More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When you're taken captive, marched out of your homeland, taught a different language, stripped of everything you own, are most likely castrated, given a Babylonian name, put to work in the royal court, and given the appropriate attire for your job, you do what you must. But there comes a point wherein you draw the line, especially when it involves bowing to an idol.

Aquila they wore pants in Babylon because they were wearing pants in Judea.

Canaanite ritual crossdressing? So Deuteronomy 22:5 is a religious prohibition only? So, it was OK to crossdress in the first century A.D. as long as it wasn't "ritual" crossdressing?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, get some thick skin. Go back and read all the insults hurled at me. I think a statement is idiotic and make an Adams Family joke, and y'all loose your minds. Don't be such a snowflake. Lighten up. Lol

I missed where you called me an idiot. I guess when you are losing a debate it makes you feel inadequate? I noticed that you are a sore loser, and get angry when people (whether it's a political discussion or religious) refute your arguments. You are so funny.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I thought we were just a bunch of guys chiding eachother and having fun. But let me be the first to apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

I'm having fun.

You are getting hornet hot because you are unable to strengthen your arguments. Pilny did a swell job as well as Esaias. But you were too busy parading eskimo women in an attempt to prove that crossdressing was allowed in the Bible? Especially if it wasn't for religious or homosexual purposes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila does that mean Bruce Jenner isn't an abomination because he is heterosexual?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you believe women carrying concealed handguns or joining the military are abominations to God?

Bump...

I don't think this was ever addressed. The thing is many dismiss that it is wrong for a woman to wear pants saying that De. 22:5 is referring to people going drag. Also it has been stated that DE 22:5 is referring to a man as a warrior and his weapon. For those that believe this how do you teach in regards to women in the military. I dare to say that most will even dismiss it in regards to military roles.

The bottom line is that there is a line somewhere. If drag is your line then is military fatigues on a woman not just that. Our culture has become so immoral that they know longer see a difference between right and wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So God looks at this couple and sees the man as not an abomination? Because the man is heterosexual?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does that mean? Does that mean women can indeed wear that which pertains to a man, and that men can indeed wear a woman's garment? Is that what you are saying?

I believe that the principle is a good one. But a legalistic approach that would condemn kilts as skirts is misguided. There is some cultural leeway to consider. The Gospel isn't designed to turn us into ancient Israel. I'm not Jewish, never will be. I'm Scottish and I'm an American in 2017, this principle can be applied culturally. For example, I wouldn't wear a dress or ladies jeans, they pertain to a woman. You innately know that too, and so you'd condemn ladies jeans on a man. Surely, you wouldn't approve.

Who decides what pertains to a man or a woman? They now make rompers for men, called a "romphim". They also make pantyhose for men now, dresses and nightgowns even, all for men.

Are those things that "pertain to a man"?

Hey, George Washington wore hosiery, watch it pal. Lol

In fact, hosiery was originally a male article of clothing as it pertains to outer wear. Notice, now your position is defined by culture as you know it. Ultimately culture is the primary lens by which we define propriety. And yes, hosiery on men might make a comeback. Weird, but true.

If surrounding culture alone dictates these things, how can culture ever be wrong? Can it? Is culture always right?

No matter what turn culture makes, we can apply unchanging principle. Men's hosiery might make a comeback, but men wearing ladies hosiery will still be improper.

Have you tried telling the trans crowd "men don't wear ladies jeans because they know they belong to a woman"? There is a whole generation being taught (by liberal democrats) that NOTHING "belongs" to any gender, gender is a social construct developed by evil white Christian men to keep everyone enslaved. What message do you have for these people?

I assure you, styles might be similar, but both male and female styles of attire will also remain distinct.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Aquila they wore pants in Babylon because they were wearing pants in Judea.

Canaanite ritual crossdressing? So Deuteronomy 22:5 is a religious prohibition only? So, it was OK to crossdress in the first century A.D. as long as it wasn't "ritual" crossdressing?

I assure you, the males were not wearing Levis in Judea.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I missed where you called me an idiot. I guess when you are losing a debate it makes you feel inadequate? I noticed that you are a sore loser, and get angry when people (whether it's a political discussion or religious) refute your arguments. You are so funny.

Anyone can read our exchange. You try to insult me 10 to 1 compared to what I say about you. And if you deny it, go back and read your poisonous tripe, and add lying to the mix.

[Aquila]

Guys, if a man wears a dress, or wears ladies pants, he's wearing that which pertains to a woman.