically but that gender distinction is shown in the way people dress in general. In other words, men and woman can wear pants and still be gender distinctive just like in OT times both men and women wore robes and were also gender distinctive.

Just admit that you believe anything goes!

[CupCake]

you and several here that have chimed in on this discusion do not believe that there are any scriptural backing for teaching gender distinction. most have shot down any and all scriptures brought up. If you don't believe there is any bible backing and believe that Duet is just old testament law that does not apply then you and all the rest advocate the "anything goes" minset of today's culture. what can you say? if it's not bible then you have nothing to go on to come against the spirit of the age

Thad you have not given any scriptural to backup that pants are not for women. It's not in there!


~There is Only One True Biblical Jesus, the Rest are Counterfeits~


2nd Corinthians 11:1-4

"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received, or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” .

In 2nd Corinthians 11:1-4, Paul warns us that some people are dangerous and extremely hazardous to our spiritual health. There are many people today, just as then, who preach ANOTHER JESUS—not the Jesus which the Scriptures portray. If someone comes along and teaches that Jesus never died on the cross, then you know he’s an imposter, heretic~

This here is where the teaching of dress standard has become another Gospel in it's self~If someone teaches that trusting Jesus as Savior is not enough in itself to be saved, then you know that he is of the devil !~

Paul also warns us of those who bring in another gospel or another spirit , “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, "this includes the outward dress teachings" whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, "this would be one of man" !

The Gospel is the [B]“good news” of salvation., by God’s grace through our faith in Christ alone. There are religions everywhere which teach OTHER methods of getting to Heaven. Like the outward teaching as a sign. A sign to whom? They do this to their own destruction!

[Thad]

Oh yes i did but folks like you always put their fingers in their ears and then later scream that I never gave scripture. i must have posted more then 50 times

[HeavenlyOne]

Oh yes i did but folks like you always put their fingers in their ears and then later scream that I never gave scripture. i must have posted more then 50 times

Thad, you haven't even posted on this thread 50 times. And repeating the same verse 50 times doesn't mean you've posted several scriptures.

[CupCake]

Thad, you haven't even posted on this thread 50 times. And repeating the same verse 50 times doesn't mean you've posted several scriptures.

Nor has Thad or the other for that matter shown any scripture in the bible that say pants are a sin ~

[crakjak]

:nutso :nutso From all that I have read, I think what the folk that have gone Charismatic don't understand is when you have a Society (and a church for that matter) that is devoid of all rules and no guidelines whatsoever, you have a culture and society that turns to utter chaos and godllisness.

It may not be effecting you and your household directly but let all this permissivemness keep going and let's see what this next generation turns out like. Don't try and tell me that letting the kids pierce their bodies and dress in Goth or cross dress has nothing to do with the spirit world.

Thad,
If you don't teach your children to really know God and to hear His voice, I assure you in two to three generations your linage will not know God. You can cram all the hard rules you like on them, they will leave your teaching generation by generation. I haven't attended a UPC church in 25 years, and not one of my children have pierced their "bodies", dress in Goth or cross dressed. One son plays piano and leads music in his church, my daughter is about to go to Uruguay on a medical mission with a Christian university, and my youngest son is a sophomore at a Christian university.

You better teach them in your home, and you better live what you teach, children can smell hypocrisy a mile away. Why do you think Christians outside of your culture don't have rules for their kids?

Gone Charismatic? I'm in Dallas and I don't know of any "Charismatic" churches around here? What are you talking about?:nutso :nutso

[CupCake]

:nutso :nutso

Thad,
If you don't teach your children to really know God and to hear His voice, I assure you in two to three generations your linage will not know God. You can cram all the hard rules you like on them, they will leave your teaching generation by generation. I haven't attended a UPC church in 25 years, and not one of my children have pierced their "bodies", dress in Goth or cross dressed. One son plays piano and leads music in his church, my daughter is about to go to Uruguay on a medical mission with a Christian university, and my youngest son is a sophomore at a Christian university.

You better teach them in your home, and you better live what you teach, children can smell hypocrisy a mile away. Why do you think Christians outside of your culture don't have rules for their kids?

Gone Charismatic? I'm in Dallas and I don't know of any Charismatic churches around here? What are you talking about?:nutso :nutso


This is so true. We've been out of the UPC for 16 years now our kids are still godly and sane. The two oldest 22, 20 are in collage and the younger 17 has one year left, they don't drink or smoke, they don't parties they are all sill virgins living for God~ And to think they doing this outside the mother ship (UPC)

[Thad]

:nutso :nutso

Thad,
If you don't teach your children to really know God and to hear His voice, I assure you in two to three generations your linage will not know God. You can cram all the hard rules you like on them, they will leave your teaching generation by generation. I haven't attended a UPC church in 25 years, and not one of my children have pierced their "bodies", dress in Goth or cross dressed. One son plays piano and leads music in his church, my daughter is about to go to Uruguay on a medical mission with a Christian university, and my youngest son is a sophomore at a Christian university.

You better teach them in your home, and you better live what you teach, children can smell hypocrisy a mile away. Why do you think Christians outside of your culture don't have rules for their kids?

Gone Charismatic? I'm in Dallas and I don't know of any Charismatic churches around here? What are you talking about?:nutso :nutso

you're kids may not but scripurally you are defenseless against what i described. why? because you and others refute all the teachings and scriptural backing that we use. I never said that you have to be upc or that your kids will end up looking as i mentioned BUT what can you say against it IF IF IF they did ? you believe there are no scriptural grounds against dress.

[HeavenlyOne]

:nutso :nutso

Thad,
If you don't teach your children to really know God and to hear His voice, I assure you in two to three generations your linage will not know God. You can cram all the hard rules you like on them, they will leave your teaching generation by generation. I haven't attended a UPC church in 25 years, and not one of my children have pierced their "bodies", dress in Goth or cross dressed. One son plays piano and leads music in his church, my daughter is about to go to Uruguay on a medical mission with a Christian university, and my youngest son is a sophomore at a Christian university.

You better teach them in your home, and you better live what you teach, children can smell hypocrisy a mile away. Why do you think Christians outside of your culture don't have rules for their kids?

Gone Charismatic? I'm in Dallas and I don't know of any Charismatic churches around here? What are you talking about?:nutso :nutso

Wonderful testimony! I think it's great when parents can say this about their adult children.

I hope I can say it about mine in about ten years.

[HeavenlyOne]

you're kids may not but scripurally you are defenseless against what i described. why? because you and others refute all the teachings and scriptural backing that we use. I never said that you have to be upc or that your kids will end up looking as i mentioned BUT what can you say against it IF IF IF they did ? you believe there are no scriptural grounds against dress.

That's where principles come in, Thad. Biblical ones. Like to abstain from the appearance of evil, for one. Being modest is another. Moderation in all things is yet another.

Thad, you won't find do's and don't's for your children when that blessed day comes. Teaching principles is the best way to teach them, and you will have Bible for EVERYTHING that way too.

Just like you don't have scripture for smoking, the principle is there in scripture.

You tell your daughter that the Bible says women can't wear pants and she can't find it, you won't be able to tell her much of anything else, cause if it isn't word for word, she won't believe it.

However, if you want to teach her not to wear pants, you can talk to her about your beliefs that you believe God prefers women to wear dresses and skirts. This is the best way to teach your children. You don't even have to have Bible for it.

For instance, my son doesn't wear jeans to church. It's the standard I have set for him. He abides by it even though I have to scripture to show him, however, I do have scripture that says he is to obey his parents, and since I'm his parent, it applies. He doesn't argue and never has about that issue, and likes to dress up for church.

My daughter, although she wears pants to school, doesn't wear them to church. I explained to her why we do that and she's never argued about it. I don't even have to remind her of what to wear, she just knows. There are lots of other girls who wear pants and jeans to church, but she doesn't use them as an excuse and give me trouble over it. It's a standard I have set for her and I.

Some things don't have to be scriptural, Thad, unless you make it a heaven or hell issue. That can set you up for problems if you don't have scripture word for word about what you believe.

[CupCake]

you're kids may not but scripurally you are defenseless against what i described. why? because you and others refute all the teachings and scriptural backing that we use. I never said that you have to be upc or that your kids will end up looking as i mentioned BUT what can you say against it IF IF IF they did ? you believe there are no scriptural grounds against dress.

