More on Skirts

[Scott Pitta]

If Oneness Churches have been around since Peter preached at Pentecost, and the Deut. 22:5 issues has only been around since WW2 (78 years), this entire issue is nothing more than a footnote in Oneness historical thought.

But I could be wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It doesn't matter. The conservatives on this issue treat their "abomination" the way most of us on the moderate side treat Christian modesty. Both sides see it as a Christian discipline one grows into. So, it's a non-issue.

The only difference is that the conservatives like to use the word "abomination". But in practice they advocate as much patience, understanding, and grace towards what they believe to be an "abomination" as we moderates do when approaching it as a "Christian discipline of modesty".

You are so in love with your psychobabble doublespeak.

I cannot believe you were ever in a conservative church, the one you described sounds like it was out of your own warped sense of who we are.

An abomination is lying isn't it? Yes, or no?

Is lying an abomination?

Is backbiting an abomination, yes or no?

Will God destroy your soul for lying? Yes, or no?

You love to stick it in and twist it up.

Conservatives like to use the word "abomination?"

We like?

Seriously?

Bro, it is in the verse, get over it.

But I want the answers to my questions, so don't go on vacation. Answer them.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

If Oneness Churches have been around since Peter preached at Pentecost, and the Deut. 22:5 issues has only been around since WW2 (78 years), this entire issue is nothing more than a footnote in Oneness historical thought.

But I could be wrong.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You are so in love with your psychobabble doublespeak.

I cannot believe you were ever in a conservative church, the one you described sounds like it was out of your own warped sense of who we are.

An abomination is lying isn't it? Yes, or no?

Is lying an abomination?

Is backbiting an abomination, yes or no?

Will God destroy your soul for lying? Yes, or no?

You love to stick it in and twist it up.

Conservatives like to use the word "abomination?"

We like?

Seriously?

Bro, it is in the verse, get over it.

But I want the answers to my questions, so don't go on vacation. Answer them.

Yes, all those things are abominations. And yes, they imperil the soul.

Earlier in this debate when I asked if a woman was in danger of losing her immortal soul if she were wearing pants, y'all got real mushy. You said that you weren't her judge and then when I mentioned that an abomination endangers the soul and she should be immediately admonished to cease wearing pants, you guys accused me of being legalistic and of being without grace. Then you guys talked about how a woman should be given time to grow into the standard.

My point has always been that an abomination imperils the soul. According to your position, if a woman dies while wearing pants, it is as though she died while engaging in sodomy. She dies in an abominable state.

So, are you reversing your position now? Are you saying that if a woman dies wearing a pair of pants that she'll bust Hell wide open, just as one who was lying, sodomizing, backbiting, and sowing discord among the brethren???

Again, I can't emphasize the seriousness of an abomination.

My position is that this verse (Deuteronomy 22:5) is about gender bending crossdressing perversion. It was prevalent in pagan societies and it is prevalent in various homosexual and fetish subcultures today. I do not see it as being strictly about pants, I see it more broadly and I see cultural considerations that can be made. For example, while wearing a skirt at a drag show is an abomination, a kilt is a "man's garment" in Celtic culture and wouldn't be an abomination.

When it comes to a "standard" within the church, we know that we are admonished to modesty. Pants are not the most modest attire for women. And so, I believe that modesty is a Christian discipline for women to grow into as she prays, consecrates herself, and studies the Word. I do not believe that a woman will bust Hell wide open if she dies wearing a pair of pants. I do not believe that a woman is in sin if she occasionally wears pants, wears pants due to her profession, or if she has a personal reason as to why she doesn't wear skirts and dresses (I know of a rape victim who chooses never to wear dresses or skirts).

So, did you reverse your position? Do you believe a woman is under condemnation where she stands if she's wearing pants?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Earlier in this debate when I asked if a woman was in danger of losing her immortal soul if she were wearing pants, y'all got real mushy. You said that you weren't her judge

Show where I posted this?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I don't agree with you.

So, where do you want to go from here?

Wow!! Evang. Benincasa, I was up all night reading through this forum. I just found it a couple of weeks ago. But, is there any one you do agree with?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, all those things are abominations. And yes, they imperil the soul.

Earlier in this debate when I asked if a woman was in danger of losing her immortal soul if she were wearing pants, y'all got real mushy.

Aquila, this is why you are placed on ignore by some. You're dishonest, and you not only twist scripture, but you twist what is posted to you in a discussion. I got mushy? Anyone who knows me, read those words they wouldn't believe you were posting about me. Yet, I will give you an opportunity to prove your accusation.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You said that you weren't her judge

I posted that? Prove it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

and then when I mentioned that an abomination endangers the soul and she should be immediately admonished to cease wearing pants,

OK, here we have the mythical Aquila the Ultra Conservative's idea of a conservative church. His story goes like this, he had a wife, his wife was to keep dress standards. Wife wouldn't dress acceptable to Aquila, and therefore he would march her back inside house crying. Immediately admonish? What does that mean? Aquila was told that we teach and preach against what we see as sin. Yet, Aquila being the one dimensional liberal that he is believes that "immediately admonishing" means to MAKE someone do X, Y, or Z. Aquila is feigned repentance, repentance? he would have to say yes, because he believes that admonishment is enough to escape an abomination, and that all UC churches do is force people to get dressed so they look like they are complying. Aquila, now, be a good chap and show my mushy post where I said I wasn't some woman's judge.

