Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Well, JMHO, I believe it means what I stated.

that's fine but nowhere is that a literal rendering of the text as the text is strict and to the point. Though I would agree with what it says as a principle just not as what the text reads or even points to.

[houston]

15 century Korea. Men and women wore pants. Men covered their pants with a skirt.

[Charnock]

I used to find these type of threads fun and humorous. Now I just shake my head and wonder at the complete ignorance involved.

The problem with the Standards Keepers is that they view things on a very low level instead of big picture focus. Minute details are important to them but extremely integral issues like justification and faith are completely ignored.

[Charnock]

One thing I've never understood. If we're really trying to be "Apostolic" why don't we dress like first century Christians (everybody in robes)?

I mean, really, why rage at the cultural shift of the 40s and 50s when it's obvious western culture and dress hasn't been "Apostolic" for more than a millennium.

[mfblume]

Standard keepers always argue ANYTHING to keep their standards, since that is the trend behind standards. No scripture can change their minds because, whether they realize it or not, their standards take precedence over the scriptures, and the organization they are in simply has more power over them. So the thread is futile, really.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Standard keepers always argue ANYTHING to keep their standards, since that is the trend behind standards. No scripture can change their minds because, whether they realize it or not, their standards take precedence over the scriptures, and the organization they are in simply has more power over them. So the thread is futile, really.

You've misunderstood my posts if you think I am contending for standards. But, if that issue is on the shoulder, like a Dorito, then everything being discussed is futile.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You've misunderstood my posts if you think I am contending for standards. But, if that issue is on the shoulder, like a Dorito, then everything being discussed is futile.

True!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You've misunderstood my posts if you think I am contending for standards. But, if that issue is on the shoulder, like a Dorito, then everything being discussed is futile.

I was not even thinking of your posts when I said what I did. It was luke2447 an narrow's. But your words on origins of pants for women seemed to suggest you believe women should not wear pants.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was not even thinking of your posts when I said what I did. It was luke2447 an narrow's. But your words on origins of pants for women seemed to suggest you believe women should not wear pants.

I was simply stating that a cultural change for women came about and it was interesting, to me, who got that ball rolling.

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by Charnock

One thing I've never understood. If we're really trying to be "Apostolic" why don't we dress like first century Christians (everybody in robes)?

I mean, really, why rage at the cultural shift of the 40s and 50s when it's obvious western culture and dress hasn't been "Apostolic" for more than a millennium.

yep, when was the last time men "girded their loins like a man"? I guess us men haven't been men since than, huh?
My sister was married to a Samoan guy, those men wear skirts. I dare anyone to call them queenies to their face.