THAD` This is were you greatly air in your thinking. You say we don't have guidelines as to what we wear, well I hate to burst your bubble BUT WE DO! The difference is we have not made up false guidelines as such as a pants one.

[Thad]

Thad, you haven't even posted on this thread 50 times. And repeating the same verse 50 times doesn't mean you've posted several scriptures.

HO
this thread is getting close to 900 post and you don't think i contributed 50 post here by now?? I tend to think i have but who knows.

anyhow, besides Duet 22 (which I believe is MORAL and Not ceremonial as you believe), the sripture in 1 Cor that states that the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom. the word "effeminate" in the greek means "transvestism or cross dressing". also 1 Tim 2 the word "apparrel " is a robe like garment. surely the bible would not advocate the men to wear this same garment that scripture admonish women to wear. The men's garment was different in Their way for Their time. none of wears Robes today. we would look like nut cases and you know it

[Thad]

THAD` This is were you greatly air in your thinking. You say we don't have guidelines as to what we wear, well I hate to burst your bubble BUT WE DO! The difference is we have not made up false guidelines as such as a pants one.

Then this hyprocrital!! you say we are legalistic to have rules yet it's OKAY for YOU to have them???? Ummmmmmmmmm well I hate to pop your bubble but your a legalist and you didn't know it.

[HeavenlyOne]

HO
this thread is getting close to 900 post and you don't think i contributed 50 post here by now?? I tend to think i have but who knows.

anyhow, besides Duet 22 (which I believe is MORAL and Not ceremonial as you believe), the sripture in 1 Cor that states that the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom. the word "effeminate" in the greek means "transvestism or cross dressing". also 1 Tim 2 the word "apparrel " is a robe like garment. surely the bible would not advocate the men to wear this same garment that scripture admonish women to wear. The men's garment was different in Their way for Their time. none of wears Robes today. we would look like nut cases and you know it

1. Remember what I said about having honest discussion? You aren't being honest.

2. I never said that Deut 22:5 was ceremonial law. I believe that verse exactly as it's written and never said otherwise.

3. I believe what you said about effeminitism. Never said anything different.

4. Thad, does it make sense for Paul to command women to wear a garment a. that they already wore and b. to wear it throughout all cultures and times? Consider that men wore that same garment, including Paul, when that verse was written. Also, that verse doesn't command women to wear that specific garment, but that she should wear modest apparel and shouldn't wear costly apparel. That's not a command to wear a specific item. You say scripture admonishes women to wear it. Have you ever read that verse?? Obviously not. Just something else someone told you and you believe it without studying it for yourself.

5. Show me scripture that says men's robes looked completely different than women's robes. I'll even take a historical reference that's reliable. IOW, not from Wikipedia.

6. If wearing robes was part of our culture as it was in Bible days, we wouldn't look like nut cases at all because such attire would be completely normal to wear.

[HeavenlyOne]

Thad, here is the verse in 1 Tim you are referring to and the definition according to the Strong's for 'apparel'. See for yourself that you have been misinformed.

1Ti 2:9
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

katastolhv
Transliterated Word
Katastole
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
kat-as-tol-ay' Noun Feminine
Definition

1. a lowering, letting down
2. a garment let down, dress, attire

According to that definition, it also means attire, not just a dress. It's also silly to say that it means 'dress' when NOBODY in those days wore such an item!

And here are other examples where MEN wore apparel:

Ac 1:10
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Ac 12:21
And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.

Ac 20:33
I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.

Jas 2:2
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

[Thad]

joy let me see if my brother is available for a discusion. you have obviously done an exuastive study on this in order to wear pants.

hold on a minute.

[HeavenlyOne]

joy let me see if my brother is available for a discusion. you have obviously done an exuastive study on this in order to wear pants.

hold on a minute.

LOL!

I didn't use scripture to justify myself, Thad. That's what the conservatives do!

[Thad]

LOL!

I didn't use scripture to justify myself, Thad. That's what the conservatives do!

he said later on this evening. so, we'll go thru all your questions and scriptures

[ILG]

Just admit that you believe anything goes!

I just make too much sense huh? :D

[Thad]

I just make too much sense huh? :D


If you believe there is no prohibition against cross dressing then you also have accpet men wearing dresses SO LONG AS THEY BUY THEM IN THE MEN"S DEPT OF COURSE !!!!

[HeavenlyOne]

he said later on this evening. so, we'll go thru all your questions and scriptures

Understand that I'm not against people interpreting that scripture for themselves if they need to, I just have a problem with someone interpreting it that way and applying it to me.

I look forward to what he has to say on this subject. Thanks.

[HeavenlyOne]

I just make too much sense huh? :D

:D

[HeavenlyOne]

If you believe there is no prohibition against cross dressing then you also have accpet men wearing dresses SO LONG AS THEY BUY THEM IN THE MEN"S DEPT OF COURSE !!!!

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

As far as I know, dresses on men aren't accepted in this culture and is seen as cross-dressing, which scripture clearly prohibits.

[ILG]

If you believe there is no prohibition against cross dressing then you also have accpet men wearing dresses SO LONG AS THEY BUY THEM IN THE MEN"S DEPT OF COURSE !!!!

I have no problem with men wearing kilts. It is culturally correct in some places. Some men wear skirts here FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSSDRESSING. That is not the same as a kilt.

[Thad]

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

As far as I know, dresses on men aren't accepted in this culture and is seen as cross-dressing, which scripture clearly prohibits.


we are making Progess Praise Gaaaaaawd!!!!
and that is exactly why you are unfair. who changed this? why did they change it to make it acceptable for women to wear pants???

you asked me that before i think-No, they don't sell dresses in the men's dept here. they probably would be the first should it become in step with hollywood or the style. as soon as a popular movie star wears it in a movie and all the youth want to be different, i wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a future rage.

[Thad]

I have no problem with men wearing kilts. It is culturally correct in some places. Some men wear skirts here FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSSDRESSING. That is not the same as a kilt.


a kilt is worn for a festive event. apples and oranges

[CupCake]

Then this hyprocrital!! you say we are legalistic to have rules yet it's OKAY for YOU to have them???? Ummmmmmmmmm well I hate to pop your bubble but your a legalism and you didn't know it.

UPC has made it a legalistic rule by turning it into a salvation one, heaven or hell! I don't dictate and enforce such false traditional teachings of man made ideals, such as a false outward sign. It's simple Thad, they have replace grace, they don't trust God to do the inner heart work of agape, they seek after a sign, a dress one at that! So no I'm not even close to being a legalistic person~

[CupCake]

joy let me see if my brother is available for a discusion. you have obviously done an exuastive study on this in order to wear pants.

hold on a minute.

Thad a word of wisdom here, if your going to preach such things as this at least be able to back it up without relying on others.

[Thad]

* * * IMPORANT NEW LIST * * *



The Following Persons are For Men wearing Dresses ! ! ! ! !
Pro Cross dressing members
Joy
ILG
Cupcake
Renda
Crakjak



more names coming!

[crakjak]

you're kids may not but scripurally you are defenseless against what i described. why? because you and others refute all the teachings and scriptural backing that we use. I never said that you have to be upc or that your kids will end up looking as i mentioned BUT what can you say against it IF IF IF they did ? you believe there are no scriptural grounds against dress.

I certainly am not defenseless, do you think we didn't have boundaries in our house? Brother, prayer is a powerful defense and my wife and I have and still do invoke it liberally, even though all of our children are now over 20 years of age. I don't believe your standards of dress give you near as much protection as you may think. My trust is in the Lord, not in my ability to impose standards. Those that walk in the Spirit abide instinctively within what God requires. Clothes never have prevented lust, adultery, fornication, if it is in the heart in will manifest itself. Get the heart right with God, the outward adornment will be just fine. We focused on right relationship with God for our children, and just modeled modesty in lifestyle, even though it might not quite meet your standards. Of course, we have not accomplished this perfectly, but God is full of grace and has been with us.

[CupCake]

* * * IMPORANT NEW LIST * * *



The Following Persons are For Men wearing Dresses ! ! ! ! !
Pro Cross dressing members
Joy
ILG
Cupcake
Renda



more names coming!

