Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I was clear it was anything in the design long or short was made for men. We have scripture of God initiating the making of them. And then cultures through histories, even keeping the same name for them. So we don't have to worry about where the design came from, it came directly from God (and got scripture to prove it..) , and we see through history they were always intended for men. So they weren't just undergarments, as y'all tried to claim, you and Costeon were saying "these are just male undergarments like boxers." Well according to history that isn't true.

Y'all can deny hard evidence all you want, but should I follow your opinion or what is clearly seen from scripture and history?

Hey maybe I should share with you this ground breaking piece of evidence. Any 5 year old can read it. This is the universal sign for bathroom.. Hey and it even says Feman for female, but she still put a dress on. Good for her!

I wouldn't take theology from bathroom signs. Besides, her skirt is too short.

But seriously. I do see your point. Regardless of what women might wear, it is culturally accepted throughout the world that the basic attire of a well mannered and modest woman includes a dress or skirt.

However, there are other elements to consider. They say that the sun never set on the British Empire. The British colonized most of the known world. With them they brought Western values, styles of dress, mannerisms, and customs. Many cultures had norms forced upon them that were alien to their. Add to the mix France, Portugal, Spain, and other nations who colonized the known world importing Western culture and styles of dress.

My point is, these signs reflect styles of dress that were imported to most of the known world. In many cases, they do not always reflect the indigenous norms as it relates to gender.

But, nevertheless, I do see your point.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I wouldn't take theology from bathroom signs. Besides, her skirt is too short.

They also have no feet, no necks, no faces, and no hair.

Good grief.

Originally Posted by Aquila

But seriously. I do see your point. Regardless of what women might wear, it is culturally accepted throughout the world that the basic attire of a well mannered and modest woman includes a dress or skirt.

Culturally accepted throughout Christendom for hundreds of years.

Joan of Arch, should've listened to her Pastor!!!

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, there are other elements to consider. They say that the sun never set on the British Empire. The British colonized most of the known world. With them they brought Western values, styles of dress, mannerisms, and customs. Many cultures had norms forced upon them that were alien to their. Add to the mix France, Portugal, Spain, and other nations who colonized the known world importing Western culture and styles of dress.

My point is, these signs reflect styles of dress that were imported to most of the known world. In many cases, they do not always reflect the indigenous norms as it relates to gender.

The sun never set on the Babylonian empire, Persian empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire, Roman Catholic empire, United States Empire.

The indigenous norms are those of pagan barbarians. I believe Esaias clarified that all too well for us. By these few words, "they were called savages for a reason."

[Evang.Benincasa]

The bathroom sign can be understood universally worldwide, because of the Western Christian influence.

But don't worry Chris, your NPR Bernie Sanderite bleeding heart liberal crew is hastening Gender Neutrality into society pretty quick.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The bathroom sign can be understood universally worldwide, because of the Western Christian influence.

But don't worry Chris, your NPR Bernie Sanderite bleeding heart liberal crew is hastening Gender Neutrality into society pretty quick.

I'm not arguing for gender neutrality just because I disagree with your take on Deuteronomy 22:5. Do you ever frame those who disagree with you honestly?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not arguing for gender neutrality just because I disagree with your take on Deuteronomy 22:5. Do you ever frame those who disagree with you honestly?

No, it’s where all your liberal views eventually lead towards.
I’m real sorry if can’t see the forest for the trees but X Pentecostals are the worst at all of this. This just didn’t come from an argument over bifurcated apparel, and length of hair. This argument leads straight for a cliff. Where it is now starring us in the face. Gender neutrality. Unisex movement started in the 60s and now it has engulfed this country. Roles are changing, and lines are being erased. Yet only a smoking liberal can miss all that is happening. Ship is sinking, and the clock is ticking. Yet you advocate marijuana use? How off do we need to get in American Churchanity.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, it’s where all your liberal views eventually lead towards.
I’m real sorry if can’t see the forest for the trees but X Pentecostals are the worst at all of this. This just didn’t come from an argument over bifurcated apparel, and length of hair. This argument leads straight for a cliff. Where it is now starring us in the face. Gender neutrality. Unisex movement started in the 60s and now it has engulfed this country. Roles are chafing and lines are being erased. Yet only a smoking liberal can miss all that is happening. Ship is sinking, and the clock is ticking. Yet you advocate marijuana use? How off do we need to get in American Churchanity.

