More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I guess nDavid and Aquila don't preach for sinners to repent of all known sin, but that sinners must also stop doing all the things they don't know are sins, as well? And that unless they are perfect they are lost and bound for hell, which means under their doctrine nobody can ever believe they are in fact saved. Why? Because who can certainly say they know ALL THE WILL OF GOD AND ARE DOING IT WITHOUT MISSING ANYTHING AT ALL, AND HAVE NO NEED TO CONTINUE LEARNING THE WILL OF GOD MORE PERFECTLY?

Even the Pharisees weren't that extreme.

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations?

How'd they police that?

Maybe Aquila is the dream police?

[Aquila]

I'm more interested in practical application.

In our approach to the issue, we could go to the mall and people-watch. As a general exercise, we could note women wearing dresses and women wearing pants. We'd note that most dresses were more modest than pants. However, we'd note some women who are in pants are dressed modestly due to longer tops that cover the hips and buttocks. We'd both agree that women should be encouraged to embrace the practice of Christian modesty, which encourages that women dress in dresses and skirts. We'd have compassion, tolerance, and patience towards women who wear pants as part of their work, or for whom wearing pants is a personal choice. I don't think either of us would shun a woman over pants (even though you claim they are an abomination).

I would then be able to take you to a couple clubs in town that are notorious for the abomination I believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is actually addressing. The brazen perversion and debauchery would reveal why we would disfellowship and shun those who engage in this practice.

In the end, I don't see much difference in how we approach pants on women, though our interpretations of Deuteronomy 22:5 differ.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations?

How'd they police that?

Maybe Aquila is the dream police?

Apparently he'd take them to the mall to people watch and comment on how they all deserve compassion, and then take them to the gay pride parade and comment how "those people" ought to be shunned and excommunicated?

I don't really know how he would police that, I'm not sure of anything he writes here.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Apparently he'd take them to the mall to people watch and comment on how they all deserve compassion, and then take them to the gay pride parade and comment how "those people" ought to be shunned and excommunicated?

I don't really know how he would police that, I'm not sure of anything he writes here.

You're refusing to see the point. The point is, we essentially approach the issue of pants on women the same, though you call it an abomination.

So, technically, there's more bark than bite in your position, and we moderates need not be concerned with the banter.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm more interested in practical application.

At this point my daughter would say, "how cringy."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're refusing to see the point. The point is, we essentially approach the issue of pants on women the same, though you call it an abomination.

You have been refusing to see the point ever since we started. We aren't talking about you looking at females at the mall. The discussion was about a ancient people who had extremely different attire. Their attire wasn't to be switched between the genders. I not only used the Aramaic, but employed the Bible of Jesus and His apostles. The Greek LXX, and then the Latin Vulgate. They understood that trousers were masculine and katastole was feminine. What you call WOMEN PANTS are new to the culture since the 40s, hundreds of years prior Christians wore pants on men, dresses on females. It is that easy.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're refusing to see the point. The point is, we essentially approach the issue of pants on women the same, though you call it an abomination.

So, technically, there's more bark than bite in your position, and we moderates need not be concerned with the banter.

Aquila, the sad thing is you aren't consistent. I gave you a list of abominations, and ask for you to show me your strictness in all categories. If you can't then move on. Here, I have a good place for you to visit, http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/museum-snoring

It is probably as much fun as watching you prove a point.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila, the sad thing is you aren't consistent. I gave you a list of abominations, and ask for you to show me your strictness in all categories. If you can't then move on. Here, I have a good place for you to visit, http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/museum-snoring

It is probably as much fun as watching you prove a point.

Sorry, I have taken to ignoring most of your posts. I'll go back and review.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila, the sad thing is you aren't consistent. I gave you a list of abominations, and ask for you to show me your strictness in all categories. If you can't then move on. Here, I have a good place for you to visit, http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/museum-snoring

It is probably as much fun as watching you prove a point.

I can see where continued rebellion in any of those categories can be treated reason for spiritual discipline, or even shunning.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations?

How'd they police that?

Maybe Aquila is the dream police?

Proverbs 6:18New Living Translation (NLT)
18 a heart that plots evil,
feet that race to do wrong,

A heart that plots evil is revealed in the evil it produces.