Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
St. Mark, this is a canned and traditional response to the pants issue. In fact this echos in my ears coming from the pulpit in the last decades.
I have seen some Pentecostal women hair put up, skirts down to their ankles, sleeves covering their watches and adams apples, who were THE most masculine and authority usurping individuals on the planet. In fact, some of these women are actually scary. They look like ladies, but the persona they wear is nothing BUT masculine and man-like. So, for every lady you think acts different when she wears pants, I have a woman dressed in the skirts that would just as soon crush your man-spirit.
So the problem in your using Deut is sorrowfully wrong when you put it in the context of WE this and WE that, as in defining and regulating a corporate morality.
|
Yea you are right bcuz I've seen the same thing carp but I think most would agree that attire alone doesn't do the trick. our actions and deeds are always included in the equation. make sense ?
I also think we all agree there needs to be gender distinctives but where we draw the line seems to be the issue. my point here is, if Duet is not valid, what scripture is? and if there is NO scripture to back up gender distinctives, then do we allow everyone to do whatever they deem right in their own eyes ?
Threaded Mode
