More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Maybe many of these guys aren't so strict on abominations because they have a few of their own abominations in their closets???

[Pliny]

Post 1 of 2

Ndavid and Aquila condemn me for not being a jerk and condemning people before God has a chance to work in their lives. They have said things like:

Originally Posted by n david

Are they newborn Christian women or mature Christian women? Remember, Pliny believes there are two sets of standards for newborn and mature Christians. Newborn's get that greasy grace where sin isn't really a sin for them; mature Christian's don't.

You decide. Is there such a thing as newborn Christians and mature Christians? I believe so. Do people “grow” in the grace and admonition of God? Peter believed so.
(2Pe 3:18 ESV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Time and time again I have provided scripture. But they would rather make personal attacks 9like the one below) rather than deal with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're a joke. You fought so hard to help us understand why you believe pants on a woman are an ABOMINATION... and then you treat this ABOMINATION like it's merely a bad habit that needs to be improved upon??? What a joke.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Maybe many of these guys aren't so strict on abominations because they have a few of their own abominations in their closets???

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're an idiot.

So very Christ like…
Jesus gave Pastors and teacher for helping saints to grow.
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Apparently, NDavid and Aquila would be happier if a pastor did not try to help people. Instead they would rather the pastor be a jerk. Perhaps, Aquila has never changed. He said of himself:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm divorced and remarried. I learned the hard way when it comes to a woman. I remember demanding she changed clothes because they weren't too my standard, I marched her back into the house and made her change. One day she was crying before church because she didn't believe in head coverings. I demanded she wear it. She wanted to go to a family reunion, I told her that we weren't going because they weren't saved. That was the last chance she had to see her dad before he died.
I was a real jerk.

This is what he demands of a pastor? Truly sad.
Then, he complains about his former pastor that did what he mocks me for:

Originally Posted by Aquila

We had started a men's group to address men's issues and to build biblical manhood. Sons were welcome. The pastor seemed all for it. We had scheduled one meeting a week and one outing (camping, fishing, hiking, and the like) every quarter. The pastor shut it down within 6 months because he felt a "spirit of rebellion" in the leadership. He didn't like anything he wasn't in charge of personally.

One of the fallacies posted by the opposite camp is illustrated below:

Originally Posted by Aquila

It should also be noted that without a specific condemnation on a specific article of clothing, the fact that said clothing isn't mentioned in relation to women stands to be cultural in nature and not a biblical mandate.
It can also simply be that a specific article of clothing was indeed also worn by women, but is only unmentioned. For example, we might not find a reference to godly women wearing bifurcated undergarments. This doesn't mean that godly women never wore bifurcated undergarments.

Thus, they want a “specific” condemnation in order to believe it is wrong. Until then, they will justify their position. Due to this, I have asked for specific condemnations about other things like pedophilia. As seen below:

Originally Posted by Pliny

I don't believe you [NDavid] or Aquila has answered the question:
Is pedophilia okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. Since this is your logic for ignoring Deu. 22:5 and what men and women wear.

They have ignored this question because they know their logic is demonstrably wrong.
The Bible does not need to specify something is wrong every time. God has provided timeless principles to live by. This is the focus of Deu. 22:5. It does not specifically mention pants. It specifically mentions what people wear.
It has been demonstrated multiple times that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This is a principle to live by. Because they cannot demonstrate that godly women wore Pants, they have sought many other ways to ignore this fact. One of these ways is by trying to argue that men wore “skirts”, see below.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have verses of Scripture where men wore skirts. They were men's attire![INDENT]Deuteronomy 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
According to your logic, women shouldn't wear skirts either!

There were other scriptures listed as below. I have used this one because it demonstrates the fallacy of the argument and it would take too much time to deal with each passage. So I chose to use the first one on the list.
I asked Aquila if he understood what “skirt” means:

Originally Posted by Pliny

Besides, what do you think a "skirt" is in these passages?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Ndavid and Aquila condemn me for not being a jerk and condemning people before God has a chance to work in their lives.

I guess the prophets were all a bunch of jerks. The Apostles ... jerks. JESUS ... you said it. Jonathan Edwards and other ministers throughout history who have stood up to sin and warned of coming judgment -- all a bunch of JERKS!

