Originally Posted by iceniez (Post 874527)

So true, but how does one seperate the Church from Jesus. Or Jesus from the Church ?

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 874510)

If other parts of the law of Moses apply today --like animal sacrifices; sabbath days and sabbath years; tithing; circumcision; Aaronic priesthood; kosher food; garment fringe; etc. apply today, then the ban on bifurcated garments for women would also apply.

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 874533)

Except there never was a ban on bifurcated garments for women in the law.

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 874538)

I know that.
I'm speaking a little TIC here.

I'm saying that if we believe Deut. 22:5 applies to modern "pants" and is part of the new covenant then all those other 600 some rules should be also.

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 874538)

I know that.
I'm speaking a little TIC here.

I'm saying that if we believe Deut. 22:5 applies to modern "pants" and is part of the new covenant then all those other 600 some rules should be also.

Originally Posted by iceniez (Post 874492)

I have to ask............what does BIFURCATED GARMENT mean ?

Originally Posted by Brother David (Post 874560)

It was also a term that was used by a group of UPC ministers in the lead up to the 2009 General Conference. They were basically making a call for the UPC to adopt their vision and opinions.

Among their points was a denunciation of women wearing "bifurcated" garments. That is, slacks, women's jeans, pant suits, sweats, pajama bottoms "with legs" and shorts under their skirts.

Many of these men supported "alternative" camp meetings outside the UPC district camps where the under garments and night gowns of the girls were actually inspected to make certain that they conformed to the "non-bifurcated" edicts.

They took so much heat for being so silly that they have since edited their web site to drop the phrase (http://wedeclare.org/). Many folks (myself included) will use the term to remind them just how nonsensical some of their demands really are.

Originally Posted by Brother David (Post 874273)

Okay, Will. Peace.

I still say that original post by you perhaps reflected one of the best understandings of the nuances and complexities of language that I've seen on AFF. I was really looking forward to your contributions.

I apologize for my absurdist "bathroom humor" which I see now was the root of our problem.

I do have something of an "absurdist" take on much of human affairs having found myself pushed into Absurdism for a period of time by my inability to get the Fundamentalism I was raised with to make any sense.

I have since rebounded from that epoch of my life, filled with the wonder of "meaningfulness" that I observe in the world around me. But as far as human affairs go... I still have trouble shaking the absurdist tendencies. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ons/icon11.gif

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 871240)

No matter how you interpret these scriptures, you are left with this fact:

Men and women both wore robes during the time Deut. was written. For over 5,000 years of recorded human history, men and women both wore robes. Now, men and women both wear pants.

Nowhere in the Bible does it demand that men and women dress drastically different. Nowhere does it demand that they must be dressed completely different from the waist down.

There were slight differences in men and women's robes, there are slight differences in men and women's pants.

Women's pants is not a man's garment. I don't know a single man who would be caught dead in a pair of women's pants.

We have taken a cultural issue that was faced during the 1920s or thereabout, and forced Deut. to address that issue. It doesn't. Men had transitioned from robes to pants several hundred years before, now women were making that transition. It caused an uproar, because it was a transition, and transitions always cause an uproar. There is historical evidence that there was the same uproar when men transitioned from robes to pants. They were seen as immodest.

Men and women have worn the same general garment, with some distinctive differences, for most of human history. If you walk into Walmart, you can tell at a glance, without reading the signs, whether you're in the men's clothing department, or the women's. There is still an easily noticeable difference between men's and women's clothing.

I've bought jeans at a garage sale before, thinking they were boys. My sons would begin to put them on, and then whip them right back off, exclaiming - "These are girls' pants! I'm not wearing these!" The cut is different, the pockets are different, the button is different. It's a woman's garment, not a man's. Women's pants don't 'pertain to' a man. They pertain to a woman. That's why my sons won't wear them.

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 874626)

Who decided who got to inspect the ladies underwear and sleepwear?