More on Skirts

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Our family shops at the goodwill and there is always alot of girls jeans put in boys section. If you don't recognize brand labels a lot of the time you can't tell the difference. Girls jeans are more immodest. The waistline on girls pants hang a lot lower most of the time, but it has more to do with immodesty then separation.

It wouldn't surprise me.

In other words if they stamp a man's label on a dress and culture accepts it, then it is o.k.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Guys, if a man wears a dress, or wears ladies pants, he's wearing that which pertains to a woman.

What if a larger woman puts on a men's jeans because they just have a better fit. I don't believe we would ever tell they were wearing men's jeans. IOW, God only cares about the label.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

In other words if they stamp a man's label on a dress and culture accepts it, then it is o.k.

Essentially, yes.

George Washington and other men wore hosiery. It was actually men's attire originally. They evolved from trousers. Culture changed, style changed, now they are primarily a woman's attire. Are women in sin if they wear hosiery? No. Why? Culture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

What if a larger woman puts on a men's jeans because they just have a better fit. I don't believe we would ever tell they were wearing men's jeans. IOW, God only cares about the label.

Lol!

Well, that's where we have to decide if we'll be legalists or not. I mean, sometimes the exception makes the rule.

[Aquila]

Hosiery evolved from trousers as a provision for noblemen and cavalry to wear under heavy armor. They wrote their hosiery even when not in armor, to facilitate being on the ready. Women began wearing hosiery to protect their legs from the elements. Soon, various styles and manners of wearing them evolved. Eventually, fewer men wore armor, but they continued wearing hosiery. So now you have both men and women wearing hosiery. So, who's in sin, George Washington or his wife? Both wore hosiery. Most realize that neither were in sin. The items had slight differences in design for each gender. And so hosiery was acceptable on both men and women. Of course, with the industrial revolution, trousers made a comeback with men. And soon only women were left wearing hosiery. With war and advancement of women in the workplace, trousers made inroads among women. Soon various styles of trousers were designed specifically for women.

And weirder still, apparently hosiery is making a comeback among men. Lol

It's better in my view to avoid legalism and remain fluid, but principled. It's better than freeze framing an ideal (that evolved in its own right) and making that ideal the standard all must accept for all time, or burn in Hell.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yeah right. So, far it's been nothing short of confusion on how Deuteronomy 22:5 is only applicable if the person is homosexualy? In short, Aquila believes that heterosexuals can be transvestites and God doesn't view it as an abomination. Good job fellows, the blind is still actively leading the blind into the proverbial ditch in 2017.

Ha I hardly think Aquila believes heterosexuals can be transvestites, that is a stretch.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Lol!

Well, that's where we have to decide if we'll be legalists or not. I mean, sometimes the exception makes the rule.

I truly don't see myself as a legalist. I believe that we are saved by grace through faith demonstrated by works. If we truly believe on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior that means that we surrender our will to him.

I posted earlier that scripture said a woman is to be a keeper of the home and it was said, in a nutshell, we should support our wives to be what they want to be.

Qustion: does this scenario show a person following God or their own ambitions?

DE 22:5 says that it is an abomination to God for a woman to wear that which pertains to man, and in essence it has be said nothing is specifically male or female dress unless the person is intentionally trying to be drag (even a woman can wear men branded pants if it is a better fit). Culture is the determining factor of what is male and female.

Question: Does our faith in God lead us to follow cultural norms?

Lot vexed his righteous soul from day to day while he was in Gomorrah. Do you think that meant that he was fluid and just went with the flow of everything. I personally believe that the feminist movement that has swept this country and taken control has confused God's natural order.

One more question: If a husband and a wife disagree in regards to a family decision and they don't come to a consensus, who has the say? Men are to love their wives, but the scripture teaches that wives are to obey their husbands. This is something I don't hear taught even among most apostolic churches.