Originally Posted by Aquila

you guys accused me of being legalistic and of being without grace. Then you guys talked about how a woman should be given time to grow into the standard.

You are a legalist. You believe in telling people you will pray for them, when in reality you don't. You say that, instead of doing that because it is part of a Christianism. You apologize while in your heart you are really not sorry. Why? Because that's what Christians are "expected" to do. These are legalisms which go far beyond clothing. It is the meat and potatoes which really will get you a hot seat in hell. But, since it isn't long sleeves and a haircut, you don't consider it legalism.

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point has always been that an abomination imperils the soul. According to your position, if a woman dies while wearing pants, it is as though she died while engaging in sodomy. She dies in an abominable state.

Just like any other abomination. Guess what, a woman being FORCED to wear a dress is still wearing pants. But you are a legalist. Because while you don't wear a suit and tie you believe it is all about appearances. Be blessed, I'll pray for you, God is good, I love you blah blah blah. It is legalism because you it is how you want to appear to others, instead of doing it because it's part of you. Fake is fake buddy, no matter if it's on a hook in your closet, or coming out of your mouth.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, are you reversing your position now? Are you saying that if a woman dies wearing a pair of pants that she'll bust Hell wide open, just as one who was lying, sodomizing, backbiting, and sowing discord among the brethren???

Like I posted to you before, how do you force a liar to stop lying? If he does, is he actually no longer a liar in God's eyes?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, I can't emphasize the seriousness of an abomination.

Yet, it is you who believes you can "make" someone righteous and in good standings with God. By forcing them to adhere to Biblical rulings. That is how you view the UC church. Yet, while you tell your sad tales of woe concerning what kind of jerk you were in some made up past. You still believe your religion is something you can make people do and they will be good in God's eyes?

Originally Posted by Aquila

My position is that this verse (Deuteronomy 22:5) is about gender bending crossdressing perversion. It was prevalent in pagan societies and it is prevalent in various homosexual and fetish subcultures today. I do not see it as being strictly about pants, I see it more broadly and I see cultural considerations that can be made. For example, while wearing a skirt at a drag show is an abomination, a kilt is a "man's garment" in Celtic culture and wouldn't be an abomination.

When it comes to a "standard" within the church, we know that we are admonished to modesty. Pants are not the most modest attire for women. And so, I believe that modesty is a Christian discipline for women to grow into as she prays, consecrates herself, and studies the Word. I do not believe that a woman will bust Hell wide open if she dies wearing a pair of pants.

So what on earth is modesty? You don't even know what that is. You don't have a Bible understanding of your religion. But feelings about your religion. Modest? Abominations? Bro, you throw and disfellowship people who lie? You must be the only one in your church, or you read minds. All liars shall have their part in a lake of fire, not some, not just those who tell big lies, but all liars. Get busy mr admonisher, and stand in the doorway of your church. Because you will have to weed them out before they sit down.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I do not believe that a woman is in sin if she occasionally wears pants, wears pants due to her profession, or if she has a personal reason as to why she doesn't wear skirts and dresses (I know of a rape victim who chooses never to wear dresses or skirts).

You know just about everyone for every situation. Listen, no one cares anymore to the people or circumstances you know.

The person or persons who are the family members of that little girl should kick your rear end to the top of your head. Posting her picture, and then using her in one of your political arguments.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, did you reverse your position? Do you believe a woman is under condemnation where she stands if she's wearing pants?

I never changed my position. But you can prove your accusations.

Also, do you leave a slime trail when you slither down the street?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Wow!! Evang. Benincasa, I was up all night reading through this forum. I just found it a couple of weeks ago. But, is there any one you do agree with?

Keep reading.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Keep reading.

DO you have a job? How does one rack up 22,000 post on a single forum? I'm taking it that you are an Evangelist from your name. Do you not think that you will stand before God on judgement day and answer for all this idle time?? I'm out on short term disability and that's the only reason I found and read so much on the internet lately. I would be ashamed of myself as a man calling himself an Evangelist spending that much time on a wasteful forum. Not to mention I could use that time to better myself for the Kingdom and my family. Do you think all the disagreement you do here is serving any purpose to better the walk of God for anyone? Do you think this makes you a good witness? If I was a Pastor I would never have you at my Church after seeing this forum. And this is just one. I bet a dollar to a donut hole you are active on atleast a half dozen.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

DO you have a job? How does one rack up 22,000 post on a single forum? I'm taking it that you are an Evangelist from your name. Do you not think that you will stand before God on judgement day and answer for all this idle time?? I'm out on short term disability and that's the only reason I found and read so much on the internet lately. I would be ashamed of myself as a man calling himself an Evangelist spending that much time on a wasteful forum. Not to mention I could use that time to better myself for the Kingdom and my family. Do you think all the disagreement you do here is serving any purpose to better the walk of God for anyone? Do you think this makes you a good witness? If I was a Pastor I would never have you at my Church after seeing this forum. And this is just one. I bet a dollar to a donut hole you are active on atleast a half dozen.

Why? Why does a person on a forum make a point of the post count? I have been a member since 2007. Ten years.

From your post I don't have to stand before God in judgement. You already took care of that. So, you are good, and I am bad. Welcome to the forum, you are going to fit in well.