More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Since EB is seriously mistaken about what I believe, let me clarify.

I believe God addressed the perversion and debauchery of cross dressing (be it Canaanite practice or what we see in the local queer club) in one fell swoop by prohibiting the very appearance of the evil.

And I do see it as an abomination that needs immediate rebuke and endangers the soul.

I believe it's about something far more serious than women's pants.

Aquila agreed with me.

You can't be posting a thread to death. Yet, not understand what the other guy is saying. Aquila just posted 1. Canaanite religious ceremonies. 2. Homosexual activity. Therefore the conclusion can be drawn that if the "intent" isn't religious or sexual perversion you can crossdress.

Liberal sick and warped.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila agreed with me.

You can't be posting a thread to death. Yet, not understand what the other guy is saying. Aquila just posted 1. Canaanite religious ceremonies. 2. Homosexual activity. Therefore the conclusion can be drawn that if the "intent" isn't religious or sexual perversion you can crossdress.

Liberal sick and warped.

Not so.

The crossdressing is blanketly condemned to eliminate any question.

[Bill E Goat]

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

are you Amish?

[Bill E Goat]

Originally Posted by Amanah

are you Amish?

nah REDNECK

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

nah REDNECK

we can work with that!

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I know this thread is kinda old and wore out, but its the reason I joined the forum even though I have been lurking for a while. My first point is simple. These "pants" some are claiming men wore were UNDERWEAR. Now please try and explain to me that women did not wear UNDERWEAR. After all A woman has a bit different biological makeup that would make her wanna have something on under there for atleast 1 week outa the month.

Women were unclean during their period and everything they touched was unclean so they were secluded from the community and what they wore during the seclusion is irrelevant to the discussion (Leviticus 15).

[Bill E Goat]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Women were unclean during their period and everything they touched was unclean so she was secluded from the community and what she wore during her seclusion is irrelevant to the discussion (Leviticus 15).

I disagree with the relevance. I will not get too gross here but you know as a woman there are many issues with a womans body that to believe there was no bifucerated garment under her outer garment makes no common sense.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Bill E Goat

I disagree with the relevance. I will not get too gross here but you know as a woman there are many issues with a womans body that to believe there was no bifucerated garment under her outer garment makes no common sense.

speculation.