More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Additionally, the argument is that Deut 22:5 prohibits women from wearing things that "pertain to a man", pants are described in the Bible as only being worn by men, thus pants are Biblically something that "pertains to a man".

It is a very simple and straightforward argument. In fact, it is a simple syllogism:

No women can wear men's clothing.
Pants are men's clothing.
Therefore, women cannot wear pants.

No A is B.
C is B.
Therefore, no A is C.

A is "women can wear".
B is "men's clothing".
C is "pants".
Therefore, "no women can wear pants."

In order to refute the argument, it would have to be shown that either one or both of the premises are wrong, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if the premises are in fact true.

So far, A cannot be refuted, because it is a plain statement from Scripture.
B has not been refuted because only men in the bible wore pants and no women in the Bible are seen to be wearing pants.
The conclusion cannot be refuted because it follows necessarily from the two premises.

For example:

No cats are dogs.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are chihuahuas.

Given the two premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be otherwise. If no cats are dogs, and if chihuahuas are dogs, then it necessarily follows that no cat is a chihuahua. EVERY syllogism with this form: No A is B, C is B, therefore no A is C, must necessarily be correct and valid.

Corrections to the syllogistic diagramming appreciated.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, this is an argument from silence.

There is no commandment commanding males in general to wear breeches or not to wear breeches. Therefore, I'd assume that if the Levitical garments became all the rave among the ancient Hebrew men, they would only be optional attire.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Additionally, the argument is that Deut 22:5 prohibits women from wearing things that "pertain to a man", pants are described in the Bible as only being worn by men, thus pants are Biblically something that "pertains to a man".

It is a very simple and straightforward argument. In fact, it is a simple syllogism:

No women can wear men's clothing.
Pants are men's clothing.
Therefore, women cannot wear pants.

No A is B.
C is B.
Therefore, no A is C.

A is "women can wear".
B is "men's clothing".
C is "pants".
Therefore, "no women can wear pants."

In order to refute the argument, it would have to be shown that either one or both of the premises are wrong, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises if the premises are in fact true.

So far, A cannot be refuted, because it is a plain statement from Scripture.
B has not been refuted because only men in the bible wore pants and no women in the Bible are seen to be wearing pants.
The conclusion cannot be refuted because it follows necessarily from the two premises.

For example:

No cats are dogs.
Chihuahuas are dogs.
Therefore, no cats are chihuahuas.

Given the two premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be otherwise. If no cats are dogs, and if chihuahuas are dogs, then it necessarily follows that no cat is a chihuahua. EVERY syllogism with this form: No A is B, C is B, therefore no A is C, must necessarily be correct and valid.

Corrections to the syllogistic diagramming appreciated.

Aquila, pay attention. This may help you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Aquila, pay attention. This may help you.

Pay attention Pliny, let me help you...

If you wear a pretty pink pair of ladies jeans, and prance around in your favorite dance club, you're in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 because you are wearing that which pertains to a woman. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT.

Now, let me hear you argue as to why you should be able to wear petty pink ladies pants because they pertain to you.

It's common sense.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pay attention Pliny, let me help you...

If you wear a pretty pink pair of ladies jeans, and prance around in your favorite dance club, you're in violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 because you are wearing that which pertains to a woman. PERIOD. END OF SUBJECT.

Now, let me hear you argue as to why you should be able to wear petty pink ladies pants because they pertain to you.

It's common sense.

Pay attention Aquila, let me help you.
God states in Deu. 22:5 that a woman should not wear that which pertains to a man and vice versa.

It has been demonstrated ad-infinitum that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

Try understanding God by using the Bible.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Pay attention Aquila, let me help you.
God states in Deu. 22:5 that a woman should not wear that which pertains to a man and vice versa.

It has been demonstrated ad-infinitum that godly men wore pants. Godly women did not.

Try understanding God by using the Bible.

Again am argument from silence. I could argue that they indeed wore hose under their tunics as men did during the colder months.

