Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Not sure I'd want to be in agreement with a Catholic Archbishop tho! It opens a lot of doors!

Probably so! LOL! And you'd have to tell him about those little flowers you like embroidered on your golf shorts.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

anyone agree?

Frankly, I'm more comfortable around ladies wearing pants in informal gatherings, picnics and etc. When we crowd a bunch of people into a living room for a gathering I often find myself giving up a seat and sitting on the floor. I don't mind, but I could really do without all of the knickers and such.

Pants are simply more modest. I remember how some foreign heads of state used to gasp and privately complained about Madeline Albright's ... uh... "presentation" at some of their gatherings. When many of my female family members started wearing pants I noticed that it did make for more comfortable settings.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Frankly, I'm more comfortable around ladies wearing pants in informal gatherings, picnics and etc. When we crowd a bunch of people into a living room for a gathering I often find myself giving up a seat and sitting on the floor. I don't mind, but I could really do without all of the knickers and such.

Pants are simply more modest. I remember how some foreign heads of state used to gasp and privately complained about Madeline Albright's ... uh... "presentation" at some of their gatherings. When many of my female family members started wearing pants I noticed that it did make for more comfortable settings.

A long loose skirt would take care of that.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

A long loose skirt would take care of that.

chubby women like Madeline look huge in big full skirts . . .

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Amanah

chubby women like Madeline look huge in big full skirts . . .

When you look like you could be James Carvilles twin sister, I would think a ladies size would be a further down the ladder on things people would notice about you.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Arphaxad

weren't the britches , breeches, whatever they were called in ot times short pants? so why are short pants on men not allowed now? Because it shows too much skin? Didn't girding the loins show the same amount of skin?

Good call. The priests were commanded to wear "breeches" to avoid exposing themselves while climbing the steps up to the altar. Exodus 28:42-43, for example. Women did not serve as priests so we have nothing with which to compare.

The specification of "from the loins unto the thigh" does appear to support your "short pants" hypothesis. How about this? What if, from now on, instead of asking, "What's wrong with a man wearing short pants?" we simply say, "I'm wearing a pair of breeches that cover me from the loins unto the thighs just like Aaron the High priest!"

Make sure to use the KJV language, "unto the thighs." They won't have an answer because it's KJV English right there under their upturned noses. Be comfortable men. And, be modest.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Sabby

Ok, Luke,
Where did you EVER get the idea that the OLD TESTAMENT was the rule of living christian life in the NEW TESTAMENT?[

Never said I am under it's administration. Which you seem unable to grasp by your comments.

[QUOTE]You have forgotten the weightier matters of the law, to have mercy, and NOT sacrifice.

LOL ok whatever.

It was the angel of the Lord that told John in The Revelation of Jesus Christ that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Not the testimony of the law. Not the testimony of custom. Not the testimony of sacrificial works....

left field must be nice.

Those Gentile churches that Paul started in the middle of the book of Acts were a direct result of his being kicked out of local synagogues - the places that couldn't let go of the LAW. He was kicked out of those synagogues because he preached Jesus Christ as the hope of Israel and resurrection and the anointed Messiah, for in him we live and move and have our being. We have our BEING our life and breath, in Jesus Christ. Our lifestyle is totally, completely, irrevocably wrapped up in knowing and Jesus in true godly repentance.

yeah... knowing Christ and knowing his commandments which are the same foundational natural laws perfected.... and?

[QUOTE]OW, He is God and we are not....

Don't mistake what I'm saying. I am not saying that a "secondary result" of knowing him will show us the old testament "principle" of holiness for women to not

wear men's battle garb.

eehh no support for it limtied to that.

The principle is only found in the New Testament, in Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment of ALL God as spoken. We are not Lawtians. We are Christians.
We look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, NOT Moses, bless his heart.

yeah like those lawtians just pulled the law out of a sand hole. God had nothing to do with it hmmm I thought the writer was the same author of both covnants.

My point in all of this, which you seem to be missing is this: It is not against Jesus Christ for women to wear women's pants nor to cut their hair. It is not against Jesus for you to grow facial hair or wear shorts. It is not against Jesus to wear Jewelry. Jesus demands a heart of humility, not a proof of sacrifice...I didn't say it. In fact, Jesus was furious with publicans that created all sorts of requirements from the LAW OF MOSES upon believers but wouldn't lift a finger to lighten their load. Where do YOU stand, Luke?
"Oh, I believe the old testament more than Jesus".....? C'mon, man

I am simply going to be nice and look at your comments as typical... Law mentioned by someone = a whole bunch of stuff that was never said as most people live in word bias when anything is brought up. You basically shot a stuff out and then concluded whatever you wanted. Your topical arguments have nothing to do with principle teaching on law as a structure or the reality of law toward sin. We are still under law just a different administration of which both has the same base foundational principles. Want to talk about OTHER stuff don't do it with me.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Amanah

chubby women like Madeline look huge in big full skirts . . .

A huge person is huge no matter what they wear.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What is your point? I'm simply saying it didn't start in European society.

The ancient Celts wore "pants." They were European. They were also descendants from the tribes which migrated from the Caucasus region in very early antiquity. These people were all related to the "Iranians" (Aryans) and spoke related languages - the archaic Indo-European tongue. Since Northern and Central Europe was the domain of the Ice and inhabited very sparsely, if at all at one time, everything "European" would be a relative innovation compared to customs of the more temperate climes.

I suppose, someone could make the point that "pants on men" was a pagan device: it surely was. But that was more a matter of climate (the Caucuses and the Zargos Mountains of Iran) and culture than religion. The "People of the Book" were all "robe and skirt wearers" - both men and women; but the Lord, for whatever reasons, simply didn't make a big deal out of that.

Their culture was generally set in a mode of gender distinction. Unfortunately, this was easily exploited to keep women "in their place." It is the appearance of women in "pants" and participating in "men's work" that has unsettled some people. One does have to ask if these men aren't insecure and in need of some exhortation instead of allowing their misogynist complaints to go unchallenged.

... just some rambling thoughts. I appreciate you Pressy, and enjoy talking with you.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We are under a New Covenant.

yep

The Jews tried to force Gentiles to keep the Law. We have a New covenant and a New Law. Certain elements of the Old are true of the New. That does not mean we are under the Old covenant or Law

Never said we are under teh seat of moses and the administration of the Mosaic covenant.

If one wants to know what the New Covenant is about and what is expected of New Covenant believers, they read the New Testament.

true but the OT is constantly what is referenced. All Scripture is given. The authors of the NT did not ignore the writings of the OT. They used them.

The New Testament , like anything else, containes both explicit and implicit knowledge.

yes..

Didactic simply means good for teaching. The OT is still good for teaching as examples and leading people to Christ

leading is a varying word depending on how you use it. It does help bring them to Christ. It also contains more than that.

In the New Covenant distinction is sexes is still emphasized through implied and explicit didactic evidences

depending on the topic yes. My point was simple and it is concerning the text.
Many simply say... you can't use any OT scripture as examples of righteousness. You are picking up the law blah blah blah. If you are not doing that... fine. TO say what they say though when KNOWING scripture consistently teaches this in both covenants is simply incorrect as the whole shows truth. Paul and all the other Apostles did not have to rewrite everything and point to what is SIN as the law pointed to it as a base understanding. They did not have to rewrite it as it was taught everywhere among the Jews. So when you point to the law and as Paul said without the law I would not have KNOWN sin and then the redemption points to Christ from the exposed sin AND also WEAKNESS of man.... do you look at the OT and say hmmm yep Deut 22:5 exposed the wrong? do I have to say hmm well I can only find the wrong in the NT?