More on Skirts

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Didn't realize you'd already addressed this. Yep quite simple.

I do think Deut 22:5 has value as use as a principle and compliments the clear NT prohibitions against cross dressing and homosexuality (neither of which really need a ton of didactic text, since anyone truly filled with the Spirit also has enough God given common sense to know such things are sinful).

You apparently don't get out much. Do you realise there are gay apostolic churches (so-called), right? Try telling them that if they had enough of the Spirit they'd have some spiritual common sense to know they were wrong, and they will demand book, chapter, and verse. And when you give them book, chapter, and verse, they will wax eloquent about "historical context... middle eastern culture... narrow-minded western victorian social mores... mean spirited conservatives keeping the parishoners down like cinderella's evil step mother..." etc etc.

Many of us would say that if YOU had enough Holy Ghost YOU'D have the spiritual common sense to know women ought not to wear pants, but that prolly wouldn't mean anything to you, now would it?

Because unlike liberal, progressive religionists, some of us actually want BIBLE VERSES for BIBLE DOCTRINES and CHRISTIAN FAITH and PRACTICE, instead of just flying by what ever tickles the seat of our pants.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How dumb.

Using scripture in context is dumb?

But believing that a God who wills none to perish, took upon Himself human flesh, subjected Himself to the greatest humility and blasphemy to bear each and every sin, hung on the cross dying while being mocked "come down off that cross if you are the Son of God", who had every ability and power to come down, yet remained there, fixed and dying, held not by weakness but by love, to demonstrate His love for every one us, and so to make atonement for all of our sins, any who will come to Him in faith and repentance.......
.........

Will send a woman to hell to burn forever for all eternity, because she wore slacks?

Good grief, if thats not dumb, I don't know what is.

What a confused theology you espouse. What a weak and errant view you hold of the atonement.
What a misunderstanding you demonstrate of God's character.
What a lack of knowledge you demonstrate of the power of the living Christ to save those who come to Him to the uttermost.
What a warped view of grace you cling to.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Please, try again. You have used up 1 of three attempts at basic reasoning. If you need assistance, press 1 for more options. Have a nice day!

I am Groot.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Using scripture in context is dumb?

But believing that a God who wills none to perish, took upon Himself human flesh, subjected Himself to the greatest humility and blasphemy to bear each and every sin, hung on the cross dying while being mocked "come down off that cross if you are the Son of God", who had every ability and power to come down, yet remained there, fixed and dying, held not by weakness but by love, to demonstrate His love for every one us, and so to make atonement for all of our sins, any who will come to Him in faith and repentance.......
.........

Will send a woman to hell to burn forever for all eternity, because she wore slacks?

Goid grief, if thats not dumb, I don't know what is.

What a confused theology you espouse. What a weak and errant view you hold of the atonement.
What a misunderstanding you demonstrate of God's character.
What a lack of knowledge you demonstrate of the power of the living Christ to save those who come to Him to the uttermost.
What a warped view of grace you cling to.

Please refer to Easias' post.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I am Groot.

lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Will send a woman to hell to burn forever for all eternity, because she wore slacks?

No, just send you to hell for being obnoxiously dumb.

Originally Posted by Jason B

Goid grief, if thats not dumb, I don't know what is.

Goid? I don't know what it is either.

Originally Posted by Jason B

What a confused theology you espouse. What a weak and errant view you hold of the atonement.
What a misunderstanding you demonstrate of God's character.
What a lack of knowledge you demonstrate of the power of the living Christ to save those who come to Him to the uttermost.
What a warped view of grace you cling to.

[Aquila]

Wow. Our conservative brethren don't believe cross dressers are effeminate.

[Aquila]

Our conservative brethren also think a man can wear ladies jeans.

[Aquila]

EB, tell us about all those pants commonly worn by men as common attire throughout Judea.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV (9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

No crossdressing mentioned there.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 KJV But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (9) Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (11) According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

If crossdressing is mentioned there, then are you saying the law was made for crossdressers? Where in the law is crossdressing prohibited? Oh, that's right - Deuteronomy 22:5. Bada bing bada boom? Sure, whatever.

Romans 1:24-32 KJV Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Where is crossdressing mentioned here? Let met tell you - it's not mentioned there.

You think crossdressers are sodomites? Do you realise that approximately 50% if not more of the male crossdressing (drag queen) community are heterosexual? You knew that, right? Cause you study all that exter bibleekuhl dater, doncha?

Please, try again. You have used up 1 of three attempts at basic reasoning. If you need assistance, press 1 for more options. Have a nice day!

So you guys hermeneutic doesn't allow you to deduce from the texts that clearly condemn not only homosexuality, but effeminancy, that cross dressing is wrong.

Somehow, you want to affirm that cross dressing can only be wrong if Deut 22:5 means pants on a woman, and that just because some people who dress in drag claim to be heterosexual, that adds something to your case?

Oh and "gay apostolics".

It's weak.