More on Skirts

[good samaritan]

it wasn't until the sexual revolution and second-wave feminism in the late 1960s and 1970s women started wearing trousers en masse and whenever they wished

http://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com/...-pants.htmthat

I am not in the fight on biblical attire. The Bible mentions a lot of different parts of the clothes on men in the scripture including breeches, but that is not why I am convinced that women should not wear pants. It is from a cultural stand point. American culture has long held pants were for men. Our bathroom signs proclaim it and even sayings such who wears the pants in the family.

Ladies pants evolved in our nation out of a rebellion against God ordained principles. Feminists proclaimed that we are not lesser or inferior to the man, and we can do anything he can including wear pants. Most ladies don't think so deep into this when they slip on their jeans, but secular history proves it and without any agenda.

When culture moves in a direction that is against God and with a Spirit of rebellion I refuse to follow.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course Godly women didn't wear bifurcated garments in ancient Israel. No one did. Godly women also didn't wear pantyhose or high heels. But you compromise for those items.

Now no one wore pants. How do you positively know that not a single soul wore pants? Simple, you do not know. We know, factually, that three Hebrew young men wore pants. That is an incontrovertible fact.


Another personal insult.
Really? Like calling me an idiot? No. YOU have me beat by a long shot and to say that your wife wears the pants in your family cannot be an insult when you have been arguing for her to do so for multiple pages now. It is simply a statement of fact - unless you want to say you do not allow your wife to wear pants... Fascinating! Also, you have stated that you are Scottish and brought up wearing Kilts. Sounds like your wife wears the pants in the family...

You "conservatives" have me beaten on the number of insults 10 to 1. LOL

No. You still hold the crown!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Everyone knows they were given Babylonian names as part of their assimilation. Now you're denying a plain reality to support your silly and extreme interpretation. Conservatives know no bounds in twisting a historical truth to justify their Taliban style extremism.

Taliban style extremism? Really. And you say conservatives have you beaten 10-1 on insults?

So your evidence of their assimilation is because they were called by Babylonian names? So when I took Spanish class and was called Paco I was assimilated at that point.

Sorry. You have proven once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Your logic is nonsensical. They were thrown into the fire because they had assimilated in Babylonian culture... Right...

Originally Posted by Aquila

In ancient Israel, Godly men didn't even wear pants. Why do you deny this?
Were the Hebrew young men part of ancient Israel? I say yes, so your question is ridiculous and nonsensical.


You need to study your Bible more. The three Hebrews were captives in Babylon, an assimilating nation. The Jews in the time of Esther were captive in Persia, a nation that prided itself on subjective diversity.

LOL! I need to "study my Bible more"! ROTFL. I have given Biblical evidence you have provided NONE. So once again, provide evidence of a godly woman wearing pants. All I am hearing is crickets...

That's a great idea. Start with this statement, "B-a-b-y-l-o-n isn't P-e-r-s-i-a."

Oh once again another "insult"? Hmmm... Now how many is that for you?

Aquila's logic is this:




Yep. That about sums it up...

[Aquila]

By the conservative logic, pantyhose is an abomination. They were originally worn by men and the are bifurcated.

Defend the use of pantyhose.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You've based an entire premise on three captive Hebrews in Babylon. Whom you swear were wearing the latest style of Hebrew Levis. LOL

Another lie from Aquila. Please demonstrate where I said the three Hebrew young men were "wearing the latest style of Hebrew Levis". You can't because I never said that. I have repeatedly said they were wearing pants. A point you once said you agreed with. Are you now saying they were not? I would expect an apology but I know that it is not going to come.

Show me evidence that the Hebrew males wore pants as part of their regular attire at home in their native land. For that is where they would have practiced Deuteronomy 22:5 in truest form.

This is a silly question. Since when is righteousness limited to a geographical area? Is it okay to steal in a foreign land? Is it okay to murder in a foreign land? How about rape? Can a man lie with another man in a foreign land? The entire question reveals the stark lack of a coherent thought process. No, that is not an insult. It is an observation based upon nonsensical questions like this. Based on this, Judea is the only place the Law can be practiced. Absurd does not begin to explain the fallacy of this logic. I guess since they were out of Judea they could do whatever they wanted. It is fascinating that these men chose to maintain their faith regardless of the geographical location and did so on the pain of death. Yet you would sully their reputation to justify yourself. Sad, really sad.