Look, Christians should be honest EB. Be honest is all that I'm saying. Until you're honest, you might have everyone here wowed by your knowledge, and you are knowledgeable, but your dishonesty taints everything you have to say. For example. Read the post above. Put yourself in the shoes of one to whom it might be written. Does it sound like a man of God? If it does, you've had some lousy men of God in your life too, welcome to the club.

- We were discussing medicinal value of cannabis. I voiced that one shouldn't be condemned as a sinner for seeking natural remedies or relief. That's all. I'm not saying one should buy a dime bag and go party. I'm talking about people with very serious and often painful conditions. You're distorting what I'm saying.

- I've clearly indicated that pants can be said to be immodest and therefore a Christian woman seeking to live by principles of Christian modesty does well to wear skirts and dresses. A woman's quest for Christian modesty will invariably lead her to not wearing pants. But you are saying that I'm for "gender neutrality" and a "unisex movement"? Again, you're distorting what I'm saying.

That's called lying about a person EB. Yes, you've lied and are lying. You've even lied and misrepresented the views and statements of others here. A lie is a lie EB. Man up and face the truth. You're motives might be good, but if you have to lie and slander a person to prop up your position, it only proves that it is powerless.

The only reason why you have so much "dirt" on me to include in your constant wave of slander, venom, and misrepresentation is... because I've been painfully honest about my life. Am I perfect? No. Is everything conventional? No. But I've been honest about it. I could have easily put forth a far more "respectable" or "traditional" persona. But I told the truth in response to questions asked of me. Even if the truth opened me up to criticism. And criticism will come. I'm not talking about constructive criticism. I'm talking about blatant lies and distortions of things I've said and things others have said.

I'm not perfect. But, I try to be honest. Can you at least try to be honest? Because if you can't, then you have some deeper problems that you're not willing to address.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, it’s where all your liberal views eventually lead towards.

I made the point that the pursuit of Christian modesty would lead a woman to not wear pants. And you think that my views will lead to gender neutrality? That's clearly a dishonest assessment based on your own self created fears.

Deuteronomy 22:5 has many different interpretations based on language, culture, wording, etc. Views on it are all over the map. I'm simply saying that it's not a solid foundation on which to argue against pants on a woman. Look at the text itself. It speaks to an "abomination". Homosexuality is also listed as an abomination. Can a man be water baptized and go have sex with another man in the changing room and still be saved? No. Of course not. How then can a woman wear pants to church, be water baptized, go to the changing room, and put on an abomination and still be saved? An abomination is an abomination. The argument is dumb. Yes, it's dumb. What is in view in Deuteronomy 22:5 is something far more vile than a woman putting her women's Jordache. Your position seems naïve, a bit shallow, and rather Pharisaical. Now, I'll agree that the woman isn't dressed to exemplify Christian modesty. But my position holds that is a discipline she can grow into. Your position is that it is a soul costing abomination. Saved by grace, damned by slacks. What a greasy, slippery, watery, powerless, grace. Slips right through one's fingers if they put on pants. That's silly to me. Modesty is important and is a biblical teaching. I can see the case for pants being immodest and for the admonition to Christian women to put their pants, low cut blouses, tight form fitting clothing, away as they aspire to Christian modesty. I don't see how women's pants pertain to Deuteronomy 22:5. No man in his right mind would wear women's Jordache jeans. Why? Because they pertain to a woman. Of course, if you want to argue that they pertain to a man, then clearly you'd see nothing wrong with men wearing women's jeans. Now who favors cross dressing?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I made the point that the pursuit of Christian modesty would lead a woman to not wear pants. And you think that my views will lead to gender neutrality? That's clearly a dishonest assessment based on your own self created fears.