No, I'm not condemning you for not being a "jerk." Stop whining and pretending to be a victim. You can stand against sin and warn of coming judgment and not be a jerk. It is possible.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You decide. Is there such a thing as newborn Christians and mature Christians? I believe so. Do people “grow” in the grace and admonition of God? Peter believed so.
(2Pe 3:18 ESV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Sure there are newborn Christians and mature Christians, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is your two different standards of sin for them. Sin is sin is sin. There is not a sin for newborns and sin for mature Christians. Sin is sin, regardless of how long one has been in church.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Jesus gave Pastors and teacher for helping saints to grow.
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Apparently, NDavid and Aquila would be happier if a pastor did not try to help people. Instead they would rather the pastor be a jerk.

No, not true. Why does standing against sin and warning against coming judgment make one a jerk in your eyes? Seriously, you have issues if that's what you really believe. As stated previously, all the prophets, Apostles, Jesus Himself and ministers throughout the ages stood against sin and warned of coming judgment.

Are they all jerks, Pliny?

If you really believe one is a jerk for calling sin "sin" and warning of coming judgment, you shouldn't be a minister. Sorrynotsorry.

[Pliny]

Post 2 of 2

I do not recall this being answered. I did.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do know what this word means right? Apparently not, so here it goes.
"skirt" H3671
kânâph
BDB Definition:
1) wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
1a) wing
1b) extremity
1b1) skirt, corner (of garment)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3670
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1003a
You are suggesting that godly women's garments did not have a "corner". Thus, I guess in your world they were what? Naked?
FTR God clothed Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). They were not "naked" as you seem to presume to justify your rejection of God's Word.
Now consider this:
(Zec 5:9 KJV) Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings (H3671); for they had wings (H3671) like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.
These women had your proverbial "skirts".
Then, based on your "logic", the earth has a "skirt" because the same word is used to describe the uttermost part of the earth.
(Isa 24:16 KJV) From the uttermost part (H3671) of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous...
This would be confirmed by Job:
(Job 37:3 KJV) He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends (H3671) of the earth.
I could go on all day demonstrating the madness of your suggestion that godly women's cloths did not have a "corner".
I would say the mind is never so resourceful as when it is trying to justify itself but appears like desperation not resourcefulness.

Again, they have never demonstrated that godly women wore pants. They have tried several fallacious arguments like “skirts” were men’s clothing. Yet, they apparently do not even understand what they are suggesting. Since the “skirt” means the corner of a garment as in Deu. 22:30 they must believe women’s garments do not have corners. Also, the earth must wear a “skirt” based on this logic.
Yet, the most troubling thing of all is that anyone can justify pedophilia using their logic. It is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I am done with this thread.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Post 2 of 2

I do not recall this being answered. I did.

Again, they have never demonstrated that godly women wore pants. They have tried several fallacious arguments like “skirts” were men’s clothing. Yet, they apparently do not even understand what they are suggesting. Since the “skirt” means the corner of a garment as in Deu. 22:30 they must believe women’s garments do not have corners. Also, the earth must wear a “skirt” based on this logic.
Yet, the most troubling thing of all is that anyone can justify pedophilia using their logic. It is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I am done with this thread.

You did a great job.

[Aquila]

Guys, you're watering down the seriousness of an abomination. Do you tolerate a gay couple in a sexual relationship until you deem they are spiritually mature?

Do you tolerate a pedophile until they are what you deem to be spiritually mature?

Do you tolerate a Polyamorous couple living in orgiastic copulation until you think they are spiritually mature?

Where I come from, an abomination isn't something you tolerate until someone grows out of it. You lovingly warn them of how God detests the thing they are doing. They are in imminent danger of provoking God. The only proper response from one who desires to be saved must be repentance. If you tolerate an abomination, if you soft peddle the issue, you partake in that abomination.

You guys insist on a woman wearing pants being an abomination, but apparently that doesn't mean much to you. You handle the issue as though it is simply a modesty issue.

Like I said before, their are clubs and an entire subculture of abominable perversion and debauchery in like kind to that practice seen among the Canaanites. That is what Deuteronomy 22:5 is addressing.

But hey, if you insist on applying the verse to pants, it really doesn't matter, because ultimately you'll only address a woman wearing pants as we do, as a modesty issue that one will indeed mature into.

We both land in the same place.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Guys, you're watering down the seriousness of an abomination. Do you tolerate a gay couple in a sexual relationship until you deem they are spiritually mature?

So, you lost the argument.

Where is the list? I gave you a list of verses and asked you a question.
Yet, I don't see any answers to what I asked you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you tolerate a pedophile until they are what you deem to be spiritually mature?

No, I would call the police on you. Yet, topic wasn't in my list of verses.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you tolerate a Polyamorous couple living in orgiastic copulation until you think they are spiritually mature?