Thad~ This is no way to prove your point, if anything it's proof how little you really know on this subject of Duet 22~ Again please give Bible to back up your teaching.......:coffee2






















We are waiting and it's going to be a long wait at that~ Want to know why? IT"S NOT IN THERE THAD! YOU'VE BEEN DUKE~ ~

[Thad]

Thad~ This is no way to prove your point~ Again please give Bible to back up your teaching.......:coffee2






















We are waiting and it's going to be a long wait at that~ Want to know why? IT"S NOT IN THERE THAD! YOU'VE BEEN DUKE~ ~

what ashamed!!! folks like cup cake who claim to be holy ghost filled believe it's okay for men to wear dresses wigs makeup, long hair. shame!!

[CupCake]

I don't believe your standards of dress give you near as much protection as you may think.

This is what happens when someone embrace a lie that taught as a truth! Sad, really~

[CupCake]

what ashamed!!! folks like cup cake who claim to be holy ghost filled believe it's okay for men to wear dresses wigs makeup, long hair. shame!!

I've never said that Thad, please post were I say them words for words above.

Thad your losing ground fast, please give us proof of your teachings, ok! After all if it's bible you should be able to prove it~ Right? Then again when you add and take from the word of God your left with nothing more then confusion ~

[HeavenlyOne]

[/SIZE]


we are making Progess Praise Gaaaaaawd!!!!
and that is exactly why you are unfair. who changed this? why did they change it to make it acceptable for women to wear pants???

you asked me that before i think-No, they don't sell dresses in the men's dept here. they probably would be the first should it become in step with hollywood or the style. as soon as a popular movie star wears it in a movie and all the youth want to be different, i wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a future rage.

Thad, when did they change it to make it acceptable for men to wear pants????

And for your 411, women first wore pants in China in the fourth century. Men didn't start wearing them in Europe until about 400 years ago. And when they first started wearing them, they were considered immodest at that!

Haven't we come a long way since then???

And I've never said anything different about cross-dressing. It's wrong now, it's always been wrong, and it will always be wrong.

[HeavenlyOne]

* * * IMPORANT NEW LIST * * *



The Following Persons are For Men wearing Dresses ! ! ! ! !
Pro Cross dressing members
Joy
ILG
Cupcake
Renda
Crakjak



more names coming!


Thad, you aren't being honest again.

[HeavenlyOne]

I've never said that Thad, please post were I say them words for words above.

Thad your losing ground fast, please give us proof of your teachings, ok! After all if it's bible you should be able to prove it~ Right? Then again when you add and take from the word of God your left with nothing more then confusion ~

I think Thad is pot stirring now. :D

[CupCake]

I think Thad is pot stirring now. :D

:hypercoffee

[LaGirl]

:hypercoffee this should be getting good soon! lol

[CupCake]

:hypercoffee this should be getting good soon! lol

Lol~ Maybe Thad adding names to his list of cross dresser....:donuts

[Thad]

Thad, when did they change it to make it acceptable for men to wear pants????

And for your 411, women first wore pants in China in the fourth century. Men didn't start wearing them in Europe until about 400 years ago. And when they first started wearing them, they were considered immodest at that!

Haven't we come a long way since then???

And I've never said anything different about cross-dressing. It's wrong now, it's always been wrong, and it will always be wrong.


**News flash ***
we are not living in achient bible times.
we are not in china in the 4th century.

Do you wear your house robe to the grocery store ?

[Thad]

Thad, you aren't being honest again.

you believe that Duet 22 only applies to men ????

how sexist is that ??????????????????????????????????

[LadyChocolate]

:hypercoffee this should be getting good soon! lol

Hey, i think I'll join ya!:popcorn2 :hypercoffee soo, is this what we do now since things are calm in our worlds? we get ringside seats!!! way cool!

[HeavenlyOne]

**News flash ***
we are not living in achient bible times.
we are not in china in the 4th century.

Do you wear your house robe to the grocery store ?

Thad, we also aren't living in the 1920's! In 2007, women wear women's pants. They have been for about six decades already! Get with the times, man!

I mean, it's ok to change attire for you 400 years ago, but not ok for women 60 years ago??

Whatever.

[HeavenlyOne]

you believe that Duet 22 only applies to men ????

how sexist is that ??????????????????????????????????

Once again, dishonesty.

[crakjak]

I certainly am not defenseless, do you think we didn't have boundaries in our house? Brother, prayer is a powerful defense and my wife and I have and still do invoke it liberally, even though all of our children are now over 20 years of age. I don't believe your standards of dress give you near as much protection as you may think. My trust is in the Lord, not in my ability to impose standards. Those that walk in the Spirit abide instinctively within what God requires. Clothes never have prevented lust, adultery, fornication, if it is in the heart in will manifest itself. Get the heart right with God, the outward adornment will be just fine. We focused on right relationship with God for our children, and just modeled modesty in lifestyle, even though it might not quite meet your standards. Of course, we have not accomplished this perfectly, but God is full of grace and has been with us.

Bump for Thad:bump

[LadyChocolate]

Hey, i think I'll join ya!:popcorn2 :hypercoffee soo, is this what we do now since things are calm in our worlds? we get ringside seats!!! way cool!

Bump for LAGirl............

[Thad]

Once again, dishonesty.


that is NOT NOT NOT dishonest!!! YOU are for women wearing pants but deny that you are men wearing dresses??? how is that dishonest ?

[HeavenlyOne]

that is NOT NOT NOT dishonest!!! YOU are for women wearing pants but deny that you are men wearing dresses??? how is that dishonest ?


Thad, what part of 'in this country, men wearing dresses are considered cross-dressing' didn't you understand?

On the same note, women dressing in men's attire are also cross-dressing, but we aren't talking about that. Women dress in women's attire. You saying that I'm believing otherwise is being dishonest.

[Thad]

Thad, we also aren't living in the 1920's! In 2007, women wear women's pants. They have been for about six decades already! Get with the times, man!

I mean, it's ok to change attire for you 400 years ago, but not ok for women 60 years ago??

Whatever.

when it becomes acceptable for men to wear dresses i might change my mind
until then..............................

[Thad]

Thad, what part of 'in this country, men wearing dresses are considered cross-dressing' didn't you understand?

On the same note, women dressing in men's attire are also cross-dressing, but we aren't talking about that. Women dress in women's attire. You saying that I'm believing otherwise is being dishonest.


put your son in one of your sunday dresses and see ! try it out and get back to me

[HeavenlyOne]

when it becomes acceptable for men to wear dresses i might change my mind
until then..............................

This isn't about both men and women needing to wear the same apparel, although they did for thousands of years without anyone having a problem with it.

Thad, it's only been the last 400 years that men deviated from culture to wear a completely different garment than most of the rest of the world and you don't seem to have a problem with that, but women wearing pants for the last 60 years or so you just can't get over without bringing men wearing dresses into the discussion.

It's been nice, but I'm off to bigger and better and MORE honest discussion.

[SoCaliUPC]

Thad, what part of 'in this country, men wearing dresses are considered cross-dressing' didn't you understand?

On the same note, women dressing in men's attire are also cross-dressing, but we aren't talking about that. Women dress in women's attire. You saying that I'm believing otherwise is being dishonest.

Just gonna step in and say.....HeavenlyOne...you know Thad is talking about UPC standards. In the UPC, any type of pant (whether it be a male pant or female pant) is considered men's attire. You know that is where he is coming from.

[Thad]

This isn't about both men and women needing to wear the same apparel, although they did for thousands of years without anyone having a problem with it.

Thad, it's only been the last 400 years that men deviated from culture to wear a completely different garment than most of the rest of the world and you don't seem to have a problem with that, but women wearing pants for the last 60 years or so you just can't get over without bringing men wearing dresses into the discussion.

It's been nice, but I'm off to bigger and better and MORE honest discussion.


I WON THIS FIGHT END OF STORY!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOOOOOOOOO HOOOO !!! YOU LOST FACE IT !!!!!

[HeavenlyOne]

Just gonna step in and say.....HeavenlyOne...you know Thad is talking about UPC standards. In the UPC, any type of pant (whether it be a male pant or female pant) is considered men's attire. You know that is where he is coming from.

Since when does the UPC write the dress code for the entire world?

He isn't reading anything I write, but saying the same things over and over, forcing me to repeat myself over and over. I don't have time for that.

If he truly wants honest discussion, he can study this out for himself and then we'll talk. Until then, someone else can waste their time.

[SoCaliUPC]

Since when does the UPC write the dress code for the entire world?

He isn't reading anything I write, but saying the same things over and over, forcing me to repeat myself over and over. I don't have time for that.

If he truly wants honest discussion, he can study this out for himself and then we'll talk. Until then, someone else can waste their time.