I have heard things said like, "woman was taken out of man's side and not his foot, therefore she is supposed to walk beside her husband and not under him". As if making decisions contrary to your wife is walking on her. Men are demonized for taking charge in their homes. If men don't love and protect their families they will answer for it, but in a Christian home the man is supposed to wear the pants.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I truly don't see myself as a legalist. I believe that we are saved by grace through faith demonstrated by works. If we truly believe on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior that means that we surrender our will to him.

James wrote that faith without works is dead. But James also taught us what those works are:

James 2:14-18
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James noted acts of love and mercy. Providing food to the hungry and clothes to the naked. These are the works we're called to. If I say faith without works is dead, so you have to wear a tin foil hat on Friday's, and a polka-dot robe on Mondays, and can only eat jelly beans on Wednesdays, I'm misusing this text. Even if I tell you my own select cherry-picked laws from the Old Testament, I've misused this, and abused your desire to obey. Jesus never mentioned a clothes line mandate. So, are those with such a heavy emphasis on dress codes really surrendering their will to Christ?

I don't think Jesus cares if a women wears ladies jeans, or if a man wears a kilt. I believe Jesus desires us to heal the broken, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, provide for the poor, house the homeless, visit the widows, and care for the orphan. For whenever we've done this for the least of these, we've done these things for Him.

I posted earlier that scripture said a woman is to be a keeper of the home and it was said, in a nutshell, we should support our wives to be what they want to be.

Qustion: does this scenario show a person following God or their own ambitions?

It depends. Did God give them a calling to serve in medicine, missions work, social work, or charity? If a woman follows a God given dream or ambition, God will provide what is necessary to do these things, and be a good wife and mother. Have faith.

DE 22:5 says that it is an abomination to God for a woman to wear that which pertains to man, and in essence it has be said nothing is specifically male or female dress unless the person is intentionally trying to be drag (even a woman can wear men branded pants if it is a better fit). Culture is the determining factor of what is male and female.

Question: Does our faith in God lead us to follow cultural norms?

An abomination is something repugnant to God. But you'll notice most abominations are related to idolatry. That's why most scholars lean towards the idolatrous Canaanite practice interpretation. Some lean towards the armor vs feminine attire and jewelry. The Israelite men and women wore similar attire. The tunic, a light inner garment. A girdle to bind it around the waist. An outer garment, often a larger tunic or robe like attire. Men's garments had a hood, women wore a veil. They had sandals and hide shoes. Women's garments were lighter, more colorful, and longer. The wealthy wore breeches, but not necessary pants. They were like shorts. Workers in the fields or those entering battle would gird up their loins, pulling up, and tucking their tunics into their girdles. They were bare legged in this state. Swift for battle. The point is, the garments were not all that different. This is another reason why scholars feel Deuteronomy 22:5 is about more than style of clothing.

Lot vexed his righteous soul from day to day while he was in Gomorrah. Do you think that meant that he was fluid and just went with the flow of everything. I personally believe that the feminist movement that has swept this country and taken control has confused God's natural order.

Lot was vexed by certain sin. Not a novel interpretation about attire.

One more question: If a husband and a wife disagree in regards to a family decision and they don't come to a consensus, who has the say? Men are to love their wives, but the scripture teaches that wives are to obey their husbands. This is something I don't hear taught even among most apostolic churches.

I say, the husband. However, in some cases the husband has to be wise, for the wife is like a weaker brother offended by meat or drink. Sometimes, the stronger must acquiesce to the weaker until their faith becomes stronger.

I have heard things said like, "woman was taken out of man's side and not his foot, therefore she is supposed to walk beside her husband and not under him". As if making decisions contrary to your wife is walking on her. Men are demonized for taking charge in their homes. If men don't love and protect their families they will answer for it, but in a Christian home the man is supposed to wear the pants.

Be Jesus. Instruct, be forgiving, full of grace, loving and patient. Sometimes a woman needs to see the love and tenderness before she will understand. Remember, you chose her. You knew what she was like before marriage. There's no excuse for the man who marries a stubborn woman and then tries to put his foot down, only to watch his efforts blow up in his face. Love is key. Not a "lordy" spirit. You don't own her. She should submit, but we can't make her if she doesn't.