You must preach to a bunch of saved people. Anyway, you aren't even being honest at this point. Because you are just trying to figure out a way to win an argument. I haven't a clue as to what you believe you are doing at your "house church" but you must skin them before you let them in. I catch them first, and let God skin them of their abominations. Are you currently involved in a few yourself?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where I come from, an abomination isn't something you tolerate until someone grows out of it. You lovingly warn them of how God detests the thing they are doing.

Yep, you lost the argument, and now are resorting to contradicting yourself. Or else you just haven't the foggiest idea what a not tolerating something means. Lovingly tell a pedophile to stop molesting children? No, you have him arrested. Someone has multiple partners, they need salvation, and that is where preaching comes in. They don't get it, they don't want it. They leave. Oh, I forgot, you live in a better part of town. Not where we live in the ghetto.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They are in imminent danger of provoking God. The only proper response from one who desires to be saved must be repentance. If you tolerate an abomination, if you soft peddle the issue, you partake in that abomination.

Aquila? Whip n chair ministry? So, how's the shunning the guy or gal with the proud look going? Again, you aren't being honest at this point of the discussion. Because you haven't tossed anyone out the church doors if they haven't obeyed. But this is getting interesting. So, please I'm eager to learn. How many times does a person think devious thoughts before you throw them out the door? Hello?

Originally Posted by Aquila

You guys insist on a woman wearing pants being an abomination, but apparently that doesn't mean much to you. You handle the issue as though it is simply a modesty issue.

I handle it like any other on the LIST I gave YOU.

How about jelling it out champ?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Like I said before, their are clubs and an entire subculture of abominable perversion and debauchery in like kind to that practice seen among the Canaanites. That is what Deuteronomy 22:5 is addressing.

Oh, this is good. Where is the word CANAANITES in the verse?

Originally Posted by Aquila

But hey, if you insist on applying the verse to pants, it really doesn't matter, because ultimately you'll only address a woman wearing pants as we do, as a modesty issue that one will indeed mature into.

We both land in the same place.

Sadly, "we" both don't land in the same place.

You're a mess.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, you lost the argument.

How did I lose the argument when at the end of the day it is you who treats what you believe to be an "abomination" as merely a modesty issue as we do???

After all the wrangling over the Greek, the Hebrew, the culture, the customs, etc... your approach is no different than ours. Applied theology is where the war is won.

[Aquila]

This has been a lively discussion. Here's what I'm walking away with.

- I have a better understanding as to why some folk think that Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily about pants. I disagree, but I do understand the position better.

- I've come to realize that to some an abomination isn't as serious as the Bible makes it sound.

- I've come to realize that there is a difference in what repentance means.

- I've also come to understand that regardless of one's views on Deuteronomy 22:5, they will still apply the text as a modesty issue, not as an abomination issue.

- I've also come to understand that disfellowshipping as a form of church discipline is actually disdained by conservatives, even though it is a prescribed form of church discipline in the Scriptures.

All the bluster is really for nothing. Those who preach that pants are an abomination will still approach the issue as though it is only a modesty issue that one must grow and spiritually mature into. They do not demand nor require "repentance" from what they believe is an abomination. According to them, one simply matures out of their abominations.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This has been a lively discussion. Here's what I'm walking away with.

- I have a better understanding as to why some folk think that Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily about pants. I disagree, but I do understand the position better.

- I've come to realize that to some an abomination isn't as serious as the Bible makes it sound.

- I've come to realize that there is a difference in what repentance means.

- I've also come to understand that regardless of one's views on Deuteronomy 22:5, they will still apply the text as a modesty issue, not as an abomination issue.

- I've also come to understand that disfellowshipping as a form of church discipline is actually disdained by conservatives, even though it is a prescribed form of church discipline in the Scriptures.

All the bluster is really for nothing. Those who preach that pants are an abomination will still approach the issue as though it is only a modesty issue that one must grow and spiritually mature into. They do not demand nor require "repentance" from what they believe is an abomination. According to them, one simply matures out of their abominations.

This is a broad brush. actually, some do believe pants will send you to hell, some will disfellowship you for sin, I seen it done.

I spend the first years of my walk with God in hell fire church where pants and even a beard was a heaven/hell issue.

Funny timing, this morning I saw a facebook post that included a pic of my first pastor's wife in a pair of pants.

This morning I worked out at home in a pair of yoga pants, but I will change into a dress to head for work.

And BTW, I'm not surrendering my Glock, fyi.