Pants issued by Babylon, probably given to them when they received their Babylonian names.
Now you say the pants were probably given to them. You do know that the word probably means there is reasonable doubt. You see this is why I say you cannot hold a coherent thought. You argue that they were definitively assimilated in Babylon and this is where and why they had pants on. Now, you suggest doubt. If you are changing your mind then this is acceptable. However, if you continue, as I am certain you will, to contend that they were absolutely positively assimilated then you have a convoluted thought process. On the one hand you are positive while on the other hand you are not. Be consistent with your logic...


God and myself know the conditions of the Babylonian captivity. Evidently you need to go back and study up on it.
Oh... No pride in this statement. you and God know the conditions of Babylon therefore, since you are as smart as God you can tell me I am wrong without evidence, Fascinating!


You have three captive Hebrews wearing Babylonian garb that included pants in Babylon, and you're clinging to it like your last line of defense. Because... it is. LOL


I am fair. That statement I can agree with. They did not see anything wrong with wearing the Babylonian pants issued to them in their captivity. However, they would not have been wearing those pants had they not been taken captive. They'd be wearing what all ancient Israelites wore, tunics. Tunics that were actually quite similar to those worn by their female counterparts.
You see? In the above statement you said they were probably given the pants. Now you have gone back, as I knew you would, and made a definitive declaration. You also seem to know their motives and what they would or would not have done based on one thing only - your supernatural knowledge of the events that only you and God know. The truth is you do not know what they were wearing before their captivity because there is NOTHING that says what they were wearing. But hey, I guess you have super secret knowledge of Babylon.

No they didn't. They went to a fiery furnace because of their love for God. What is the hang-up with "identity" over God? Oh, let me guess... trying to preserve all those unbiblical standards, I assume.
Okay, now these assimilated men went into the fiery furnace because of their love for God? And you question why I say you cannot hold a coherent thought?


No, they were captive prisoners of war. The Babylonians stripped them of their Hebrew names, stripped them of their Hebrew dress, stripped them of their Hebrew freedoms. Yet they refused to eat the king's meat and refused to bow to the king's idol, even in the face of death. They were politically defeated, yet spiritually victorious.
LOL! Were they assimilated or not? LOL! Demonstrate where they were made to wear pants. Since you and God know about the Babylonian captivity (remember those are your words) tell us how they "stripped them of their Hebrew dress". Did they cut their clothes off and parade them through the streets? Did the rip them off? Did they make them strip themselves? Since this happened to "all" of them it should be easy to demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants as well. Please do so. However, I will not hold my breath. Two things are certain. God indeed knows and you do not.

Look, if Deuteronomy 22:5 requires such radical distinction, one has to ask... why did both males and females essentially wear the same style of clothing throughout ancient Israel's history within the Holy Land? It is very relevant to this discussion. Because nearly 4,00 years of history testifies to Deuteronomy 22:5 NOT being interpreted as you are interpreting it.
Hmmm... nearly 4,00 years of history testifies against my interpretation? I think you missed a zero... So when did the Bible change? When and who changed the Bible to make it appear as though these three men wore pants? Inquiring minds would like to know if the man who claims to know as much as God, at least about the Babylonian captivity, can tell us who changed the record.

Nevertheless, I'm still standing. I know the truth.
Yes, apparently you and God. I think I will stick with the Bible.


Here's a question that will answer one of our most divisive disagreements on this matter.

Why were the three Hebrews issued Babylonian names and addressed by their Babylonian names while captive in Babylon???
Because that is what the Babylonians called them. See how easy that was. It is not divisive at all. Why do Chinese people take American sounding names? Why did my Spanish class call me Paco? Are you now back to the absolute assimilation of these men? Your whole theory is nonsensical. Get over it.


Please answer this question for me. I want to see how you dance around the fact that the Babylonians tried to rob them of their Hebrew identity, and that would include forcing them to wear Babylonian attire, which included the pants that you're reading about.

