More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I was actually posting more for Mr PuppyDog than you. But back to the point:

If there are no examples in the Bible of women wearing pants, then how does that lead to "pants can be worn by women" while believing the Bible is authoritative for Christian living?

First, we're not under the Law. The Law is an all or nothing proposition.

Second, it says, "pertaineth to a man" vs. ""pertaineth to a woman". I'm Scottish. Kilts pertain to a man, even though some could argue style and design is too similar to that of a skirt. Ladies Jordache, with the pretty little punk sequins on the butt, pertains to a woman, even if the design is similar to men's pants.

Men don't wear ladies jeans. Why? We inherently know they belong to a woman.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

First, we're not under the Law. The Law is an all or nothing proposition.

What does that mean? Does that mean women can indeed wear that which pertains to a man, and that men can indeed wear a woman's garment? Is that what you are saying?

Second, it says, "pertaineth to a man" vs. ""pertaineth to a woman". I'm Scottish. Kilts pertain to a man, even though some could argue style and design is too similar to that of a skirt. Ladies Jordache, with the pretty little punk sequins on the butt, pertains to a woman, even if the design is similar to men's pants.

Men don't wear ladies jeans. Why? We inherently know they belong to a woman.

Who decides what pertains to a man or a woman? They now make rompers for men, called a "romphim". They also make pantyhose for men now, dresses and nightgowns even, all for men.

Are those things that "pertain to a man"?

If surrounding culture alone dictates these things, how can culture ever be wrong? Can it? Is culture always right?

Have you tried telling the trans crowd "men don't wear ladies jeans because they know they belong to a woman"? There is a whole generation being taught (by liberal democrats) that NOTHING "belongs" to any gender, gender is a social construct developed by evil white Christian men to keep everyone enslaved. What message do you have for these people?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does that mean? Does that mean women can indeed wear that which pertains to a man, and that men can indeed wear a woman's garment? Is that what you are saying?

I believe that the principle is a good one. But a legalistic approach that would condemn kilts as skirts is misguided. There is some cultural leeway to consider. The Gospel isn't designed to turn us into ancient Israel. I'm not Jewish, never will be. I'm Scottish and I'm an American in 2017, this principle can be applied culturally. For example, I wouldn't wear a dress or ladies jeans, they pertain to a woman. You innately know that too, and so you'd condemn ladies jeans on a man. Surely, you wouldn't approve.

Who decides what pertains to a man or a woman? They now make rompers for men, called a "romphim". They also make pantyhose for men now, dresses and nightgowns even, all for men.

Are those things that "pertain to a man"?

Hey, George Washington wore hosiery, watch it pal. Lol

In fact, hosiery was originally a male article of clothing as it pertains to outer wear. Notice, now your position is defined by culture as you know it. Ultimately culture is the primary lens by which we define propriety. And yes, hosiery on men might make a comeback. Weird, but true.

If surrounding culture alone dictates these things, how can culture ever be wrong? Can it? Is culture always right?

No matter what turn culture makes, we can apply unchanging principle. Men's hosiery might make a comeback, but men wearing ladies hosiery will still be improper.

Have you tried telling the trans crowd "men don't wear ladies jeans because they know they belong to a woman"? There is a whole generation being taught (by liberal democrats) that NOTHING "belongs" to any gender, gender is a social construct developed by evil white Christian men to keep everyone enslaved. What message do you have for these people?

I assure you, styles might be similar, but both male and female styles of attire will also remain distinct.

[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.

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the principle is a good one. But a legalistic approach that would condemn kilts as skirts is misguided.

Kilts are RIDICULOUS. Grass skirts are also cultural but no one was wearing them in Judea. You miss the whole point, because you are trying to cram world cultures into a book which wanted the world to conform to it. Not the other way around. My lands, the book was written to people in the Bronze Age, to the first century A.D. Their culture and modesty floors anything you have to offer. Kilts? Grow up. Scotland and being Scottish, good grief. Try being an Apostolic Christian.

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is some cultural leeway to consider. The Gospel isn't designed to turn us into ancient Israel.

That's where you are incorrect. It isn't trying to make you into the MGM idea of the 12 Commandments. But it is working off the template constructed and built by God to an ancient people. These people who had men wearing masculine clothes PANTS, and women wearing katastole DRESSES. You are losing miserably this discussion because if your ancestors wore a bone through their nose, instead of painting themselves blue, and wearing kilts. You be arguing that the Bible allows you to wear a chicken bone through your septum.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not Jewish, never will be.

They weren't admonished to be part of the Judean tribe of Judah. They were admonished to be Judeans inwardly and cast off their OLD MAN. You being Scottish and wearing a plaid rag around your waist is comical. Why? because while everyone sees it as just plaid designs it meant something to the clan. Which you haven't the foggiest idea. The kilt was more a flag, then anything. With every post you show your cluelessness on everything. Stick to politics, I guess you might fair better. Since politics are in the eye of the beholder.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm Scottish and I'm an American in 2017, this principle can be applied culturally. For example, I wouldn't wear a dress or ladies jeans, they pertain to a woman. You innately know that too, and so you'd condemn ladies jeans on a man. Surely, you wouldn't approve.