HeavenlyOne....I really think Thad was putting his discussion in the confines of what the UPC and other "holiness" organizations think. You have to know that. Whether he thinks that, seriously, or not....you know Thad...and he was coming to you from the argument of what UPC, ALJC, other "holiness" organizations teach.

What you say...and you have to admit...is directly opposite of what is "taught" in "holiness" churches. Can we agree on that?

[HeavenlyOne]

HeavenlyOne....I really think Thad was putting his discussion in the confines of what the UPC and other "holiness" organizations think. You have to know that. Whether he thinks that, seriously, or not....you know Thad...and he was coming to you from the argument of what UPC, ALJC, other "holiness" organizations teach.

What you say...and you have to admit...is directly opposite of what is "taught" in "holiness" churches. Can we agree on that?

Yes, I agree, as I was raised UPC since the age of 5. I know nothing else.

However, he didn't mention the UPC, but referred to bible scriptures that, while they exist, say nothing he was claiming they said. That's also what I was addressing.

But yes, I know where he's coming from. I argued the same thing for a couple years when first coming on the internet. Someone challenged me to study it for myself instead of repeating what I'd been told and when I was honest with myself, I found that very little of what I was told was even true.

And here I am.

[Thad]

prance your sons around in your sunday Dress and then get back to me!


add some high heels and a purse too while you are at it



Duet22 cannot apply to just men that is Sexist and biased!

[ILG]

a kilt is worn for a festive event. apples and oranges

It still be a skirt, my friend.

[ILG]

* * * IMPORANT NEW LIST * * *



The Following Persons are For Men wearing Dresses ! ! ! ! !
Pro Cross dressing members
Joy
ILG
Cupcake
Renda
Crakjak



more names coming!

Don't falsely accuse my good name!

[ILG]

prance your sons around in your sunday Dress and then get back to me!


add some high heels and a purse too while you are at it



Duet22 cannot apply to just men that is Sexist and biased!

Thad,

I have never been on the recieving end of this kind of thing from you before. I am disappointed.

[CupCake]

**News flash ***
we are not living in achient bible times.
we are not in china in the 4th century.

Do you wear your house robe to the grocery store ?

Thad, really do you think??? Please give proof of were the bible teaches pants are a sin? We are still waiting~

[CupCake]

that is NOT NOT NOT dishonest!!! YOU are for women wearing pants but deny that you are men wearing dresses??? how is that dishonest ?



Because Thad, HeavenlyOne never said what you are claiming! In fact your doing what you all do when your caught in these deception and can't prove what you are saying or able to back it with bible, you twist their words around.

Thad we now have 890 post and still not a one of you have prove that the bible say pants are a sin....Thad Duet 22 is not about pants~

[CupCake]

[/SIZE]


I WON THIS FIGHT END OF STORY!!!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH HOOOOOOOOO HOOOO !!! YOU LOST FACE IT !!!!!

Sorry Thad you lost it before you even made it out the gate! Without bible proof you cannot stand, sadly your house has been built on sand and we are sitting back and watching this false teaching cave in on you~

[CupCake]

However, he didn't mention the UPC, but referred to bible scriptures that, while they exist, say nothing he was claiming they said. That's also what I was addressing.



HeavenlyOne~ Your not alone Thad has not even answer my post as well, nor has he given bible scriptures to backup his so-called no pants teachings of man.

Yes SoCaliUPC is right about the UPC teaching this, sadly they leave their members at a lost when it comes to having a sensibility bible discussions with others outside their box, they really don't know the word, they are clueless, they just repeat the nonsense they been handed down as a truth, end up looking like fools in the end~

[SoCaliUPC]

Thad, really do you think??? Please give proof of were the bible teaches pants are a sin? We are still waiting~

If you know anything about Thad, he will make statements to create discussion and dialogue. Most of the time, he takes the UPC view and argues from that point. In the UPC, women wearing pants is wrong and viewed very negatively. If a UPC woman wore pants they would automatically think she has backslid and sinning.

Thad may hold to this view, don't know....I just know that he does come to some discussions from the UPC "view" to engage dialogue....from both sides.

[HeavenlyOne]

Because Thad, HeavenlyOne never said what you are claiming! In fact your doing what you all do when your caught in these deception and can't prove what you are saying or able to back it with bible, you twist their words around.

Thad we now have 890 post and still not a one of you have prove that the bible say pants are a sin....Thad Duet 22 is not about pants~

Thad isn't one to have honest discussion. I should have known better than to fall in this trap to begin with. Then it would have been a thread with 37 posts instead of almost 900.

[HeavenlyOne]

If you know anything about Thad, he will make statements to create discussion and dialogue. Most of the time, he takes the UPC view and argues from that point. In the UPC, women wearing pants is wrong and viewed very negatively. If a UPC woman wore pants they would automatically think she has backslid and sinning.

Thad may hold to this view, don't know....I just know that he does come to some discussions from the UPC "view" to engage dialogue....from both sides.

I'd rather have a dialogue from the Biblical view. The above explains why Thad couldn't post specific scripture cause he's only repeating what he's been taught.

[SoCaliUPC]

Thad isn't one to have honest discussion. I should have known better than to fall in this trap to begin with. Then it would have been a thread with 37 posts instead of almost 900.

Thad can answer for himself....but I really think you miss the point of his posts (or maybe I am just misreading them). As I explained above, and last night, he will approach discussions from a UPC standpoint. You have to admit, whether right or wrong, the UPC has a "view" of exactly what he was arguing with you last night. How many times have you heard a woman wearing pants, make-up and cut hair as sinning? I think you would have the same complaint if you were arguing against rrford, IAM, and Epley.....however, they are probably being honest in their discussion...as you are being honest in yours.

[SoCaliUPC]

I'd rather have a dialogue from the Biblical view. The above explains why Thad couldn't post specific scripture cause he's only repeating what he's been taught.

However, your view and the view of say...rrford, is going to be very different. They can show specific scripture however your view and his view of the same scripture are going to be different....and both of you will say it's biblically based...correct?

[Thad]

* * * QUESTION * * *


To all of you Who advocate women in Pants!

How about If I bring my Choir to sing at your church, All the Women will wear Pants (as you like) and ALL the Men will wear Dresses!!! How's that?? Wouldn't you Love that ????HOw would that go over ???

[Glenda B]

Frankly Brother, I could see no difference. After all right is right and wrong is wrong. You can not put degrees of things of this nature.

[HeavenlyOne]

However, your view and the view of say...rrford, is going to be very different. They can show specific scripture however your view and his view of the same scripture are going to be different....and both of you will say it's biblically based...correct?

The difference is, I don't read anything into that scripture. I read it exactly as it's written.

I don't believe women should wear men's clothing nor should men wear a woman's garment. It's that simple.

[HeavenlyOne]

Thad can answer for himself....but I really think you miss the point of his posts (or maybe I am just misreading them). As I explained above, and last night, he will approach discussions from a UPC standpoint. You have to admit, whether right or wrong, the UPC has a "view" of exactly what he was arguing with you last night. How many times have you heard a woman wearing pants, make-up and cut hair as sinning? I think you would have the same complaint if you were arguing against rrford, IAM, and Epley.....however, they are probably being honest in their discussion...as you are being honest in yours.

I'm not understanding how wanting a Biblical discussion instead of an organizational one makes ME the liberal! LOL!

[SoCaliUPC]

I'm not understanding how wanting a Biblical discussion instead of an organizational one makes ME the liberal! LOL!

I don't think anyone has said you are a liberal....however, given your statements...in the eyes of some, you are that. I will say that some will say that, indeed, the whole pants on women is a Biblical...not organizational...one.

I would really like to see you and one of our elders debate this. I have a feeling that you will be saying you want an honest discussion with them as well.

[Thad]

I'm not understanding how wanting a Biblical discussion instead of an organizational one makes ME the liberal! LOL!

joy most of you believe that none of the scriptures that have been pointed out apply. That's why i keep saying that since those who believe this, have no scripture against ANY Lawless behavior concerning Dress.

I take it that you are a strong advocate of women's rights ? (not making any assumptions). If so, what if the tables were turned here? what if Men were allowed to wear both dresses and Pants but women could only wear Dresses ?? wouldn't you think that was a little off ?? You want to apply Dut 22:5 to "MEN ONLY" and that's is not right!