Deuteronomy 22:5 has many different interpretations based on language, culture, wording, etc. Views on it are all over the map. I'm simply saying that it's not a solid foundation on which to argue against pants on a woman. Look at the text itself. It speaks to an "abomination". Homosexuality is also listed as an abomination. Can a man be water baptized and go have sex with another man in the changing room and still be saved? No. Of course not. How then can a woman wear pants to church, be water baptized, go to the changing room, and put on an abomination and still be saved? An abomination is an abomination. The argument is dumb. Yes, it's dumb. What is in view in Deuteronomy 22:5 is something far more vile than a woman putting her women's Jordache. Your position seems naïve, a bit shallow, and rather Pharisaical. Now, I'll agree that the woman isn't dressed to exemplify Christian modesty. But my position holds that is a discipline she can grow into. Your position is that it is a soul costing abomination. Saved by grace, damned by slacks. What a greasy, slippery, watery, powerless, grace. Slips right through one's fingers if they put on pants. That's silly to me. Modesty is important and is a biblical teaching. I can see the case for pants being immodest and for the admonition to Christian women to put their pants, low cut blouses, tight form fitting clothing, away as they aspire to Christian modesty. I don't see how women's pants pertain to Deuteronomy 22:5. No man in his right mind would wear women's Jordache jeans. Why? Because they pertain to a woman. Of course, if you want to argue that they pertain to a man, then clearly you'd see nothing wrong with men wearing women's jeans. Now who favors cross dressing?

I think God would allow the woman who put her jeans back on time to learn and grow.

And sometimes we do go to extremes, like whether 18th century pantaloons under a floor length dress, or pantyhose are an abomination. I don't think either of those are.

But, I would rather see someone err on the side of being too conservative, then being too liberal.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

They also have no feet, no necks, no faces, and no hair.

Well, clearly they're abominations. lol

Culturally accepted throughout Christendom for hundreds of years.

Joan of Arch, should've listened to her Pastor!!!

LOL

She was psycho. lol

The sun never set on the Babylonian empire, Persian empire, Greek Empire, Roman Empire, Roman Catholic empire, United States Empire.

It's my understanding that the phrase means that the British Empire had colonized land on every continent around the globe. Therefore, at any given moment, the sun was shining somewhere on the British Empire. I don't think the same can be said of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. The "Roman Catholic Empire"? One would have to be more specific. The "United States Empire"? I can see how that can be said.

The indigenous norms are those of pagan barbarians. I believe Esaias clarified that all too well for us. By these few words, "they were called savages for a reason."

I believe humanity as a whole is savage. Oh, we're more sophisticated. But the same old savage practices can be found in our culture that were found in almost any other culture. It's just more sleek, technological, "respectable" to people's modern sensibilities.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's my understanding that the phrase means that the British Empire had colonized land on every continent around the globe. Therefore, at any given moment, the sun was shining somewhere on the British Empire. I don't think the same can be said of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans.

The groups I mentioned were conquerors, and colonizers. Do yourself a favor put down the pot and pick up a book. John Bagot Glubb's Fate of Empires

Originally Posted by Aquila

The "Roman Catholic Empire"? One would have to be more specific.

Google it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe humanity as a whole is savage.

Waxing philosophically? Sorry, civilization is just what the word means, pagan savages throw their unwanted children on the trash heap, and allow the elderly to starve. While you NPR out and start getting all pinko liberal on me on how America is the same way. That would be baloney, because you and I wouldn't be having this discussion in a barbaric savage society.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, we're more sophisticated.

End of story, anything else you try to add to that to make us like cave dwellers is a waste of time.