This argument could work if the Bible was some malleable material created to fit whatever culture. Whatever ideology. You do understand that there are Homosexual churches? Yet, there is no such thing as an active homosexual Christian. You lose the argument when you offer us a Churchanity instead of Biblical Christianity. You attempt to offer a pliable set of scriptures which you can wrest to your own destruction. While blindness may be your cup of tea, it only achieves the destruction of all who follow you through the broadway.
Hey do you have an accent like Scotty from Star Trek? Does that go with the kilt? NO, but bringing the kilt and eskimo seal skin pants has zero to do with a Biblical discussion on Deuteronomy 22:5. Because there were no kilt wearing dingbats, and seal skin wearing goofballs.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hey, George Washington wore hosiery, watch it pal. Lol

Only worn by men. Just like the trousers of the day. Women only wore dresses. NO pant wearing women. Hey cultural for a guy to wear his pants around his hamstrings, but should we argue that women of the same culture do the same? Clean up Dodge, don't grab a gun and join the outlaws.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In fact, hosiery was originally a male article of clothing as it pertains to outer wear. Notice, now your position is defined by culture as you know it.

It was men's wear because it was men's wear since Daniel and Leviticus. Our position isn't defined by culture, especially when the culture is going POST CHRISTIAN. You maniac, in your attempt to bring unity through disunity, you are standing Christian ethics on its head. You change agent you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ultimately culture is the primary lens by which we define propriety. And yes, hosiery on men might make a comeback. Weird, but true.

That's because YOU have the wrong lens, you want to win the world with the world. You can't you lose the Church with doing that. You proved that your agenda is about justifying the church using POPULAR CULTURE AS ITS PRIMARY LENS. Everything you posted from Dan to Beersheba goes down the drain. Because you have admitted that popular culture is the dictator, not the book, chapter, and verse.

Originally Posted by Aquila

No matter what turn culture makes, we can apply unchanging principle. Men's hosiery might make a comeback, but men wearing ladies hosiery will still be improper.

You are now swerving all over the place. You have tethered your Christendom to the burning meteor called popular culture. Which changes constantly by a SIN driven populace.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I assure you, styles might be similar, but both male and female styles of attire will also remain distinct.

Don't assure anyone of anything.

We know who you are, Bronze!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Kilts are RIDICULOUS. Grass skirts are also cultural but no one was wearing them in Judea. You miss the whole point, because you are trying to cram world cultures into a book which wanted the world to conform to it. Not the other way around. My lands, the book was written to people in the Bronze Age, to the first century A.D. Their culture and modesty floors anything you have to offer. Kilts? Grow up. Scotland and being Scottish, good grief. Try being an Apostolic Christian.




That's where you are incorrect. It isn't trying to make you into the MGM idea of the 12 Commandments. But it is working off the template constructed and built by God to an ancient people. These people who had men wearing masculine clothes PANTS, and women wearing katastole DRESSES. You are losing miserably this discussion because if your ancestors wore a bone through their nose, instead of painting themselves blue, and wearing kilts. You be arguing that the Bible allows you to wear a chicken bone through your septum.



They weren't admonished to be part of the Judean tribe of Judah. They were admonished to be Judeans inwardly and cast off their OLD MAN. You being Scottish and wearing a plaid rag around your waist is comical. Why? because while everyone sees it as just plaid designs it meant something to the clan. Which you haven't the foggiest idea. The kilt was more a flag, then anything. With every post you show your cluelessness on everything. Stick to politics, I guess you might fair better. Since politics are in the eye of the beholder.



This argument could work if the Bible was some malleable material created to fit whatever culture. Whatever ideology. You do understand that there are Homosexual churches? Yet, there is no such thing as an active homosexual Christian. You lose the argument when you offer us a Churchanity instead of Biblical Christianity. You attempt to offer a pliable set of scriptures which you can wrest to your own destruction. While blindness may be your cup of tea, it only achieves the destruction of all who follow you through the broadway.
Hey do you have an accent like Scotty from Star Trek? Does that go with the kilt? NO, but bringing the kilt and eskimo seal skin pants has zero to do with a Biblical discussion on Deuteronomy 22:5. Because there were no kilt wearing dingbats, and seal skin wearing goofballs.





Only worn by men. Just like the trousers of the day. Women only wore dresses. NO pant wearing women. Hey cultural for a guy to wear his pants around his hamstrings, but should we argue that women of the same culture do the same? Clean up Dodge, don't grab a gun and join the outlaws.



It was men's wear because it was men's wear since Daniel and Leviticus. Our position isn't defined by culture, especially when the culture is going POST CHRISTIAN. You maniac, in your attempt to bring unity through disunity, you are standing Christian ethics on its head. You change agent you.



That's because YOU have the wrong lens, you want to win the world with the world. You can't you lose the Church with doing that. You proved that your agenda is about justifying the church using POPULAR CULTURE AS ITS PRIMARY LENS. Everything you posted from Dan to Beersheba goes down the drain. Because you have admitted that popular culture is the dictator, not the book, chapter, and verse.




You are now swerving all over the place. You have tethered your Christendom to the burning meteor called popular culture. Which changes constantly by a SIN driven populace.




Don't assure anyone of anything.

We know who you are, Bronze!

In all your bluster, you missed the point. Lol