[n david]

I'm not going to argue the issue. I've been on the sidelines most of this debate because I believe both sides are missing the point. The point isn't how an article of clothing will/won't make a woman Godly; the point is modesty. Again, I've seen numerous apostolic/Pentecostal women who wear skirts and dresses and are the most immodest and ungodly women I've met.

No, Deu 22:5 is not about pants. No, dresses/skirts do not a Godly woman make. And no, I don't know Paul's motivation for not mentioning that a woman should wear only one type of clothing, and neither do you. You can claim that the reason he did so was because there weren't any women wearing pants then, but that's just an assumption which could only be proven had you a time machine to go back to that time period.

I would mention the customs of the day versus the customs today, but I'm not going to argue about it. Nor will I argue the hypocrisy of applying only one part of the law while ignoring the other parts of the law, and doing so while claiming we are not under Moses' law.

I find it odd that the outspoken authority on holiness standards, DK Bernard, has responded to the question of UPCI women in India wearing pants as "it's their custom," while yet condemning American women for the same. Either it's okay or it's not. There cannot be exceptions for certain countries because of custom, especially when in the US it's been the custom since the mid-1900s.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not going to argue the issue.
But then again, here you go

I've been on the sidelines most of this debate because I believe both sides are missing the point. The point isn't how an article of clothing will/won't make a woman Godly; the point is modesty. Again, I've seen numerous apostolic/Pentecostal women who wear skirts and dresses and are the most immodest and ungodly women I've met.

No, Deu 22:5 is not about pants. No, dresses/skirts do not a Godly woman make. And no, I don't know Paul's motivation for not mentioning that a woman should wear only one type of clothing, and neither do you.

That is what I implied. I cannot know Paul's motivation.

You can claim that the reason he did so was because there weren't any women wearing pants then, but that's just an assumption which could only be proven had you a time machine to go back to that time period.

I did not claim anything. Do you have a hard time comprehending what you read? I believe I suggested a possibility and ended the sentence with a question mark. Perhaps you should read it again.

I would mention the customs of the day versus the customs today, but I'm not going to argue about it. Nor will I argue the hypocrisy of applying only one part of the law while ignoring the other parts of the law, and doing so while claiming we are not under Moses' law.

Please demonstrate where I done anything you are accusing me of. If you can't then you are mistaken or just plain lying. But hey, I am glad you are not "arguing the issue" LOL!

I find it odd that the outspoken authority on holiness standards, DK Bernard, has responded to the question of UPCI women in India wearing pants as "it's their custom," while yet condemning American women for the same. Either it's okay or it's not. There cannot be exceptions for certain countries because of custom, especially when in the US it's been the custom since the mid-1900s.

You should take that up with D.K. Bernard not me.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate where I done anything you are accusing me of. If you can't then you are mistaken or just plain lying. But hey, I am glad you are not "arguing the issue" LOL!

Please show where I accused you, specifically, of doing such.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Please show where I accused you, specifically, of doing such.

I stand corrected here. I was thinking you had quoted me specifically. You did not. My mistake and my apology to you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not going to argue the issue. I've been on the sidelines most of this debate because I believe both sides are missing the point. The point isn't how an article of clothing will/won't make a woman Godly; the point is modesty. Again, I've seen numerous apostolic/Pentecostal women who wear skirts and dresses and are the most immodest and ungodly women I've met.

No, Deu 22:5 is not about pants. No, dresses/skirts do not a Godly woman make. And no, I don't know Paul's motivation for not mentioning that a woman should wear only one type of clothing, and neither do you. You can claim that the reason he did so was because there weren't any women wearing pants then, but that's just an assumption which could only be proven had you a time machine to go back to that time period.

I would mention the customs of the day versus the customs today, but I'm not going to argue about it. Nor will I argue the hypocrisy of applying only one part of the law while ignoring the other parts of the law, and doing so while claiming we are not under Moses' law.

I find it odd that the outspoken authority on holiness standards, DK Bernard, has responded to the question of UPCI women in India wearing pants as "it's their custom," while yet condemning American women for the same. Either it's okay or it's not. There cannot be exceptions for certain countries because of custom, especially when in the US it's been the custom since the mid-1900s.

Good point.