Marriage isn't too be entered into lightly. Chose her wisely.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I posted earlier that scripture said a woman is to be a keeper of the home and it was said, in a nutshell, we should support our wives to be what they want to be.

Qustion: does this scenario show a person following God or their own ambitions?

The Bible clearly teaches that the wife is to be her husband's helper, she is to help manage the home, and is to be subject to her husband as the church is to be subject to Christ. A man can support his wife to be whatever she wants, but if she wants to be anything other than what God ordained, then both she and he is in sin, and his sin is greater just as it was Adam who brought sin into the world and not Eve.

DE 22:5 says that it is an abomination to God for a woman to wear that which pertains to man, and in essence it has be said nothing is specifically male or female dress unless the person is intentionally trying to be drag (even a woman can wear men branded pants if it is a better fit). Culture is the determining factor of what is male and female.

Question: Does our faith in God lead us to follow cultural norms?

Lot vexed his righteous soul from day to day while he was in Gomorrah. Do you think that meant that he was fluid and just went with the flow of everything. I personally believe that the feminist movement that has swept this country and taken control has confused God's natural order.

Hose was originally men's clothing, but became women's clothing. Yet the change did not come about because a bunch of bull dykes and perverts took over society with an agenda to overthrow everything traditionally reminiscent of Christianity and the Bible. Women wearing pants in our day seems to have come about for exactly those reasons. One might say the situation in India is different (their women, if I am not mistaken, traditionally wear pants or pant-like clothing underneath their robe/serapi/whatchamacallits) but I do not think it can be denied that here in the West, there is an ongoing political war against traditional dress, traditional gender roles, traditional values, etc. So this must be taken into consideration, imo.

One more question: If a husband and a wife disagree in regards to a family decision and they don't come to a consensus, who has the say? Men are to love their wives, but the scripture teaches that wives are to obey their husbands. This is something I don't hear taught even among most apostolic churches.

The man has the say. Even if a woman makes a vow, the husband (or father if she is unmarried) can nullify her vow regardless of her wishes, if he cancels it when he hears of it.

Numbers 30:1-15 KJV And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. (2) If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (3) If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; (4) And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. (5) But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (6) And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; (7) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (8) But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her. (9) But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. (10) And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; (11) And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. (12) But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. (13) Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. (14) But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. (15) But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.

I have heard things said like, "woman was taken out of man's side and not his foot, therefore she is supposed to walk beside her husband and not under him". As if making decisions contrary to your wife is walking on her. Men are demonized for taking charge in their homes. If men don't love and protect their families they will answer for it, but in a Christian home the man is supposed to wear the pants.

1 Peter 3:5-7 KJV For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: (6) Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. (7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Ephesians 5:22-29 KJV Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

[Esaias]

An article on the history of women's pants in western society:

http://patrickmurfin.blogspot.in/201...-bloomers.html

"Amelia also found a close, supportive circle of friends. It was an unusually sophisticated group, going beyond the swapping of recipients, embroidery parties, quilting bees, prayer meetings, and gossip sessions that were the expected preview of “hen parities.” The women, mostly Quakers and Universalists, were widely read and included active reformers interested in abolition of slavery, temperance, and, increasingly, the rights of women. The group included Elizabeth Caddy Stanton, an attractive young mother about Amelia’s age who had even ventured to far off London to attend an anti-slavery convention only to be debarred from participating on account of her sex. On her return Stanton and her close friend, Quaker Mary Ann began to focus discussions in the group more closely on women’s issues.

...

Still, it took Hollywood icons like Gloria Swanson, Gene Harlow, Greta Garbo, and Katherine Hepburn being photographed in slacks to begin to make pants acceptable on women. They really took off during home front and uniformed service during World War II and became fashion standard wear for everyday by most women by the ’60’s and ‘70’s."