LOL! You are the only one dancing around the issue. You spout off about kilts and defend your wife wearing pants then get your feeling hurt when someone says your wife wears the pants in the family. LOL! I suppose you believe Daniel had lost his Jewish identity as well. Based on your logic the Hebrew nation was assimilated into Babylon but somehow was born again under Persian rule. See what I mean about your inability to maintain a coherent thought? You will probably get your feelings hurt again but it is just an observation. And note - you said above the Hebrews probably were given the pants and now, within the same post, they are being forced to wear pants. Like I said - no coherent thought process.


You've staked your entire argument on three pairs of Babylonian pants. LOL

No. That is not true but I will let it slide. I am still waiting for the ONE godly woman that wore pants. According to you and your special knowledge it should be easy to demonstrate since they were all probably given... no strike that. They were all forced to wear pants. In essence you have staked your entire argument on, well... literally nothing.

No one in ancient Israel wore pants (the Levites wore only breeches, when serving before the altar). The average Israelite wore tunics. And there is no biblical evidence that the Levites wore these breeches when not serving before the altar.

Now we are back to "average" Israelite's. So what did non-average Israelite's wear? You cannot know that every single soul wore what you demand they wore. You might be able to say the general custom was such and such but you cannot say everyone without exception wore the exact same thing as you want them to. That is absurd. Talk about Eisegesis! What do we know? Three godly Hebrew young men wore pants and Aquila can provide absolutely NO evidence, zero, nada, nothing, about godly women wearing pants. This is in spite of the fact that they were all probably given... no, wait, we are back to them all being forced to wear pants.


Okay, no one in ancient Israel wore "bifurcated" PANTS until they were taken captive into Babylon. Until then, men and women wore tunics, similar in cut and style with minor differences as it related to length, fabric, and color.

It is amazing that Aquila knows exactly what every living soul wore in Judea and Babylon. Must be that special knowledge he has but cannot provide a single shred of evidence about godly women wearing pants. Instead he would rather sully the reputation of teh three Hebrew young men. Sad...

[Amanah]

this is off topic kind of, but I have never felt the move of the Holy Ghost as described below, in a church that doesn't have the consecration to have standards, along with prayer fasting, anointed preaching, ect.

I want the Spirit of God working in my life and my city, I want God and I want to please Him, as the world creeps and seeps into our churches and worldliness drowns out the voice of the Spirit in our hearts . . . where are we going from here? which way from here? Holy Ghost anointing change our hearts and lives

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

. . .
My cousin started preaching and he just dug right into the Word. He read from Psalms 63, ESV. He read the entire 63rd division of Psalms, gave the title of his message, prayed and then he began to go read back over each verse.

However, something happened when he got to verse 7.

A whole bunch of saints, young and old received something from the Holy Spirit in the moments my cousin read verse 7.

He read it. He stopped. He started over and read it again and stopped.

Then he said something I won't soon forget. He didn't yell it or whisper it. He just said it, kind of reflectively.

"He didn't just start helping me."

He paused.

Then the Holy Spirit SWEPT my Dad's church-- pulpit to back door! Young people running and leaping! Old people, voices raised in praise and joyous weeping. My Dad, speaking in tongues behind me.

I was on my feet, praising yes, but observing, and awestruck at the POWER of God demonstrated in that one moment!

Sermon was paused for about 10 - 15 minutes as just wave after wave after wave of the Holy Spirit just swept over my Dad's church!

Honestly, it has been YEARS since I can remember being in a service like that from where the preacher was speaking and God moved on the hearts of the congregation from a word given in the middle of a sermon.


My Dad gave me a ride to Union Station after church. I brought up what had happened in the service and we were just praising God for the Work He had done at that point of the service.

There are only two preachers that I can think of where I was in services and the Holy Spirit moved similar to that in SPONTANEITY and depth.

Both of those preachers are dead now but my Dad knew one of them.

I said his name, Bishop Bonner. My Dad smiled.

He said, "You should come home more often and hear my sermons too!"

