Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
Deu 22:5 isn't about pants.
You can't agree with the quote and yet be unable to show any evidence yourself. You're trying to have it both ways.
Where, in Paul's epistles, does he mention that Godly women should not wear pants. Paul discusses in detail what a Godly women should wear or not wear, so why didn't he address pants?
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But ( which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."
You want to claim a Godly woman should only wear skirts and dresses. Paul only says "modest apparel" and that "which becometh women professing godliness."
You try to make it about the type of clothes, Paul doesn't. Paul looks beyond the shallowness of type of clothes and says "wear modest apparel which shows you are a woman professing godliness."
My wife and daughters wear dresses and skirts and they also wear pants. Modesty is the issue, not the type of clothes.
I've seen far too many apostolic Pentecostal women who wore skirts or dresses which were very immodest to believe this is about a type of clothing.
|
1. Didn't Paul say for women to be dressed in a modest "katastole", which is a specific type of garment corresponding to a dress?
2. An argument from silence has merit when the issue is "what does a source say?" If the source says nothing about ABC, then it can be successfully argued "The source does not support ABC." A genuinely fallacious argument from silence is where a source does not say ABC, and yet it is argued that ABC is indeed true, is it not?