[CupCake]

If you know anything about Thad, he will make statements to create discussion and dialogue. Most of the time, he takes the UPC view and argues from that point. In the UPC, women wearing pants is wrong and viewed very negatively. If a UPC woman wore pants they would automatically think she has backslid and sinning.

Thad may hold to this view, don't know....I just know that he does come to some discussions from the UPC "view" to engage dialogue....from both sides.

SoCaliUPC~I hear you~ When I was UPC I said what they said, back it up even if it was dead wrong, no proof. Hey if they said the sky was pink, sure enough it was pink, even tho it clearly was blue....Sheep thing.....;)

[CupCake]

Thad isn't one to have honest discussion. I should have known better than to fall in this trap to begin with. Then it would have been a thread with 37 posts instead of almost 900.

When you think about it heavenly one that's pretty sad, to think they profess to know God, yet be so dishonest ~ Turning untruths into truths, what can we expect but confusing on their part~

[SoCaliUPC]

SoCaliUPC~I hear you~ When I was UPC I said what they said, back it up even if it was dead wrong, no proof. Hey if they said the sky was pink, sure enough it was pink, even tho it clearly was blue....Sheep thing.....;)


I hear ya.

[CupCake]

joy most of you believe that none of the scriptures that have been pointed out apply. That's why i keep saying that since those who believe this, have no scripture against ANY Lawless behavior concerning Dress.

I take it that you are a strong advocate of women's rights ? (not making any assumptions). If so, what if the tables were turned here? what if Men were allowed to wear both dresses and Pants but women could only wear Dresses ?? wouldn't you think that was a little off ?? You want to apply Dut 22:5 to "MEN ONLY" and that's is not right!

Thad~ You are wrong, Duet 22 is not about pants! It's about behavior~

2nd Corinthians 11:1-4

"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive ANOTHER SPIRIT, which ye have not received, or ANOTHER GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” .

In 2nd Corinthians 11:1-4, Paul warns us that some people are dangerous and extremely hazardous to our spiritual health. There are many people today, just as then, who preach ANOTHER JESUS—not the Jesus which the Scriptures portray. If someone comes along and teaches that Jesus never died on the cross, then you know he’s an imposter, heretic~

This here is where the teaching of dress standard has become another Gospel in it's self~If someone teaches that trusting Jesus as Savior is not enough in itself to be saved, then you know that he is of the devil !~

Paul also warns us of those who bring in another gospel or another spirit , “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, "this includes the outward dress teachings" whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, "this would be one of man" !

The Gospel is the “good news” of salvation., by God’s grace through our faith in Christ alone. There are religions everywhere which teach OTHER methods of getting to Heaven. Like the outward teaching as a sign. A sign to whom? They do this to their own destruction!

[B]If anything Thad, your a great example of what happens when someone feeds of the breast of an organization they stay on milk way to long~ You need to move on to meat of the word, get understanding, the food of God!

[HeavenlyOne]

I don't think anyone has said you are a liberal....however, given your statements...in the eyes of some, you are that. I will say that some will say that, indeed, the whole pants on women is a Biblical...not organizational...one.

I would really like to see you and one of our elders debate this. I have a feeling that you will be saying you want an honest discussion with them as well.

Maybe you missed the several posts where Thad claimed I believed something that I never said nor implied.

Just because you don't like Fords doesn't mean you love Chevy's.

That's how Thad discusses issues, and that's the dishonesty I was addressing.

I have discussed this issue with several people, most of whom had honest discussion even if we disagreed in the end.

[Subdued]

Just gonna step in and say.....HeavenlyOne...you know Thad is talking about UPC standards. In the UPC, any type of pant (whether it be a male pant or female pant) is considered men's attire. You know that is where he is coming from.

But Thad doesn't believe that both male & female pants are men's attire. He has already said that he would NOT buy/wear pants bought from the women's department.

Thad, why wouldn't you buy or wear pants from the women's department?

[Subdued]

If so, what if the tables were turned here? what if Men were allowed to wear both dresses and Pants but women could only wear Dresses ?? wouldn't you think that was a little off ?? You want to apply Dut 22:5 to "MEN ONLY" and that's is not right!

So you whole arguement is that it's not fair?

[Whole Hearted]

* * * QUESTION * * *


To all of you Who advocate women in Pants!

How about If I bring my Choir to sing at your church, All the Women will wear Pants (as you like) and ALL the Men will wear Dresses!!! How's that?? Wouldn't you Love that ????HOw would that go over ???

:killinme :heeheehee :toofunny :slaphappy

Thad your wasting your time with some here. They don't want Truth, they want to live like the world.

[SoCaliUPC]

But Thad doesn't believe that both male & female pants are men's attire. He has already said that he would NOT buy/wear pants bought from the women's department.

Thad, why wouldn't you buy or wear pants from the women's department?

You know and I know....and I think Thad knows....that women's pants are made differently. There is a distinctive look to them.

However, according to the UPC...this is wrong and is still men's attire. You grew up UPC and I think still part of it....you know this to be true.

No man, Thad included, would buy pants in the woman's section.....because they would be obviously female pants. HOWEVER....the very idea that it is PANTS is what makes a distinction.

[Subdued]

You know and I know....and I think Thad knows....that women's pants are made differently. There is a distinctive look to them.

However, according to the UPC...this is wrong and is still men's attire. You grew up UPC and I think still part of it....you know this to be true.

No man, Thad included, would buy pants in the woman's section.....because they would be obviously female pants. HOWEVER....the very idea that it is PANTS is what makes a distinction.

I understand what you're saying as I was raised UPC; however, he can't have it both ways - he can't say that ALL pants are men's attire AND that he would never wear pants from the women's department because they are women's pant.

[SoCaliUPC]

I understand what you're saying as I was raised UPC; however, he can't have it both ways - he can't say that ALL pants are men's attire AND that he would never wear pants from the women's department because they are women's pant.

Would love to hear what a UPC minister has to say on all of this.

[HeavenlyOne]

You know and I know....and I think Thad knows....that women's pants are made differently. There is a distinctive look to them.

However, according to the UPC...this is wrong and is still men's attire. You grew up UPC and I think still part of it....you know this to be true.

No man, Thad included, would buy pants in the woman's section.....because they would be obviously female pants. HOWEVER....the very idea that it is PANTS is what makes a distinction.

Be honest here, Socali...you live in California and I'm sure you see lots of things that many of us others don't.

Do you consider men who wear women's pants to be cross-dressing? Or do you feel that it's ok, cause they are, after all (according to the UPC) to be men's apparel in disguise?

[ILG]

* * * QUESTION * * *


To all of you Who advocate women in Pants!

How about If I bring my Choir to sing at your church, All the Women will wear Pants (as you like) and ALL the Men will wear Dresses!!! How's that?? Wouldn't you Love that ????HOw would that go over ???

Contrary to UPC thought, pants are not the opposite of skirts/dresses.

[HeavenlyOne]

Contrary to UPC thought, pants are not the opposite of skirts/dresses.

So says you!!!


ROFL!

[CupCake]

:killinme :heeheehee :toofunny :slaphappy

Thad your wasting your time with some here. They don't want Truth, they want to live like the world.

this statement above is a flat out lie, you people tend to have a hard time with truth and keeping your facts straight. Talk about a spirit of confusion, you people have it bad~ You teach another gospel another way other then Grace, you are standing on dangerous grounds with God!

Back to subject~

Deut 22:5 IS NOT ABOUT PANTS~ PLEASE SHOW BIBLE TO BACKUP THIS FLAT OUT LIE YOU LOVE TO INFORCE AS A HEVEN OR HELL!

[CupCake]

Be honest here, Socali...you live in California and I'm sure you see lots of things that many of us others don't.

Do you consider men who wear women's pants to be cross-dressing? Or do you feel that it's ok, cause they are, after all (according to the UPC) to be men's apparel in disguise?

heavenly one~ I live out in the sticks, I kid you not you'll see it here. Many of the young teenage guys wear gals pants it's the fad right now, and you can tell, they fit really wrong in the private places, guys pants hang in the crouch, womens don't ~

[Thad]

Contrary to UPC thought, pants are not the opposite of skirts/dresses.


then your lines of distinction are blurred. that's why I asked and you wouldn't give me a direct answer, could we come and sing and have the men wear dresses with lace and the women wear blue jeans ??

[Subdued]

then your lines of distinction are blurred. that's why I asked and you wouldn't give me a direct answer, could we come and sing and have the men wear dresses with lace and the women wear blue jeans ??