We both laughed and you know what, everything was alright the rest of the ride to Union Station.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by LOVE JESUS

Am I reading this correctly that this man was in a Bible study down town and was discussing Deut. 22:5? That would be like trying to scale a fish before it was caught. I would think street preaching would be about preaching about the love of God and his mercy and trying to get people saved - not about how to dress. My My.. Pathetic

The first shot fired in this thread was apparently here. Mr/Mrs "Love Jesus".

When I hear people on the intardnets talking about "the love of God and his mercy and trying to get people saved" I usually take that as "watch out I'm fixin' to flame you like a ten year old who just figured out how to get online."

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The ideas of shaving beards and wearing long sleeves are their own discussion. Therefore, a red herring as it relates to the discussion at hand.

Notreally, they go hand and hand. Hair, make up, pants, sleeves, beards, anything associated with outward physical appearance and "holiness standards" is totally relevant. After reading the rest of your post though I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss these things here.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I teach being clean shaven because in this society research has found that a clean shaven person is more readily accepted and trusted. These are important aspects in witnessing to the lost. We must be accepted and trusted and we must be found trustworthy. I do not find anywhere in scripture that being clean shaven is a sin; therefore, I teach men to shave.

So many problems with this answer.
1)You refer to culture, "this society", as a reason men should be clean shaven, yet refuse to accept that the same culture accepts pants/slacks/capris/culottes on women as perfectly feminine.
2)You make "research" (either polls or studies or both) to be your authority and guide on this issue rather than scripture. Quite telling.
3) While you are digging in your heels to defend the Law, and specifically your rigid interpretation of Dueteronomy 22:5, so much so that you condemn all female wearing of bifurcated garments as abomination, and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree, even later in this post calling me "far removed from God's Holy Spirit", you specifically CONTRADICT and undermine what GOD explicitly commanded in the same Law, when you "TEACH men to shave"

"You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. ~Leviticus 27:17

God said "you shall not"
You admit you teach "you shall"

Based on what hermeneutic do you take Duet 22:5 as a law to be taught, Leviticus 27:17 as a law to be ignorned, or even contradicted, and (I assume) Leviticus 27:18 as a Law still in force (prohibition against tattoos).

Your consistency is gone with the wind.

Originally Posted by Pliny

As to wearing long sleeves, yes there is Bible for that but I will not get into that here.

Whoa nellie. There's Bible for wearing long sleeves? You asked for an example of a godly woman who wore pants, I asked you for an example of a godly man who shaved or wore long sleeves, and you respond "there's Bible for that"? Please do tell. Do tell where the godly man wore long sleeves or what the specific Bible teaching is on long sleeves.

Word of the day: Eisegesis

Originally Posted by Pliny

Wow! I am "hung up on wanting scripture". Yeah, I guess I like taking a Biblical stand. Apparently you do not.

**Brother you've treated the scripture like silly putty**

Explain how you take Deut 22:5 literal and make it a binding standard, yet ignore verses 8 and 11. And how you can teach something that is 100% contradictory to Leviticus 19:27, while using Leviticus 19:28 to teach against tattoos.

Originally Posted by Pliny

That shows just how far removed you are from God's Holy Spirit for the Bible is God's written expression of Himself. This explains a lot.

What is it with UCs? If there's a place they believe in taking liberty, it's when rushing to judgment about someone's heart, motives, and relationship with God. It's dangerously close to usurping GOd's role. I think y'all should cool it on these types of statements, but to each their own.

"I, the L ord , search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds."~Jeremiah 17:10

Originally Posted by Pliny

So do you believe a woman can wear a bikini to church? Can a man wear a skinny bathing suit to church?

Of course I do. :rolleyes

Why is it conservatives cannot frame a conversation with logic. All y'all know are black and white or the extremes. Preach "If we tell 'em they can wear 3/4 sleeves before long they'll be sleevless bless God!" See here is the problem with legalism as a whole:

The legalist does not trust God to ultimately do what He says He will do. They do not trust that the Holy Spirit dwelling within the new convert can produce holiness by having the senses discerned to know good and evil and following the leading of the indwelling Spirit. They believe we need hard and fast rules (standards) in black and white, do's and dont's.
Indeed these things are great for the appearance of "holiness" but ultimately neither bring life, nor have value for overcoming the flesh. The apsotle Paul has aptly addressed this:

"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."~Colossians 2:20-23

Originally Posted by Pliny

If you answer yes to these questions then there is little that I can say that can help you. If you answer no then you admit that you have a standard as well. You just draw the line differently than I

Wow. Well you got me. That was a great original argument, never heard it.

