More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Interesting note here...

High heeled shoes (as we know them) were originally worn by... MEN.

Yes, the design we are familiar with originated among the Persians. It was common cavalry attire. The heel helped to keep the Persian cavalryman's foot fixed in the stirrups. After Europe and Persia united to defeat the Ottoman Empire, Persian culture and custom became very popular in Europe. Kings and royalty began having their pictures painted with them wearing high heels to denote military prowess and strength. Soon, as they became cheaper, and European knock-off styles arose, men of all status began wearing the high heel. An interesting note should be made regarding why women began wearing the high heel in Western culture:

"In the 1630s you had women cutting their hair, adding epaulettes to their outfits. They would smoke pipes, they would wear hats that were very masculine. And this is why women adopted the heel - it was in an effort to masculinize their outfits." ~ Elizabeth Semmelhack, curator of the of the Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto

Men only ceased to wear the high heel after the Enlightenment, when more practical fashion trends began to reflect the rational and practical approach to life. Men abandoned heels, elaborate hats, extensive jewelry, hosiery, and other items that had no value but to promote social status. However, women continued to wear them. Soon, heels were seen as impractical, silly, and only fitting to be a woman's attire. And interestingly enough... heels went completely out of style after the French Revolution, only to reemerge in the mid 19th century as men began taking pornographic photos of women in the "classic high society look". Soon after heels began to be seen as an erotic part of a woman's attire.

So, will our conservative friends tell us, are high heel shoes also an abomination???

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're distorting what phase of this discussion we're in.

You gave ample evidence as to why you believe that pants are the abomination in Deuteronomy 22:5. I disagree with your conclusions. However, we're now moving into HOW YOU APPLY WHAT YOU BELIEVE. And you're failing miserably. You see, if it is an ABOMINATION. It's far more serious than the Christian way of modesty. And you're not seeing this.

Okay. YOU have changed the subject.

The only reasonable reason is because you KNOW you cannot produce a single godly woman wearing pants in the Bible. Therefore, you want to change the subject.

I have stated clearly what I believe and all you and NDavid want to do is argue.

You guys hate conservatives and hate the fact that a conservative teaches and preaches the Bible.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no clue...

I am done until you can demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants.
If you are not intellectually honest enough to accept the fact that there is none then, there is no point "changing the subject".

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

How do you know what I teach? Have you ever been in one of my Bible studies?

No, and I don't need to attend one. I have dozens of pages of your notes here. You claim it's a sin for a woman to wear pants, but then refuse to admit what judgment awaits an unrepentant sinner. You use the excuse that you don't want to "kick Christ off His seat of judgment."

All the OT prophets and the Apostles were able to clearly name the sin and clearly state what the judgment was to come -- why can't you? They didn't "kick Christ off His seat of judgment" by declaring the judgment to come.

Early century preachers like John Edwards stood and condemned sin and clearly stated the judgment to come.

Why must you use this excuse? Is it because you really don't believe women wearing pants will go to hell? Or is it because you're too afraid of being labeled a legalist?

One thing is clear, the prophets, apostles and preachers down throughout history stand as proof of what a Godly minister and watchman says and does. They didn't cower with excuses. They proclaimed with authority the judgment of God.

So why aren't you?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Are you conceding the fact that godly women did not wear pants?

STILL waiting...

I will concede only to the fact that the Bible doesn't mention women (godly or ungodly) wearing pants. Thus it is an argument from silence. What was worn (by both genders) in that time were a pantaloons trouser like attire that was worn with the inner garment during the winter months. However, this isn't mentioned in the Bible.

And so you've staked your entire argument on silence.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Another ad-hominem attack.

Hurts when the truth hits home.

Any man of God who refuses to denounce sin and warn of the coming judgment isn't worthy to be called a minister of God.

[Aquila]

So, lets agree to the idea that pants are an abomination on women.

How about T-shirts?
High heeled shoes?

Both historically originated as being male attire. Both were adopted as women sought to "masculinize" their look and attire.

What saith Pliny???

Will Pliny have the guts to take the same stand against women in T-shirts and high heels? Let's see....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Hurts when the truth hits home.

Any man of God who refuses to denounce sin and warn of the coming judgment isn't worthy to be called a minister of God.

Pliny isn't a man of God, he coddles what he believes to be abomination under the guise of self-serving mercy. For if he preached it as he claims to believe it... he'd have to be far more condemnatory towards women in pants.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Interesting note here...

High heeled shoes (as we know them) were originally worn by... MEN.

Yeah, I'm going to have to draw the line here....

Only shoes with "heels" I have is a 1/4" or 1/2" on my cowboy boots!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, lets agree to the idea that pants are an abomination on women.

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Okay. YOU have changed the subject.

The only reasonable reason is because you KNOW you cannot produce a single godly woman wearing pants in the Bible. Therefore, you want to change the subject.

I have stated clearly what I believe and all you and NDavid want to do is argue.

You guys hate conservatives and hate the fact that a conservative teaches and preaches the Bible.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no clue...

I am done until you can demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants.
If you are not intellectually honest enough to accept the fact that there is none then, there is no point "changing the subject".

Pliny, YOU insist on pants on women being an ABOMINATION. So, naturally the question comes, oh great theologian, ... how do you go about applying this interpretation?

And you answer that you apply it essentially the same way we do modesty principles. lol

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.