More on Skirts

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Amanah

you misunderstood, I did not say they look like men, I meant many were wearing pants which were way too revealing.

o ok I get ya

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Now, lets look at the term gird up your loins. I believe this term refers to the actual act of wrapping the tunic between and about the thigh, not just a tightening of a belt as some have suggested. Now if I am correct with this then the bifurcation issue is null. If you ever wore a tunic you would understand why you would have to do this in order to work, run or fight.

Now, lets just pretend that I am correct about this term, there is, I think, 38 references to girding up loins that are blanket statements to BOTH sexes. So with that in mind bifurcation is a non issue.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

This is the easiest argument to win. Now sister while I agree with you on the 1 Timothy scripture these women only look like YOUR definition of apostolic. I guarantee you there is no resemblance to any womans dress in the New Testament.

Let me ask this. In the era of time the picture portrays, do you believe it would have violated DE. 22:5 if a lady wore pants?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Actually you don't.

Actually, I do. You're saying that since there is no such thing as gay marriage in God's eyes, there is no such thing as women's pants in God's eyes. The logic is good. And I do get it.

My difference is more philosophical. Kind of like when Rev. Bernard argued that we cannot say that Christ was 100% man and 100% God. He argued that God is infinitely limitless. Therefore, God cannot be defined in totality. Thus the phrase "100% God" is impossible. One must say that Jesus is 100% man and "absolutely God".

I'll try to explain the ontological category fallacy I see with regards to comparing women's pants and gay marriage...

However, the only problem I see is that your creating a category fallacy in your comparison. You see, "marriage" is an immaterial concept that has been institutionalized. For example, the notion of the "satanic church". There's no such animal either. A "church" by its very definition cannot be "satanic". For if it were, it would not be a "church". Likewise, a "marriage" by definition cannot include two gay people. If it does, it isn't a "marriage". Both concepts do not exist.

But pants are not a concept. They are a tangible material reality. We just changed ontological categories. We moved from concept to a material thing. I'll explain... You can pick up a pair of pink, form fitting, ladies jeans, complete with sparkly sequins across the bottom. They are material. If we pick up a pair of women's pants and say that there is no such thing as women's pants, then what do we have in our hands? Pants. The jeans still exist. And so we cannot deny their existence. They are indeed a very real pair of pants. And if we say that women's pants do not exist because pants pertain to a man, then guess who we just allocated rightful use to? Men.

Thus, logically speaking, if there is no such thing as women's pants... and pants belong to men... then women's pants belong to men just as much as any pair of pants would.

One would have to demonstrate that they are not "pants" at all to avoid allocating them to males. But if we do that... then we lose all reason to deny that they belong to women.

So, women's pants are indeed women's pants. And no, it isn't appropriate for men to wear them. Why? They are women's pants. Now the logic is seamless (no pun intended). lol

It's a small, but nuanced, disagreement with your logic.

Beautiful.

I wouldn't expect anything else.

One day we'll see in glory how we sharpened one another, my brother.

So, men can marry men? Because in our day and age they have designed weddings to accept same genders.

Marriage is a concept. Gay marriage is an impossible concept. Pants (regardless of design) are a material reality. Different ontological categories.

Because modern secular society has feminized something masculine. You couldn't wear them even if you wanted to, because the rear end would split down the middle.

LOL!

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Let me ask this. In the era of time the picture portrays, do you believe it would have violated DE. 22:5 if a lady wore pants?

NO

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Oh, maybe it was inserted by Masoretic leprechauns in the 16th century?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Let me ask this. In the era of time the picture portrays, do you believe it would have violated DE. 22:5 if a lady wore pants?

Can you provide a picture of that same era of a typical man that would be dressed like the Apostle Paul? Remember the term 'Apostolic'.

[JoeBandy]

Let me ask this question. In the exact time Duet. 22:5 was written would a female be in sin if she wore clothes that were different that the garment God made for Eve?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Let me ask this question. In the exact time Duet. 22:5 was written would a female be in sin if she wore clothes that were different that the garment God made for Eve?

Deer antler hoodie?

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Deer antler hoodie?

I think I just peed my pants!! That's funny stuff!!