God did well enough on His own to make a distinction between the sexes. In general:

Men grow facial hair, women do not.
Men bald with age, women do not.
Men have a larger, broader frame; women have a smaller frame.
Even the skeletal structure differs; men's legs are kind of like this: | | Women's are more like this: \ /
The bone structure of a man's face is more rugged-looking; a woman's face has smooth curves.
Women, of course, have breast - men don't.
Men have hairy arms, chest, hands & feet - women do not.
Men are usually taller - women shorter.
Men have deeper voices - women generally have higher voices.
Men have an "Adam's Apple" - women don't.
Men are usually more muscular than women.
Men and women differ in their interests, the way they walk, the way the talk, the way they think, the way the respond & react - they differ in MANY ways.

I was driving down my street the other day & saw two young teens walking. One was male, the other female. I had no problem telling which was the boy and which was the girl, even from a great distance away... And they both had pants on.

The boy was a bit broader, and the way they each walked made it very obvious that one was male, and one was female. Even their hand movements when they talked were distinct; making it clear who was a guy and who was a girl.

God, Himself, has done a WONDERFUL job at CLEARLY defining the distinctions between men and women. A pair of pants on a women will not confuse me as to her gender.

[HeavenlyOne]

God did well enough on His own to make a distinction between the sexes. In general:

Men grow facial hair, women do not.
Men bald with age, women do not.
Men have a larger, broader frame; women have a smaller frame.
Even the skeletal structure differs; men's legs are kind of like this: | | Women's are more like this: \ /
The bone structure of a man's face is more rugged-looking; a woman's face has smooth curves.
Women, of course, have breast - men don't.
Men have hairy arms, chest, hands & feet - women do not.
Men are usually taller - women shorter.
Men have deeper voices - women generally have higher voices.
Men have an "Adam's Apple" - women don't.
Men are usually more muscular than women.
Men and women differ in their interests, the way they walk, the way the talk, the way they think, the way the respond & react - they differ in MANY ways.

I was driving down my street the other day & saw two young teens walking. One was male, the other female. I had no problem telling which was the boy and which was the girl, even from a great distance away... And they both had pants on.

The boy was a bit broader, and the way they each walked made it very obvious that one was male, and one was female. Even their hand movements when they talked were distinct; making it clear who was a guy and who was a girl.

God, Himself, has done a WONDERFUL job at CLEARLY defining the distinctions between men and women. A pair of pants on a women will not confuse me as to her gender.

I find it strange that people talk about how pants blur the gender distinctions lines when until 400 years ago, men and women wore the same similar garment. There are some who aren't realizing this even though it's been posted numerous times now.

Funny you should mention the above story though, cause I saw several teens walking down the street the other day and I was able to tell who was male and who was female even though they were all wearing pants.

[Subdued]

How on earth could a person distinguish between the sexes back in biblical times when both men & women wore robes?




























(TIC, of course.)

[Subdued]

I find it strange that people talk about how pants blur the gender distinctions lines when until 400 years ago, men and women wore the same similar garment. There are some who aren't realizing this even though it's been posted numerous times now.

H1, I'm sure everyone realizes that both men & women wore similar garments years ago. For them to discuss & acknowledge it would present quite a dilemma [for them]... don'thcha' think?

Afterall, how would Deut. 22:5 be explained knowing that men & women dressed in similar attire when this scripture was written???? Even a quick/brief study on this scripture will prove that it is not saying that women cannot wear women's pants. And, it's been asked several times but not answered; WHY won't men here on AFF wear pants bought from the women's department? For some reason, this question has been ignored, forum after forum.

[HeavenlyOne]

H1, I'm sure everyone realizes that both men & women wore similar garments years ago. For them to discuss & acknowledge it would present quite a dilemma [for them]... don'thcha' think?

Afterall, how would Deut. 22:5 be explained knowing that men & women dressed in similar attire when this scripture was written???? Even a quick/brief study on this scripture will prove that it is not saying that women cannot wear women's pants. And, it's been asked several times but not answered; WHY won't men here on AFF wear pants bought from the women's department? For some reason, this question has been ignored, forum after forum.

Wearing women's pants would make them cross-dressers, but they can't admit it because it creates a paradox for them.

I don't see what the big deal is in being honest.

[Subdued]

Wearing women's pants would make them cross-dressers, but they can't admit it because it creates a paradox for them.

I don't see what the big deal is in being honest.

I would just like an honest answer to the question: Why won't you (men) wear pants from the women's department? And it's not to say, "Gotcha!" It's to further the discussion.

Also, this question: If men & women wore similar garments in biblical times, why would it be wrong for men & women to wear similar garments today?

[HeavenlyOne]

I would just like an honest answer to the question: Why won't you (men) wear pants from the women's department? And it's not to say, "Gotcha!" It's to further the discussion.

Also, this question: If men & women wore similar garments in biblical times, why would it be wrong for men & women to wear similar garments today?

No logic is allowed on this thread. Go away.

[CupCake]

God, Himself, has done a WONDERFUL job at CLEARLY defining the distinctions between men and women. A pair of pants on a women will not confuse me as to her gender.

Amen~ God defines it quit well~

[CupCake]

I don't see what the big deal is in being honest.

The deal is this HeavenlyOne, they lived this lie for so long it's now deemed a truth~ To change it now would shake their faith, many of them hold to the outward as their salvation, after all it's easier to change and fool others with the outward man then the inner heart of one, God see the real you and I. They don't trust God, they seek after a sign, a dress one at that~ truly sad .

[Whole Hearted]

When the heart is right it wil show on the outside.

[CupCake]

When the heart is right it wil show on the outside.

Sure, but nothing to due with dress~ What should show forth is God perfect agape (Jesus) on the outward to the world ~

[Subdued]

When the heart is right it wil show on the outside.

Modesty & moderation come to mind. And if pants are immodest for women, they're also immodest for men.

[The Mrs]

Modesty & moderation come to mind. And if pants are immodest for women, they're also immodest for men.

Burkhas for ALL!!! :preach

[The Mrs]

Burkhas for ALL!!! :preach


Oh, wait!

That would be unisex wouldn't it??? :dunno




:toofunny

[Scott Hutchinson]

Hey Mrs ,you've got a Burka at least on GNC you do.
I don't want my wife to wear a burka cause I like drooling over her elbows ,they drive me wild.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Oh, wait!

That would be unisex wouldn't it??? :dunno




:toofunny

This is a Christian forum sex talk ain't allowed here.

[HeavenlyOne]

When the heart is right it wil show on the outside.

Absolutely, but saying that refutes what you and others claim about certain attire giving the appearance that someone is right on the inside.

To me, it's better to teach modesty. That's not usually preached on anymore.

[HeavenlyOne]

Oh, wait!

That would be unisex wouldn't it??? :dunno




:toofunny

It's not different than suggesting robes for everyone!

Oh wait.....we been there, done that already.

[Scott Hutchinson]

If a Christian is really sincere about glorifying God with their body ,then provactive dress won't be something that person will wear ,motive comes into play.

[HeavenlyOne]

Hey Mrs ,you've got a Burka at least on GNC you do.
I don't want my wife to wear a burka cause I like drooling over her elbows ,they drive me wild.

This is a Christian forum sex talk ain't allowed here.

Practice what you preach, boy!!

LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

If a Christian is really sincere about glorifying God with their body ,then provactive dress won't be something that person will wear ,motive comes into play.

I totally agree!!!

[Scott Hutchinson]

Practice what you preach, boy!!

LOL!

Oh yes ,my goodness I got carried away with a silly spell.

[The Mrs]

Hey Mrs ,you've got a Burka at least on GNC you do.
I don't want my wife to wear a burka cause I like drooling over her elbows ,they drive me wild.

Ja, you betcha!!!

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l76/_TheMrs_/burkathisAV.jpg

[Scott Hutchinson]

Being modest is also a balancing act.I'll pick on the sisters ,ok a Christian woman dressed like a hooker excuse me if you will would be out of line.
But a Christian woman dressed in colonial garb would be inappropiate for today's society.
A man dressed in a Abraham Lincoln suit would look weird ,but a man running around in shorts with no shirt in public would be wrong as well.

