More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes. Continued rebellion in any of those listed sins is grounds for condemnation and/or spiritual discipline, including disfellowshipping or shunning.

Continued... So you give mercy but condemn me for doing so?
Isn't that hypocritical?

[Aquila]

If one were to agree with you and acknowledges that pants are an abomination... you become all milk-toast and weak on it... treating it no differently than a modesty issue, which is how we address it.

You're like the dog that finally catches the car... and doesn't know what to do with it. LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Please demonstrate your assertion. Otherwise, you are making another false claim.

T-shirts were made for Navy personnel. Hosiery was originally worn by men. The list could go on and on.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Continued... So you give mercy but condemn me for doing so?
Isn't that hypocritical?

Pliny... the sin is condemned and rebuked. An abomination, my brother. An abomination. If one is repentant, they are restored. If they are not, they are cut off from the body. An abomination is no joke.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They don't pay such attention to detail. They have put all their focus on pants and have failed to see that this verse has nothing to do with women wearing pants.

You think the verse does not pertain to what people wear?


(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Wear: to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like:

Oh well, I guess you know better than the scholars who translated the verse into English. How dare they indicate the verse is about what people wear.


Perhaps you do something different with "pants" in your household?
Maybe they are coasters for drinks?
Maybe they are used as ropes to tie things down?
Maybe they are used as a flag and flown on a pole?

Well, most people, in fact everyone I have ever known has used them as clothing, that is they WEAR them.

[Aquila]

In spite of all their bluster... it is the conservatives who are tolerant of continued ABOMINATION. That's absolutely amazing. In spite of our more liberal interpretations of the text, liberals are far more intolerant of what they see as continued ABOMINATION than the conservatives. LOL

[Aquila]

Even if I said, "You win brother, I can see that it is an abomination." I'd discover that you were just going for conservative street cred... because you'll treat an abomination no differently than a mere modesty issue. LOL!

[Aquila]

Let's all just agree with the conservatives that women in pants is an abomination... because apparently to say it is an abomination doesn't mean all that much! And we can continue to roll our eyes at them and address pants as simply a modesty issue. LOL

[Aquila]

I wonder if they are that accommodating to homosexuality?

Is that why they are so full of bluster about homosexuality???

Do they just want everybody to say sodomy is an abomination... but go home and treat it like a bad habit??? LOL

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I asked if you believe pedophilia is a sin. Apparently, you cannot answer this simple question since you answered it with your

No, it's that your question is stupid and doesn't deserve an answer.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Then, I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
Apparently you seem to believe that the Bible must specifically state that women should not wear pants.

Now, you say you do not need specificity. At least now there is some progress. You argue that absence is not proof. This is understandable because you have provided NO Biblical evidence for godly women wearing pants. The Bible also demonstrates that godly men wore pants and godly women did not.

No, it does not. We can do this all day. You can claim it all day, but you have no actual proof.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Yes, I know that godly Jewish men wore pants and godly Jewish women did not. How do I know this? Not because I am thousands of years old but because I use the BIBLE. Apparently, you do not think the Bible is a worthy consideration; thus, you use the Talmud instead. How Pharisaical of you. You think the Talmud trumps the Bible. Good to know.

Post my quote where I state the Talmud trumps the Bible. Contrary to your repeated claims, the Bible does not state that women only wore robes and that men wore pants.

Originally Posted by Pliny

BTW, You did not adequately indicate you were copying and pasting from the Talmud. Some could charge you with plagiarism. This is because it can appear that you are quoting something without proper citation. Proper citations are important because it gives the reader an opportunity to review the quoted material in the context that it was written in.

I forgot, you don't understand basic sentence structure or the use of quotation marks. You want to "charge" me with plagiarism, be my guest.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The Talmud does NOT invalidate the Bible. The Bible invalidates the Talmud whenever they diverge. Please try again. This time, you might consider using the Bible.

Post my quote where I stated the Talmud invalidates the Bible. You were whining about my posting a quote (using quotation marks) and threatening to "charge" me with plagiarism, yet you post a completely false accusation above.

Originally Posted by Pliny

But then again, you are stuck on the idea that the "hosen" they wore must have been water hosen.

Another false statement. You could be "charged" with lying.

Originally Posted by Pliny

That's okay. Whenever the facts don't agree with you just ignore them. It may help you sleep at night.

No, that's you switching between Strongs and Dictionary.com whichever one helps your narrative. It's you ignoring history and culture and using silence in the Bible to try and prove that "well if it's not in there, it must not have happened."

I sleep very well at night, thank you.