Actually, I answered it above, the Spirit will lead His own.
The root of the problem isn't "holiness standards" or even y'alls legalistic application of them. It's a deeper theological problem which misunderstands what holiness is, the source of holiness, imputed righteousness, and the new nature of the regenerate man/woman, and the very defintion of grace.

Originally Posted by Pliny

That is just one reason why the Bible is important. We need a Biblical standard so once again I will ask for a single passage where a godly woman wore pants.

Again I will ask for a single passage where a godly man shaved (as YOU teach they should).
Or a passage where someone wore long sleeves (as you implied you have Bible for).

Originally Posted by Pliny

Since you cannot provide any Biblical evidence I must conclude, after several pages and posts, you have NONE. I will stick with the Bible.

Right.....

Originally Posted by Pliny

I teach being clean shaven. I do not find anywhere in scripture that being clean shaven is a sin; therefore, I teach men to shave.

You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.~Lev 19:27

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, well, well, I guess this topic brings out the best in people. Aquila went after Pliny with fists and feet. Jason Bad D Joe is making his criticisms of me moot. Since he is now treating a fellow poster as Rodney Dangerfield. Aquila pulls out artist renditions of Bedouins, and arabs to convince us that he is right, and that everyone really wore hotel robes in ancient Israel. Babylonian name changes, Daniel 2:17? Whatever. Oh and Aquila's picture of the Temple Mount Faithful priest reenactment garb? Right.

Aquila sleeps in the nude, why should anyone be surprised at that? Dad can I have a drink of water, wait son I have to put my ancient Israeli bathroom robe on. Hey, the wife has the same exact one. After all ancient Israelis all looked the same from far away.

If Aquila and friends were in the first century A.D. If the woman caught in adultery was brought in front of them and Jesus. They would of all stoned her to death. Jesus would of just shook His head, leaving their names written in the sand, then wiping the names out with His foot.

I know, I know, you really think it would of been the Ultra Conservatives.

But the scary fact is this, while they drip with love, talk about grace, and peace. The minute they find an opportunity they will split you up one side and down the other.

My mom use to say, watch out for the Reborn Christians. They are the biggest hypocrites.

Ok, I'll tell you a story.

My mom and I went to go buy a Cadillac for her. She found the car. The salesman who owned the lot came out to talk to us. He was wearing a cross around his neck that was pretty large. Anyway, he goes up to my mom and tells her, I'm going to make you a great deal. Because I'm a CHRISTIAN. My mom did her imitation of Mr Spock on Star Trek with the raised eyebrow. Then she told the guy, forget it. As we pulled away in my Lincoln, I asked my mom, why? Why did you shut the guy down. She said, because he had to tell me he was a Christian. Just make the deal. Don't tell me anything, just sell me the car for a fair reasonable price.

But that's the nature of the beast. Religion is the most flipped out thing going. You people would nail the doors of a conservative church shut and burn us all alive inside.

Oh, but you all believe that's the conservatives. That the vampire Ultra Cons would do that to you. Yeah, you have the most craziest horror stories where the pastor sacrificed all the youth group to Molech. How the pastor was making huge crazy money off your tithes and offerings. How the pastor would light his cigars off your hundred dollar bills you would throw in the offering.

Seriously, God help US all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is amazing that Aquila knows exactly what every living soul wore in Judea and Babylon. Must be that special knowledge he has but cannot provide a single shred of evidence about godly women wearing pants. Instead he would rather sully the reputation of the three Hebrew young men. Sad...

Aquila doesn't care what they wore in Judea or Israel. This is probably the first time he ever spent this much time on the subject.

Hey want to see a picture of an ancient Israeli in pants