More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Post 1 of 2

Ndavid and Aquila condemn me for not being a jerk and condemning people before God has a chance to work in their lives. They have said things like:

Originally Posted by n david

Are they newborn Christian women or mature Christian women? Remember, Pliny believes there are two sets of standards for newborn and mature Christians. Newborn's get that greasy grace where sin isn't really a sin for them; mature Christian's don't.

You decide. Is there such a thing as newborn Christians and mature Christians? I believe so. Do people “grow” in the grace and admonition of God? Peter believed so.
(2Pe 3:18 ESV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Time and time again I have provided scripture. But they would rather make personal attacks 9like the one below) rather than deal with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're a joke. You fought so hard to help us understand why you believe pants on a woman are an ABOMINATION... and then you treat this ABOMINATION like it's merely a bad habit that needs to be improved upon??? What a joke.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Maybe many of these guys aren't so strict on abominations because they have a few of their own abominations in their closets???

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're an idiot.

So very Christ like…
Jesus gave Pastors and teacher for helping saints to grow.
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Apparently, NDavid and Aquila would be happier if a pastor did not try to help people. Instead they would rather the pastor be a jerk. Perhaps, Aquila has never changed. He said of himself:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm divorced and remarried. I learned the hard way when it comes to a woman. I remember demanding she changed clothes because they weren't too my standard, I marched her back into the house and made her change. One day she was crying before church because she didn't believe in head coverings. I demanded she wear it. She wanted to go to a family reunion, I told her that we weren't going because they weren't saved. That was the last chance she had to see her dad before he died.
I was a real jerk.

This is what he demands of a pastor? Truly sad.
Then, he complains about his former pastor that did what he mocks me for:

Originally Posted by Aquila

We had started a men's group to address men's issues and to build biblical manhood. Sons were welcome. The pastor seemed all for it. We had scheduled one meeting a week and one outing (camping, fishing, hiking, and the like) every quarter. The pastor shut it down within 6 months because he felt a "spirit of rebellion" in the leadership. He didn't like anything he wasn't in charge of personally.

One of the fallacies posted by the opposite camp is illustrated below:

Originally Posted by Aquila

It should also be noted that without a specific condemnation on a specific article of clothing, the fact that said clothing isn't mentioned in relation to women stands to be cultural in nature and not a biblical mandate.
It can also simply be that a specific article of clothing was indeed also worn by women, but is only unmentioned. For example, we might not find a reference to godly women wearing bifurcated undergarments. This doesn't mean that godly women never wore bifurcated undergarments.

Thus, they want a “specific” condemnation in order to believe it is wrong. Until then, they will justify their position. Due to this, I have asked for specific condemnations about other things like pedophilia. As seen below:

Originally Posted by Pliny

I don't believe you [NDavid] or Aquila has answered the question:
Is pedophilia okay? Is it sin? Please give me specific Biblical passages to support your position. Since this is your logic for ignoring Deu. 22:5 and what men and women wear.

They have ignored this question because they know their logic is demonstrably wrong.
The Bible does not need to specify something is wrong every time. God has provided timeless principles to live by. This is the focus of Deu. 22:5. It does not specifically mention pants. It specifically mentions what people wear.
It has been demonstrated multiple times that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This is a principle to live by. Because they cannot demonstrate that godly women wore Pants, they have sought many other ways to ignore this fact. One of these ways is by trying to argue that men wore “skirts”, see below.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have verses of Scripture where men wore skirts. They were men's attire![INDENT]Deuteronomy 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
According to your logic, women shouldn't wear skirts either!

There were other scriptures listed as below. I have used this one because it demonstrates the fallacy of the argument and it would take too much time to deal with each passage. So I chose to use the first one on the list.
I asked Aquila if he understood what “skirt” means:

Originally Posted by Pliny

Besides, what do you think a "skirt" is in these passages?