Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate? - Page 16

LUKE2447 · #**151** 08-29-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Some "hilarious" scholarly thoughts by Adam Clarke.

congrats Mike you found Adam Clarke... Also the hilarious part is not about the position but your treating of what I asked. Now translate the text.

LUKE2447 · #**152** 08-29-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Practical understanding involves the FACT that God meant culturally acceptable distinctions are the point. Mankind CHANGED the tradition of robes to pants for men. You just refuse the present cultural change for women, which makes you inconsistent. Had you been around in the days of the changeover from robes to pants for men, your actions today prove you would have refused it.

I have not argued application of the text in this thread BUT what it references. I have not said ONE thing about pants or dresses. So quit throwing ME IN THE FOLD.

mfblume · #**153** 08-29-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

not goingto argue a pointeless point that does not help the whole discussion. MY point is simple. IT is speculative. If you cannot see that and agree then you have basic exegesis issues. Sure it does not negate it being true but the TEXT DOES NOT SHOW IT thus is speculative.

What is so pointless about proving I should be able to cite scripture to indicate the issue was worship by asking you to show me all similar scriptures are self-explanatory by the bible, itself? It is not pointless or it addresses your implication that all scripture does not require information not mentioned in the bible. Admit it, you cannot respond to this point I make about wool and linen, thereby making your point of me having to prove the worship issue by scripture to be moot.

mfblume · #**154** 08-29-2011, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I have not aruge application of the text in this thread BUT what it references. I have not said ONE thing about pants or dresses. So quit throwing ME IN THE FOLD.

That is what the thread is about, luke2447. Come on. Now, if you are not in the fold, then make a statement that nothing is wrong with women wearing pants. Stop dodging. Or are you hinting that such a stance is ridiculous? I agree siding with that issue is silly. Is that what you are implying, or are you going to dodge this question now, too?

rgcraig · #**155** 08-29-2011, 02:21 PM

Why is it always a man arguing over this?

LUKE2447 · #**156** 08-29-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

What is so pointless about proving I should be able to cite scripture to indicate the issue was worship by asking you to show me all similar scriptures are self-explanatory by the bible, itself? It is not pointless or it addresses your implication that all scripture does not require information not mentioned in the bible. Admit it, you cannot respond to this point I make about wool and linen, thereby making your point of me having to prove the worship issue by scripture to be moot.

Ok mike I will do it for you.

Is this a acceptable translation for you of Deut 22:5

The woman shall not wear the apparatus/clothing/things of a warrior, neither shall a warrior put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

MissBrattified · #**157** 08-29-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Why is it always a man arguing over this?

LUKE2447 · #**158** 08-29-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is what the thread is about, luke2447. Come on. Now, if you are not in the fold, then make a statement that nothing is wrong with women wearing pants. Stop dodging. Or are you hinting that such a stance is ridiculous? I agree siding with that issue is silly. Is that what you are implying, or are you going to dodge this question now, too?

I don't have to argue anything but what I choose. I am simply pointing out a textual argument that is false.

LUKE2447 · #**159** 08-29-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Why is it always a man arguing over this?

why are absolutes poorly used and this is a perfect example.

Pressing-On · #**160** 08-29-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Check to see how the change from robes to pants occurred among men. France again, with Nickers, and high heels, knee high stockings with frilly shirts, amongst the upper dales of politics. So should men not wear pants due to what was involved in the change? Let's not hold to a view at any cost of reason, neither deny a view due to political issues. The clothing is the clothing, period, despite what occurred with politics.

The subject of the thread is about cross-dressing and how it relates to women.

I'm simply saying that if we are going to argue from the point of culture, it is important to me where that culture was derived. And that hasn't been a part of the subject on this thread. So, I can't agree with you that clothing is clothing, period, and it doesn't matter where it began.

I know that when you study fashion in the early 1400 and 1500's that the middle class began to change their styles which were set by the elites. You even state in your post that the men in elite society started running around like women with frills and heels.

So, as Randy stated earlier, the "political" and "upperclass" have always led the way in fashion. It is still true today. And that is a point of interest to me.