More on Skirts

[Pliny]

It is clear that all Aquila wants to do is argue. He cannot refute the fact that Godly men wore pants and Godly women did not. So he launches into fallacy after fallacy while simultaneously ignoring the basic and fundamental fact mentioned above.


He is welcome to continue to let his wife wear the pants in his family...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is clear that all Aquila wants to do is argue. He cannot refute the fact that Godly men wore pants and Godly women did not. So he launches into fallacy after fallacy while simultaneously ignoring the basic and fundamental fact mentioned above.

Of course Godly women didn't wear bifurcated garments in ancient Israel. No one did. Godly women also didn't wear pantyhose or high heels. But you compromise for those items.

He is welcome to continue to let his wife wear the pants in his family...

Another personal insult.

You "conservatives" have me beaten on the number of insults 10 to 1. LOL

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You "conservatives" have me beaten on the number of insults 10 to 1. LOL

You obviously aren't counting your posts in the political thread.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course Godly women didn't wear bifurcated garments in ancient Israel. No one did. Godly women also didn't wear pantyhose or high heels. But you compromise for those items.

Now no one wore pants. How do you positively know that not a single soul wore pants? Simple, you do not know. We know, factually, that three Hebrew young men wore pants. That is an incontrovertible fact.


Another personal insult.
Really? Like calling me an idiot? No. YOU have me beat by a long shot and to say that your wife wears the pants in your family cannot be an insult when you have been arguing for her to do so for multiple pages now. It is simply a statement of fact - unless you want to say you do not allow your wife to wear pants... Fascinating! Also, you have stated that you are Scottish and brought up wearing Kilts. Sounds like your wife wears the pants in the family...

You "conservatives" have me beaten on the number of insults 10 to 1. LOL

No. You still hold the crown!

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is clear that all Aquila wants to do is argue. He cannot refute the fact that Godly men wore pants and Godly women did not. So he launches into fallacy after fallacy while simultaneously ignoring the basic and fundamental fact mentioned above.

He is welcome to continue to let his wife wear the pants in his family...

In the Bible Godly men wore robes and Godly women wore robes. End of story.

the exceptions of the priesthood does not apply to all Godly men.

There were not true "pants" in biblical times, therefore Deut 22:5 can not possible refer to something that did no existed.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In the Bible Godly men wore robes and Godly women wore robes. End of story.

End of story ONLY when you reject the Bible.

the exceptions of the priesthood does not apply to all Godly men.

Please demonstrate where other men were restricted from wearing garments commanded by God. If you cannot do this then, your statement is fallacious. Which BTW it is.

There were not true "pants" in biblical times, therefore Deut 22:5 can not possible refer to something that did no existed.

You can make all kinds assertions you want. That does not make them true. The fact is there were pants in Biblical times and in FACT the three Hebrew young men wore them. Thus your entire post is absurd.