[SoCaliUPC]

Being modest is also a balancing act.I'll pick on the sisters ,ok a Christian woman dressed like a hooker excuse me if you will would be out of line.
But a Christian woman dressed in colonial garb would be inappropiate for today's society.
A man dressed in a Abraham Lincoln suit would look weird ,but a man running around in shorts with no short in public would be wrong as well.

You are right Scott....a man running around in shorts with NO SHORTS in public would be inappropriate. HEHEHEHE!

[Scott Hutchinson]

You are right Scott....a man running around in shorts with NO SHORTS in public would be inappropriate. HEHEHEHE!

I meant a man in shorts with no shirt would be immodest.

[ILG]

then your lines of distinction are blurred. that's why I asked and you wouldn't give me a direct answer, could we come and sing and have the men wear dresses with lace and the women wear blue jeans ??

Those folks back in Jesus day had blurred lines of distinction too. They wore robes!!

[Subdued]

Those folks back in Jesus day had blurred lines of distinction too. They wore robes!!

It's amazing that they were able to tell the difference, isn't it?!

[ILG]

It's amazing that they were able to tell the difference, isn't it?!

I'm surprised the world is still populated!:D

[HeavenlyOne]

Oh yes ,my goodness I got carried away with a silly spell.

I'm glad you are a silly guy.

[Thad]

Those folks back in Jesus day had blurred lines of distinction too. They wore robes!!


Oh of course ILG~! Jesus was a cross Dresser and in his Time they were really into Bi-Sexual Attire

[ILG]

Oh of course ILG~! Jesus was a cross Dresser and in his Time they were really into Bi-Sexual Attire

Sounds like that is what YOU are saying. After all, if you wear the same shape of garment, you are blurring distinctions!!

[Coonskinner]

I guess the question is, was there a move toward the unisex philosophy, a blurring of genders in role, appearance, distinction, etc. in the days of Jesus like there is now?

Was feminism a force to be reckoned with then as it is now?

Was the God-ordained family structure under attack then as it is now?

The adversary is doing things today in society that the Apostles didn't have to deal with.

The application of Scriptural prinicples in the context of the battle we fight in this generation is a must.

So this tired old deal about robes doesn't cut much ice.

[Emma Bontrager]

Was feminism a force to be reckoned with then as it is now?

Feminism did not exist before the 1960's. Women did not think before then.

Was the God-ordained family structure under attack then as it is now?

There was never any divorce or family trouble before the 1960's.

The adversary is doing things today in society that the Apostles didn't have to deal with.

That's right! The scripture that says "There is nothing new under the sun" was added by some sinister plot to make us think otherwise!

The application of Scriptural prinicples in the context of the battle we fight in this generation is a must.

So this tired old deal about robes doesn't cut much ice.

I certainly agree. They could both wear robes in Jesus day because women did no thinking and no railing, there was no divorce and no family trouble. You go Coonskinner!

[Coonskinner]

Feminism did not exist before the 1960's. Women did not think before then.



There was never any divorce or family trouble before the 1960's.



That's right! The scripture that says "There is nothing new under the sun" was added by some sinister plot to make us think otherwise!



I certainly agree. They could both wear robes in Jesus day because women did no thinking and no railing, there was no divorce and no family trouble. You go Coonskinner!

ILG,

You can poke fun if you like, but you know very well that these things have risen tremendously in our society in the last few decades.

This is a nice way of ducking what you cannot refute.

[Emma Bontrager]

ILG,

You can poke fun if you like, but you know very well that these things have risen tremendously in our society in the last few decades.

This is a nice way of ducking what you cannot refute.

They HAVE raised in our society. I think the Romans had these problems too, but that doesn't count because it might make our argument look weak.

[Whole Hearted]

I guess the question is, was there a move toward the unisex philosophy, a blurring of genders in role, appearance, distinction, etc. in the days of Jesus like there is now?

Was feminism a force to be reckoned with then as it is now?

Was the God-ordained family structure under attack then as it is now?

The adversary is doing things today in society that the Apostles didn't have to deal with.

The application of Scriptural prinicples in the context of the battle we fight in this generation is a must.

So this tired old deal about robes doesn't cut much ice.

AMEN BROTHER KEEPON PREACHEN

[Coonskinner]

They HAVE raised in our society. I think the Romans had these problems too, but that doesn't count because it might make our argument look weak.


You see what happened to Rome too.

That doesn't make any argument look weak, the opposite actually.

Look, Sis, you have chosen your path, and that is fine. By your own admission the other day, some of your decision was impacted by what you saw as heavy handed coercion. You said that if the UPC had taught the skirt/dress thing in a less authoritarian manner, you might well be wearing skirts every day.

So how strong does that make your position look? That reacting against something that rubbed you wrong is a proper motive? Give us all a break.:)

Almost every person I have ever known who walked away from the Apostolic church seems obsessed with convincing themselves and everyone who will listen that they really didn't nake a mistake, that they really are ok, that they really are more spiritual and happy and liberated and whatever else than they were when they were in that awful bondage.

At least for a season, this seems the way it is, until they finally get that little twinge of conscience totally silenced.

So anyway, keep on plugging.

Some of these days, it won't bother you much anymore. :)

[ILG]

You see what happened to Rome too.

That doesn't make any argument look weak, the opposite actually.

Look, Sis, you have chosen your path, and that is fine. By your own admission the other day, some of your decision was impacted by what you saw as heavy handed coercion. You said that if the UPC had taught the skirt/dress thing in a less authoritarian manner, you might well be wearing skirts every day.

So how strong does that make your position look? That reacting against something that rubbed you wrong is a proper motive? Give us all a break.:)

Almost every person I have ever known who walked away from the Apostolic church seems obsessed with convincing themselves and everyone who will listen that they really didn't nake a mistake, that they really are ok, that they really are more spiritual and happy and liberated and whatever else than they were when they were in that awful bondage.

At least for a season, this seems the way it is, until they finally get that little twinge of conscience totally silenced.

So anyway, keep on plugging.

Some of these days, it won't bother you much anymore. :)

There is nothing new under the sun. That's is what the Bible says, CS.

As for the rest, I don't need to reply. Standards are not salvational and if taking a stand against that is wrong in your mind...it is your opinion ,which you are entitled to.

[Jack Shephard]

I guess the question is, was there a move toward the unisex philosophy, a blurring of genders in role, appearance, distinction, etc. in the days of Jesus like there is now?

Was feminism a force to be reckoned with then as it is now?

Was the God-ordained family structure under attack then as it is now?

The adversary is doing things today in society that the Apostles didn't have to deal with.

The application of Scriptural prinicples in the context of the battle we fight in this generation is a must.

So this tired old deal about robes doesn't cut much ice.

Coon, you are very close to hitting the nail directly square. There may have been "gender bending" back then as it is now. The major difference is I believe that it was more a struggle for power and authority. Thus the verses on in Corinthians about hair or more to the point the family structure as you said. If my wife cuts a foot off her hair it will still be 2 feet long. That is longer than most women at most churches in most cities. If she did so that would not bother me, for I have no conviction on womens hair. I am not a women so not my conviction. What I can tell you is that challenge of authority has little to do with hair this age that it most likely did back then. That is from reading an article Dan put on here. :nod

[Coonskinner]

Coon, you are very close to hitting the nail directly square. There may have been "gender bending" back then as it is now. The major difference is I believe that it was more a struggle for power and authority. Thus the verses on in Corinthians about hair or more to the point the family structure as you said. If my wife cuts a foot off her hair it will still be 2 feet long. That is longer than most women at most churches in most cities. If she did so that would not bother me, for I have no conviction on womens hair. I am not a women so not my conviction. What I can tell you is that challenge of authority has little to do with hair this age that it most likely did back then. That is from reading an article Dan put on here. :nod

I think there is definitely a greater challenge to authority now than then, and that there is a much greater power struggle now than then.

However, I still believe that we need to follow the teachings of the Scripture both inwardly and outwardly. There is a dnager in over-spiritualizing everything and just making it allegorical and symbolic.

On Passover night, it was importnat that the blood actually be on the doorpost.

When Moses was on his way to Egypt, God sought to kill him because he had not literally performed the circumcisions required by the covenant. He was obeying God, heading for Egypt, but God required obedience to the commandment.

Baptism must be administered. The water doesn't literally wash away the sin; the Blood does that. But without our obedience to the literal comand, it doesn't happen.

Thus, I believe in obeying both the letter and the spirit of Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 11.

[rrford]

Feminism did not exist before the 1960's. Women did not think before then.



