More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're stuck on silly. lol

No. Your logic is.

The Levites wore "breeches", not "trousers". They were a part of the inner garment and went down to just below the knee. In addition, they were commanded to wear them only when officiating in the temple, so as to keep their nakedness from showing when ascending the steps to the altar. This clearly implies that the command was necessary because breeches were not common attire. If it was common attire among the Israelites, please give us PROOF.

I guess you cannot read? Please demonstrate where I said pants were common attire. You cannot because I have consistently said that holiness is not based on popularity nor is it up to a popular vote. Whether it was popular or not just demonstrates the silliness of the "logic". How many matter. 10, 20, 30? Perhaps 100 or a thousand? Did godly Jewish men wear pants? The answer is YES and you agreed. Did godly women wear pants? NO. If so please provide PROOF. Popularity of attire is a red herring and the only thing you can offer - which means nothing. Your "evidence" is still locked away in your proverbial vacuum.

The three Hebrews were captive in Babylon. They were carried away, most likely castrated, issued Babylonian names, and given standard Babylonian attire, which included trousers (or pants). Babylon wasn't the Ramada Inn where they had loaded suitcases with Israelite Levi's that they wore while attending as servants to the Babylonian officials. Again, if the Israelites had packed their clothes and were wearing them among the Babylonians, please give us PROOF that the average Israelite wore trousers.

See, once again you imply that holiness is based on popularity. It does not matter where the pants came from. It does not matter if it was Judea or Babylon because holiness is not limited to Judea. These young men were godly men that took a stand for holiness. They were thrown into a fire because of it. They were also wearing pants. Therefore, it is okay for a man to wear pants. Now, demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. It is more than obvious that you cannot demonstrate this singular easy task nor accept the facts.

This statement is just more blathering in effort to strengthen your already weak position because no one said any of that.

The "blathering" so-called is from the person who cannot demonstrate a single piece of Biblical evidence to support his claim. You have agreed that godly men wore pants. Does that acknowledgment need to be bumped up so you do not forget it? Weak can be defined as:
lacking in logical or legal force or soundness:
What is the logic? Godly men wore pants - you agreed.
Godly women did not.
That hardly amounts to a "weak" argument. Now what is truly weak is the person that refuses to provide evidence that godly women wore pants. It is so weak, the only evidence is found in your vacuum of evidence. You see, calling something weak does not make it so. It is simply the wishful thinking of an argument void of Biblical evidence and a reliance upon logical fallacies like popularity and red herrings.

This could all end easily. Simply provide evidence that godly women wore pants. In light of the miserable failure to produce this evidence you are left with nothing but ad-hominem attacks by calling the stronger argument "weak".


The three Hebrews were issued Babylonian names and attire. Prove me wrong. I can prove that it was standard custom for the Babylonians to assimilate captive peoples. Can you prove they brought those Jewish Levi's with them from Judea? What we see is a captive people. And when faced with captivity, they maintained their diet and their faith because it was all that they could maintain. When faced with bowing to the idol, that's when they drew the line.

Stop trying to read into the passage something that isn't there.

Back again to the Hebrew young men being assimilated. You apparently have no concept as to what assimilation means if you are trying to say again that these young men were assimilated.
Assimilation means:
to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like; adapt or adjust:

What does the evidence suggest? Based on your logic, the Hebrews refused the kings meat because they were assimilating into Babylonian culture. They also refused to bow to the image because they were assimilating. Please prove this is why they did what they did. please prove that they were thrown into a fiery furnace because they had assimilated into the Babylonian culture. You can't because it did not happen. They refused to be assimilated and maintained their Jewish identity. That identity allowed them to wear pants without compromising that identity. On the other hand, women did not. Where their clothes came from has nothing to do with it. Maybe they were from Judea maybe they were not. The fact is they refused to assimilate, as you suggest, and they maintained their Jewish identity in the face of death. That identity allowed them to wear pants. No demonstrate where godly women wore pants. You cannot do this simple thing and instead grasp for anything, real or imagined, to try to wiggle and squirm your way as far away from the truth as you can get. Yet, the Bible still demonstrates that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

This last statement is so convoluted I am embarrassed for you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

And when faced with captivity, they maintained their diet and their faith because it was all that they could maintain. When faced with bowing to the idol, that's when they drew the line.

They maintained their diet and their faith because that was all they could maintain? You do know that their diet is part of their faith right? You do know this don't you? You do know that maintaining their faith meant maintaining all the Law and prophets right? What would be left out of keeping their faith according to you? Then, you say they drew the line at bowing to an idol? THAT is part of keeping their faith! What are you trying to prove here? That your logic is so convoluted that you cannot keep a coherent thought for more than a sentence? If so, congratulations. You succeeded. Are you trying to say that it is sin for anyone to wear pants? If so, you will need to do a much better job than this "shoddy" piece of intellectualism.

Please go back and rethink this. It really makes no sense at all.