More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sounds to me like you're weak on an abomination.

Sounds to me like you and others are weak on sound Biblical hermeneutics. Well, in this case, any hermeneutic.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sounds to me like you and others are weak on sound Biblical hermeneutics. Well, in this case, any hermeneutic.

You have no scripture specifically condemning pants on a woman.

You only have cultural examples of men wearing pants and argue that since women wearing pants isn't mentioned it was never done. Although, Barnes and others indicate that pantaloons were sometimes worn by both men and women as part of their inner garments.

You never answered the question. Do you believe that women were required to be naked under their tunics?

[Aquila]

In our fellowship, if a man or woman were to be caught in a cross dressing, gender bending, fetish... they'd be called on the carpet to repent. If he or she didn't, we'd deny them fellowship. It's an abomination. There isn't going to be no, "well they're an immature Christian", business. It's an abomination.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In our fellowship, if a man or woman were to be caught in a cross dressing, gender bending, fetish... they'd be called on the carpet to repent. If he or she didn't, we'd deny them fellowship. It's an abomination. There isn't going to be no, "well they're an immature Christian", business. It's an abomination.

Wait ... do you mean you believe there are consequences to sin?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Wait ... do you mean you believe there are consequences to sin?

Of course. We believe in grace and patience when dealing with modesty. But when it comes to sins that are abominations, we don't play. Cross dressing, homosexuality, the occult, etc. are forbidden. One is expected to repent immediately and denounce their sin. Of course, I don't remember ever dealing with a cross dresser. We did have a gay man who was rather effeminate gather with us. We expected him to be celibate and to seek healing and deliverance. When it became obvious that he had entered another active homosexual relationship, we shunned him.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course. We believe in grace and patience when dealing with modesty. But when it comes to sins that are abominations, we don't play. Cross dressing, homosexuality, the occult, etc. are forbidden. One is expected to repent immediately and denounce their sin. Of course, I don't remember ever dealing with a cross dresser. We did have a gay man who was rather effeminate gather with us. We expected him to be celibate and to seek healing and deliverance. When it became obvious that he had entered another active homosexual relationship, we shunned him.

Sooo... you worked with him first?
Or did you slam the door in his face and tell him to line up before entering?

Hmmm...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... you worked with him first?
Or did you slam the door in his face and tell him to line up before entering?

Hmmm...

Actually, he came to us down and out. His previous lover had kicked him to the curb and he was needing help and seeking support. He was celibate at the time. But the moment we verified that he was actively in a homosexual relationship, we approached him to see if he'd repent. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to repent, we disfellowshipped him.

How long will you tolerate the "abomination" (according to your own position) of a woman wearing pants?

[Aquila]

Isn't it strange... they swear up and down that the ABOMINATION of Deuteronomy 22:5 is pants on a woman. Yet, they apply the text they way we do modesty teaching, and thereby tolerate the abomination of spiritually immature believers. lol

In the end... with all their bluster about pants on a woman being an "abomination"... they're practicing what we practice. lol

[Aquila]

Maybe we already covered this. I read somewhere a long time ago that the verse was about perversion. The way it was interpreted was...

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man (a strap-on phallus), neither shall a man put on a woman's garment (dress): for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Has anyone else heard this interpretation???

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Maybe we already covered this. I read somewhere a long time ago that the verse was about perversion. The way it was interpreted was...

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man (a strap-on phallus), neither shall a man put on a woman's garment (dress): for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Has anyone else heard this interpretation???

What in tarnation? NO!

What I've read and understood is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was a prohibition against women trying to take the role of a man as a warrior and men becoming transvestite prostitutes outside the temple.