More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No, seriously, I was just sharing my thoughts.

Too bad, your honesty score is a bit lacking of late.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So basically, you're saying that the conservative position you hold only stands if you interpret Scripture in a vacuum and reject all external archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and historical data that might point to the contrary.

I think you just posted something we can agree upon.

Then if you agreed with what I posted, then you agree that Biblical accuracy doesn't matter to you. You don't care about the Bible, about "linguistics" which we all offered you and you ignored. That this whole back and forth with you is an attempt to kill the supposed old conservative Aquila.

Aquila if you agreed on that, then you would seek an altar. You would stop blaming a movement for your own psychotic behavior in the past.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Too bad, your honesty score is a bit lacking of late.




Then if you agreed with what I posted, then you agree that Biblical accuracy doesn't matter to you. You don't care about the Bible, about "linguistics" which we all offered you and you ignored. That this whole back and forth with you is an attempt to kill the supposed old conservative Aquila.

Aquila if you agreed on that, then you would seek an altar. You would stop blaming a movement for your own psychotic behavior in the past.

Again, I didn't say any of that. However, you did imply that your position only stands when you interpret the Bible in a vacuum without the consideration of language, culture, and history. Sadly, that's not biblical accuracy. That's the narrow vacuum in which cults are born from novel private interpretations.

Hey, that reminds me...

Were the pants that you claim were commonly worn as casual attire by men in Judea made from hide, cotton, or stone washed denim?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, I didn't say any of that.

You said you agreed, then if you said you agreed, then you agreed with what was posted. Are you medicated by a family physician or do you self medicate?

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, you did imply that your position only stands when you interpret the Bible in a vacuum without the consideration of language, culture, and history.

No, the only thing I implied is that you are still the ecclesiastical mole you have always been. You don't care what the Bible actually says, but just care what you are currently doing in this phase of your religious journey.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sadly, that's not biblical accuracy. That's the narrow vacuum in which cults are born from novel private interpretations.

You mean the one you morphed out of to the one you are currently in? Mr Wonderful, allow to me to tell you that you are still the same religious biped. But instead of long sleeves and a braided whip, you wear Birkenstocks with a cattle prod.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Were the pants you claim were commonly worn in Judea hide, cotton, or stone washed denim?

At least they weren't lace like yours.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You said you agreed, then if you said you agreed, then you agreed with what was posted. Are you medicated by a family physician or do you self medicate?



No, the only thing I implied is that you are still the ecclesiastical mole you have always been. You don't care what the Bible actually says, but just care what you are currently doing in this phase of your religious journey.



You mean the one you morphed out of to the one you are currently in? Mr Wonderful, allow to me to tell you that you are still the same religious biped. But instead of long sleeves and a braided whip, you wear Birkenstocks with a cattle prod.



At least they weren't lace like yours.

Just more insults? Nice.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Just more insults? Nice.

Wow, you really need to study about cognitive dissonance.

Remember me the idiot? Remember you giving the excuse how we are just the boys mixing it up?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Either Deuteronomy 22:5 is obligatory, or it is not. If it is not, then there is no reason to oppose crossdressing of any kind.

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a narrow western culture view, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, the New Testament gives us enough to admonish against cross dressing:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (woman like), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (homosexuals),
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The word "effeminate" means:

Effeminate
ef·fem·i·nate.
[?'fem?n?t]
ADJECTIVE
(of a man) having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly.
synonyms: womanish · effete · foppish · unmanly · feminine · camp · campy · flaming

So, a man dressing like a lady in any manner would be effeminate.

Didn't realize you'd already addressed this. Yep quite simple.

I do think Deut 22:5 has value as use as a principle and compliments the clear NT prohibitions against cross dressing and homosexuality (neither of which really need a ton of didactic text, since anyone truly filled with the Spirit also has enough God given common sense to know such things are sinful).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a

narrow western culture view

, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

How dumb.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Didn't realize you'd already addressed this. Yep quite simple.

I do think Deut 22:5 has value as use as a principle and compliments the clear NT prohibitions against cross dressing and homosexuality (neither of which really need a ton of didactic text, since anyone truly filled with the Spirit also has enough God given common sense to know such things are sinful).

Another attempt to make Deuteronomy 22:5 about sexual intent.

Which can only mean if you are heterosexual you can cross dress.

Jason, don't you need to teach someone a Bible study on the Trinity?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a narrow western culture view, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV (9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

No crossdressing mentioned there.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 KJV But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

If crossdressing is mentioned there, then are you saying the law was made for crossdressers? Where in the law is crossdressing prohibited? Oh, that's right - Deuteronomy 22:5. Bada bing bada boom? Sure, whatever.

Romans 1:24-32 KJV Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Where is crossdressing mentioned here? Let met tell you - it's not mentioned there.

You think crossdressers are sodomites? Do you realise that approximately 50% if not more of the male crossdressing (drag queen) community are heterosexual? You knew that, right? Cause you study all that exter bibleekuhl dater, doncha?

Please, try again. You have used up 1 of three attempts at basic reasoning. If you need assistance, press 1 for more options. Have a nice day!