There was never any divorce or family trouble before the 1960's.



That's right! The scripture that says "There is nothing new under the sun" was added by some sinister plot to make us think otherwise!



I certainly agree. They could both wear robes in Jesus day because women did no thinking and no railing, there was no divorce and no family trouble. You go Coonskinner!


Hey, you just batted 0 for 4. Wrong on all responses. But thanks for playing.

[Jack Shephard]

I think there is definitely a greater challenge to authority now than then, and that there is a much greater power struggle now than then.

However, I still believe that we need to follow the teachings of the Scripture both inwardly and outwardly. There is a dnager in over-spiritualizing everything and just making it allegorical and symbolic.

On Passover night, it was importnat that the blood actually be on the doorpost.

When Moses was on his way to Egypt, God sought to kill him because he had not literally performed the circumcisions required by the covenant. He was obeying God, heading for Egypt, but God required obedience to the commandment.

Baptism must be administered. The water doesn't literally wash away the sin; the Blood does that. But without our obedience to the literal comand, it doesn't happen.

Thus, I believe in obeying both the letter and the spirit of Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 11.

I know what you are saying about the blood on the door posts, etc. That would have caused death if they did not do that. But the hair thing I honestly do not see it the same way. Not out of rebelion I see it more as speaking to authority challenges of that day. I agree that it is a bigger atack today, but if you read that article Dan posted on here then you may see why I see it that way. The article explains it better than I can, but it does talk about the other major belief/religion that they were fighting then.

I tell you this that if God convicts me then I will believe it. I have prayed about it. I see it more the womens obedience to her head, the Husband. But I could be wrong...But the big thing it says nothing about being a sin or damnable. IMO

[rrford]

There is nothing new under the sun. That's is what the Bible says, CS.

As for the rest, I don't need to reply. Standards are not salvational and if taking a stand against that is wrong in your mind...it is your opinion ,which you are entitled to.

Context is critical when applying these types of scriptures. The way you are attempting to appply it is incorrect, IMO.

[Coonskinner]

Context is critical when applying these types of scriptures. The way you are attempting to appply it is incorrect, IMO.


Precisely.

[Carpenter]

It is so amazing to me to witness an entire religious movement cannonizing their scriptural inferences.

It is equally amazing to me how the UPC is now more than ever a one scripture religious movement.

They base entire doctrines on one verse of scripture here one there and neither have any context or connection.

One-scripture wonders...

[rrford]

It is so amazing to me to witness an entire religious movement cannonizing their scriptural inferences.

It is equally amazing to me how the UPC is now more than ever a one scripture religious movement.

They base entire doctrines on one verse of scripture here one there and neither have any context or connection.

One-scripture wonders...

Get a new schtick Carp. Some of us are way beyond one scripture basis for what we teach. I do understand what you are saying and nknow some have little foundation.

And if you are going to be fair and unbiased how about the one scripture wonders for the liberal view? I see as much on that side as I do on this side.

[Coonskinner]

Before someone trots it out and runs it around the corral for us to check the brand, let me say that the old argument about the mouth of two ro three witnesses is out of context the way it is generally used.

That was speaking of receiving accusations of wrongdoing, not formulating doctrine.

And the one-Scripture argument is also bogus.

Likke rrford said, most of us are a little more advanced than that.

[Carpenter]

Get a new schtick Carp. Some of us are way beyond one scripture basis for what we teach. I do understand what you are saying and nknow some have little foundation.

And if you are going to be fair and unbiased how about the one scripture wonders for the liberal view? I see as much on that side as I do on this side.

Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.

I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply?

[Coonskinner]

Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.

I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply?

There is no way verse 16 is avoided...that is Paul saying that if anybody teaches it any other way, they are being contentious, because this is the doctrine of the church.

[Jack Shephard]

Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.

I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply?

Good idea there Carp, but other translations state this, 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.

I do not agree that women cutting their hair is wrong, but what you said was incorrect scripture. Although you would think that what it is saying is "we have no such custom," but the other translations state what I wrote above

[Coonskinner]

Absolutely not. That is not my point. I am not saying anything about the liberal position. When Coonskinner said he preaches the spirit of I Cor 11 he is saying his opinion of 1 Cor 11 as scriptural cannon and it is flat wrong. The problem is that he HAS to teach the spirit as sovereign because there IS no...absolutely no supportive scriptures throughout the rest of the bible.

I keep wondering as well why in this spirit of interpretation is verse 16 totally avoided...But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What spirit of the regulation does this imply?

NIV: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God."

NLT: " But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. "

NASB: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. "

RDV: "If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God."



You picked the wrong tactic that time, carp.

[Coonskinner]

Good idea there Carp, but other translations state this, 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.

I do not agree that women cutting their hair is wrong, but what you said was incorrect scripture. Although you would think that what it is saying is "we have no such custom," but the other translations state what I wrote above


It would be dumb for Paul to spend 16 verses of Holy Writ making a case for something, and then say, "Oh, but if anybody disagrees with this, nix it."

Yeah, right.

[Jack Shephard]

It would be dumb for Paul to spend 16 verses of Holy Writ making a case for something, and then say, "Oh, but if anybody disagrees with this, nix it."

Yeah, right.

coon, that is not what I said. I told Carp that verse he quoted was not what was being said.

[Coonskinner]

coon, that is not what I said. I told Carp that verse he quoted was not what was being said.

I was agreeing with you.:)

Affirming part of what you were saying.

[Carpenter]

Ok point taken, I am not a student of other translations.

What exactly is the spirit of that chapter as you have referred to Coonskinner? I in no wise have seen anything there that would indicate that a woman cannot cut her hair without hell and damnation as a result...and btw how it is preached in the Apostolic church.

[Coonskinner]

Ok point taken, I am not a student of other translations.

What exactly is the spirit of that chapter as you have referred to Coonskinner? I in no wise have seen anything there that would indicate that a woman cannot cut her hair without hell and damnation as a result...and btw how it is preached in the Apostolic church.

Submission to headship and authority, Carp.

[Jack Shephard]

I was agreeing with you.:)

Affirming part of what you were saying.

Miss read, there you go with that Apostolic School education

[Carpenter]

Submission to headship and authority, Carp.

...and how does this translate to a woman cutting or not cutting their hair and who is the headship and authority?

[Coonskinner]

...and how does this translate to a woman cutting or not cutting their hair and who is the headship and authority?

Paul made the connection.

What is the connection between baptism and the washing away of sin, since sin is not a physical substance that can be washed away by water?

Why does God accept hand clapping as valid praise?

Come on, carp. You are better than this.

[Jack Shephard]

Paul made the connection.

What is the connection between baptism and the washing away of sin, since sin is not a physical substance that can be washed away by water?

Why does God accept hand clapping as valid praise?

Come on, carp. You are better than this.

Off topic here the topic is about girls leggings. Which is not wrong.

[Coonskinner]

Off topic here the topic is about girls leggings. Which is not wrong.

Actually, we experienced some thread drift, which is not unusual.

I was pointing out that there was precedent for outward symbols of inward consecrations.

[HeavenlyOne]

ILG,

You can poke fun if you like, but you know very well that these things have risen tremendously in our society in the last few decades.

This is a nice way of ducking what you cannot refute.

CS, don't you realize that every generation says what you have above?

And like ILG said, there is nothing new under the sun.

There were agendas we read about in the Bible. There were entire cities that were homosexual in nature. Paul preached about women being under submission for a reason. There were prostitutes and drunks then.

It's really not any different, except that today we have media that helps us hear about it more often. Without media, most of us would be clueless, especially those of us who don't live in or near a large city.

But I do remember my grandparents speak about days gone by and how the next generation was worse than theirs, yet those people are now grandparents today, speaking about the next generation being worse, and then there's you and I, speaking about how things are getting worse.

Yet, when objective comparisons are done, there are some things that are better than they were in days gone by, and others that are worse, but overall, it's about the same.

[ILG]

Hey, you just batted 0 for 4. Wrong on all responses. But thanks for playing.

You are right! Emma's elevator doesn't always go to the top. ;)

[ChTatum]

For the sake of consistency, if bifurcated garments are wrong, so are the leggings.

Here is a strange take from a "liberal".....

I don't find it modest that the leggings extend past the hemline of a skirt. It draws attention to an undergarment, which is so named for a reason.

Praise God, I may be seeing the light!

"Coming home, coming home, never more to roam."

(feel free to join in)